Talking white

John McLaughlin of public TV's the McLaughlin Group  aroused liberal outrage by calling Barack Obama an "oreo" during last weekend's show. 

So did Ralph Nader for accusing Barack Obama of "talking white".  And Jesse Jackson by threatening to emasculate Obama for "talking down to black people".

McLaughlin summed up the criticism of Obama by Nader and Jackson this way:

"The point of contention is that instead of Obama solely lecturing African Americans on parental duty, particularly fathers, he should have also given equal attention to the large and many believe prejudicial incarceration rate for blacks, their lack of economic opportunity and other public policy issues that limit choices for black males."

He's right. All three are right.  Obama is trying desperately to win a majority of the "white" vote (which no Democratic presidential candidate has done since the 1964 passage of the Civil Rights Act) by running what some have called a "post racial" campaign, frequently using the conservative catch phrase "personal responsibility" to scold black men for shirking their familial duties. Although such talk may resonate with whites, it doesn't play well with descendants of African American slaves, especially older ones,  a distinction that Obama can't claim. His mother was white, his father a Kenyan.  His ancestors weren't American slaves.

Obama's campaign is politically astute but racially and historically insensitive.  Smart politics is why he threw over his longtime pastor Jeremiah Wright, a slave descendant who had good reason to say "goddamn America!"  And it's why John McLaughlin proclaimed on the same show:

"But then he’s exactly what Jeremiah Wright says he is. He will do whatever’s necessary to win."

Given the publication of Douglas Blackmon's new book, Slavery by Another Name, which provides documented evidence  that for tens of thousands of black Americans, slavery --involuntary and unpaid servitude-- didn't end until World War II, I don't believe we've reached the era of "post racial" politics.  And neither should Barack Obama. 

How can that be slavery didn't actually end until the 1940's?  How is it that slavery was re-established and practiced in the South for nearly 80 years after it had been officially outlawed?  I'm not talking about Jim Crow segregation or lynching.  That's well known and well documented.  I'm talking about a concerted effort to restore the system of coerced labor that the South relied on for its economic survival .  The "Slave Codes" prior to emancipation were simply replaced with what southern legislatures called "Black Codes". 

Here's an excerpt from Blackmon's interview with Bill Moyers (the incomparable and indispensable Bill Moyers):

"The results of those laws and the results of particularly enforcing them with such brutality through this forced labor system, the result of that was that African-Americans thousands and thousands of them worked for years and years of their lives with no compensation whatsoever, no ability to end up buying property and enjoying the mechanisms of accumulating wealth in the way that white Americans did. This was a part of denying black Americans access to education, denying black Americans access to basic infrastructure, like paved roads, the sorts of things that made it possible for white farmers to become successful.

"And so, yes, this whole regime of the Black Codes, the way that they were enforced, the physical intimidation and racial violence that went on, all of these were facets of the same coin that made it incredibly less likely that African-Americans would emerge out of poverty in the way that millions of white Americans did at the same time."

I would add that the buying and selling of black men through much of the twentieth century allowed them scant opportunity for the learning of "personal responsibility."  That's an historical reality that can't be ignored in "post racial" America.

Bill Moyers calls Blackmon's book "stunning".  It's that, and more. 

It should be required reading for all "post racial" politicians.  In fact, it should be required reading for anyone compelled to comment on the state of race relations in this country.

Comments

[RichW]

My take is a bit diferent here. It is that Obama was talking to a target audience with a target message -one that may not be popular but based in fact. Obama is no "oreo" or "uncle Tom". His credentilas as a community activist prove that.

The problem I see that he has is that whenever he has a target audience and gives a target message, his words are twisted into something that is played against him. This was the case when he tried to tell those San Francisco liberals why rural whites were clinging to guns and religion. I took his words to be empathetic while most others took it to be insulting.

While I don't agree with some of Obama's votes, especially on FISA, if you look at what he promises, he really is consistent - i.e. working for a consensus of thought, finding the middle ground where everyone wins a little.

That means that those who want to continue the culture war and the political war with rancor and venom see Obama as a threat to their ego-based polarized views. That is too bad, because truly progressive goals should elevate the human condition, even among those who don't want to move on.

[Terry]

I can see Obama as a consensus builder or a conciliator, but not necessarily as a progressive. Like all politicians, he's doing what he has to do to win. Or does he?

Polls show most Americans are willing to go further than Obama on a number of issues. AS Arianna Huffington has argued, he jeopardizes his candidacy by being too conciliatory, too centrist. He'll get the black vote, and he'll get most of the progressive vote, but the people he has to win over -independents, for example- may be put off by some of his squishy stances.

