Pushback
Nightline's Terry Moran Takes a Closer Look at the Stories of the Day
« Reparations for GTMO? | Main | I Stand Corrected »
Is Giuliani "White" Enough?
There's a lot of talk these days about Senator Barack Obama's racial identity: "Is Obama black enough?" The question has become a kind of shorthand for a national discussion of the Illinois senator's mixed-race, international background and what it might mean for him as a presidential candidate. It plunges us into our oldest dilemma--the social construction of race and its meanings in the American polity. Who counts as "black"--whether measured by the old, ugly concept of "one drop of blood" or the new, indeterminate notion of authenticity of experience--is an issue it seems we've never been able to escape. And until our country achieves true racial justice, equality and harmony, I suppose it will always be with us. Race still matters so much in America. That might sound depressing--and it is in many ways--but it's better to talk about it--to open up our preconceptions and labels and misunderstandings to a searching examination and a freewheeling discussion--than to sweep it all under the rug as somehow too intimate, too painful, too troubling, too rude to raise in a presidential campaign. Sunshine is the best disinfectant, as Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis liked to say. Obama himself has clearly thought deeply about these matters, and the excitement surrounding his candidacy stems in part from what he has to say about us as a multi-racial nation with a history scarred--and ennobled--by our struggle over racial difference, power and justice. His remarkable autobiography, Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, is a deeply moving contribution to this discussion. But I'd like to flip the question about Obama in a way, just to see what we might come up with here. So, instead of asking, "Is Obama black enough?" how about asking, "Is Rudolph Giuliani white enough?" Huh? Well, just as "blackness" is an identity we invent and impose on each other (a "socially constructed concept," as they say), so is "whiteness." And "whiteness"--or the "lack" of it--might also have important political ramifications. Rudolph William Louis Giuliani III is a proud Italian-American; both his mom and his dad were immigrants. He was mayor of New York City--perhaps the world's greatest experiment in diversity. And he's running for president in the Republican Party, a party that even former chairman Ken Mehlman has acknowledged faces genuine problems reaching out to non-whites. In 2000, George W. Bush won 62 percent of white males--and lost the popular vote. Bush won 60 percent of the white male vote in 2004--and just 50.7 percent of the overall vote. As any GOP strategist will tell you privately, the Republican Party has become too dependent on white male voters. So what does this have to do with Giuliani? He's a white guy, right? Well, yes and no. Who counts as white in America has been a fluid concept in our history, and Italians have only recently--and perhaps incompletely in some quarters--been admitted to the racial club. It was just 85 years ago, in 1922, in the fascinating case of Rollins v. Alabama, that a black man named Jim Rollins was tried and convicted for "miscegenation"--the crime of having sex with a white woman. On appeal, Rollins' conviction was overturned because the woman in question, Ms. Edith LaBue, was a Sicilian immigrant, a fact that the court held could "in no sense be taken as conclusive that she was therefore a white woman." (Anyone who's read William Faulkner's novels will recognize the Alabama court's unease about calling a Sicilian woman white.) Italians--like Irish, Jews, Poles, Greeks and now Hispanics and others--have struggled in our history to achieve "whiteness." It's not a given--not a fixed characteristic. It's always been a designation granted to a group by the dominant culture. But that's a done deal for Italian-Americans, long ago. They're white--now. But the question for Giuliani is whether there is some shadow, some echo of the old attitudes in how some voters might approach his candidacy. Giuliani is at odds with Republican base voters on several major issues: abortion, gay rights, gun control, immigration. His positions on these matters--combined with his background--confront Republicans with a distinctly "urban" candidate--an ethnic son of immigrants at ease with the roiling racial and social diversity of the big city that many GOP voters see as a threat to their notion of America. This is a party, after all, that has nominated precisely one ethnic immigrant candidate for national office in its history--Greek-American Spiro Agnew (the Roosevelts and Eisenhowers had been in America for centuries). Republicans have never nominated a Catholic for national office. Democrats have a different record--Irish-Americans Al Smith, John Kennedy and John Kerry; Polish-American Edmund Muskie; Norwegian-American Walter Mondale; Italian-American Geraldine Ferraro; Greek-American Michael Dukakis; Jewish-American Joseph Lieberman. Look at a map of the 2004 election results, county by county. What you see is a nation divided by diversity. Rudy Giuliani's candidacy challenges that division, and raises the question: Is he white enough? So the Giuliani candidacy might tell us something about today's Republican Party. And about America.
