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?
Jill, Has JT told you whom he is voting for? He has thrown a few bouquets Ron Paul’s way but it doesn’t look like he will be on the ballot in the fall does it? He and Romney are the only candidates able to compete in Virginia so maybe he can vote for him in the primary but after that nada.
AN,
Thanks so much for the continual enterprising excerpts….
Jill,
There is so much we can agree upon….. The you go and call everyone evil that supports Obama… That is not the case…. Your Brand of political correctness is as acidic as the other spectrum…. Take a chill pill…. No one is right 100 Percent of the time and no one is wrong 100 percent of the time… Even in horseshoes close counts….
anon nurse et al,
Didn’t I say I was watching. And all my clones too. We’re up to HAL the 100 millonth now.
BTW, what’s the TIC and ????.
Many thinkers predicted that so called social issues would be used to keep people not only apart but blind to underlying reality. The manipulation of one group or another’s oppression on behalf of people who couldn’t care less about social justice is disgusting.
As anon nurse and other people try to show, while the fake “differences” of wholly owned candidates are paraded about to whip up our population, they govt. is very busy doing all kinds of things to people both hear and overseas–actions that are really heinous. The candidate show helps to keep us misdirected. The use of identity politics takes a legitimate need for social justice and twists it into one more form of manipulation by completely unscrupulous candidates/presidents.
Someone will have to explain the coherence of people who argue the following: Voting against GWB because he trashed civil liberties, tortured, killed civilians, spied on lawful activities, arrested and punished whistleblowers, destroyed our economy, aided and abetted financial fraud and was a war monger was a good thing to do. People who vote against Obama for these same reasons are evil, no good, awful people who are just refusing for their own self esteem and because they won’t get past their conscience. How are both of these statements true at the same time?
BTW, JT isn’t voting for Obama and speaks out against what Obama is doing. Therefore he needs to clearly be included in the class of evil, no good people who refuse to support Obama due to wanting to raise his self esteem and being unable to get past his conscience! I’m hoping the people who argue these types of thing will say this directly about JT, otherwise, I’m going to say you are a coward!
“President Obama needs the black vote and is trying to shore up his numbers in that demographic.” -quercus454
Yep.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/africanamericans complete with “fact sheets” for anyone who’s interested…
AY,
Little surprises me anymore… And yep, the MIC (or TIC) is stronger than ever…
——————————————-
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/high-tide-and-turn/2012/feb/28/why-government-monitoring-social-media-networks/
Why is the government monitoring social media networks?
Excerpt:
Has the “war on terror” gone too far? Yes, say law-abiding citizens who feel targeted by the Fed’s newest belligerent actions – against them.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
DALLAS, February 28, 2012 — When a facebook user posted a negative comment about a presidential candidate to a private page, he found himself in a whole mess of trouble, with authorities showing up at his workplace and later arriving at his home to interrogate him.
According to Jason Brashear of Citizen Wars who reported Sunday that the facebook user, also named Jason, had contacted him with the story, a local police officer and two sheriffs showed up at his home, explaining, “We are here because of a possible threat to Senator Santorum based on your Facebook comment.”
The comment in question? “I wish there was a magic wand to make Senator Santorum disappear,” which Jason had posted to a private political thread.
The officer explained he had made his appearance at Jason’s house,
“..to view the home and make sure that there were no pictures of the former Senator Rick Santorum or evidence that Jason was planning something against the former Senator.”
The officer explained the US Government has a system to monitor and scan all social sites like Facebook for key words that might raise suspension of ill intent. The officer stated that Jason was ‘flagged due to his post on Facebook.’
Chris Frierson said, “we are here to warn you that there is a very fine line between freedom of speech and a threat.” He told Jason “Be thankful that it is just the Austin Police Department here and not the secret service as they would be going through your entire house and documents.”
The officer said that he concluded Jason was not a threat and reported that in his statement.
This disturbing story coincides with reports from last week that The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been paying a defense contractor $11.4 million to monitor social media websites and other Internet communications to find criticisms of the department’s policies and actions. Noel Brinkerhoff reports that a government watchdog organization, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), obtained hundreds of documents from DHS through the Freedom of Information Act and found details of the arrangement with a contractor, General Dynamics.
… and the story continues
Bob Esq.
I’m on a roll, so allow me a last point.
Your grasping for the support of the Professor’s principles as a standard and a support for an unequivocably principled life is futile.
