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?
Some may question my admitted cynicism about the political process in America and many have definitely questioned my prediction that Jeb Bush will be the Republican nominee. Perhaps this article below by investigative reporter Russ Baker may give you some understanding of my thinking and cynicism.
http://whowhatwhy.com/2012/02/29/the-jeb-scenario-can-you-say-president-bush-again/
Mike S., Same thing happened with my husband’s grandfather’s name from Russia although the grandmother’s family name remained quite similar and was traced back to Russia and hundreds of relatives worldwide have been found.
PS Ellis Island, huh. Guess that should qualify you as presidential potential. One island is as good as another as a starting point.
Of course your principles eliminate you.
idealist707 got the wheels turning after his statement about “mental masturbation”. Since this blog starts out about African Americans and this is the last day of “Black History Month” ; I was reminiscing over contributions from Blacks during the seventies. First of all, I’m not a racist and don’t let my comments throw you off, quite the contrary, I had some good friends during those hippy days that just happened to be black. Most of my experiences, especially with black women were good. The black dudes could always score some weed. The music of R & B soul singers still line my CD shelfs. The love of Motown music “almost” had me thinking there must have been a “Negro in the woodpile” of my ancestry,somewhere. During those years I grew very fond of pigger nussy and watermelon. It seemed that, the darker the sweeter. Loved ’em, everyone!
Mike S.
A mixture, as usual, of seriousness and joking.
How common is that name in the usa? I mean did they use the same short list to create more relatives so you soon felt at home here.
And did Leonard Cohen get his the same way in Canada?
Are from within or beyond the Pale?
And do you know your geneology on both sides?
Etc, There is no end to dumb jokes
Whew.
As for sound, yeah, it’s a winner even here. They’re very much appreciated funny as it may sound.
ID707,
Spindell was a name given to my paternal grandparents at Ellis Island, so I have little attachment to it except that I’ve always liked the way it sounds.
Mike S.
I wonder what non-sequitur defense Jill will offer now. Haven’t known her long, but her return smashes always end up in the same place.
As for names, you almost tempt me to do the same, but then it would then give my email away.
As for Idealist707, it mainly is a sardonic reference to someone out of touch with reality, longing for the ills of the world to go away.
And did you know that spindel is spider in swedish?
No slurs meant. I guess it’s german, as many of our words are here.
AN,
I am sure that there is much, much more that we’ll never know…. I have read where they have operatives…that’d be us in Syria….. Now, why would we need operatives there? Oh yeah…. Intelligence gathering….
Folksssssss!!!!!!!
I got THE answer. Yeah, you say, we’ve heard it before.
I’ve even got a name for it.
It’ll be called, guess???
“VOTE WITH YOUR REMOTE”
On an given date or better period, we all stop looking at channel news, and do something else. Those on the Nielsen or equal lists should do the same.
Results, unless they send out the NG, then our protest will be noticed.
The questions remaining:
—-Who’s your leader? Answer: Saul Alinsky.
—-What’s your agenda? Answer: MIC and TIC.
Any questions? Fire away at somebody you trust. Not me, I’m only the creative (aka disruptive) type.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/business/media/white-house-uses-espionage-act-to-pursue-leak-cases-media-equation.html?src=rechp
Blurred Line Between Espionage and Truth
By DAVID CARR
Published: February 26, 2012
Excerpt:
Jesselyn Radack, the director for national security and human rights at the Government Accountability Project, was one of the lawyers who represented him.
“The Obama administration has been quite hypocritical about its promises of openness, transparency and accountability,” she said. “All presidents hate leaks, but pursuing whistle-blowers as spies is heavy-handed and beyond the scope of the law.”
Mark Corallo, who served under Attorney General John D. Ashcroft during the Bush administration, told Adam Liptak of The New York Times this month that he was “sort of shocked” by the number of leak prosecutions under President Obama. “We would have gotten hammered for it,” he said.
As Mr. Liptak pointed out, it has become easier to ferret out leakers in a digital age, but just because it can be done doesn’t mean it should be.
These kinds of prosecutions can have ripples well beyond the immediate proceedings. Two reporters in Washington who work on national security issues said that the rulings had created a chilly environment between journalists and people who work at the various government agencies.
During a point in history when our government has been accused of sending prisoners to secret locations where they were said to have been tortured and the C.I.A. is conducting remote-controlled wars in far-flung places, it’s not a good time to treat the people who aid in the publication of critical information as spies.
And it’s worth pointing out that the administration’s emphasis on secrecy comes and goes depending on the news. Reporters were immediately and endlessly briefed on the “secret” operation that successfully found and killed Osama bin Laden. And the drone program in Pakistan and Afghanistan comes to light in a very organized and systematic way every time there is a successful mission.