February 16, 2007 in Politics | Permalink | User Comments (82)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4df253ef00d8342cc94753ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Is Giuliani "White" Enough?:
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Quite a reach. I didn't know [or care] about Guiliani's "race".
Will he stand up to radical Islam? Thats all I care about.
Posted by: Fen | Feb 16, 2007 5:07:42 PM
I find the concept that Obama might not be "black enough" beyond the pale. Now we have a query as to Giuliani being "white enough"? Good grief...
Of the Republican candidates yet on the horizon the only one I'd consider would be Giuliani. So if the Republicans want to speak to moderate America he would seem like a good candidate.
He's a lawyer, so he understands law and constitutional issues.
He has been through h*ell in a handbasket during 9/11 and proved he has what it takes in terrible times.
NYC is one of the largest economies in the world in one place, so he has management skills the present administration could only dream about when it got to the White House.
However, the Republicans haven't been speaking to centrist America for a long time. So maybe he hasn't a chance.
Maybe I'll vote for Bill Richardson - he also looks like a decent candidate, although from the other party. Maybe he's not "Hispanic enough", though. No?
Posted by: J.D. | Feb 16, 2007 5:22:45 PM
I don't think the issue "Is he white (or whatever) enough?" of importance. The issue of "Is he or she right enough?" should be what matters.
Posted by: ebbarn | Feb 16, 2007 7:05:41 PM
William Miller, who ran as VP candidate with Barry Goldwater, was a Roman Catholic. Republicans have nominated a Catholic for national office.
Posted by: Don Gibson | Feb 17, 2007 8:56:02 AM
Just a correction - John Kerry is not Irish-American - don't you remember this story? His father was of Czech Jewish stock - his grandfather picked the name Kerry off the map - and his mother was of the Boston brahmin Episcopalians - the Forbes family....
Posted by: Adam Zuckerman | Feb 17, 2007 9:11:33 AM
What are you talking about?
Al Smith was Italian American.
He was the first Catholic & first Italian American nominated for President.
He changed his name.
Check your facts.
Posted by: Richard Florino | Feb 17, 2007 9:32:44 AM
Poles, Norwegians, not "White"? How ridiculous.
You should have said White Anglo Saxon Protestants, not just "White." As an Italian-American you have somewhat of an argument that we are not quite as White as Northern Euros. But damned. Including Poles and Norwegians in that groups is just absurd.
Bad editorial. Needs a re-write.
Eric Dondero, Chair
Libertarians for Giuliani
Posted by: Eric Dondero | Feb 17, 2007 9:54:41 AM
Let's see; Obama is not black enough, and according to some,Bill Clinton was the first black president. Excuse me, but I'm confused, really.
Posted by: J Mooney | Feb 17, 2007 10:01:10 AM
What in heaven's name are you blabbing about. Ronald Reagan's ancestors were from Ballyporeen, Ireland. The first of Eisenhower's family tree arrived in Pa in the mid-1740s, but that did not change his ethnic identity . When Ike saw the concentration camps he said it made him "ashamed to be German".
Posted by: Felipe Yanes | Feb 17, 2007 10:10:28 AM
In addition to omitting William Miller, you also ignored a number of other facts that were contradictory and therefore inconvenient to your bias, er, I mean position.
MYTH: "This is a party, after all, that has nominated precisely one ethnic immigrant candidate for national office in its history--Greek-American Spiro Agnew."
