Barack Obama's speech on race this Tuesday is already being hailed in quarters of American public opinion as one of the finest pieces of oratory in the country's history. The embattled Democratic presidential candidate turned the pitfall of his relationship with the volatile Jeremiah Wright into a transcendent meditation on the role of race in American society and politics. Few politicians of his stature and exposure have ever dared venture into these dusty corridors of the country's identity. And few will ever be capable of both the eloquence and the probing seriousness that Obama mustered in speaking the previously unspoken (YouTube video below).
As Michael Tomasky observed in the Guardian, the speech was perhaps too brilliant for its own good. But it is a measure of its impact that the bastions of conservative thought have been unable to respond to the newness of Obama's remarks. With their knives out and the table laid, conservatives were ready to carve up the expected, feeble "distancing" act. Instead, dinner was cancelled, and Obama, resplendent in his best smoking jacket, held court in the drawing room.
Take, for instance, the bludgeon and dudgeon of FoxNews' popular "O'Reilly Factor". The grating Bill O'Reilly led both programmes on Tuesday and Wednesday nights with "Talking Points" on Obama's address. In the first, O'Reilly had the grace to praise the speech, but then asked quite curiously if "Obama's deeds matched his words" (curious in so far as the words were quite significant deeds in-and-of themselves). O'Reilly's answer was predictably "no", but only because Obama refused to appear on FoxNews. The following night, O'Reilly touched on the speech again, but only as a platform to launch a bizarre and misplaced attack on the aging Jesse Jackson. O'Reilly trotted out the familiar straw-men, failing entirely to engage with the substance of Obama's speech, probably because he didn't know how.
Nor did Dean Barnett of the neo-conservative The Weekly Standard seem to be able to parry the speech's real thrust. Barnett missed the point altogether.
Obama brilliantly answered a question that virtually no one is asking... What the analysts who are gushing over Obama's sentiments regarding race relations are missing is not only did Obama fail to accomplish the mission he needed to, he didn't even really try. He made no attempt to explain his relationship with Wright and why he hung around a man who habitually offered such hateful rhetoric. Obama instead offered a non-sequitur on race relations.
Only blinkered, wishful thinking could think of race in this context as a "non-sequitur". One of the great victories of Obama's speech is that he rose above the foam, addressing the intrinsic problems that on one level frame race relations and on a lower level generate the kind of media frenzy that made Jeremiah Wright a household name.
Never mind that Obama did more than adequately "explain his relationship with Wright" – in unflinching, human terms. Never mind that Obama's relationship to Wright should not be the preoccupation of a country mired in war, debt and division. Never mind that no Republican leaders are expected to account for their flirtations with Armageddon-seeking evangelicals. Obama cut through the chaff to address the question that should have been confronted long before. That the question was unasked is not an indictment of Obama, but of a polity (and an intelligentsia) that continues to choose fluff over fact.
One need look no further than Byron York's meek effort in the conservative National Review for an example of this kind of stilted attention. Clearly unsure of how to respond to Obama's weighty speech, he proceeded to cull quotes of support for Jeremiah Wright from members of the speech's audience, and tar Obama by association – scabrous hackery at its most desperate.
The grey lady of the right, the Wall Street Journal, seemed more equipped to weigh the import of Obama's Philadelphia address. Its editorial on the speech sought to slice through "super-structure" to a material "base" of sorts.
The Senator noted that the anger of his pastor "is real; it is powerful," and in fact it is mirrored in "white resentments." He then laid down a litany of American woe: "the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man who has been laid off," the "shuttered mill," those "without health care," the soldiers who have fought in "a war that never should have been authorized and never should've been waged," etc. Thus Mr. Obama's message is we "need unity" because all Americans are victims, racial and otherwise...And the cause of all this human misery? Why, "a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favo[u]r the few over the many." Mr. Obama's villains, in other words, are the standard-issue populist straw men of Wall Street and the GOP, and his candidacy is a vessel for liberal policy orthodoxy -- raise taxes, "invest" more in social programs, restrict trade, retreat from Iraq.
Obama's speech about race was, in effect, about material realities and histories, which he dwelled on particularly in minutes 18-22 and 28-32. Obama insisted that Wright's "anger" and the sense of alienation amongst American minorities (and other groups) was not only "real" but derived from real conditions and events. Suggesting that there are tangible culprits – the WSJ's scarecrow audience of "Wall Street straw men" – does, yes, have a whiff of the "populist" about it. But by speaking in historical and economic (and not just social) terms, Obama has set out a bolder political project, one in which a clear vision of race in America is not simply a box to tick, but an integral and necessary part.
See also: Which candidate will win the Democratic Presidential nomination? market on the openDemocracy Inkling Markets.
