What was Geraldine Ferraro Thinking?
- Mar 14, 2008 - 11
The Casting Stones blog is hosted by Beliefnet.com.
Geraldine Ferraro, a trailblazer for women as the first woman on a major party national ticket (Walter Mondale’s presidential running mate in 1984), said the following about Senator Barack Obama:
“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is.”
One hardly knows where to begin in commenting on this infamously insensitive and inaccurate statement. Do I think Geraldine Ferraro is a racist? No, I do not. Do I think she radically underestimates the difficulties that African-Americans, even when highly educated and wealthy, still face every day in our society? Yes, I do.
This column originally posted at Beliefnet.com’s Casting Stones blog. Listen to Dr. Land and radio listeners discuss the issue on his live Saturday broadcast.
Otherwise, she would never say what she did—and then be so uncomprehending of why it was offensive to blacks. First, no one who has lived as a black person in America for even one day would ever equate being black with being “lucky” in the sense that blackness confers preference and societal advantage. I have been educated and sensitized to this through many long discussions with black friends and colleagues over the years. They have made me aware of the many slights and indignities African-Americans face on a weekly, if not daily, basis that most whites never see because the offending whites do not behave the same way around us.
For example, an African-American walks into a department store and the white security personnel follow only him or her, not any white shoppers. Or, a black graduate student notices that when he walks alone across a campus parking lot, people in the cars he passes often lock their doors—something they don’t do when he is walking with a white student or students. Or, black men find they are pulled over by police at disproportionate rates, no matter how expensive their automobile – just because they are black. How can anyone call such experiences “lucky?”
One black businesswoman, trying to explain the outrage she felt at Ferraro’s remarks, said, “You’re always dealing with race and how not to make it part of your message and how really to get people to transcend these lines . . . that’s what it is to be black. It’s to really hope that people really see you for you.”
Barack Obama has been engaged in a Herculean struggle to transcend race in his presidential campaign and to be judged for who he is as a candidate—to transcend identity politics, of race or gender.
Ferraro’s comments also signal that she may herself be a prisoner of the gender and racial identity politics of her era. Born in 1935, Ferraro seems oblivious to the post-racial culture of those under 35 in America—young people who see much hope in Barack Obama precisely because he is a brilliant candidate for national office who happens to be a black man—not a black man running for president.
Lastly, Ferraro’s comments seem to dismiss Obama as an “affirmative action hire” who is where he is only because he is black. Given the fact that he is one of the most naturally gifted and charismatic politicians to arise in the last twenty years, that is a lot like saying that Tiger Woods is where he is because he is black and that he is “very lucky” to be where he is in the PGA Tour.
This column originally posted at Beliefnet.com’s Casting Stones blog. Listen to Dr. Land and radio listeners discuss the issue on his live Saturday broadcast.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Citizenship, , National, Racial Reconciliation
Comments are closed. Please use our contact form if you have any thoughts or questions.
comments
1 On Mar 18th, 2008, at 7:39am, John Lewis wrote:
I read your statements with interest and agreement with the exception of the Ferraro incident in which you obviously missed the point. She was speaking from a political viewpoint - not social or otherwise. Obama is ultra liberal, belongs to a militent, racial church and is taking every advantage of being black. He does not represent Christian principles to any acceptable degree.
2 On Mar 18th, 2008, at 8:06am, Lathan Hill wrote:
Oh, for the day we finally debate a candidate based on his or her actual platform, rather than their skin, gender, or supposed religious background. I find plenty to disagree with Mr. Obama and his stand on various issues - please, let us look at the issues in this election, and forget everything else! Would that we could elect our officials based on their actual stances and positions!
3 On Mar 18th, 2008, at 8:54am, Sabrina Messer wrote:
People are voting for him because he is black. You can’t get around that. Just like women are voting for Hillary. I would like to hear more about what either one of them is going to do to lower gas prices and bring jobs back to America. I’ve heard enough of “Change” and “Hope” with no substance.
