How Obama Might Change the Politics of Race in Unexpected WaysNews at Home
As a matter of course, whenever history is made in a really meaningful way, it not only forces us to revise our narrative of the past, but it encourages us to revise our perception of the present as well. The very fact that a black American has captured the presidential nomination of one of the major political parties is in itself sufficient to brighten many Americans’ overall assessment of black-white relations in this country, and should Senator Obama manage to succeed Bill Clinton as our second “first black president,” the appraisal of where things stand between blacks and whites is certain to get sunnier still.
Obviously, mountains of data about enduring and, in some cases, even widening racial disparities will introduce some clouds into the picture, but with a black person in the Oval Office it might be more difficult than ever to blame these clouds on whites. If no less a fixture on the left than Columbia University historian and committed activist Manning Marable can tell the Washington Post that Barack Obama’s presidential candidacy “can redeem American history from the specter of race that has plagued us for nearly four hundred years," it’s not difficult to foresee some folks on the right (who doubtless did their damndest to defeat Obama ) asking, “If white racism can’t stop a black candidate from becoming president, why should it stop a black family from escaping the ghetto?”
Although Senator Obama would never embrace such a ludicrous analogy himself, the early debates among African Americans about whether he was “black enough” really stemmed not just from his mixed racial heritage or his rather atypical life experiences, but from his strikingly post-racial political persona and agenda, which seemed more than a bit disquieting to those who had grown up under Jim Crow and risked their lives to overthrow it. Early endorsements of Hillary Clinton by old civil rights warriors like John Lewis might be laid off to widespread skepticism about Obama’s apparent prospects at the time, but Saturday Night Live’s animated spoof wherein Obama delegates the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to represent him in obscure or non-existent countries offered the perfect caricature of the uneasy relationship between the Obama camp and an older set of black leaders steeped in the politics of protest and grievance.
This is in part at least a generational divide, for younger black Americans who have reaped the benefits of the civil rights era sacrifices of their elders are simply less inclined to share the sense of unfinished business in the fight against racism that continues to drive some of those elders. On the other hand, although Obama is likely to be more vocal about issues of racial discrimination as president than he has been as a candidate, his speeches about the importance of strong families and the responsibilities of parenthood carry a decided echo of the gospel according to a certain Mr. Cosby. In this sense, instead of sparking a revolution in black political strategies and agendas, an Obama presidency might simply lend further weight to increasingly frequent suggestions that the old knee-jerk response of treating most difficulties facing black Americans as a product of white racism has long since grown stale and counterproductive.
The prospect that an Obama presidency might usher in a more racially neutral brand of black politics seems all the more ironic in light of the angry and decidedly gendered reaction of so many women to the rejection of Hillary Clinton’s bid to become the first female to win a major party’s presidential nod. Senator Clinton drew some early flak from a number of high-profile feminists for her alleged macho-posturing on Iraq and her seeming political indifference to women’s concerns. It seems now, however, that literally millions of women who might still reject the feminist label are nonetheless committed at the very least to making a candidate’s gender or stance on gender-related issues an important consideration when they go to the polls in the future.
Having entered the 2008 primary season with two major constituencies looking to make history, if they are to finish what they have started, the Democrats must now convince one of these constituencies that putting their disappointments aside and remaining within the fold is still the best means of assuring that their own long-deferred dream will be realized sooner rather than later. If the Democrats manage to win in November, however, the full potential of their victory will be realized only if they can walk the fine line between celebrating a truly momentous achievement as an emotional springboard toward other such accomplishments and allowing that celebration to degenerate into an orgy of self-congratulation that has precisely the opposite effect.
comments powered by Disqus
Lawrence Brooks Hughes - 7/7/2008
If he should be the winner in November, BHO may decide he wants his presidency to be a great success, and for that reason walk away from the people who nominated him, but don't count on it.
He has already signaled that he is not about to kick away our victory in Iraq. That is a sensible flip-flop, both for the success of his presidency and for the best interests of the U.S. And it may happen. He may not revert to precipitate withdrawal.
But if BHO chooses some of the Democratic positions, both he and the party will be up the creek without a paddle. Take taxes. If he sits still for the massive tax increases already scheduled for 2010, it could easily bring a severe economic crash and a tremendous cloud over his presidency. The result might be massive business failures, sky-high unemployment, rampant safety net spending, and huge deficits. His stand on taxes alone could make him the last as well as the first black president.
What if he should come out in favor of school vouchers, and oppose affirmative action? Just as anti-communist Nixon was the one man who could establish relations with Red China, BHO is the one man who could end AA in America for good, and create a really colorblind society. He could push vouchers in public schools, too. Nothing would better cement his acceptance by a large majority of parents, black and white, but it won't happen.
My guess is he will be true to his proponents, do what Jeremiah Wright would do, and continue to push affirmative action, greatly worsening race relations in America. My guess is he will continue to oppose school vouchers, and the schools will continue getting worse.
He will probably adopt the tax policies of Charlie Rangel and Harry Reid, putting the U.S. in an economic straightjacket. And after the maelstrom hits, he will try nationalizing major industries, just like Hugo Chavez. It won't work.
The best thing that could happen to Obama is to get beaten by John McCain. That way he could go back to the Senate and be Jackie Robinson forever--without Robinson's great talent.
- Did Salmonella Kill Off the Aztecs?
- Jewish history is under siege in the middle east and these volunteers are risking their lives to protect it
- 'Amazon should stop selling Holocaust denial books'
- National Museum of African American History and Culture Reaches Milestone of 1 Million Visitors
- What Makes a President Great? Clipping? Sipping? Slashing?
- McMaster knows how national security policy can go wrong. Will that help him?
- Historian and Antiwar Activist Marilyn Young Dies at 79
- Trump Chooses Historian H.R. McMaster as National Security Adviser
- Holocaust Historian Deborah Lipstadt Explains Why People Believe Trump's Lies
- Princeton’s Harold James warns World War Three is now a "serious threat”