Just the other day, the Professor stated his acquaintance with drunk tanks,
joking of course and not to be taken literally, but symbolically and definitely emphasizing that he was not talking down at us from his high horse. Simply saying, as does Obama at the UAW meeting, I’m one of you too.
Not without sin, so I cast no stones, but feel the right to preach just as JC did. As JC said, I am son of man. No better can any of us say, regardless of principles.
OK?
AN,
Does that really surprise you….. Cheney in waiting…. Has not a clue about the strength of the commercialize military industrial complex……
I think it is obvious that the President isn’t the uniter, that was promised. He has consistently used race and ethnicity to continue to divide this country. Now that he is in full campaign mode why should it be any different? President Obama needs the black vote and is trying to shore up his numbers in that demographic.
What amazes me is that not more of the black population has not abandoned the hope and change man. Blacks are probably the most hurt in today’s hard economic times. The not my fault excuse will only get you so far. One of these days folks are going to connect the dots and see that race and ethnicity is being used as a tool to keep us divided. The longer we have the us and them mentality, no real accounting of government will occur.
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/2/29/leaked_stratfor_email_suggests_secret_us
“Leaked Stratfor Email Suggests Secret U.S. Indictment of WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange”
Too many secrets… they’ll be the death of us yet…
Bob,
Notice I took away the Esq.? ** That’s because you can’t be a practicing lawyer (hear me out, don’t close your mind and come with a rebuttal consisting of facts)—-because the lawyer must of need practice in reality.
Your harangue on the virtue (not values it seems to me) of integrity is null and void when you’re standing in court which is handling a reality case.
Your job, and with due respect to your oath at the bar, is to defend your clients standpoint/position.
To enter into the ultimate battle of politics and power, with no more than your principles is to be laughed at and “killed” power-wise.
Now, we are forced by our genes to be survival machines for their sake.
You are committing them to disappearing from the gene pool.
Just to even things up, mom taught me to introduce myself with a Esquire after my surname. Had pretension, she did. Will tell a better one next time.
Amusing when it stops hurting. Shared experiences are great. I share yours, but not the illusion of principles being a good life guide. without any fudging with yourself. We could say, look what principles got Manning.
A line in history (maybe), and a life of hell.
Principles are beautiful, but not in a hot kitchen.
id707,
“Funny we got so many Cains around as presidential candidates. I thought Cain was the guy who killed Able. Obviously a name to beware of.”
lol … that’s thinking outside the box.
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/McCaffrey_Barry (Since I veered OT, I’ll add that McCaffrey appears to have ties (loose ties?) to PNAC:
“Serving alongside McCaffrey were neoconservative ideologues associated with the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) as well as several hawkish public officials, including Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), former UN Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, and ex-CIA chief James Woolsey.1 McCaffrey signed PNAC’s 2005 letter to congressional leaders calling for funding to increase the size of the military ground forces in order to meet the “generational commitment” of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.” )
I intended to post the McCaffrey story to one of the “Iran” articles… OT… My apologies.
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/28/gen_mccaffrey_privately_briefs_nbc_execs_on_war_with_iran/singleton/
“Gen. McCaffrey privately briefs NBC execs on war with Iran”
by Glenn Greenwald
Feb 28, 2012
Mike,
Nothing you said diminishes my point since all you did was campaign for me to adopt a more jaded view of politics.
I never brought up the topic of the election, who you’d vote for or why; yet you felt duty bound to defend yourself by referring to me as naive.
I consider myself to have the same sensibilities as Jonathan Turley here on the topic of integrity; would you ever make the same comments to him as you did me?
See the problem?
“Nothing you said diminishes my point since all you did was campaign for me to adopt a more jaded view of politics.”
Bob,
Are you serious in that statement, or are you just playing word games to make a point through tortured logic, that really has no basis? I’m not campaigning for you to have any particular political view at all. I did express my political view which is quite jaded as I clearly admitted.
“I never brought up the topic of the election, who you’d vote for or why; yet you felt duty bound to defend yourself by referring to me as naive.”
First of all Bob, context is important, though easily dismissed by someone cherry-picking words, to make a shaky point.
The 10:48 comment, which you chose to reply to was in reaction to this statement by Jill below:
“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.”
That you never brought up the topic of the election is quite irrelevant, since you reacted to a comment that I made that was all about the 2012 election. You are being disingenuous by ignoring that fact and I have to put it that way because I have too much respect for your intelligence to think that you didn’t understand that was the case.
As to referring to you and/or JT (nice try Bob but too obviously a rhetorical tactic) as naive I didn’t.
