Subtle Racism in Political Campaign Messages

The United States is rooted in a belief of discrimination and racial inferiority. Initially, it was the Founding Fathers who upheld such inequality by drafting a Constitution which accepted slavery, ensuring southern states that non-free persons would count as 3/5 of a person in order to compromise Congressional representation. It would take a bloody Civil War, several Supreme Court decisions, and a movement lead by a reverend from Atlanta, Georgia before African Americans would be granted equal voting rights. In the years following the Civil Rights Movement and the Fifteenth Amendment, which prohibits federal or state government from infringing on a citizen’s right to vote “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude,” racism continued to permeate American government and politics. Countless politicians were elected despite blatant discriminatory views, such as bans on interracial marriage. Eventually, these ideals would become socially unacceptable, in most elections, as the United States entered an era of egalitarian thought.

Racism would not be eradicated though, as public opinion would suggest, rather it would be revealed in the privacy of the voting booth. One victim of such deception was former Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley. In 1982, both pre-election and exit polls had Bradley heavily favored in the California gubernatorial race. Bradley, an African American, would lose the election to his white opponent George Deukmejian. Following the results, Deukmejian’s campaign manager commented on the inaccuracy of the polls, stating “if people are going to vote that way, they certainly are not going to announce it for a survey taker.” The “Bradley Effect,” as political scientists would coin it, would go on to plague numerous African American politicians such as Harold Washington, Douglas Wilder, and David Dinkins. Author Daniel Hopkins discusses the “Bradley Effect” in his 2008 Harvard study, and while he concludes that it no longer exists, he does acknowledge that before 1996 African Americans running for office performed approximately 2.7 points worse than polling numbers. Although the public would no longer tolerate explicit racism, anti-black sentiments clearly continued, and politicians began to capitalize through more subtle means. Thus, modern politics has created a paradox in which African American candidates avoid policy discussions with racial undertones while white politicians implement implicit racial messages as a means to influence the electorate.

Political campaigns appeal to racial beliefs through either explicit or implicit messages. Explicit messages make blatant racial claims using such words as “black,” or “race.” In the past, white politicians’ strategy when facing a black opponent was to link unfavorable policies explicitly to African American citizens. Between 1940 and 1970, these prejudice policies directly targeted blacks, such as measures against racial integration in marriage, housing, and the workplace. In 1942, 68 percent of whites favored school segregation yet in 1995 only 4 percent responded similarly (Schuman et al. 1997). As society progressed and anti-discriminatory laws were passed, politicians shifted away from explicitly racial messages. As Gregory Huber notes in his article “The Race Card Revisited,” “even those who hold negative views of blacks consciously resist explicit appeals by instead embracing a widely held egalitarian antiracist ideal that is stronger than the racist counterpart.” Thus, white politicians would have to be subtler in their messages. The Willie Horton advertisement from the 1988 Presidential election exemplifies such implicit attempts at appealing to anti-black views. The portrayed an African American convicted felon who was serving a life-sentence. It then describes how Horton was released on a weekend furlough program and committed an additional robbery and rape. The program was supported by Massachusetts Governor and Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis, and was the critical blow to his candidacy.

Political scientist Mendelberg outlined the four fundamental goals of racial cues in campaign messages. First, the cues needed to appeal to white Americans’ internal conflict between the concept of egalitarianism and resentment towards minorities for lacking hard work and individualism. Second, racial cues must create a memory, which is readily employed during political decision-making. Thirdly, the content must not be explicit and lastly, the audience must not recognize the racial cues. Racial cues can either be verbal, for example, continually citing the term “inner-city” as a means to invoke images of African Americans, or visual, such as a political advertisement discussing illegal immigration while flashing images of Mexican immigrants. Racial messages prove more successful in campaigns with strong racial attitudes. Such endorsements often prey on the negative minority stereotypes as well as white dissatisfaction with minority advancements. Both older whites, as well as uneducated voters are most susceptible to these anti-black implicit messages. These tactics often times increase voter turned in biracial elections by roughly 3 percentage points (Hopkins 2008).

When explicit campaign messages proved unsuccessful, white politicians began to portray African Americans through implicit racial cues as opponents of American values and tying them to controversial issues such as affirmative action, welfare, and crime.

