Psychological Warfare On The Notion of a Black President; Playing On Black Fear and White Lunacy

give_him_death.jpgThe notion of the first black President in the history of the United States has become very real over the past couple weeks. So much so that we are now beginning to see both Barack Obama’s opposition (in both parties) and the media engage in a very vicious and mean-spirited wordsmithing that seeks to subtly unearth some of the worst memories in American history, for the purposes of invoking fear and lunacy on the eve of a historical occasion.

Psychological warfare is a big part of politics. Who has the most money, the most endorsements, the most votes, the most delegates, the most “momentum” plays large in positioning, or re-positioning candidates. Those who hold psychological advantages have a different type of swagger than those who don’t. When the obvious advantages are not apparent, candidates seek to create some not so obvious ones to justify their existence. The obvious advantage we’ve witnessed in the last six years of the Bush administration is fear.

The politics of fear, fear of “what might happen in a post-911 environment” got a highly unpopular President re-elected. This time around, “fear” is a two-edged sword. White people’s fear is what might happen if Obama is elected the first African American President of the United States. Black people’s fear is what might happen to Barack if he’s elected the first Black President of the United States.

For the most part, white fear is largely unfounded, based on historical xenophobia rooted in perpetual stereotypes of black inferiority some whites cannot seem to rid themselves of. For the most part, black fear is solidly founded, based on historical tragedy rooted in America’s lunacy of lynching, mobbing and targeted assassinations that have deferred African American equality dreams and full investiture in American society.

Much has been made of Hillary Clinton’s recent assassination comments stated while comparing her decision to stay in the race with historical races that ran through June. As haphazard and nonchalant as she (and the media) tried to make them appear, it was the type of wordsmithing that is rooted in a racial codification that signals endangerment and the threat of supremacist pathology of times past. Hillary’s inference that the only way she can win is if “something happens” to Obama, and to wave the lunacy flag, “Remember RFK” as if to say “Remember The Alamo” is psychological warfare at its most blatant. Clinton’s verbiage is not proper, just cogent in promoting fear.

John McCain’s codification, while not as damning as Clinton’s, is not much better. To suggest that Obama’s “inexperience” doesn’t make him suited for the Presidency, infers that Obama is not “smart enough” to be President. It’s on record that McCain has a real distain for Obama, but experience is just one criteria for a leader. Both Clinton and McCain have very heavy “negatives” that most acknowledge are problematic across the electorate, yet they run even with Obama. Largely because some white people can’t get over their “inferiority complex” as it relates to black people-any black person-and their fears play against supporting an obviously superior candidacy in Barack Obama.

McCain dismissive statements combined with Clinton and Huckabee’s impolitic statements (both know threats against Barack life are real) send subliminal messages to some lunatic that thinks they are being patriotic or standing up in some other symbolic way to save “the American way” of life. Assassinations have played out all too real role in American history and to even infer one is possible sends the wrong “signal” if we say times have changed. Or sends a “right” signal to some lunatic waiting for a cue.

samad.jpgThe mind games some people are prepared to play with America’s political future are limitless (as we saw in the aftermath of the 2000 election). Psychological warfare and racial cueing are not mutually exclusive of each other. Both seek to find weaknesses to exploit. One in human frailty, the other in human fears. Both can produce lunacy.

Some words we can’t let people play with and some assertions for staying the race are unacceptable. Not if you’re waiting for someone to be killed just so you can win.

by Anthony Asadullah Samad

Dr. Anthony Asadullah Samad is an author, scholar and the co-founder, Managing Director and host of the Urban Issues Forum. He has authored several books including, “50 Years After Brown” and “Souls For Sale”. Dr. Samad’s most recent book is entitled “Saving The Race: Empowerment Through Wisdom”. His national column can be read in newspapers and cyber-sites nationwide. His weekly writings can be read at


  1. The Esquire says

    Samad: You did a great job in making the argument of fear mongering in this election process and the post 911 operative of the Bush administration.

    While I agree with the gist of the article I suppose it might be a matter of semantics to equate black fear and white lunacy. I will say that black fear is real and white ignorance or stupidity might be a better reference because I believe that most of them are not prone to being lunatics as much as their fears are based on ignorance or as you put it “inferiority complex.” Which by the way is akin to black folks too.

  2. John Adams says

    As long as “progressives” continue to label legitimate white fears which are based on actual experience as “lunacy,” the racial divide will persist, and white voters will have no choice but to vote against the very party that they had their hopes pinned on.

    You make a compelling case for a shift to the right.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *