Americans elected their first non-white president last week, but the effects that Barack Obama’s presidency will have on race and social change are yet to be seen, according to a group of six political science and public policy professors from UCLA.
The professors, who contribute to a UCLA blog called “The Sprint,” spoke last Thursday at a postelection panel discussion held in the Public Affairs Building.
The blog began in September in order to document the last eight weeks of the presidential campaigns, according a UCLA press release.
The discussion event drew approximately 100 attendees, including both professors and students, some of whom were forced to stand or sit on the ground.
Race was a prominent theme at the discussion. The panel professors discussed how Obama’s multi-ethnic heritage effected the campaign and what the election of a black president means for the future of America.
According to Gary Orfield, a professor of education and co-director of the Civil Rights Project at UCLA, many Americans expect Obama to effect social change and decrease poverty rates because of his ethnic minority status.
However, he said he remains skeptical about the influence Obama will have upon human rights.
“No civil rights or race-related issues were discussed at all by Democrats during the campaign,” Orfield said. He added that there was little mention of social change in Obama’s policies.
The discussion, which was moderated by Franklin D. Gilliam Jr., dean of the School of Public Affairs and a professor of public policy, also addressed the various reasons behind the Obama victory.
Paul Ong, a professor of social welfare, urban planning and Asian American studies, said the recent economic crisis instilled fear in people, overshadowing the president-elect’s race and other issues.
In addition, the panelists attributed the Democratic win to the increased use of technology throughout the campaign and the versatility of the theme “Change.”
Because of Obama’s use of the Internet, 3.1 million people donated to his campaign, said panelist Lynn Vavreck, professor of political science.
Again, Obama’s use of the Internet was a major factor in winning the votes of the youth group, the panelists said.
“The use of Facebook as a method of reaching out to students was shocking,” said Tim Groeling, assistant professor of communication studies.
Groeling also said that the Obama campaign made powerful choices early in the election trail.
“The Obama campaign was advantaged by the choice of the theme, “˜Change,’ because real-world events were changing as well throughout the campaign process,” he said. Republican candidate John McCain, he noted, had no solidified plan, which was detrimental in the long run.
Sawyer added that the exceptional communication skills of the Obama campaign “made the opposition look completely inept.”
Although all professors said they agreed that an Obama presidency was positive for the nation, they revealed some worry about the direction that politics would take now that he won the election.
Groeling expressed concern over the one-party control of both Congress and the White House.
He said this would cause accountability to fall solely on the Democrats, which could be negative for them during the midterm elections.
Mark Kleiman, professor of public policy, however, argued that this control would be positive because Obama would have a greater capacity to put through big legislation.
The future of the Obama presidency is yet to be seen, but according to Gilliam, who is black, “The election of Obama speaks to our ability to change as a society. This is historic, and I never thought that it would happen in my lifetime.”
The panelists said they were unsure whether the blog would be continued into the beginning stages of the presidency.