White politicians have capitalized on the fact that traditional American values are in fact that of ‘white’ American values, therefore blackness itself is in violation. The 2008 election exemplifies such tactics, as Republicans made several attempts to portray African American and Democratic candidate Barack Obama as out of touch with traditional American values. Rumors of his ties to Muslim extremists were circulated in correlation with the advertisement of his middle name Hussein. In addition, Republicans have attempted to depict Obama as an elitist. Georgia Congressman Westmoreland even referring to the Senator as “uppity,” but would later issue an apology, claiming he was unaware of the term’s racial connotation. McCain also attacked Obama’s celebrity in a televised advertisement making comparisons to socialite Paris Hilton and pop star Britney Spears. Although none of these attacks had a severe affect on voters, the strategy of separating the Black candidate from traditional white American values continues.

Historically, “racialized” campaign messages have implicitly linked both African American citizens and politicians to welfare reform. In a 1999 publication titled Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Anti-Poverty Policy author Martin Giles notes that “By 1973, 75% of magazine pictures featured African Americans as the face of welfare, despite African Americans making up only 35% of welfare recipients.” Thus, politicians have used this stereotype to depict African Americans as opponents of individuality and dependent on government assistance. Giles uses the results of an experiment in which a welfare story was embedded in an 11-minute news clip. The clip was shown to two separate groups, one using a white woman in the welfare story and the other a black woman. The results showed that people were extremely accurate in recalling the race and gender of the black female recipient, thus confirming that the racial narrative incited implicit associations between blacks and welfare (Giles 1999). This image has continued well into the 1990s, yet has lessened since the passage of the welfare reform bill in 1996. Notably, Barack Obama has illustrated awareness of the racial sentiments and has spoke little on the subject of welfare reform. Nevertheless, John McCain has attempted to depict Obama as a reckless government spender.

Another racially charged policy issue is affirmative action. Just days before the 1996 Presidential election, Republican candidate Bob Dole traveled to California to announce his support for Proposition 209, a measure that would end state affirmative action programs. President Clinton later responded with a “mend it, don’t end it” approach to maintaining federal affirmative action programs (Petrow 2006). Obama has successfully avoided this subject matter in the 2008 election, as his position on the policy is not even listed on the issues section of his web site.

Another manipulative tactic implemented by politicians in elections is to pray on whites’ fear of the black man as a criminal. White voters often associate violence and criminal activity with minorities, specifically African Americans. Not coincidently, one adjective used by Republicans to describe Barack Obama is “dangerous.” Although this is most often in reference to Obama’s foreign policy views, it is no doubt a subtle attempt at evoking the subconscious belief that African Americans are violent. Obama has proved his awareness of these attempts though, and while several political pundits criticize him for not getting angrier, he realizes that such hostile emotions will only play into the “angry Blackman” stereotype. Even in the first Presidential debate, Obama remained mostly calm and not too aggressive with John McCain. White politicians, on the other hand, are not subject to such emotional restrictions. It is also no surprise that Obama’s most damaging attack was his link to Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Sermons in which Wright angrily states "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme," were immediately damaging to the Obama campaign and he was forced to cut relations with his pastor of 20 years.

It is important to note racial messages are not solely exclusive to white politicians. In August of 2008, Democrat Steve Cohen faced a racial charged primary in Tennessee’s 9th Congressional District. Cohen, a white Jew, faced tough competition against African American Nikki Tinker in the states only black majority district. Tinker used implicit racial cues in several television advertisements. One ad showed several images of Klansmen and the other challenged the Jewish incumbent for “praying in our churches” (“Cohen Hangs on In TN-9 Dem Primary”).

While the 2008 Presidential campaign has exemplified racial cues to discourage support for African American candidate Barack Obama, it has yet to be determined if the messages will truly influence the electorate. However, a recent September 2008 poll, conducted by Associated Press/Yahoo, illustrates McCain might have made an impact. In questioning 2227 adults (1083 registered Democrats and 798 Republicans), the poll found that racist views might cause roughly 2.5 percent of Democrats to “turn away from Obama because of his race.” In addition, one-third of white Democrats cited a negative adjective describing blacks while roughly twenty-five percent felt “if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites.” Such results are surely noteworthy, considering the past two presidential elections have been decided by slight margins.