4 On Mar 18th, 2008, at 10:16am, Pastor Chuck Brooks wrote:
I appreciate the sensitivity Mr. Land has for the plight of African-Americans in contemporary America, I disagree with his conclusions. As a Black pastor I see firsthand how “gifted and charismatic” preachers, along with many politicians, come and take both the church and the culture by storm, uttering their rhetoric and saying nothing. In 2 Tim. 4:3, the Paul writes of those “wanting to have their ears tickled…will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires.” This happens in politics too. I agree with Geraldine Ferraro who said, “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position.” My peers are enamored by Obama simply because he has moved as a result of his speech-making skills, into the position of a viable candidate for the office of president of the United States. I’ve heard several of my black brothers and sisters saying that they will vote for Obama simply because they want to see a Black man win the office of the president.
5 On Mar 18th, 2008, at 1:17pm, Dr. Kermit P. Soileau wrote:
I hate to disagree with you, but you have really done a disservice to this lady by taking her completely out of context. I did NOT vote for her when she ran and I will not vote for a Democrat in this election, but she spoke the truth. Barack Hussein Obama has artfully used his race status to his advantage. He is dumb like a fox in that regard. His race, however, doesn’t matter with me - it’s his policies, his positions (black or white) which I find entirely unsatisfactory. Ferraro showed some guts by telling it like it is. It is a shame that an astute gentleman like you cannot recognize her honesty and Obama’s sleight of hand. Obama is building “castles in the sky” and W. C. Fields was right, there is “a sucker born every minute.”
6 On Mar 19th, 2008, at 2:28am, Rhonda Russell wrote:
I also disagree with your assesment. I am glad
that Geraldine Ferraro was brave enough to say
what many others thought. Obama is simply not
experienced enough to be a President. He is
where he is at this time because of the hope
that many blacks see in him. His multiculture
background is also a plus. Oprah’s endorsement
has helped him immeasurably. Now his pastor has
spoken from the pulpit in a way that no “Man
of God” should speak, but in a way that I have
heard many black pastors speak. That is indeed
a concern. Oh…..and “there is a sucker born
every minute” is a quote from P.T.Barnham not
W.C.Fields.
7 On Mar 19th, 2008, at 9:37am, Charles Enlow wrote:
True, Mr. Obama should be judged on his own merits, not his ethnicity and not even the remarks of his pastor. That is how we should approach any voting, hiring, friendship, marriage, etc. decision. Many of my Baptist pastors have made unscriptural remarks with which I cannot agree, sadly.
Having said that, I will tell you that I wouldn’t consider voting for Mr. Obama, not only because he is a freshman senator with no appreciable accomplishments, but also, and especially, because he pledges to push a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual agenda. And that’s exactly the same yardstick I would use in rejecting Mrs. Clinton as a candidate.
8 On Mar 19th, 2008, at 10:18am, Chris Ward wrote:
I join others, who have taken the time to respond to your article, in expressing that I too long for the day when we can move past sideline issues and can major on what a candidate platform is. But I must also join with those who feel that race and gender is playing into this election. When on National News people being poled exiting from the voting place comment, when asked why they voted for Obama, “We have to support the Brother!” I don’t see how one can say that race has little bearing. Give the devil is due as they say, Obama is a sharp, articulate, and charimatic individual, but the climate and the point in time that we live, it seem that many are taking the low road and are only interested in the fact that he is black and Hillary is a women. I believe we need to counter such position with bringing the candidate’s position on issue more to the form front. I would like to hear your insights on all the candidates positional stance.
9 On Mar 19th, 2008, at 1:38pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
I hardily agree with Dr. Land. His assessment of racial disparity in this country and of Mr. Obama’s credentials is both accurate and to the point.
Believe me, I am not one to tow the line with Mr. Land nor the SBC but when they speak the truth, there is only one thing for me to do, get behind them in agreement on that issue.
Dan Valdes
10 On Mar 23rd, 2008, at 7:50pm, Debbie Dunnegan wrote:
I have to say AMEN to Mr. Enlow’s statement. The root of all of America’s problems is not race but moral decline. Our “hope” and our “change” will only come when we return to Christ. Neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Obama have any idea what that means. This is evident by their pro-abortion/pro-homosexuality stand. Personally, I think both of them are very dangerous individuals.
11 On Mar 27th, 2008, at 11:52am, eric wrote:
Debbie:
“Our “hope” and our “change” will only come when we return to Christ. Neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Obama have any idea what that means.”
Neither do I. Please explain.
America does not set one faith above another. If you advocate doing so, it is not a ‘return’, but a radical destruction of the most basic principles of the Republic.