Post-racism verses the “real” Americans

In light of claims that we have reached a place of post-racism, Latoya at Racialicious aptly points out multiple examples of how this is actually untrue. In light of the events of Hurricane Katrina, the Jena 6, the Jersey 4 and the Duke Rape case, all highly public moments where racism proved to be a relevant factor, we can hardly claim to be in a post-racial country.
But the very nature of our conversation about whether or not America is post-racial proves that, in fact, it’s NOT. Just look at the competing narratives on the right and the left about what role race has played in this election. Last week I suggested that Colin Powell put his support behind Barack Obama at least partially because of race, whether he said it out loud or not, and that this support is understandable given the history of racism in this country. In response, there were some suggestions that perhaps this act was in itself racist. I want to talk about what comments like these tell us about how we understand race, especially in the context of this election.
Voting for Barack because he is black is considered problematic for two reasons:
The first reason, pushed by conservatives, is that this is somehow reverse racism (despite the clear proof that the McCain campaign is appealing to people to not vote for him because he is black). This reason is firmly rooted in white power, fear and control of this countries government and the potential threat that a black leader is to this establishment. It is just blatant old fashioned racism. I am not sympathetic to this line of analysis.
The second reason, pushed by liberals, is that he is a qualified candidate outside of being black, so we don’t want him to be the affirmative action candidate and play into the right wing agenda of calling us “racist against white people.” This reason is based in a belief that we are in a potentially post-racist time where we are actually witnessing a “reverse Bradley Effect” in which Americans are so past their racism that they want to prove it by supporting a black candidate.
It is worth noting these contradictions. Take a look at how themes of post-racialism play out in Frank Rich’s Sunday editorial:

There are at least two larger national lessons to be learned from what is likely to be the last gasp of Allen-McCain-Palin politics in 2008. The first, and easy one, is that Republican leaders have no idea what “real America” is. In the eight years since the first Bush-Cheney convention pledged inclusiveness and showcased Colin Powell as its opening-night speaker, the G.O.P. has terminally alienated black Americans (Powell himself now included), immigrant Americans (including the Hispanics who once gave Bush-Cheney as much as 44 percent of their votes) and the extended families of gay Americans (Palin has now revived a constitutional crusade against same-sex marriage). Subtract all those players from the actual America, and you don’t have enough of a bench to field a junior varsity volleyball team, let alone a serious campaign for the Electoral College.

I agree with Rich and I find most of his argument to be solid, but I do think he is attempting to pull from the post-racist frame. He even makes the “reverse Bradley” argument — that voters want to vote for Obama because he’s black — later in the piece. But here’s my question: Is a “reverse Bradly” possible considering one of the largest liberal messages being pushed right now is that this isn’t about race? Aren’t there almost certainly other racial factors at play here — that white Americans are disgusted by the race-related tactics that McCain has pulled and that Obama’s blackness isn’t very threatening to them?
With these two frames about race, you’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t. On one hand, we recognize the clear and blatant racist attacks that Obama is facing. On the other, we claim not to notice or care that the first black president is actually black. The simple truth is that in fact there are Americans voting for Barack Obama because he is the best choice AND because it is important for us to have a black president. As we said over and over again during the Democratic primary, gender is a factor but not *the only factor* in choosing a candidate to support. The same goes for race.
But this tension — is race a major factor or a non-existant factor? — is at the heart of this election, and I don’t believe it is proof that we are in a post-racial space. Perhaps we are stuck somewhere in the middle of two different ways of understanding race. It is so important that Barack Obama is elected (and obviously not just because he is black) but let us not forget what this election is bringing out in all of America — and not just the “real” Americans as defined by McCain and Palin. We must continue to push the way we understand race in American society and push to change the racist conditions these beliefs have created. Saying that we are post-racial or don’t see race does not change the actual condition of our country.