Comments
The Republicans--right or conservative--are racists though some of the latter don't realize it. They live in their gated communities or Midwest small towns that are ALL WHITE and they hope/intend to keep it that way.
As you mentioned no one--other than Keith Olbermann on Countdown-- mentioned Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Many would counter but they don't talk about race. But they DO!! They do it by ignoring the presence in their minds and their congregants' minds that they don't like any one but their own and they will not associate with any one but their own unless they are forced to to keep their jobs.
As a small-town white woman that married a black man from Harlem I have listened to the statements of my parents in a small Midwest town with one black family that had the male working in the steel mill that no longer exists and a black coach at the time of the March on Washington who was hired by the Catholic priest to try and break some "color lines" but never really succeeded. The realtor who got the coach's family a house was banned from his parish by the snobbery of the people, not by the priest-and his wife was banned from bridge clubs in town--for at least 10 years AFTER he left. The one black family refused to send their son to the Catholic High School because they saw too much hypocrisy there. I must say for myself--I saw it too. He was right. His son was better off going to the public schools and going on to college someplace else. I haven't lived in that town since 1964.
The town had a 20% population of Hispanics that had been brought there in the 1920's to do the dirty work of keeping the steel mill furnaces going. In the 1960's the town was all upset because the third generation of Hispanics "had the nerve" to go to court and demand that they be able to buy houses on any street in town, not just the two long blocks of houses next to the steel mill. To this day there are no black families in that town and the Hispanics socialize with each other as do the whites. Most of the people in that town voted for Ronald Reagan for president, not because he was a better choice but because he grew up in the area 13 miles away.
I have returned to that small town three times in the past 15 years after living in Minnesota and in California. They are now complaining that there is nothing left but "old people" and care homes for the elderly that can no longer care for themselves. No one in the stores noticed that my son was not white--he's almost light enough to pass--especially in a town that knows very little about other races.My husband, his father was born of a lightskin-toned black mother and a "blue black" father.(That caused arguments in his home also since her family didn't like his darkness.) The responses shown on PBS last night and on other news and pundit talk shows, illustrate that small town American has a lot to learn about accepting other people despite their ethnicity or race.
That doesn't mean blacks are innocent of racism. I have met and associated with numerous ones in Minnesota and California but, ironically, without my husband present or being known. I have been called a racist by black teenagers in classrooms when I reprimand them or criticize their work for not being up to the standards required by the district. Other teachers who have black husbands have difficulty doing that. In my mind, the one that receives reprimands,cricticism or praise is the one due it despite his/her color. A few will accept it but many--esp. males--don't. But they too don't know of my husband's chocolate skin tone--darker than Obama's. When some black teenagers that knew me for my disciplinary actions found out that my husband is black, many, all of a sudden, become respectful in their speech, more diligent in their work, and more demanding of their peers' respect toward me. It's a strange, complex situation of ethnic appearances, previous conclusions, necessity of change on both sides and the continuation of learning and re-learning the necessity of respect toward others. Hispanics often did the same thing. I just had fewer experiences with their reactions, than with blacks. Hypocrisy causes many hard feelings that never go away though they may lighten with time and further positive experiences between and among races.
All of us have to evaluate our attitudes and actions toward others and try to work toward something better. It will take a long time and there will be many unintended slips on both sides. Each has to remember that no one is perfect but that also doesn't mean we can't make things become better with effort and TIME.
Obama mentions all of these ideas in general in his speech but he can't make whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians or Native Americans better in their relations if they don't want to and therefore don't try. His grassroots efforts draw more from the 18-30 year olds in part because they have associated in school and sometimes in their neighborhoods with those of other races. Whether they can influence the older generations that talked about it in the Civil Rights Era but didn't always follow through , is yet to be seen. But then the UK/EU have their own problems of the same magnitude with Muslims and/or people of brown skins. It's not just here, it's everywhere. Arabs judge many of their own in their countries by lightness and darkness of skin plus money; Africans do the same. Asians and Hispanics will find it also. Anyone who reads about or visits people in/from other countries will find that "lovely racism." The change is not impossible, but it is one to one, day by day, over and over again. Just as in school work, if one doesn't put out the effort, he/she won't get a grade change. Society must do what they tell their kids to do. Practice may not make perfect, but it's the only way to IMPROVEMENT. 2008 is better than 1968 or 1868 or 1568. Man has improved in his actions to others but there is still MUCH to be done.
Some of your points are well-taken, but your attitude bothers me immensely. It is your kind of rhetoric that has, over the years, really broken American politics. Your first paragraph, the statements with which you introduce yourself to your reader, show a profound lack of understanding of people. The kind of characterizations you've opened with do nothing to elevate or improve our politics - they serve only to reinforce the kind of self-destructive discussions we have been having for decades. Are some conservatives racist? Yes. Do some conservatives live in small midwestern towns? Yes.
