See today’s Washington Post article. There’s a whole bunch of stuff we talk about routinely in barbershops. But for some reason the only thing that comes out as “courageous” and “authentic” is the stuff that points to black people as the root of our problems. Now there’s some funny writing in this article like:
Obama, too, employs a slightly different style of speechmaking in front of black audiences, invoking, for example, a hypothetical “Cousin Pookie” in a speech in Selma, Ala., to talk about African Americans who do not vote. But while Obama has eschewed overt appeals to black voters, comparable to the way Hillary Clinton targets women with specific policy proposals, the substance of his remarks to African Americans, some Obama allies say, reflects an ability to speak about issues that a nonblack candidate probably could not have.
Earlier the writer shuts down his own argument by noting that Obama’s speechifying borrows a lot from Bill Clinton, who last I checked wasn’t black. But what jumped out at me on first reading was the comparison to Hilary. Is the author saying that Clinton HAS targeted women with specific policy proposals? If she HAS, then what we have here with Obama ISN’T comparable. Because as far as I know Obama has only targeted black people to speak tough love to them. And that’s not the type of target we need. Around now damn near everyone with a mic is blaming black people for our problems–our lack of discipline, our apathy, our language, our lack of self-love.
That’s all bs. Sounds good on paper. But it’s empirically false, and cannot serve as the basis for anything substantive and progressive politically.
John Edwards announced his candidacy in New Orleans. He’s the first major presidential candidate in several election cycles to talk about poverty and inequality as structural rather than personal failings.
So as far as I’m concerned, Obama is 0-1. A few more pitches to go…we’ll see what we see.
Obama gave a speech in Los Angeles this past weekend covering many of the themes that you credit to Edwards. Didn’t get much coverage. I think the article is an example of how the media likes expectation stories. Obama defies expectation by criticizing African-Americans. Edwards defies expectations by opening his campaign in New Orleans. Given all this, it’s a little strange how you base your criticisms on an article which you say is badly written.
Do you have a link? A transcript of the speech? I think you’re absolutely right about how media entities like expectation stories…but they can’t write what you don’t give them.
Scratch that. They can but it becomes much harder.
I’m not basing my criticism solely on the article. Although I am very aware of Obama’s progressive background as an organizer in Chicago, I am also aware of his campaign for the Senate in which he supported the death penalty, and cannot recall a single policy he’s proposed that would deal with inequality. Any help you could lend here would be appreciated.
I decided to go ahead and support Obama in large part due to the vibe I got from his wife, Michelle. I admit it was off one introductory speech she gave, but I have never in my entire life been wrong about the vibe I got from a Black woman and Michelle is legit.
Also, after all the negativity that the mainstream media has directed at Black men lately, I don’t trust much of what comes out these days. If the media says it’s sunny, I grab my umbrella.
Like you I was extremely critical of the mixed messages that come out of politicians mouths , but now I have come to believe that I have been expecting too much of them. Barak, like all the other candidates, is trying to package himself in a way that will please a majority of Americans. Simply put, that’s the only way to win. Just making Black folks happy about your message is a pretty sure way to lose, just ask Al. Jesse, Shirley, etc. Pandering too hard to any one group is a recipe for disaster. Even though the agenda that helps Blacks is actually better for everyone, the majority of America is too ignorant to realize it yet.
That makes it hard to really gauge a candidate from anything that he or she says on the campaign trail. They literally have to answer the same question, for different special interest groups, without substantially changing the answer, and still make it palatable for each group. I don’t think I would trust what came out of my own mouth in that situation.
I hear all the time, look at a candidate’s record, how they’ve voted in the past, and the positions the took on the critical issues. But you rarely hear any candidate openly take a completely indefensible position. Those that do that simply aren’t successful very long. So even positions that I don’t agree with usually have some redeeming value. Let’s face it, most career politicians realize that continued election is their first and foremost goal.
Doesn’t leave much to hang your opinion on, does it?
