President Barack Obama this month launched “African Americans For Obama.” This video shows Obama with an articulate and moving message tied to African American month, but is it the right message? There is no question this is a direct appeal to race as a unifying theme with supporters — a move that would be denounced if tried by his white opponents. In the video, Obama states “I don’t think there’s a better time than Black History Month” for this effort, but some view this as the worst time for an open injection of race as a motivating factor in politics. I am frankly divided on the issue because I can see the justified pride of this community in President Obama. However, I remain uneasy over a direct appeal from the President on race — just as I have criticized past appeal to sectarian religious groups by presidential candidates.
It has long been a touchstone of American politics that appeals to race are dangerous and divisive. That certainly does not mean that race is not a factor in politics. However, the common open references to race that marred prior elections in the sixties and even the seventies were considered things of the past. If African Americans are united by their racial bond with Obama, does that mean that other candidates can appeal openly to white communities? Clearly other communities organize around their common identities from Cubans to Koreans to Italians. However, organizing solely on the basis for skin color should raise some legitimate concerns and objections, in my view. Indeed, we have strongly condemned past candidates who made even veiled references to race.
One answer could be that blacks have a shared history of oppression that whites lack. This history gives them a special bond not found in other communities. I do believe that argument has merit. Yet, this is a significant change in the long-standing aversion to open appeal to race as a unifying theme.
It is an interesting issue that is worthy of debate among people of good faith. It is not just limited to politics (though that tends to be the most unnerving). There is a growing movement toward incorporating race and gender distinctions in public policies. I have previously written about how we have reinforced segregation principles in our schools and prisons (here and here and here). I do see the distinction drawn by those who see a clear distinction for African Americans and I find aspects of that argument quite compelling. However, in the long struggle to remove race from politics, this troubles some of us.
On the social level, there is also a growing trend toward voluntary segregation. There is an array of race-based dating sites, the most prominent being BlackPeopleMeet which advertises widely. Once again, the question is the likely response to a dating date for white people. Unlike religious dating sites which deal with communities with established religious practices and limitations in dating, a race-based dating site offers a form of voluntary segregation.
It creates an interesting contrast in how our laws treat real and virtual meeting spaces. The Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation. Thus, a public restaurant cannot adopt the exclusionary practices as the place “where Black people eat” or “where White people eat.” Yet, presumably these sites are restricted to members of particular races. These are perfectly legal as associations, of course.
I also realize that associations have long been defined on exclusionary groups from Italian-Americans to Irish-Americans to share cultural norms and practices. Moreover, I do not question the right of people to choose racially exclusive associations — as much as I abhor them. I understand that people feel that they need the shared experiences and culture in such sites. I support the right to have such sites and association regardless of my dislike for racial exclusionary practices. However, I believe this trend — particularly in politics — undermines rather than advances the cause of men like Martin Luther King and the successes highlighted during Black History month. To that end, I think that the President is being a bit irresponsible in organizing part of his campaign along racial lines. I have leveled similar criticism on this blog and in columns over candidates making sectarian appeals to their own faith groups. A reference to a candidate’s own faith can have the same divisive (if unintended) impact on our political discussion.
More than anyone else, a president should be a unifying figure in our country. I did not vote for Obama because he was black and I do not believe that people should support or oppose him on that basis now. What is fascinating is that Obama doesn’t even need to organize along race. He has always received overwhelming support in the black community. Yet, his campaign has decided to take this step despite the inevitable criticism for “playing the race card.” While race will continue to play a role for many citizens in their voting, the President should stick to “Americans For Obama” rather than organize citizens according to their race in my view.
What do you think?
Mike, have you seen some of the latest social psychology studies that show the very rich and successful (in the financial sense) are more likely than not to see nothing wrong with cheating, scamming or stealing? The constant found in the studies was that the rich seem to see greed as a normal, even desirable, behavior.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/rich-study-finds-wealthy-weaselly-article-1.1029673
My heritage is of someone whose Grandparents were all immigrants, whose Grandmothers spoke limited English and were both illiterate. Born before the end of WWII I was still in Elementary School when this country had overall negative feelings towards Jews. The last anti-Jewish slur directed at me came in High School. In my household there was pride in every Jewish success story and in every famous Jewish performer and politician. We definitely saw their trailblazing as a beginning towards the end of anti-Jewish bigotry. Jews today are for the most part accepted throughout this country, but I know from the generation prior to mine, about hotels that would refuse Jewish guests and towns with signs at their borders saying “no Jews and Dogs Allowed”. Arthur Godfrey, the famous TV performer in the 1950’s, owned a Miami Hotel that refused Jewish guests and yet was a revered figure throughout this country.