[Harry Kershner]

Terry: I agree with most of what you say, and I appreciate the progressive perspective. However, I want to again call you on your (and Arianna's) misuse of the term "centrist".

Here's what David Sirota (In search of the American 'center') has to say:

"As the Associated Press claimed in a typical description, Obama's shifts are designed 'to appeal to the center of the electorate.'

However, empirical data prove 'the center of the electorate' is exactly the opposite:

-- Polls by Quinnipiac University and the Mellman Group found majorities support warrant requirements for wiretaps and oppose immunity for companies that released private consumer information without such warrants.

-- Surveys by Fortune magazine, CNN and the Wall Street Journal report that most Americans oppose NAFTA-style trade policies.

-- For years, major polls have consistently shown Americans want a firm timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. As just one of many examples, five separate USA Today surveys since 2007 have shown majorities want the president to 'set a timetable for removing troops from Iraq and to stick to that timetable regardless of what is going on in Iraq.'

So, the undebatable evidence tells us precisely where the center of public opinion is. Yet when a presidential candidate moves away from the center, we are told he is moving toward it. What gives?"

Obama was never a progressive. Look at Nader's centrist issues and tell me which ones were ever supported by him.

[trueblue]

Terry, similar to the divide between new and old school "feminists" your comments reflect a generational divide between new and old school liberals. You do not want to abandon the intensely partisan politics of the past, as typified by your preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton. You dislike Obama's "post-partisan" approach to politics and resent that he whooped up on Hillary. However, old school liberalism is being replaced by the new in a tidal wave of change. Old school liberals like yourself are becoming dinosaurs. Give the new music a chance; its really not just noise.

[Terry]

I don't know what Hillary has to do with my post, trueblue. She was never my "preferred candidate".

Nor do I think that "old school - new school" has much to do with what I wrote. It was more about Obama following the path of politics rather than addressing the legitimate grievances of the black community.

I admit that the older generation of African Americans may have a different (and deeper) understanding of the horrors of slavery and its aftermath than the current generation. The point is that the breakdown of the family structure in black culture is a direct result of that recent history.

If Obama understands that (there's good reason to believe he does), then his lectures on personal responsibility to the NAACP can only be interpreted as a political calculation.

[trueblue]

The "horrors" of the "recent history" of slavery? Sounds like pretty old school rhetoric to me. You're right. My comments don't relate just to this post. They relate to your unremitting old school ragging on Obama. I agree with Obama; nothing wrong with a little personal responsibility.

[Terry]

If Douglas Blackmon's book is accurate (and I've no reason to assume otherwise) and "slavery" didn't actually end until WWII, then "recent history" is an appropriate characterization.

"Personal responsibility" is certainly a virtue. But for men --African American men-- who have been told what to do all their lives and have never been given the opportunity to exercise any sort of responsibility, who have in fact been treated like children incapable of accepting responsibility, then to expect them to suddenly embrace responsibility or even grasp the concept of it as the mark of a mature man is a real stretch.

America is still paying for its original sin, slavery, but many white folks just don't see it.

I'll become more enthused about Obama's candidacy when he stops talking white, when he stops making politically expedient speeches, and when he renounces militarism as the primary tool of American foreign policy.

[trueblue]

Hmmm, a true old school purist. I admire it, but the candidate who meets your requirements will never be elected. I take a bit more practical approach.

[Harry Kershner]

Trueblue's criticisms have more to do with amorality than with an alternative political approach. Since when is support for justice and peace, and opposition to militarism and hegemony "old school purist"? Obama's ideology (corporatism and imperialism) is not some new vision of "hope and change":

"Obama...is running as a symbol of a new politics, a politics somehow less disgusting and full of shit than the old politics. But if it were to get out that he's not that —that all he is is the same old deal dressed up in black skin and a natty suit —then he quickly
morphs into a different kind of symbol, a symbol of how an essentially bankrupt political system can seamlessly repackage itself to a fed-up marketplace by making cosmetic changes, without altering its basic nature." (Matt Taibbi, Symbolic change)

[trueblue]

Oh, pleeeaazz, Harry. Are you for real?

[Anne T.]

