The Great Conciliator
 |
|
by Ray Noland |
Barack Obama’s Great Race Speech yesterday drew plenty of frothy praise and historians’ plaudits. But it was a disappointingly limited speech, projecting a static, black-and-white image of America which has little to do with its real racial makeup today.
Keep in mind that all Obama had to do was walk in, denounce Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s views without sounding like an angry black man, and not drool on himself, and the chattering classes would be rapturous. We’re at a time in political history when a politician who speaks like an adult startles us. The current defecator upon the office of the presidency is a glorified newsreader, so unburdened by actual work that he’s tap-dancing and singing through his lame duck term. I spoke to a homeless man yesterday more coherent than Junior separated from his teleprompter.
So expectations were low. By the constraints of the occasion, Obama could not speak in the cadences of a preacher. He could not fly through the rhythms of a good rant like Wright, who despite saying unpleasant things unpleasantly is one hell of a rabble-rouser. But no national politician has spoken meaningfully about race in a long time. We tolerate pettiness in political campaigns we’d laugh out of a business. We’ve had kinderbabble pandering like Willie Horton, terr’ists, secret Muslim for so long that pundits were primed for someone who mentioned the elephant in the room or even acknowledged the existence of the biracial.
Normally politicians give speeches on two levels: one for the mass audience which doesn’t follow politics, and another, more encoded layer for the influentials who live and breathe the subject. That way they can put out a simple message but still keep influencers happy. Part of Karl Rove’s innovation was replacing the second level of meaning with brute repetition of simple phrases, a lesson from consumer marketing. Rove disrespected, ignored and went around the pundits, who’ve have had nothing to chew on for seven long years but two-syllable talking points in crayon. The only encoded levels in Dubya’s speeches were dog-whistle Biblical references for evangelicals.
Few in the last seven years (certainly not Hillary Clinton) have reached beyond the 51% strategy to speak to all Americans. The current Republican Party has run the government as a business, as a partisan tool rather than a commons with room for minority reports. They are small-minded partisans scrabbling for scraps of political advantage, not system-building giants like America’s founders. They’ve hardcoded power to individuals, granting Dubya rights they’ll freak about in the hands of a Democrat. They’ve stripped carefully-designed, systemic checks and balances, mocking them as inefficiency. So there’s some truth to the Saturday Night Live portrayal of a press which fawns over Obama. The pundits are primed. The mere appearance of an adult at the table can send them into orbit.
What Obama did not address in any detail: Latinos, who outnumber blacks in America. Asians. The multiracial. How multiculti the music industry and sports teams and many big city neighborhoods already are. America is not just black and white and has not been for a long time. If you buy Andrew Sullivan’s thesis that Obama is unburdened by ancient culture wars like Vietnam, he’s still clearly burdened by, or has to address those who are burdened by, a culture war dating back to the age of slavery. Yesterday he was not postracial. My generation has little idea what the fuss was all about, and that’s a good thing. It’s not black-white for us. It’s multiracial, and Asian, and desi, and Hasidim, and Poles, and Pakistani Subway shops, and Brazilians in Cambridge, and your Japanese and Indian friend who’s not the Other, she’s just Jasmine. It’s not zero-sum, it’s not a locked-in war, it’s your IM list. It just is.
Obama’s speech yesterday was not real life. It was almost as simplified as Hollywood casting. Real life is far more interesting than the simplistic narrative of most national political oratory. Any resident of a diverse city is already far beyond it.
But I will give Obama this. He didn’t just address the Wright hungama, he moved beyond it and turned the speech into a net positive. Smart. He used the classic negotiator’s tactic of repeating back the grievances of poor whites and conservatives so they know he’s listening. The parties in every negotiation have many needs other than the literal demands on the table, which are often not even the most important. Respect is huge. Simply being heard and understood is huge. Just showing that you’re listening can move a deal forward.
Obama virtually erased the Muslim smear. The more the wingnuts play clips of his pastor, the less the Muslim smear makes any sense. So generating clips about his Christianity is smart politics. And he addressed touchy, barbershop stuff in a cautious tone, sounding more like the constitutional law professor he was than the evangelist he can be on the stump.
Just don’t make the mistake, as some pundits did, of calling yesterday the greatest speech since ‘I Have a Dream.’ That disrespects MLK. Perhaps Obama could deliver that kind of speech on a happier occasion. This didn’t come close.
 |
|
Rorschach toast |
on Wednesday, March 19th, 2008, 10:36 pm in Barack Obama, Politics › 
Email this
› 
Facebook this
› 
Reddit this
› Link
› Reader links
Bah! Just another black man asking for change!
No he was not.
He also told Anderson Cooper (link)
I am puzzled - on the one hand we hear “post-racial” on the other - when he says this to AC - he is the one who seems to be bringing race into the equation.He can’t have it both ways.
You remind of the food critic in the movie Ratatouille. Everything sucks :)
He didn’t address multiracial? Even when he spoke about his white grandma being afraid of black men? You don’t think that had multiracial implications?
Manish,
Would you call it a great speech on black-white race elations?
Maybe it wasn’t the greatest speech, but it sure was a great speech.