However, Jews had a great advantage over Black Americans. Our skin color was white and those first generation Jews like my parents spoke perfect English. My own name Spindell is not a characteristically Jewish name, with my blond hair and blue eyes many people I’ve met through the years never suspected I was Jewish, unless I told him and would be surprised when I did. Funny, I don’t look Jewish. While Jews had to overcome prejudice in this country, our history here is not comparable to what was inflicted upon Black Americans.
Brought to this country in chains. Having a systematic effort made to destroy their family structure, erase their rich culture and heap upon them every disadvantage imaginable, Black people have had to work twice as hard as any other American ethnicity to even reach the less than equal heights they have reached today. Every other ethnicity in this country has supported those of its own in both politics and professions. Certainly this is true of the Irish, Poles, Italians, as well as Jews. Why is it illogical for Black people to support their own, or for Black politicians to ask for that support from other Blacks? To me this is a non-issue.
Haven’t opted out of the discussion but my internet connection is suffering fits and spurts which is highly unusual. Called and was told engineers are working on this area wide problem.
Best to not submit myself to the frustration of spending time on a post and then be unable to actually post.
Later
“I am sort of curious about your remark about Cain. Caricature of a Black man? You mean a really smart, hardworking, decent guy?”
Bron,
That you would pose this question indicates the gap between our world view. To you anyone who has had success in the business world is automatically smart and capable. To me success in business can be an indication of intelligence, or it could be due to a lot of other factors having nothing to do with ones capabilities. My knowledge and judgment of Herman Cain have little to do with his past successes, because frankly I hadn’t heard of him until this election. My judgment is based on his pronouncements and policies articulated in his abortive campaign. From those pronouncements he seems to me to be a relatively stupid man, lacking political insight.
Again, so many mistakes in thinking. Membership in an oppressed group does not tell you anything about who that person is as an individual. It tells you they are a member of an oppressed group. As such, social justice demands that their oppression end. This would be true of women, LBGT, class, race, religion–any oppression is wrong and needs to be rectified.
This mistake in thinking is to jump to the idea that being a member of an oppressed group is a reason to support someone’s candidacy. The reason to support a candidate is their actions.
His dad was African. His mom was American. That brings us to African American. No better example. Great President by the way.
Thanks Jonathan for posting this . I’m sure some of the vocal supporters of this president will call you racist for saying anything that they fear will expose the obvious truth that is not so obvious to those who live in bubble and have hidden racist psychic structures that compel them to call others racists to feel good about their inner despicable characters . God help decontaminate this nation from these “moms” and their children from these moms and Grandfathers .
He is half whtte and was raised white. So I consider him white, not black.
“Because you are a loyal Democrat you are willing to overlook Obama’s actions. I suggest to you that that is as much of a mistake as the overlooking of actions by Republican candidates/former presidents done by loyal Republicans.”
Jill,
You’re still at it making insulting characterizations of those who would vote for Obama. This is despite the fact that both SwM and I, have time and again presented our reasoning on the subject, which in neither case is knee-jerk partisanship. We are of course not the only ones here that that have expressed that we would vote for him, but you seem to focus on one of us when you get the opportunity. That opportunity arises for you whenever you feel that you can score a point, whether on or off topic.
I would suggest that it is your hatred for Obama, of long standing, that causes you to keep doing this. Moreover, time and again you have been asked to provide your viable alternatives for this coming election and you have failed. Perhaps, despite your protestations of seemingly being progressive, you really wish to see Santorum, or Romney elected. Your answer would no doubt be that it doesn’t matter who gets elected, since both parties are the same. While I’ve written numerous times that both Parties are corporate entities, I’ve also drawn clear distinctions as to the potential destructiveness of Republicans. Now my take on you, as I’ve expressed before, is that you are among the group of seeming political “purists” who will stick by their “principles”, damning the consequences.
Had you been of age to vote in 1968 you would have no doubt refused to vote for Humphrey and as such would bear some minor responsibility for the deaths that occurred in Viet Nam, due specifically to Nixon’s election. I’m sure that you voted for Nader in 2000 and 2004, thus also bearing minor responsibility for the devastation of Iraq, Afghanistan, our economy and our Constitution, cause by wanting to maintain your purported “political purity”.