FACT: Calvin Coolidge's VP, Charles Curtis, was part Native American, spent part of his early life on a reservation, and is the first person with acknowledged non-European ancestry to reach either of the two highest offices in the United States government's executive branch.
FACT: Herbert Hoover's family's name was originally Huber, and he was of German (Pfautz, Wehmeyer) and Swiss (Huber, Burkhart) descent.
FACT: 1948 VP nominee Earl Warren was the son of Swedish and Norwegian immigrants.
It took me five minutes on Wikipedia to uncover these facts. Say, when do I get a job with ABC "News"?
Posted by: Matt Gomes | Feb 17, 2007 10:12:59 AM
This is an inane article, clearly created just to have a controversial headline in a vain attempt to generate buzz. It adds nothing useful to the debate over the 2008 presidential race, and is ill-conceived on a number of different levels, including its use of false analogies to draw questionable conclusions.
Posted by: peter s drang | Feb 17, 2007 10:18:55 AM
This is a sick article that clearly displays the state of the mainline media. We should be beyond this type of senseless discussion that is designed only to create controversy where none exists.
Posted by: Steve Junker | Feb 17, 2007 10:31:40 AM
Actually, this is another MSM attempt to reassure themselves that Guiliani will not be the Republican nominee - because they know what that will mean. Moran has a point, but it doesn't work against Rudy in today's GOP and it works very much for him in the general election.
Posted by: Mahon | Feb 17, 2007 11:40:19 AM
Agreed that it works FOR Giuliani in the general election. And it won't hurt him one bit in the primaries. Not One Bit. I am a Republican and a conservative. I am constantly talking 2008 with other conservatives and other Republicans. An Italian-American nominee does NOT strike fear into their hearts. That's because, you know, most conservatives, like most Americans, are NOT racists and are NOT bigots. In fact, given that more DEMOCRATS voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than Republicans, perhaps we should be asking whether it's realistic to assume that Democrats will actually nominate an African-American for the presidency.
If Mr. Moran would actually visit a community west of the Boston-NYC-DC corridor, he might learn something.
(And no, flying to Seattle, San Fran, or LA doesn't count. Sorry.)
Posted by: Oakeshott | Feb 17, 2007 12:14:09 PM
The editorial has failed to clearly pinpoint the division between Anglo Saxon Protestants and the Ethnic Americans. Ethnic Americans have yearly emotional parades honoring their old countries while thanking the USA (or America) for giving them the economic opportunities that those who remained in the old countries "failed" to achieved. Anglo Saxon Protestants do not have ethnic parades as their ancestors are the children of the Protestant Reformation represented mostly by northen European peoples, zealots carrying the flag of the truth religion. They have the "mission" to protect the USA from internal and external enemies that propels them to spread the "american dream" to other ethnics around the world. As for Guiliani, he doesn't have a chance to be elected president of these United States of America. The WASPs establishment founded, built and by the "grace of God", manages the USA. The Ethnics are here just as guests or worse, just passing by. Will the USA eventually change its political structure to embrace Ethnic Americans? Probably yes, but not without internal and costly conflicts among all Ethnic groups supporting their own political and economic ambitions. Or,We would rather have the Anglo Saxon Protestants continue "managing" the country for all of us.
Posted by: Frank | Feb 17, 2007 12:24:45 PM
The author is steeped in the identity politics that are so important in newsrooms and faculty lounges, but are (thank God)becoming far less important in the rest of the country. How else do you explain the absolute mania for Obama among left-wing white whites and the strong support for Guliani among many social conservatives. Send this guy back to teaching sensitivity in some intellectual backwater (like Harvard or U of W at Madison).
Posted by: Chuck Johanns | Feb 17, 2007 12:50:22 PM
Terry Moran, this is the most ignorant waste of space I have ever read. "White enough??" Arte you truly that stupid, that emersed in the left side of the political world that you honestly think anyone on the Right cares if he is Italian? The Left is much more concerned about "diversity" , ethnicity, and skin pigmentation than the Right. I do not favor Guiliani on Gun Control, I disagree with him on Abortion as a moral point but I happen to agree with him that it should be a State's Rights issue, and I think he is probably one of the most solid candidates on defending this great country. But I'm not sold, and his heritage has zilch to do with it.