Trueblue-
The divide is not between "old school politics" and Obama's "new politics". There is nothing new about reformist politics. Reformists, like Obama, still refuse to challenge the essential power structure, capitalism. Harry and Terry are right to be skeptical about Obama's vague promises for change, his backpedaling on the Iraq war,his support for Israel, his support for merit based pay for teachers,etc. etc.
I will vote for Obama, though, with no illusions. And then I will continue to fight for a world where true democracy is a reality.
Howard Zinn wrote in the March 2008 Progressive:
"No, I’m not taking some ultra-left position that elections are totally insignificant, and that we should refuse to vote to preserve our moral purity. Yes, there are candidates who are somewhat better than others, and at certain times of national crisis (the Thirties, for instance, or right now) where even a slight difference between the two parties may be a matter of life and death.

I’m talking about a sense of proportion that gets lost in the election madness. Would I support one candidate against another? Yes, for two minutes—the amount of time it takes to pull the lever down in the voting booth.

But before and after those two minutes, our time, our energy, should be spent in educating, agitating, organizing our fellow citizens in the workplace, in the neighborhood, in the schools. Our objective should be to build, painstakingly, patiently but energetically, a movement that, when it reaches a certain critical mass, would shake whoever is in the White House, in Congress, into changing national policy on matters of war and social justice."

[Steve R.]

Trueblue, I'm confused about how Obama represents some kind of "new liberalism."

What is it about his policies that are new? Same old crap, different package from what I see. Sure, he speaks well. He's younger. Maybe better looking.

But post-partisan? Doesn't that just mean the Democrats have long ago given up on New Deal, Keynesian economics and enlightened internationalism and joined with Republicans in favor of neoliberal economics and neoconservative foreign policy?

I don't see any significant difference between him and the Clinton's on this. In fact, Bill (and Jimmy Carter) should get credit for these shifts more than Obama.

Post-racial? I'm so sick of hearing this... When was the last time a white politician was expected to "transcend" his race? Just because someone says we've gotten past race, doesn't mean black people in America aren't still living in a dramatically different nation than white people.

Methinks Obama supporters (just like William Jefferson Clinton fans, and James Earl Carter fans before him) protest to much about "old school" supporters of New Deal economics and foreign policy.

A close study of the conditions of the 1920s and 1930s show some remarkable parallels to the 1990s and 2000s. We would be wise to learn from the ways economic crises were dealt with in the past, rather than pretending that somehow we've become immune to them, and instead talking about "personal responsibility."

Obama's fealty to "post-partisan" economics (i.e. Chicago School, Friedman-esque neoliberalism) should scare the bejesus out of any student of history.

[trueblue]

Obama is the most progressive electable candidate who sought the democratic nomination. Yet, Terry is constantly ragging on him and tearing him down. But the hypothetical candidate Terry would like would be completely and utterly unelectable--way, WAY out of the mainstream. That simple. Why not support Obama (in word and deed) and work for change in other ways as Anne T suggests. I agree with her post almost entirely. I get tired of the sniping against Obama when its pretty clear that an intelligent centrist candidate is the best we're going to get. Let's hop on the reality train and stop whining folks. Things will be way better than under Bush. No reason for all the negativity on Obama.

[Anne T.]

Trueblue
I am all for intelligent critiques of Obama, though. We have to be realistic in that way, too. It's not negativity to point out his weaknesses. It is essential for building a better world. Letting our guard down because Obama is not a proto fascist like Bush and Cheney is not wise.
For example I just heard an interview with Raj Patel, author of "Stuffed and Starved: The hidden battle for the World Food System" on Democracy Now. Patel has worked for the World Trade Association, the United Nations and the World Bank and also protested them on 4 continents. Here is what Patel has to say about Obama:

"I question the depth of the commitment of Barack Obama to addressing the deep problems that are associated with the current international trade regime. I haven’t heard him say that he’s going to tear up the World Trade Organization charter and try to negotiate something else. And far from it, he’s never gone anywhere close to saying that. All he said is that he would like NAFTA to be renegotiated with stronger environmental and labor provisions. And, of course, that was the promise that Clinton made to be able to get NAFTA through in the first place, and those environmental and labor provisions have been worse than toilet paper. So I unfortunately am very—I have my expectations set very low for the next administration."
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/31/raj_patel_on_the_collapse_of

There is way more to politics than elections.

[Steve R.]

I voted for Bill Clinton in 1992, because, oh man, it looked like Geo. H.W. Bush was surging late in the polls. And we had to end 12 years of Reagan/Bush rule.

Then we got eight years of Clinton, who finished the work of Reagan/Bush in ways Reagan/Bush never dared dream.

That's the reality train I got on 16 years ago.

Now, I'll grant you that things have gotten significantly worse under Geo. W. Bush. And that he's taken us in such a dangerous direction, it's imperative to prevent John McCain from continuing down his ruinous path.

Yes, I'll vote for Obama.

