Dear friends: In a recent issue of National Review — dated September 29 — I published a piece on a delicate matter: race — race and the presidential election. This matter is rearing its head more and more as Election Day nears. And I thought I would revisit my piece and expand on it, here in Impromptus. Let me just wade in.

As you know, Barack Obama is the first black presidential nominee ever. (We’re talking the major parties.) And this is big and cheering news, given American history. I need not recite that history. And it’s no fair saying that Obama is not really a black American: that he is not a descendant of slaves. And it’s no fair saying that, actually, he’s half white. That’s not the way it works in America, as you well know.

Our country has always abided by the “one-drop rule,” mentally at least. There is an old, pungent saying: America is the only country in which a white woman can give birth to a black baby, but a black woman can’t give birth to a white baby.

‐There have been other black presidential aspirants, to be sure — most prominently Jesse Jackson and, after him, Al Sharpton. (Before them — in 1972 — there was Shirley Chisholm, the Democratic congresswoman from Brooklyn.) But they weren’t really running for president: They were running for president of black America — to secure the King position. Which they did, largely.

And then came Obama, “the first mainstream African American,” said Joe Biden — further describing him as “articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” (What ever happened to Biden, by the way?) Back in the bad old days — before he went respectable — Sharpton referred to such people as “cocktail-sip Negroes.” He not only derided but detested them, and he riled the mob against them. But now everyone’s on board — even Louis Farrakhan is on board! (He anointed Obama “the Messiah.”) A racial pride, understandably, is involved.

‐For years, many of us thought that the first black president would be a conservative: someone in the Clarence Thomas mold, against race preferences, strong for assimilation, etc. We thought the same of the first woman, too: She would be a conservative in the Margaret Thatcher mold (though thoroughly American, of course). But 2008 has put those assumptions to the test, bringing, as it has, both Obama and Hillary Clinton to the fore.

In many ways, it would be easier if the first black nominee were Republican, rather than Democratic — easier for the country at large. For one thing, would liberals regard the nominee as “authentically black”? For another, could they not run against him with abandon, with no thought at all to race? They had no trouble whatsoever opposing the Thomas nomination — they were rather robust about that. (And he stood up for himself magnificently.)

‐But the black nominee is the Democrat, and he is thought, by legions of people, to be a redeemer figure — the one who will heal the land, especially of its racial wounds. Farrakhan has explicitly referred to him as “the Messiah.” Oprah Winfrey, more discreetly, called him “the one” (and the way she said it, you could hear capital letters: “The One”).

I well remember my first encounter with Obama-mania — this was when he was running for the Senate. He had not yet given his keynote address at the ’04 convention. This was in June, I believe, at a Renaissance Weekend, in Jackson Hole. These weekends are largely Democratic gatherings, and I was there as a conservative contribution to diversity. (The hosts of these weekends, Phil and Linda Lader, are marvelous people.) A group of Democrats — some of them quite prominent — were swooning over this young man from Illinois. One woman, a pure McGovernite Democrat, was practically squealing.

He was so new, they had not yet quite gotten the hang of his name: whether he was “Obama Barack” or “Barack Obama.” He was just a state legislator. But they were so very excited, particularly on racial grounds: He was the one who would break through. He already had a hint, a heavy hint, of holiness about him. (Maybe Morgan Freeman would play him in the movie? If only Freeman were younger.)

‐The Republicans have a terrible challenge — forgetting the financial crisis, forgetting the unpopularity of the Bush administration, etc. They stand in the way of “history,” proposing to stop the first black nominee from becoming president. That is the distasteful role of spoiler. And the electorate must feel an unease, too: If you vote for McCain-Palin, against Obama-Biden, will you have to wear a big scarlet “R,” for racist?

Some say yes, of course: Back in August, the editor of Slate magazine, Jacob Weisberg, wrote an article entitled “If Obama Loses.” And the subtitle: “Racism is the only reason McCain might beat him.” You can’t get more explicit than that — it is as explicit as Farrakhan’s “Messiah.” And what a message to send to Americans, black and white alike, don’t you think? The message is: If McCain wins, it won’t be because, once more, Americans prefer a right-leaning candidate to a left-leaning one — it will be because of the sin of racism.

‐Yes, the Republicans are in a ticklish position — very ticklish. (In fact, the title of my September 29 NR piece was “A Ticklish Position: Republicans run against the first black presidential nominee.”) Around the time of the conventions, some colleagues and I were talking with a McCain operative, and the subject of race — and its delicacy — came up. I related a story. NR had recently done an Obama cover, with the word “Enigma.” And several readers e-mailed me, saying, “You’re going to regret doing that.” Why? “Because of the second syllable of that word.” Oh, come on: That wouldn’t have occurred to me in a thousand years.

