Obama: Not a Black President?

It might seem a bit unfair to beat up on the underdog, as he rolls into Super-Duper Tuesday, especially as I might be mistaken for a Hilary supporter. So let me make this clear: I dislike Hilary just as much, I simply have less to say about her. Also, most of my friends are Obama supporters, and so I know the various arguments made for him better. Moreover, he gets invested with high hopes in a way, for better or for worse, Hilary does not. I think those high hopes are misplaced.

One common theme in left-liberal support, especially amongst my friends, for Obama is that he would be the first (truly) Black president. In a recent panel discussion, Cornel West fairly and clearly explained why this is just not so. The whole commentary is worth watching, but it boiled down to the argument that the criteria for assessing a president, or anyone else, has to be political, not symbolic: "What kind of courage have you manifested in the stances that you have?." The truth of Toni Morrison's otherwise irritating and endlessly reprduced proclamation that Bill Clinton was the first Black President is that being a 'Black politician' is not something one can be born into, and depends upon one's social position and political stances, rather than mere skin color. In fact, Obama has taken no risks for Blacks as a candidate, and indeed the offending incident that spurred West's criticism was Obama's decision not to participate the "State of Black America" forum.

The point is not just that Obama counts on Black support while never making any distinctive, risky appeals to them. It is that he seems to behave as if there simply is no serious, fundamental problem worthy of conflict and chance-taking in the first place. A comparison with Martin Luther King Jr. clarifies the point. Both Obama and King are seen as Black political figures who nonetheless managed to appeal to segments of white public opinion. They are therefore sometimes seens as 'unifiers' in the horrible lingo of American punditry. However, the difference(s) are more important than the similarities. Obama's message of unity is one totally opposed to the idea of fundamental or serious conflict. This has played well to those who quite fairly feel that much of the partisanship on Capitol Hill is empty and meaninglessly spiteful. However, he has taken his message of pragmatic unity, of let's all just get along and work things out, and turned it into an approach to all political problems. King, on the other hand, saw no problem with combining the idea of unity with a politics of conflict. To somewhat crudely summarize the relevant part of his politics, he recognized that society was already divided, and that his antagonists were the source of this division. It was only through his movement, which stood in conflict with the source of division, that some kind of unity could be achieved - that blacks and whites could live in harmony. His politics and rhetoric was at times militant, and became increasingly so as he realized just how deep the inequalities in American society were, and how intransigent certain elements - at the top no less than the bottom - were. If a kind of social harmony was the aim of politics, it was not the means. And he recognized the necessity of polarization and ideological confrontation. Obama admits of no such divisions, and rejects the necessity of serious disagreement, even militant conflict, in politics.

One might say the race issue no longer requires the kinds of militancy it did in the past. That might be true. Or at least, it might be true that the race issue can't be resolved as purely a race issue. Regardless, these are the kinds of issues that at the very least should be raised, and on which a Black president would at least be willing to take a stand, rather than gloss over and keep at a distance. Any group can tell when they are being used yet kept at an arms length. Obama is a Black presidential candidate in precisely that sense - only insofar as it helps him win votes, but never to the extent that it might be dangerous.