Are some liberals racist? Yes. Do some liberals live in small midwestern towns? Yes. People cannot be reduced to categories to which we can arbitrarily ascribe abstract characteristics. Rather, they must be considered as human beings with an independent will who make moral judgments and create values on every day of their lives. We cannot immediately indict entire groups or demographics of being "racist" and all the evil connotation that the word carries with it. As a society it behooves us to elevate our politics and our discourse to understood where these racial feelings stem from, how they operate in the world, and how they relate to our moral systems.
This, I think, is part of the great appeal of a candidate like Barack Obama. We hunger for him as a nation because he challenges us to give up the easy task of alienating those we disagree with and ignoring their humanity. Instead, we asks that we look to them as our human brothers, as our fellow Americans, and understand their perspective and their feelings. This is a much more difficult task.
Let us take, as an example, your "midwestern white conservative racists." Many often make the claim that they are racist toward Hispanics based on their attitudes and stances toward the issue of immigration. The much vaunted Keith Olbermann stands as one who has made this claim. But where do these feelings come from, where does this resentment of Hispanics come from? Maybe because each of them has a family member who has been laid off or otherwise lost their job, only to be replaced by a Hispanic laborer, who just might be illegal and just might be getting paid under the table. Do they have the right to be angry about the loss of their livelihood? Of course. Is it natural for them to direct that anger toward the group who they see as benefiting from their loss? Yes, in fact, it is completely natural. If you do not see that, you need some perspective.
Does this justify racism? Of course not. However, this kind of understanding helps us move from primitive judgments like "conservatives are racist and live in 95% white gates midwestern towns" to a more complex, textured, three-dimensional understanding of how the polis work, of how human beings make moral and political decisions. Furthermore, open, public discussions that are founded upon and encourage this type of understanding might be the only thing that elevate our politics to where we want it; they might be the only thing that will allow us to achieve the America we all seek - Barack's "More Perfect Union."
However, the fact that Obama sat in the pew of a racist, blood libeling pastor, for twenty years, and now stands by this racist, has aced any chances of me voting for Obama. Forget it.
When you lose your culture, your sense of right and wrong, you lose everything.
Know your friends well, keep them close; know your enemies better to defeat them.
Martin Luther King Jr. was a REPUBLICAN! REMEMBER, THE GROUP WHO LED THE UNION AGAINST THE CONFERDERATES.
When you lose your culture, your sense of right and wrong, you lose everything.
Know your friends well, keep them close; know your enemies better to defeat them.
I'm really surprised by this speech, the best thing I've heard or read from any politician for a very long time. Surprised because he's a Christian and I believe, a Mormon and such groups are not exactly famous for their tolerance or understanding, rather rthe reverse.
Obama, however, comes across as tolerant AND understanding while also critical of the faults and prejudices on all sides. In other words, he's realistic.
Usually, I find myself unable to vote for any one since I perceive the majority of politicians, especially in money-determined America, to be totally corrupt; but, If I were an American, I'd vote for him.
Obama is not a Morman. He is a protestant Christian, a member of the United Church of Christ.
Strange how the media has picked Obama's minister apart and have said nothing about the crowd of bigoted clergy that are supporting McCain.
I regret having to introduce the "I" word in a discussion that ought to be restricted to the issue of race in America, but Mr Barack Obama did it first. There, on page 4 or 5 of what a thoroughly compelling speech, was a remark that seemed to be both out of context and out of character.
"The conflicts in the Middle East," he said, "Are not rooted in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, but emanate instead from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam" (Obama, Philadelphia, March 18).
This sentence has passed unremarked so far - understandably, because the core issue of black/white relations is so important to the American electorate and because the man is such a dazzling speaker. Yet I was disappointed by his use of the sentence and the choice of timing. It seemed facile, inflammatory and misdirected: its audience so narrow and obvious.
The sentence would appear to encapsulate the limits of the "union" that Mr Obama is willing to entertain, his capacity to "triangulate" as well as the next person when the occasion calls for it, as well as his core response to the most volatile issue commanding the world stage today. Considering the very personal nature of the rest of the speech I assume that he must truly believe this.
And I would contrast his vision with the words of Middle East correspondent, Robert Frisk, writing on the front page of The Independent on the very same day that Mr Obama gave his speech: "It is our presence, our power, our arrogance, our refusal to learn from history and our terror – yes, our terror – of Islam that is leading us into the abyss. And until we learn to leave these Muslim peoples alone, our catastrophe in the Middle East will only become graver. There is no connection between Islam and 'terror'. But there is a connection between our occupation of Muslim lands and "terror". (The Independent, March 19).
Perhaps the two should meet.
Post new comment