As the current Presidential election includes the first African American candidate it is uncertain whether the “Bradley Effect” will transcend national politics. Researcher Daniel Hopkins argues that we have seen the end of polling inaccuracy due to undisclosed racism. He basis his analysis off past elections and cites the welfare reform bill of 1996 as the end to erroneous polls. Conversely, there has never been an African America presidential candidate, thus the affect of racial cues in national campaigns is unknown.

The electorate has certainly evolved over the past fifty years and has become more accepting of African Americans. While few feel that blacks are inherently less intelligent many still hold the belief that they lack the motivation to succeed (Schuman et al. 1997). However, there are countless minorities who still face discrimination, including Latinos, Middle Easterners, and homosexuals. Will these groups face similar implicit messages when they begin running for federal positions, or has America progressed beyond personal attacks to focus more on issues and policies? Ultimately, the future of race and politics will rest on the 2008 Presidential election and the candidacy of Barack Obama.

Welcome To The Seventh Political Party System

Okay, so maybe the map is a little unrealistic, but after last night’s debate, I feel as though Obama is going to win big and ultimately, we will enter a new era of political parties. English Scholar James Bryce introduced the concept of the political party system in his 1888 book the American Commonwealth. Since then, political scientists have furthered Bryce’s original observations, noting the major election cycles that illustrated massive party realignment. Scientist’s agree on the dates of the First Party System, between 1792 and 1824, which put Alexander Hamilton’s Federalists against Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans. The later periods become slightly more debatable, but many agree that the Fifth Party System, which began with FDR’s 1932 victory, ended in 1968 when Republicans began to dominate Southern politics. However, in the year 2008, it is my prediction that we will see an end to this era, and a Barack Obama Presidency will lead us into the Seventh Political Party System.

This is the first election since 1952 in which there is not an incumbent President or Vice-President on the ballot. Because of this, both candidacies have redefined aspects of their party platform.

With the numerous scandals and the dismal approval ratings of President Bush, the Republican Party has been in shambles. As John McCain emerged from the primaries as the nominee, many were still unenthusiastic about this “maverick” politician as he differed from Republican colleagues in areas such as climate change, stem-cell research, and campaign finance. Yet, the surprising addition of first-term Alaskan governor Sarah Palin to the ticket immediately re-energized the Republican base, if only for a short while. Now even conservative columnist are asking Sarah Palin to step down, such as Kathleen Parker of the National Review who states in a September 26 column:

“If Palin were a man, we’d all be guffawing, just as we do every time Joe Biden tickles the back of his throat with his toes. But because she’s a woman — and the first ever on a Republican presidential ticket — we are reluctant to say what is painfully true."

So where does this leave the Republican Party? Sure, national defense was a top priority in the primaries, but with the recent economic crisis, they are now left with a candidate whose strongest issue is not one that over 50 percent of Americans feel is the most important. Furthermore, the social conservatism that defined Republicans in previous elections, such as views on abortion, gay-marriage, and climate change, have been put to the back burner due to the failing economy.

The Democrats too, made a decision to enter a new era of politics by choosing newcomer and African-American Barack Obama over the female veteran Hillary Clinton. Obama’s historic candidacy has put many southern Republican states in contention to turn blue. He currently leads by a slight margin in Virginia, a state that hasn’t voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1964, and hasn’t even been a hard fought race for years. In addition to these Republican strongholds characterized under the six-party system, the financial crisis will also continue to affect the electorate in November. It remains the largest financial crisis our nation has faced since the Great Depression. Republican candidate McCain has frequently said that he is not strong on the economy and has proved this lack of knowledge in numerous speeches and in the first debate. His economic policies parallel lame duck President Bush, and he fails to even mention the middle class in most speeches or debates. Which is not surprising, with 7 houses and 12 cars, how can he appear relatable?

Obama and the Democrats have been running get out the vote drives for over a year now and the Democratic primaries showed significantly higher figures than any of the Republican numbers. And although the polls appear to be close, if we have learned anything from the New Hampshire primaries, they don’t account for much except adding to the horse race excitement. I predict we will see even more Obama support in November.

The debate last night was truly the end for McCain and the Republicans. He needed to demolish Obama and make him look risky and unfit to be Commander in Chief. He failed, as Obama appeared competent and forceful yet was able to stress philosophical differences between McCain's world view and his own. In the next couple weeks it is my prediction that Palin will make several more embarrassing interviews (if she is allowed to talk to the press) and will appear extremely foolish next to Biden on October 2nd. McCain will continue to look haggard and angry, and more voters will realize his weaknesses when it comes to the economy.