But the McCain operative said he understood entirely — the campaign, he told us, scrubs everything it puts out, with just that sensitivity in mind. And Sarah Palin learned something after her convention speech: If you mock “community organizers” — even in retaliation for mockery of small-town mayors — you might find yourself accused of racism.

She has been accused many times since, of course — absurdly, outrageously, damnably. Two days ago, a headline on Drudge caught my eye: “7th grader called racist for wearing Palin t-shirt . . .” But of course! Why wouldn’t she? The “racist” in question is a twelve-year-old named Ashleigh Jones. She told the news, “Some of the students were calling me racist because I was Caucasian. I wanted the Caucasian man to win. And I told them that’s not true. It’s my freedom of speech, it’s my opinion.”

Oh, honey, you’ll learn: Some opinions are more free than others.

‐As for Barack Obama, he is sometimes “post-racial,” sometimes not. Consider his behavior in two U.S. Senate campaigns, waged in 2006. The Republican nominee in Maryland was a black conservative named Michael Steele; the Democratic nominee was a white liberal named Ben Cardin. Obama went to campaign for Cardin, saying the following at a predominantly black university: “Listen, I think it’s great that the Republican party has discovered black people. [Ha, ha.] But here’s the thing: You don’t vote for somebody because of what they look like. You vote for somebody because of what they stand for.”

Great, great — I couldn’t agree more. Been preaching that all my life. But then Obama went to Tennessee to campaign for Harold Ford Jr., a black Democrat. Ford was running against a white Republican named Bob Corker. And Obama visited black churches to say, “I’m feeling lonely in Washington” (as the only black senator). Well, which is it?

He has used race in this presidential campaign, too. For example, he preemptively accused Republicans of racist campaigning, saying, “They’re going to try to make you afraid of me — ‘He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?’” No, no one had, actually.

During the Democratic primaries, he even used race against Bill Clinton, you’ll recall. This ticked off the former president no end. (Because he prides himself on his standing with blacks, perhaps above all.) Clinton fumed to a radio interviewer, “You gotta really go some to play the race card with me. My office is in Harlem, and Harlem voted for Hillary, by the way.” So there! After the interview, when he thought he was off the air, he said — about the vehemence with which he had defended himself, I believe — “I don’t think I can take any sh** from anybody on that, do you?”

More than a few of us observed that, as the primaries were fought out, the Clintons got a taste of what it’s like to be a Republican, every year. And the comeuppance of Bill Clinton was especially satisfying. Few have played the race card against Republicans as skillfully, and dishonestly, as he. He relied on it heavily during the Lewinsky/impeachment drama, if you can believe it. I wrote a piece on this called “The Race Ace,” which you can find in this anthology. (Excuse the plug.)

‐Republicans and Democrats are not accorded equal treatment in the media — and this may be especially true if you’re a black Republican. Take three nominees in the last elections, 2006: the aforementioned Michael Steele; Lynn Swann, who ran for governor in Pennsylvania; and Kenneth Blackwell, who ran for governor in Ohio. Generally speaking, they weren’t regarded as black candidates — they were regarded as conservatives, which they were. Fine, fine. And they were all beaten by garden-variety white liberals.

And no one said history had been thwarted. No one accused Marylanders, Pennsylvanians, or Ohioans of racism.

Democrats like to laugh at Republicans for having so few black officeholders — and more than laugh, they like to charge racism. Problem is, the Democrats are very good at beating black Republican conservatives — with those white liberals. For a while, the only black Republican in Congress was Rep. Gary Franks of Connecticut. The Democrats, affronted at his presence, worked hard to unseat him. And they did — allowing them to say, “A little short on blacks, huh? Ha, ha.” Well . . .

Give you another story: In 1989, Douglas Wilder ran for governor in Virginia — and everyone was excited about it, because he had the possibility of being the first black governor, of any state, since Reconstruction. Everyone said — the usual suspects in the media said — this was a test of the racial maturity of Virginia voters. If they passed it, hurrah. If they failed — if they opted for the Republican candidate — they would have to wear the scarlet R. As it happened, Wilder won. (No scarlet R for Virginians.)

A few years before, there was a black gubernatorial nominee in my home state of Michigan. His name was William Lucas. Not many said that he would be the first black governor since Reconstruction (he would have been). No one said that the election was a test of the racial maturity of Michigan voters. Nope — Lucas was a conservative Republican, and therefore he didn’t count, in liberal eyes, as black. He was denounced by all the usual forces, and in the usual ways: “sellout,” etc. And he lost — to a garden-variety white liberal (Jim Blanchard, who was later Bill Clinton’s ambassador to Canada). Ho-hum.