That you will probably vote for Buddy Roehmer, if he runs as a third party candidate would only be an indication of your needing to maintain a sense of political purity to bolster your self-esteem. Unfortunately, you no doubt feel that you are a sophisticated observer of the political scene, but frankly your view is hopelessly naive.
Lest you resort to your off-used tactic of playing victim in this, let me remind you that there are also many people who I respect deeply on this blog who will not vote for Obama and whose positions I’ve acknowledged as being truly principled. The difference twixt them and you, is that they acknowledge that others could have a different view and still remain people of principle. In your world of stark black and white vision there can be no nuance and in the end that is your handicap.
Janitor, Very good post. Yesterday I read about a new orthodox group, “Jews for Rick”.
Just a point of interest. There are many studies in psychology using what are called ‘sorting tests.’ What the tests are designed to measure is not important for the purpose of this discussion, but in the comments I see several that demonstrate exactly the reasoning (albeit some is snark) it takes to do a sorting tests.
In a typical sorting test, the subject is given a pile of tokens. The tokens will be of different sizes, shapes and colors. As for shapes, some may be square, some round, some triangular and so forth. There may be several colors represented. Then some will be large and some small. The subject will be asked to sort the tokens into the most logical manner for them personally. As might be expected, confusion often ensues, but then we find almost every permutation imaginable in the final sort piles.
Lessee now, Bachmann is female, but known for her odd thinking and the poster girl for putting Thorazine in the drinking water. Obama, West and Cain are all of African heritage, but the latter two are…..let’s say out of the mainstream in thinking. Ron Paul is an Old White Guy with a political platform and sales pitch reminiscent of a snake oil salesman. Santorum is coming across as a religious zealot who makes Elmer Gantry look normal by comparison–it is a cosmic joke that his name rhymes with sanitarium. Gingrich is…well, we all know what he is. Mittens is a walking, talking gaffe machine with all the boyish charm of a robot. And so forth. What to do? Oh, what to do?
Only candidate with brown hair….Romney. Guess I’ll have to vote for him!
BTW, Obama also has a Jewish Americans for Obama site, a Latinos for Obama, a Asian/Pacific Islanders for Obama, Women for Obama, Young People for Obama…..So again to piggy back off the Janitor, why is this a discussion again? Also in terms of tailoring a message specifically to African Americans he has tailored messages to all sorts of groups outside of the white community. EVERY politician/candidate does this. Why is it being scrutinized because he’s doing it now, when it is part of the political game?!?!
Swm:
If someone would have asked me in the year 2012 would the Supreme Court possibly send us back to the 50s&60s I would have thought that they were crazy.
They are our new Congress people and Senators.
Good questions, id707. They kind of shatter the illusions that we are really on an even playing field. Affirmative action will probably be going away soon also with Supreme Court getting ready to hear the Texas case.
Mike Spindell:
I am sort of curious about your remark about Cain. Caricature of a Black man? You mean a really smart, hardworking, decent guy?
As far as the women are concerned, nothing Jack Kennedy or Bill Clinton didnt do. So I am not sure what racist undertones you are talking about.
@Turley & all,
I appreciate the conversations on this site more than most others b/c they’re usually informative and intellecutally stimulating. That said, I must say I’m a bit disapointed that we’re even having this particular discussion. Questioning whether a Black president can speak to the Black constituency in America? Really? Look folks, this is not a zero-sum game here; Obama’s acknowledgment of his Blackness does not mean he loves or supports White Americans any less, and that is the bottom line that needs to be understood.
Moreover, if we are honest with ourselves, the fact that we are even having this conversation further demonstrates that Americans, and in particular White Americans, are still not comfortable with the topic of race. Even in 2012. Nothing about Obama’s message here should even so much as raise an eyebrow to non-Blacks, yet here we are questioning it. Why? Because even in 2012 it still makes some people uncomfortable to admit that it’s not always about us or about our particular perspective 100% of the time.
America is a diverse nation. In other words, we shouldn’t want everybody to shed their identities/cultures and be “just like us.” Instead, we should embrace everybody’s right to be who they are. This was the point of the Civil Rights movement, by the way: acceptance and equality. Not assimilation.
To all who call themselves “whites”,
How must if feel to see your President derided by so much crap? How must it feel to see the Republicans erecting barrriers to your voting? How must if feel going to a white bank and seeking a loan?
To a white business seeking a job? To a mixed date place? To a white restaurant? To just about anywhere, for that matter?