There is plenty of authorized leaking going on, but this particular boat leaks from the top. Leaks from the decks below, especially ones that might embarrass the administration, have been dealt with very differently. (end of excerpt)
SwM,
Gotta run … dentist appointment
Mike S.
I think you have hit the virtual strawman/woman between the eyes…. Regardless of which way the wind blows…you are still respective and respectful of the others position….too bad those that claim to be the victim here have been usually the unrequited aggressor…..
Here’s a good opinion piece in the NYTimes entitled “What Mitt Lost While He Won”
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/what-mitt-lost-while-he-won/?nl=opinion&emc=tya1
SwM,
I find myself in a most interesting situation.
Due to redistricting, Kucinich is now in my district. But, a really superb Democrat, Marcy Kaptur, is running against him in the primary. Given Kucinich’s ties to Ron Paul, I have decided to vote for Kaptur. Never thought I would say that I wasn’t going to vote for Kucinich if given the opportunity to do so.
Check out her web site.
I have no idea who will win.
“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?”
Jill,
Now you are getting ridiculous in your vitriol. Show me one statement where I implied anything like the formulation you wrote above. When have I called you, or anyone else who intends to vote against Obama for the same reasons they voted against Bush, evil? I called you out specifically because you continue to attack me and the others on this blog who intend to vote for Obama in hurtful, patronizing terms. You set yourself up on a high horse of moral conscience looking down on those “poor fools” such as myself, who by their political position lack your moral fiber. That you are able to set up a total “straw man” and then viciously attack it displays enormous dishonesty on your part. This has been an ongoing thing with you on this site for years and when called on it, you use some version of the “I’m being victimized” defense, such as this. All you have to do to prove me wrong in this is show me one instance where I characterized you as being evil.
“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!”
Who in hell is “Jill”, purportedly a female, to call me a coward? Jill might be your name, or it might be a pseudonym, we have no way of knowing. We don’t know what work “Jill” has done in her life, or really anything about “her” life. We do know that she hates Barack Obama and has hated him from before he became President. I think, if I recall correctly that while “Jill” didn’t vote for George Bush, she didn’t vote for his Democratic opponents either. I believe it was Nader, if I recall correctly, but then you see that is the advantage of your anonymity you can be many things at once.
We do know that you speak the language of tolerance, but in a most intemperate and intolerant manner. All you produce is the negative political energy of a pretended moral elitist, that harms whatever cause you champion. You may even be a slick ALEC operative coming at liberals from the Left? Now as for me I use my real name, people here know much about my life and my career and as we know in these days of the Internet that does expose me to a certain amount of vulnerability. Yet I express my ideas openly and that is hardly the work of a coward.
As for your certainty as to who JT will vote for perhaps you possess certain psychic powers not available to the rest of us. JT always makes his positions clear, however, I don’t remember him supporting any political candidate. He keeps his voting to himself as far as I know and when it comes to what he sees is wrong, he is an equal opportunity offender. His effectiveness in the work he does would be undercut if he was to be partisan and so I doubt he will become openly partisan in this election.
Nevertheless, JT has never demanded of me, or indeed any guest blogger, that we agree with him on all points and all issues. As far as my differences of opinion with him on certain issues, I have also stated on many occasions, but shown again above, that JT’s legal work and teaching demands a certain rigor on his part, that my writing doesn’t. I’m not the national symbol of the defense of the Constitution and Civil Liberties that he is. I’m just an old fart really named Mike Spindell giving my insights, hoping I make some sense to someone and that I’m making a small, positive difference in doing so. One thing I’m not though and one thing I’ve never been is a moral coward and I resent your appellation, no matter how misguided it may be.
blouise, I don’t know how the junior league is up there but down here it is definitely an all white republican organization. One would rarely find an Obama supporter in the crowd.
anon nurse, The republicans chose a lengthened primary season so I guess complaints should be directed to the RNC. It hasn’t worked out so well for them so they might be receptive.
Swarthmore mom 1, February 29, 2012 at 1:06 pm
anon nurse, And what is the solution to the candidate show? Suspend the campaigns?
——————-
“Suspend the campaigns?” No, of course not. But perhaps we could shorten the process. The “candidate show” is unnecessarily protracted, to our detriment, IMO.
Blouise, i thought the junior league was a republican women’s organization the south. lol
Raff,
I suppose if this was a junior league show… It’d be OK….because everyone is afraid to be different…. But will sit back and snark amongst themselves about how terrible the leader is… Or what the other is wearing…or checking to make sure they have the right purse…right shoes…right clothes….right hair cut…. Strive to be different in that circle and you won’t be among them….It is called social cutthroat….