George W. Bush, when you think about it, is incapable of picking other than black secretaries of state. Does he get any credit for this — racial credit? No, and he probably wouldn’t welcome it. (Bill Clinton talked, and talks, constantly about his black appointees. Constantly — drawing a picture of himself as a Great White Father.) But I like something that Bob Ehrlich, the former governor of Maryland, once remarked to me: “If Condoleezza Rice were a liberal Democrat, they’d have parades down Fifth Avenue for her, and she’d be on the cover of Time magazine every week.”

I have a pleasant memory, however: When Condi Rice was named, Donna Brazile — the Democratic operative — paused to acknowledge the historic moment. She said that, when the president announced Rice, “I had chills down my spine. I never thought in my lifetime I’d see an African-American woman being nominated as secretary of state. George Bush made that happen.”

Now, I’m not Ms. Brazile’s number-one fan: In the aftermath of the 2000 election, she claimed that black voters in Florida had been kept from the polls by “guns” and “dogs.” This was a despicable, poisonous lie — gasoline thrown on the country’s race relations. But I will also remember what she said about Bush and Rice. She was almost alone.

‐Some people thought that, in August, McCain blunted the race issue with his choice of Palin — you know: “history” versus “history.” But are conservative women regarded as women by those “usual forces,” as I have referred to them? Some feminists have said outright that Palin is no woman, on account of her beliefs (and how she has chosen to live her life, I imagine: marriage, children, etc.). Whether you’re a woman or not does, indeed, depend on how you stand in the political arena.

I grew up with “Believe the woman” — maybe you did too. It was a bumper sticker in my hometown of Ann Arbor. It was also what mothers taught their sons. And “Believe the woman” was definitely in force during the showdown between Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas. But “Believe the woman” went out the window when Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, and the rest came along. Why? Because they were problems to Bill Clinton, whom liberalism was supporting, defending, and protecting.

And how about Hispanics? If they’re conservative, do they disqualify themselves as Hispanics? I have a favorite tidbit from the University of Michigan affirmative-action case, which went before the Supreme Court. Documents revealed that the university had been unsure whether to count Cuban Americans as Hispanic. As one official queried, “Don’t they vote Republican?”

If you don’t belong to the grievance culture, you probably don’t qualify as “ethnic.”

And then there are blacks. As Shelby Steele has written, black liberals signal to white liberals that it’s okay to unleash wrath on black conservatives, on blacks who wander off the reservation: That’s what they did to Clarence Thomas, in one of the most stomach-turning episodes in modern American history.

‐Chances are, we will never know what role race played in the 2008 presidential election. We have a secret ballot. You pull the curtain closed behind you, and you don’t have to tell anybody whom you voted for. Nor do you have to say why you voted as you did. A good many people — including first-rank political analysts — believe that Mitt Romney was denied the Republican nomination because of anti-Mormon prejudice. It’s not provable, although some exit and other polling is suggestive.

We can be sure that some Americans will vote for Obama because he is black, and that some will vote against him for the same reason. How will it all shake out? Some Republicans have taken to pointing out: “Well, the country is roughly split between Democrats and Republicans. If Obama loses, and racism is to be charged — won’t that be on the heads of white Democrats?”

I have an anecdote to share — merely an anecdote, but not nothing. I know a Democrat who volunteered for Hillary in New Hampshire. Her job — my friend’s job — was to contact known Hillary supporters and verify that they were still firm. And, to her shock and dismay, many said yes — while citing the race of the other candidate.

‐I will continue in the realm of anecdotes: After the Democratic convention, I lingered in Denver for a couple of days. And three times — no fewer — young black men asked me whether I had attended the convention. (This was in restaurants and a hotel.) I said I had. Then they said, somewhat tentatively, “What did you think of the speech?” (meaning Obama’s). I said I thought it was fabulous (which I did — as a piece of oratory). In each case, the young man beamed and beamed.

This sort of feeling simply cannot be discounted. If Obama loses, there will be pain — more than the usual amount of pain following Election Day. A writer named Fatimah Ali, columnist for the Philadelphia Daily News, said, “If McCain wins, look for a full-fledged race and class war.” Would it be as bad as that? There would certainly be stokers of grievance, as there forever are.

I repeat, there is an unease in this election, owing to race. There won’t always be, in these presidential elections. And won’t that be a great, fresh-aired day?