Barack: The Great Black Hope?

Two months ago when I wrote my first paper, I did so with the idea that Barack Obama’s success in this election was in someway a phenomena of race neutrality. Obviously, a lot has happened in two months and though I do not resind my initial premise, I wish to address it in a new context.

Forcing Obama’s Hand

My initial assertion was that White voters were comfortable with Barack Obama because he did not share in the collective consciousness of African-Americans and therefore did not invoke retributive fear in white America. The events that followed the Jeremiah Wright scandal re-affirmed my belief that for white voters, when electing a black president, it is critical that his skin tone not reflect his experiences. Obama is phenologically black, which in America is interchangeable with African-American, but is culturally a mélange of formative experiences, most of which are not traceable to the vile history of race in America. Thus he presents white voters with an opportunity to affirm their tolerance and commitment to multiculturalism without the fear that they will be ‘punished’ for their collective historical sins. This became particularly evident after images of Rev. Wright were looped on every news station twenty times an hour. The huge and instant drop in his poll numbers could be attributed the Wright’s anti-American rhetoric, but I contend that it had much more to do with the dashiki he was wearing, and his ‘black church’ mannerisms, not to mentions his condemnation of race relations. When Obama and Wright were put in a split-screen image, all of the sudden his tales of Hawaiian upbringing and white grandmother paled against the angry black man beside him. Our neutral and inclusive candidate had spent twenty years sitting in a pew listening to this angry black pastor preach of America’s evils- what if he started to believe? It was much more than the words Wright spoke. It was the imagery.

Obama’s “A More Perfect Union” speech was incredibly aware of these fears and specifically responsive to them. In many ways it was the brave, mature, and progressive speech it was hailed to be, but at the same time it blatantly catered to the fears of the liberal whites Wrights sound bites had isolated. Obama started with the assertion that Wright erred in viewing racism in America as endemic. He then spoke of America’s racist history--- completely relegating it to the past. He reminded us of the segregated schools and lack of economic opportunities that plagued Wright’s generation. To him, “the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods - parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement” simply created the circumstances that contribute to black America’s problems today. Maybe I missed the memo, but as far as I know these are still the problems that haunt black neighborhoods all over the country . This idea, that the blatant racism and discrimination towards minorities are solely a thing of the past, may soothe tha general consciense, but does nothing to highlight the truth of the problem today. By dismissing Wright’s anger as an understandable symptom of the past, he completely discredited any validity to Wright’s anger as a reaction to ongoing problems. In fact, Obama himself seems to contend that present circumstances in the Black community are purely a reaction to past circumstances. This may be a valid argument for ‘understanding’ and continuing government services, but what does it do about gerrymandering, discriminatory zoning, and deplorable educational conditions, all of which are a result of today’s actions?

Obama was right- black anger is often misguided and counter productive. In that regard his speech was extremely brave in that acknoweldgement. Many also contend that he was brave to address the legitimacy of white anger towards affirmative action, but how brave was that really? There was no fear of isolating African-Americans- at this point they stood firmly behind him- so it was a perfect opportunity to assure white America that their resentment was o.k. Though he did not explicitly argue the merits of various affirmative action programs, he did legitimize the resentment that they foster in the white middle class that ‘loses out’. Personally, I too feel that their resentment is a legitimate feeling, in that their exclusion may often feel punitive. But as a politician standing in authority before the nation, perhaps Obama should have taken the opportunity to mention that the programs are not meant to be punitive but rather corrective. In as much as his speech addressed perviously unacknowledged problems, it was groundbreaking. In as much as it may have been politically dangerous for the black candidate to talk about race, it was brave. But before we bestow unequivocle accolades on him, it stands to mention that this speech was forced on him. Race is an everpresent force in American society, and has been an important aspect of this election from the beginning, but it wasn’t until his race became a liability (or more of one) that he decided to address it. Though this distancing may be seen as an attempt by him to rise above race and unify his constituents, room should be left for the possibility that Obama, like everyone else, was playing politics, and refusing to address it for fear that it would remind people he was black.

Of course, I do not condemn his speech. It could have done more, but as it stands it was miles ahead of anything else offered. Nor do I lack sympathy for his position. It would be lovely if he could rise above all fot he fray and never play politics, but unfortunately that is unrealistic. He has the done a lot within the constraints of our political system as it stands. Perhaps what I take issue with is any contention that he is breaking barriers or shifting the status quo. Obama, like every other politician, did what he needed to do for damage control. In the process, he gave a great speech. Lets leave it at that.