“Nevertheless, the view that integrity and politics, from any human era or place, are congruent, is naive at best. Politics is the struggle for power and that was as true for the Founding Fathers, representing the nascent nations wealthiest citizens, as it is today.”
That wasn’t an attack on anyone, that was an expression of personal opinion as to the nature of the political process that we humans practice.
I believe that you Bob, would have a hard time proving the thrust of that statement incorrect. Politics is and always has been a struggle for power. That some couch it as religion, philosophy, morality, etc., is merely the disguises assumed by the egocentric and the power hungry to rise to the top of the human heap. Is this my cynicism? “You Betcha!”
“I consider myself to have the same sensibilities as Jonathan Turley here on the topic of integrity; would you ever make the same comments to him as you did me?”
What in my writing made you believe that I don’t share the same personal sensibilities regarding integrity that you or Jonathan share? The difference is, however, that you and Jonathan are lawyers and I’m merely a social worker and psychotherapist. Jonathan is a well-known Constitutional Scholar, Law Professor and defender of the Constitution. As such, he must necessarily view issues through that lens since his life’s work has been defense of the Constitution, civil liberties and government encroachment into diminishing our rights as citizens. You to are a lawyer, though I don’t know the nature of your practice, but I assume whatever it might be you maintain the highest level of integrity there in. I applaud that.
I’m someone whose career was always about helping those in need, whether through poverty, race or physical disability. My work is quite different from a lawyer’s work and what I’ve experience in my work is quite different from what the two of you have experienced. I’ve also been a political activist of sorts and that too has led me to experience a great deal about the behind the scenes activities of politics.
From a lawyer’s perspective the guiding issues should be the facts of the issue and their applicability to the rule of law. From a social worker’s perspective the work is about human suffering, the amelioration and/or relief from it. When I vote it is with my direct knowledge of lives destroyed by the inequality fostered and maintained by our political system. It comes from long term and quite direct experience of the despair and heroism of average people trying to just get by in life. I’ve seen and experienced things that most people in this country aren’t even aware exist. Has it made me cynical about the political process and the rhetoric that characterizes America political discussion, you’re damned right it has.
While I admit readily to having a jaded view of the political process in America (and the rest of the world for that matter), my own work and life has been one of the highest integrity, or trust me I wouldn’t be in the financial position I’m in today. In my career I never once compromised my personal integrity and ideals, although had I done so I would have received great rewards. I don’t know what struggles either you, or anyone else here has had to go through in their lives, so I can’t comment on whether you/they have met them with integrity. Integrity, nevertheless is easy to bandy about in philosophical, political and moral terms, it is hard to actually practice it i ones’ personal life. If you don’t get my perspective Bob, after I’ve basically bared my soul here through being open and honest, then that is just too bad.
Let me though make one final effort at explanation of where I’m coming
from. I believe this country has never been the “Democracy” it has purported itself to be. I believe it has always been run by an elite plutocracy and that the traumas this nation has undergone like the many assassinations and 9/11 have been stagecraft hiding the real stories. Yet if I fully immersed myself in that viewpoint all I would have left would be to despair at the follies of human existence. Therefore it is my choice to act and believe that things can change and that humanity may yet evolve from our predatory natures. With that belief comes a duty to not only work to keep things from getting worse for the majority of people, but also work to try to make things better. Yet I see the former issue of keeping things from getting worse as predominant.
Blouise, Santorum said too many crazy things the last few days.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/28/indefinite-military-deten_n_1308129.html “Barack Obama Waives Rule Allowing Indefinite Military Detention Of Americans”
don’t-tread,
You casting stuff at T-dog gives me reason to say “guarding” for you expresses itself as “mental masturbation”—-somebody elses phrase, but I “authorised” that particular use.
I betcha you voted for McCain. Funny we got so many Cains around as presidential candidates. I thought Cain was the guy who killed Able. Obviously a name to beware of.
Black voters have predominately voted democratic since the 50’s. I don’t think they even care how far left or right a candidate leans. Obummer’s plea shows there has been a slight shift in numbers. I truly believe, the more educated and socially integrated African-Americans become, the more independant and conservative they vote. If Obummer has the next term sewed up, as he jests, why all the fuss for black votes? On the matter of his plea being an issue of race targeting; it’s a non-issue. Oh yea, the T dog better get back under the porch, cause, he’s got a hold of some anti-freeze somewhere; making comments such as ..”Great president by the way”….LOL!! Evidently he has been hiding under the porch for the last three years, while the rest of us have been standing guard.