We are in the midst of a realigning election. While the Republicans will mostly likely hold onto the more affluent white voters, it is uncertain which demographics will ultimately gravitate towards Obama and the Democratic Party. I personally know 5 lifelong Republicans who are voting Obama this election. What about you?

Is 2006 Looking More Like 1932?

Has the Presidency really evolved over the past 70 years? In a June 2008 article for the Center for American Progress, author David Madland compares the disastrous presidencies of Herbert Hover and George W. Bush. Although Madland admits that the comparison might be a little premature, with the recent collapse of our nations housing market, the assessment has become increasingly accurate. Both entered office with a booming economy and believed that deregulation in the private sector would encourage the market to fix itself in a crisis. While the GDP has increased roughly 2.9 percent these past 7 years, unlike under the Hoover administration, housing foreclosures are higher under Bush than Hoover. As our nation enters arguably its second Depression due to the Hoover/Bush ideology, the current election is looking more and more like 1932.

The election of 1932 put conservative incumbent Herbert Hoover against the liberal leaning Franklin D. Roosevelt. The Democrats had recently gained control of Congress in the 1930 election (like in 2006) and the nation was still in the midst of a recession triggered by the 1929 stock market-crash (which many historians attribute to the deregulation of business in the 1920s).

McCain, like Bush, also mirrors Hoover in several economic principals. Hoover was a firm believer that “rugged individualism” would prevail as it was a staple of the American character. McCain, likewise, has always voted for deregulation of government control in the private sector. He also believes that the fundamentals of our economy are strong and in July his economic advisor touted that America was facing a “mental recession” and stated we have become a “nation of whiners.”

Obama and FDR also share surprising similarities. Like Obama, Roosevelt was an effective communicator and idealist with a strong message of change. Both believe that the government should help the individual in times of an economic crisis and share a concern with helping the poor, which Obama illustrates in his tax plan which would give larger refunds to those in lower economic breakdowns. In addition, both believed in expanding social programs with Roosevelt helping to form Social Security and Obama working towards a universal healthcare program. Roosevelt also had stronger support from the media (as does Obama) but it was mostly due to his close relationship with New York publisher William Randolph Hearst.

In addition to the candidates, the campaigns also depict similarities. Hoover’s main attack was to portray FDR as a radical that would raise takes and increase the federal debt to pay for social programs. Sound familiar? His campaign slogan read “Play it safe, vote for Hoover” and frequently ensured voters that the worst was over. But during a time when roughly 30 percent of the nation was unemployed, the message didn’t stick. FDR, in turn, argued that it was these faulty economic policies that continued the country into a deeper depression. Obama uses the same tactic suggesting that a McCain presidency would basically be a third term for Bush.

An analysis of the Presidency and elections shows a clear cause and effect. What we dislike about one President, we vote the opposite in the following election. Hoover’s conservative hands-off approach lead to a dominant victory for FDR and paved the way for a bigger government and countless social programs. Similarly, Clinton’s Oval Office blow job lead us to question our morals and elect a right-wing Christian who speaks directly to a higher power before engaging war.

Hopefully the trend continues, and in 70 more years historians will be noting that without a President Bush we would not have had a President Obama.

Todd Boyd: An African American Public Intellectual

Todd Boyd is not your quintessential public intellectual. At times his mannerisms, dress, vernacular, and subject of expertise would lead many to question whether Boyd is in fact, an intellectual. However, these initial judgments are rooted in an anti-intellectual hostility and elitist critique towards the study of humanities and art. It is important to note, as Professor Stephen Mack has in his essay “The Decline of Public Intellectuals?,” “what is sometimes identified as anti-intellectualism is in fact intellectual – that is, a well articulated family of ideas and arguments that privilege the practical, active side of life (e.g. work) over the passive and purely reflect operations of the mind in a vacuum.” In addition to Mack’s claim, the oppression of blacks for centuries has certainly led to new standards (or the abolishment of standards) for the African American public intellectual.