He can. He is O B A M A.
Great post, Manish. I spent three years in the US and while there is a lot about the country I have no idea about, I did notice a peculiar kind of political correctness (the infantile sort of (public) political discourse you refer to) that seemed to mirror the reality shows on TV. Everything seems quite scripted and there is a general ‘uptightness’ about. I’ve seen a couple of Obama/Clinton debates (just couldn’t go through them) and the only people who could be influenced by those sort of debates are, well…morons.
To the author: you’re being unfair.
As you say, America is not black and white for you, and for others. But many Americans ARE African-American and/or white; that history goes back to before the founding of this nation and has never been addressed. That history affects many things in our society now, from the rights that many non-whites now take for granted, to the way that we perceive and interact with each other, to the economic and social issues currently affecting blacks and whites (and others), to the issues burdening our inner cities (and suburbs, as “White Flight” and the growth of American suburbs are intimately connected).
While not a comprehensive speech on race, this WAS a great speech on some (not all) of the primary dynamics and history of race in America on the level of ‘63. Its unquestionably the best from my generation (I’m 25) and a great starting point for what needs to be later down the line a wider examination of the issue in America. In that regard I think you are much too hard on it.
Can I ask what “postracial” means? I’ve also heard him called “post-black”. While we’re at it, can I ask what that means?
I thought the speech was perfect for the time and place. All that other stuff that you found missing, Manish, that has to come after this speech. He had to get this monkey off his back first. Everyone had been waiting for it, and I think he did it brilliantly.
We tried to use the mailroom but it ain’t working. so here:
Eilo Manish,
“Chinky” is a racial slur. Period.
Can we have an explanation as to why anonandon chooses to use it in his comment? If Indian-Americans can howl at a Senator using macaca, maybe we can also take offense at a prominent blogger using ‘chinky’. yes?
You might not be aware of it but we are simply tired of mainland Indians blithely calling us names on the road. If this extends to the ’sensitive’ blogosphere, there is not much to look forward to, no?
And please save us the trip that anonandon uses it with affection because he has many ‘chinky’ friends who don’t mind him calling him that.
Looking forward to a clarification.
rgds
Pärfume
If the speech was solely about race relations then I could see your point. Obama had to deal with effects of Wright’s hateful rhetoric. The Wright video was billed as Black anger at white america. He simply provided context to that anger while slyly pointing out racial skeletons in many white closets.
Can we have an explanation as to why anonandon chooses to use it in his comment?
I’m well aware of the prejudice against people from the Seven Sisters. I read her as condemning the word:
Why don’t you ask her here?
I got a shock yesterday when I heard many people dissing Obama for bringing up race. I didnt realize that it was a taboo subject. We talk about it all the time at home and I have to constantly remind some Indians who diss blacks that they won civil rights for us, so you have to have some gratitude, etc. I know people who havent bought houses because they saw black people in the neighborhood. If Obama loses this election it will be because of racists and people who are unwilling to acknowledge that America is in some ways racist.
I agree–it was too “black” and “white,” and while good, it wasn’t anything near “I Have A Dream.”
But, but, but… he bravely addressed the complexity of family and attempted to rebuild the way we talk about race as a nation. I loved the anecdote about his grandmother (no, he did *not* throw her under a bus); it takes a special courage to reveal these sorts of details in such a public way.
I want to do a closer reading over the next few days; I hope to teach it in a forthcoming workshop.
This is the kind of logic that makes identity politics so distressing.
If you don’t vote for Obama ,you are a racist.
By the same logic : if you don’t vote for Hillary ,you are sexist.If you don’t vote for McCain ,you are ageist ( or more likely - just sensible :-))
I’ve lived in San Francisco and Ohio, and this is false in both cases.
College campuses may be beyond it, but most of the country is not. As the economy tanks it will become worse.
I think it was gusty to say some things that every one talks about it hushed tones. I went to school in Philadelphia and used to live in an area which was considered dangerous it was all I could afford, I heard white colleagues say that they were afraid to walk to parking lots on campus after six because they feared getting mugged by African Americans from the neighborhood, I don’t think they would have made such strong statements in front of African American colleagues. I think on that front the speech was courageous.
Although I agree with you that there are other problems in America on race relations fronts than just Black and White issues.
Apologies meant “gutsy” not gusty above.
But it is black-white in a lot of important ways. In sentencing, school quality, job opportunities, healthcare (both quality of treatment and ultimate outcomes), black Americans have it worse than anyone.
I’m sympathetic to your point — I’m South Asian too and I would have liked to see more discussion of our new multiracial national identity. But I can’t blame him for focusing on the black-white divide, because, while the dominant culture is no longer purely White/Euro, our marginalized groups are still predominantly (though of course not exclusively) Black. In many measures, the country is still living with the same level of racial inequality we had during the Civil Rights Era. The laws have changed, Jim Crow is gone, but many of the inequalities remain.
Moreover, the shitstorm Obama was getting over Wright (and the previous week’s condescension by Geraldine Ferraro) was specifically related to his identity as an African-American. That’s significant. Latinos, Asians, and some multiracial people are being pulled into the mainstream of American life, and that’s awesome, but African-Americans are still substantially being kept separate. I don’t think it’s wrong for Obama to specifically discuss that.