Telling about Republican's? No, the only thing telling is your apparent ignorance, and ABC's idiocy in putting this claptrap up on their server.
Posted by: Gerry Owen | Feb 17, 2007 1:07:53 PM
This is an interesting article by Terry Moran that is unfortunately distorted by bias and ignorance. In addition to some of the ethnic Republicans already named, let's not forget Barry Goldwater, who had a Jewish father (the family name had been Goldwasser). And let's also not forget the Irish backgrounds of Nixon and Reagan. Giuliani may or may not win the GOP nomination, but that has nothing to do with his ethnicity. Let's put aside the cartoonish image of a monolithically WASP Republican Party.
Posted by: John Erthein | Feb 17, 2007 1:13:34 PM
Liberals like Terry Moran are always looking at skin color and race. Just look at the way the sportscasters at the super bowl were always talking about how it was the first time two black coaches made it to the super bowl, instead of their accomplishments. Most people look beyond skin color and are not as racists as liberals like to make out.
Posted by: donna | Feb 17, 2007 1:41:33 PM
Are Iraqi's White Enough?
The Vietnamese Were Not ...
The North Koreans Were Not ...
The Somalese were not ...
And the blacks in our own country were not ...
Yet the Europeans in WWII were ... which is why Democrats supported WWII but none of these other wars.
Democrats did not believe blacks could govern and so promoted slavery in our own country.
Democrats do not believe that non-Elitist-Liberal-Lilly-whities are capable of governing themselves which is why they do not support liberating Iraqis.
They are not white enough to deserve to vote.
When it comes down to it the democrat party is founded on principals of the most vile form of racism.
The day an Iraqi votes to eliminate their right to vote ... or a black man descendent of slaves in our nation ... votes to remove their right to vote ... is the day I'll believe that the Democrat Party's racist viewpoint on people is accurate.
Posted by: D. James | Feb 17, 2007 1:44:59 PM
The conservative blogs are already reacting to this crap: http://race42008.com/2007/02/17/terry-moran-calls-republicans-racists-and-bigots/
Posted by: Oakeshott | Feb 17, 2007 2:01:25 PM
Our "ethnic" presidents were the two Roosevelts (Dutch origin), Hoover and Eisenhower (German origin). The rest of our presidents origins are in the British Isles including Ireland which was under a British flag until 1949. John Kennedy and Ronald Regan were from the despised other in the British Isles, i.e., Roman Catholic earning their "ethnic" designation for the religion of their ancestors not their place of origin. Today we sometime use the designation "Irish" to mean Catholic in origin but yet one third of our Presidents were descendants of Irish Prostestants the first being Andrew Jackson and the last Bill Clinton. Despite all the analysis, this is the way it has been so an Obama-Giuliani contest for the Presidency would indeed break new ground.
Posted by: Pete | Feb 17, 2007 2:06:25 PM
If ABC News is going to judge Americans by their ancestry, how about pointing out that Ronald Reagan was the son of an Irish Catholic. You know? Reagan? Remember him? The guy you hated for twenty years. Ring a bell? No?
Posted by: Scott | Feb 17, 2007 2:07:27 PM
What a waste. Yet another example of the so-called "objective" media trying to drum up a race controversy where none exists. I only see the media even suggesting race as an issue here, and they call us racist. Why not spend resources on real news rather than imagined outrages.
Posted by: dave M. | Feb 17, 2007 2:42:21 PM
What a fatuous story. I guess the real story ought to be; "Are the pretty-boy and pretty-girl reporters intelligent enough to be allowed to present their insights to millions of Americans ? "
Posted by: Paul G | Feb 17, 2007 2:43:30 PM
Post a comment