On his web site, author William Cook discusses the historic implications of white dominance over blacks and the effect this has had on African American intellectualism. Cook makes that claim that because Africans were forcibly brought to America, they are the only ethnic group that does not owe anything to anyone and are not subject to the established “American ideals of artistic and intellectual development because they inhibit the group’s progress.” It is truly hypocritical for white academics to set the standards for African American intellectuals, as they have been making false, discriminatory claims on African Americans for centuries. In the 1980 (summer) “Journal of American Culture,” author M. Fabre states: “It is clear that the scoundrel, the ape, the beast, the Black man are near equivalents…” And we thought now was the era of anti-intellectual thought. More recent remarks of degradation were articulated by Canadian Professor Philippe Rush in a 2001 article in Insight magazine: “What I've found is that in brain size, intelligence, temperament, sexual behavior, fertility, growth rate, life span, crime, and family stability, Orientals fall at one end of the spectrum, blacks fall at the other end and whites fall in between. On average, Orientals are slower to mature, less fertile, and less sexually active, and have larger brains and higher IQ scores. Blacks are at the opposite end in each of these areas. Whites fall in the middle, often close to Orientals.” The psychological implications from such statements have had detrimental effects on the psyche of African Americans, especially adolescents. As studies depict a direct correlation between self-esteem and academic achievement, African American public intellectuals must take on additional responsibilities.

As Mack points out, the concept of a public intellectual needs to begin with a shift from “categories and class” to “function.” Professor Todd Boyd is a clear illustration of an intellectual whose primary goal is that of function, both to inform and energize his listeners. Dr. Boyd is the Katherine and Frank Price Endowed Chair for the Study of Race and Popular Culture and is a Professor of Critical Studies in the USC School of Cinematic Arts. He earned his PhD in Communication Studies from the University of Iowa in 1991. Following graduation he taught briefly at the University of Utah before entering the Cinematic Arts department at the University of Southern California in 1992. Dr. Boyd has published six books, and has written numerous articles and essays for The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, among many other publications. In addition, Dr. Boyd co-wrote the Paramount Picture film The Wood and his made numerous television appearances on programs such as ABC World News Tonight, Biography, and the Today Show. He is currently a columnist for the ESPN.com column Page 2, under the pseudonym “The Notorious Ph.D.”

Dr. Boyd’s controversial views have resulted in heated debates between other prominent African American intellectuals. Specifically, his recent book, (which Scott Smith critiques) suggests that hip hop has replaced the Civil Rights movement and is a more accurate representation of the Black Power movement. In contrast, author bell hooks believes that hip hop reflects "imperialist white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy.” Boyd disagrees and in an article with NPR, Boyd notes that hip hop reflects the current social problems of the African American community. "Hip hop is inherently political, the language is political," Boyd says. "It uses language as a weapon — not a weapon to violate or not a weapon to offend, but a weapon that pushes the envelope that provokes people, makes people think." Many African American public officials agree with Boyd. In an interview with Kam Williams, California Assemblywoman Maxine Waters states that one of her aims is “to get the hip-hop community more involved with public policy makers, so that they could begin to influence the thinking of older and mainstream people.” Ultimately, Hip hop serves as a forum for those that would otherwise go unheard. Like hip hop, Boyd gives an educated voice to his community while at the same time posing controversial views that further “boil the pot” in regards to culture and race. In addition, he has shown understanding of our commercially controlled media driven society and instead of fighting it, he uses it as a platform.

Both Boyd’s word choice and syntax reflect his innate ability to first engage an audience before discussing the main point of his argument. While some may argue that this cheapens Boyd’s work and status as an intellectual, I disagree. Boyd will use phrases such as “playa hater” to describe individuals who harbor jealous and animosity towards someone else’s success and popularity giving both Hank Aaron and John McCain as examples. Boyd is surely aware of his grammatical errors, yet his aim is to first attract individuals at all intellectual levels in order to engage in a more educated dialogue. While his approach may contribute to the anti-intellectual argument, his style is influential and contributes to further public discourse.