But I'll also point out that he isn't the second coming of Jesus H. Christ, and that as far as economic and foreign policy go, he's not substantively different from most Republicans in Washington today.

In other words, he might slow the train down, just a little, but we'll still be going down the wrong track.

(As far as "most progressive electable candidate who sought the democratic nomination," I think it could be argued that Edwards, Biden and Clinton were more progressive, and maybe even more electable.)

[trueblue]

OK, truth time. How many of you (Steve R, Harry, Terry) helped put Bush in office by voting for Nader? C'mon tell the truth. Frankly, I hold Nader voters more responsible for all that has happened under Bush than the folks who actually voted for Bush (not to withhold the hammer until after you give your answer if you're brave enough to do so).

Anne T, light on the critique until after the election, ok? This is going to be a close one. You want McCain? Choo choo, the reality train is moving down the tracks!

[Steve R.]

Perhaps a better question is "How many helped put George W. Bush in office by supporting Al Gore in the 2000 Democratic primary?"

Gore, whose biggest mistake was tapping a virtual Republican for his running mate, ran the lamest presidential campaign of the late 20th century. But his abysmal performance was topped by JFKerry in 2004.

Gore should have mopped the floor with Bush, but failed miserably, and then stood by as the Supreme Court literally pulled off a coup d'etat. Kerry likewise stood by while the Bush team ravaged him, despite being in an extremely unpopular war, and with emerging Whitehouse scandals.

It's just silly to blame a third-party spoiler who only managed 2.74% of the vote in 2000 and .38% in 2004.

(And yes, I voted for Nader in 2000.)

[Terry]

You ask the wrong question, trueblue. You should have asked, would you have voted for Nader if you lived in Florida?

I too voted for Nader in 2000 --but in OREGON, not Florida. Gore as I recall carried Oregon handily.

This time around, given my disappointment with Obama's endless political pandering, Nader (assuming he's on the ballot) is again competing for my vote.

On a side note, I swore that once the Dems had determined a nominee, I would take my John Kerry protest sign out of my front window and replace with an Obama (or Clinton or Edwards) sign.

The Kerry sign still graces my window.

[trueblue]

I appreciate the honest admission concerning Nader (though you may not like me characterizing it as an admission). I am among the many progressives who now hold Nader in extremely low regard, despite the fact that I agree with much of what he says. He wouldn't get my vote for dogcatcher much less president. And he didn't get my vote in 2000. There is a saying, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good that has rough application here.

Would you have voted for Gore had you been living in Florida? My guess is that the answer is "yes" for one or both of you (and probably Harry too). The fact is that Nader votes in Florida, small though they were, probably made the difference between a Gore win and a Bush win. So did suppression of minority voting by Bush's brother. Nader voters were sadly misguided and did great harm to this country.

[Steve R.]

Blaming Nader for Gore's loss in Florida is just plain silly, and assumes that 1) Gore/Lieberman ran a half-decent campaign, 2) all the Nader voters would have voted for Gore if Nader hadn't been on the ballot, as opposed to just staying home or voting for some other spoiler, and, most importantly, 3) there was not a well-documented coup by the Supreme Court.

There never should have been a Florida recount, and Jeb's suppression of the minority vote should have been inconsequential. Why? Gore should have annihilated Bush. But instead, he limped into also-ran status.

Seriously... Nader got 1.6% of the Florida vote. Bush and Gore were a statistical tie with or without these votes.

Why doesn't anybody blame Gore for running such a historically awful campaign? I mean, come on, Joe freakin' Lieberman? Does anybody remember a single policy proposal from the Gore campaign?

[trueblue]

I disagree with just about every opinion you've just expressed Steve. The race was not Gore's to lose. Support for Bush had not collapsed yet. Gore had zero charisma which made it hard for democrat voters to get excited about him. Yet, if you will allow the hyperbole, he would have been a million times better than Bush. I don't believe Gore would have invaded Iraq, for example. Just avoiding that fiasco would have been worth whatever mediocrity Gore would have brought to the White House. The margin between Bush and Gore in Florida was razor thin. The Nader vote easily could have made the difference. And most of the folks who wasted their vote with a protest vote for Nader would have voted for Gore before Bush. Nader probably cost Gore the White House. The man is an ass of the first order. I have nothing but disdain for Nader and believe that he and those who voted for him helped tip us into an incredibly wasteful and counterproductive war in Irag. Nader's campaign and his followers can only be described as irresponsible (or, as I said before, sadly misguided). Don't repeat the mistake by carping at Obama and wasting your vote on some hopeless 3rd party candidate again.