True, this is a multi-racial country (post-racial, even). But Obama’s speech was focused on the still yawning black-white cultural divide. His pastor forced the issue, and Obama addressed it admirably. I’ll wait for the post-racial dialogue in another speech — this wasn’t the time or place for the multi-culti discussion that would have been even more interesting.
I think the reason folks (my mother included) were saying Obama’s speech was right up there with “I Have a Dream” is because there has been no other poignant speech on American race relations delivered by a national-level political figure since then. None. This speech was delivered at the right time, by the right person and (sadly or not) in the right amount. Like Alex said, America is still dialogging like it’s 1963. I kid you not, SOOO many people are still on, “That’s right his mama is white. He looks black though.” Then they’re sitting around trying to figure out if it’s still ok to use the world mulatto.
So, while our reality as a country might be one of multiculturalism, in the major metros and the Golden State anyway, don’t get it twisted, middle America is still as white as ever. Mexicans might as well be underground based on the level of influence they command.
Manish,
This is his first true speech that has people taking notice. He started with the issue that is closest to his heart - the black white divide.
There is lots of time for him to work all of us into the discussion. But i am glad he has raised the bar as far as national political discourse is concerned.
this post gave me a better jolt than my coffee this morning
While I have a few reservations either about Obama’s speech or Manish’s take on it, I am very happy about the level of the discourse on this blog. My experience has certainly been very different on other websites. I raise my hat to all of you……..
um.. he did say black white and brown, Manish. ; )
I heard him mention this morning that his Black friends supported his decision to deliver that speech, while his White friends were really worried about the repercussions. Sounded interesting to me.
Doesn’t sound so post-racial to me :) Did he also say if his friends are typical white people?
Not true, really. Thirteen years ago, SAME speech (with a little more humor) by Bill Clinton (!):
http://www.afn.org/~dks/race/clinton-e6.html
Nah, bro, it was the right speech at the right time, mentioning immigrants, whites, blacks together in the overall idea of sharing grievances, understanding their commonalities, and looking for common solutions. Don’t make this into a — hey, it didn’t say enuf about the BROWN! — kinda thing.
Great post Manish..I agree and disagree with you.
I thought obama limiting his speech to black or white is a wise thing to do, because addressing on race and racism is a wide topic and unless he chooses to specifically a topic like this one, it would not be an effective speech..so limiting to one issue is good specially a controversial topic like this.. yes he didnot address other races in US other than black and white, agree with u about that, but he talked about all that issue would be diluted.. so choose one issue about black and white racism made it a effective speech as racism is too broad a topic to address..
I thought it was good obama didnot cut it short just condemning his pastor..he stood by his preacher though he disagreed with his preachers political philosophies.. that was not only a smart move but also seemed very honest. You cannot disown people who are friends just because u dont agree with them in one political issue..It showed obamas integrity standing by his friends no matter what, which is specially risky when the whole controversy was around his preacher..In his speech he didnot use strong language against his preacher which shows how much courage and conviction this man has and how honest he is standing by the man who is lately a negative influence on his political career at this point… He citing examples of his grandma and all that showed a depth in his speech where he was able to distinguish how his grandmas and pastors generation had a different view of the world having gone through different experiences. This shows his maturity where he is able to look at life from different generations point of view.
ultimately I agree with u, every speech that any politician makes today is all a over cautious speech with not much depth..and there are different layers to each speech as you pointed out for different audience which is an excellent point you brought out Manish, but this speech was just perfect and came at the right time and seemed to be a very honest speech that came out..If u watched nightline on obamas speech , obama goes in depth into life of a blacks and how it is perceived more honestly and u can see he is talking from his personal experience.
I am reading his book now Dreams with my father where obama raises the racism issue more honestly and in much more depth and u can tell from the book also this man is honest, real and wrote to his book or made that speech based on his personal experiences and after a lot of struggle trying to identify himself and his race being born to a kenyan black father and a white mother and then raised by white grandparents… he writes in his book about racism with lots of examples where he himself is all confused walking everywhere with a white grandpa trying to identify who he is black or white and then u see this process of him growing up in that book realising what his true race is and what kind of black or white man he wanted to be and he is..u can see that struggle in him which is so so real through out his book too…his book and speech both seem so so real and honest to me Manish… see he did not get on the stage and say I dislike my preacher..I denounce him..if he was unreal and all hollywood and wanted votes he would do that..but he was not, he was real, so he choose to support his preacher and just condemned the political philosophy he didnot agree with his pastor..He said in his speech I cannot give up my preacher as I cannot give up my grandma..the emotion is honest there..u cant disown friends just because u dont agree to their political philosophies and just because u will loose an election because of that..that shows obamas real character, integrity and honesty.. I disagree with u Manish to the sentence that obamas speech is not real life and all hollywood..Nope to me it is all real..
uh… that essay should have been one sentence: “What Obama did not address in any detail: Latinos, who outnumber blacks in America. Asians. The multiracial. ”
i have no idea what the rest was for
I buried the lede right into your ennui.