Todd Boyd further uses his role as a public intellectual to counter ignorance affecting African American culture. This past summer, police chief in Flint, Michigan, David Dicks, began instructing officers to start arresting individuals with sagging jeans. Those arrested would face jail time and hefty fines because Dicks believes the fad is an “immoral self expression.” In the third most dangerous city in America, according to Congressional Quarterly, Boyd’s first response in a Newsweek interview was: “Clearly there are more important things going on in Flint.” Boyd then goes on to discuss the historical fashion trend of sagging jeans noting that before labels such as Sean Jean and Rocawear, jeans were made too narrow for the black male body. In addition, many African American males were not able to afford new jeans and were required to wear hand-me-downs from older siblings, which attributed to the bagginess. While this issue may seem trivial, I would be furious if I received a fine for unfit clothes and like myself, I know these young individuals could not afford such a ridiculous expense. Todd Boyd was quick to address this economic concern facing the many African American intellectuals in Flint, MI. Were Noam Chomsky, or Fareed Zakaria going to publish an article in regards to this unreasonable law: Probably not.

It is unfair to compare the works of black and white public intellectuals, as their goals may be entirely different. While Christopher Hitchen’s seeks to engage a foreign policy conversation with the Slate magazine article “South Ossetia Isn't Kosovo,” Todd Boyd aims to educate the African American youth about culture awareness with a book titled “Am I Black Enough For You?: Popular Culture from the 'Hood and Beyond.” Is one cause more admirable, more intellectual than the other? Some still say yes, but I think it is a mistake to use the phrase “anti-intellectual” in reference to works of differing cultural concerns and will only result in additional strained race relations. And wasn’t it this pretentious attitude that created all the problems in the first place?

The Evolution of the Public Intellectual

For me, the notion of a public intellectual initially seemed like an oxymoron. The two are polar opposites, ignorant versus pretentious. The public, for the most part, purchases tabloids and watches superhero films, while intellectuals gather at MENSA meetings to discuss matters in private. Then again, this judgment is most likely a product of my Generation Y cynicism. It is just difficult to look at our current President and feel as though this is a nation that values (and votes for) intelligence.

The concept is certainly more realistic then my immediate reaction. The problem, however, is in the definition. For instance, who decides who gets to sit at this grown-up-table of knowledge and preach to us less informed? Should it be treated in the same manner as the title of Poet Laureate, in which the discretion is left to The Library of Congress. Surely these individuals are qualified to weigh the intelligence and influence of our nation’s brightest. Or should this democratic country leave the decision to the electorate: American Intellectual Idol? Both suggestions seem plausible but just because an opinion is deemed popular does not necessarily mean it is intellectual. Furthermore, we look to our public intellectuals as watchdogs of government and count on them to pose critical and often controversial views. Therefore, we would not want to encourage public intellectuals to stress mainstream opinions in order to seek popularity.

In addition, what are the qualifications for this esteemed title: a PhD, journalistic experience, a public office position, all of the above? Certainly not every college graduate with a web-blog can have the title of public intellectual on his or her business card. Historically, the term public intellectual lacked such ambiguity and was easier to define. For the most part, few individuals had the capabilities to publish their opinions for a larger audience. Thus, the intellectual pool was much smaller. However, we now live in the age of information, and this tidal wave of knowledge has had a drastic affect on the notion of the public intellectual.

Ultimately, there is simply no standard for publication anymore, as access to Internet remains the only requirement. With this, the once small pool of intellectual thought has grown into an ocean of opinions, as people must now sift through mass amounts of information in search of credibility. In Richard Posner Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline he uses the argument that such advances in media and communication have lead to a downfall in intellectual work. Posner’s main flaw is his misguided methodology in what he considers “media attention.” He relied on three Lexis/Nexis databases to compile a list of 571 public intellectuals, yet it seems he forgot to check the list over as he leaves out countless influential thinkers such as Christopher Hitchens. In general, I tend to agree more with Posner’s critics, including Carol Polsgrove, who in The American Prospect notes: "The 'Decline' in the subtitle is in fact hypothetical -- pure tease. Posner makes no attempt to trace a decline; this book is not a history."

Posner took the wrong approach in his analysis of the modern public intellectual. Such access to information should attribute to the advancement of the public intellectual, not the decline. Data and statistics are now readily available to members of every societal class and not solely the elite. Granted, false information is posted daily, but one should always remain critical of his or her source of information. In addition, we now have countless opinions and viewpoints to consider and comment on. And if anything, this saturation of news outlets, web sites, and blogs will encourage competition in which the best and brightest will prevail. The public intellectual now has the necessary tools with the ability to transfer his or her knowledge and create a more informed electorate.

With the Internet’s ability to update information by the second, ignorance can no longer be tolerated. Thus, the role of the public intellectual becomes even more important. Ralph Waldo Emerson stated it most eloquently in his essay the American Scholar:

“The office of the scholar is to cheer, to raise, and to guide men by showing them facts amidst appearances. He is one, who raises himself from private considerations, and breathes and lives on public and illustrious thoughts. He is the world's eye. He is the world's heart. He is to resist the vulgar prosperity that retrogrades ever to barbarism, by preserving and communicating heroic sentiments, noble biographies, melodious verse, and the conclusions of history.”

In his essay “The Decline of Public Intellectuals,” professor Stephen Mack suggests that the concept of public intellectual “begins with a shift from categories and class to function.” This is an important distinction because it allows us focus more on the work of the individual in comparison to his or her title and background. In addition, we are able to hold the public intellectual to a higher standard. They must not only be an expert in their academic field, but a voice for their community, activist, teacher, public policy advisor, etc. We demand a lot from our intellectuals, but at a time when such an admirable title is so undefined, they should expect such standards.

It is clear that there has been an expansion of public intellectualism, but unlike Posner believes, it is not for the negative. Rather the changes are linked to the cultural achievements of the 20th century. As our post-modern society has added new academic concerns, such as environmentalism, our progress has also allowed for the inclusion of intellectual individuals that 50 years ago would have been unable to gain public attention. I am speaking specifically about the African American public intellectual.

It was only 54 years ago that the United States Supreme Court ended school segregation in the Brown v Board of Education ruling. In the decades to follow, African American culture began to advance with the Voting Rights Act of 1964 and as more members of their community entered higher educational institutions. As a result, more studies were conducted in African American history and culture, and notions of race and race relations began to enter the world of academia. Subsequently, the public intellectual club has evolved and gained new darker members, amongst them, the Notorious Ph.D., Dr. Todd Boyd.

IQ Test For Presidential Candidates?

As a nation we count on our leaders to be among the most intellectual and educated members of the electorate. After eight years with a President who confuses everything from the presence of weapons of mass destruction to southern proverbs regarding shame and foolery, we should be a little more concerned about the intelligence of our Commander in Chief. Yet even George W. obtained degrees from both Harvard and Yale, despite an SAT score that would prove difficult for admittance to many state schools. Clearly, intelligence isn’t the number one factor voters consider in November, but wait, shouldn’t it be?

McCain, of course, is a graduate of United States Naval Academy and was ranked 894 out of a class of 899. At the age of 73 he remains intimidated by the concept of email (like most grandparents) and continues to confuse the former country of Czecholoslovakia. I hoped he would at least choose a running mate that made up for this lack of knowledge in important areas. Someone who could be an educated reminder on the differences between Shi’ite and Sunni Muslims: a concept McCain has struggled with. However, Sarah Palin’s educational background shows that it appears to have taken her almost six years to complete college at six different schools. She began her studies at Hawaii Pacific, transferred to a two-year school in Northern Idaho, and eventually earned a degree in journalism from University of Idaho in 1987.

In contrast, Obama attended the University of Columbia followed by Harvard Law School where he graduated magna cum laude and served as the President of the Harvard Law Review. Joe Biden also obtained a law degree from Syracuse University and the two currently serve as law professors at respected universities. As the next possible law enforcer of our nation, it should be reassuring to voters that both individuals have extensive legal knowledge. But then again, this is America.

Throughout this campaign, Republicans have used Obama’s status as an Ivy League graduate in an attempt to portray him as elitist. I thought attacking someone for being smart and educated stopped after middle school. Don’t we want our President to be one of the smartest and most elite members of our Nation?

In the recent past, Democrats have nominated educated individuals to take on Bush and the GOP. The problem was that, although intelligent, Al Gore had trouble energizing a room, let alone a nation, and to this day no one could tell you the main message from the John Kerry campaign. Also back then, Americans preferred a President that they could drink a beer with rather than the capacity to lead a college classroom. I hope we have learned from our naivety because now we are now faced with a similar choice. Do we pick the maverick and hockey mom, who, despite their weak educational backgrounds promise to shake up Washington, or do we go with the analytical professors, who we know will think critically and carefully before they change up Washington.