I can’t find a link to the speech transcript. If memory serves, I think his support for the death penalty is only for terrorists and serial killers. It’s a littly fuzzy. Of course, Barack was also instrumental in ensuring that interrogations are videotaped. I think his state senate career (health care expansion, EITC, education, affirmative action support, ..), speak to some of the progressive policies you mention. Lastly, I’m a couple years older than you, also from Detroit, and I remember seeing Jesse Jackson at Shaw College as a child. Jesse gave a similar speech on personal responsibility, embedded in an overall analysis of societal ills. The Washington Post article references statements from Obama’s Selma speech that were embedded in an overall analysis of the Civil Rights movement, and critiques on school funding and AA restrictions. Just because the MSM finds a phrase in a speech novel doesn’t mean that African-Americans have to take issue.
Exodus and DLT thanks for your comments and criticisms.
When it comes to making political decisions I don’t focus on sentiment. I understand that the current political climate privileges soundbites over substance. I also understand that political consultants urge Democratic candidates in particular to move as close to the center in both rhetoric and action as possible. Finally, while I know neither Obama personally, I know them both indirectly (I know some of Barack’s law school folks, and I know people who have either worked for or with his wife).
But, particularly when compared to a candidate who is making much more aggressive POLICY PROPOSALS on issues I care about, I find it less tenable to support a candidate for reasons of racial solidarity or personal comfort. This isn’t just a matter of me taking one article and making a decision based on it. It’s also about me taking a look at Obama’s platform. There’s a lot more there than perhaps Sharpton gave him credit for, but not enough for me to give him a ringing endorsement. Particularly when part of his appeal is based on making empirically false claims that blame black people for their problems.
But like I said, he’s got two more strikes.
I believe it needs to be said that when Obama has spoken before Af-Am audiences, his criticisms (to use that word) weren’t framed as Black pathologies. Neither were they presented as class distinctions, as were Cosby’s.
What was the substance of the criticisms? When he spoke at the 2004 DNC for example he noted how it was a shame that black kids had to feel that they had to act white to succeed in school, but at the same time it was a shame that some kids had to go to bankrupt schools.
So it could be a matter of tossing out red herrings (acting white) in order to bring substantive change. But what do you see when you look at his policy proposals?
I’m biased to be sure, but perhaps his policy statements are skewed to attract more of the crowd that pays attention to them, i.e. white people. Barak will get the black vote with charisma and by getting Blacks to really identify with him, something that is actually more difficult than many would think. Like I said before, he has to reach out in a lot of different directions in order to get elected. Every candidate has that problem. Help me understand how Barak is different from any of the others in that regard.
Hmm.. the penny drops. I prefer that the shiny veneer on Obama is showing signs of scratch and scrape. Such vunerability bodes well for me although I think he is damned if he does and damned if he don’t.
Maybe he will pick up on the structural issues later down the line, but I do tend to side with you Dr with the 0-1 for now.
But what do I know. I’m a Brit!
he isn’t different. and that’s the point isn’t it? now edwards on the other hand?
take a look at edwards policy platform and let me know whether he’s the same or different?
I went to both Edwards and Obama campaign sites as you suggested. They both are for restoring America’s Moral leadership, both are in favor of affordable quality health care, both plan to strengthen America’s middle class and families, both are against the war in Iraq.
How many candidates have you ever heard say they were against better education, or against helping poor people, or against children? As for the specific plans they put forward to accomplish those goals, I don’t put too much stock in that because everything goes through a political process that eventually changes it so that it rarely resembles the original plan.
Edwards specifically has a plan to eliminate poverty. I am slightly leery of full employment for Black people in America. Last time America gad a program like that was around 1860, and it didn’t work out to well for us. I don’t think any “war on poverty” program will work until the gross inequities in wealth distribution in this country are seriously addressed. Now I wouldn’t actually expect any candidate to take that stand seeing as how they collect the majority of their campaign money from those people on the top of the wealth distribution totem pole, and thus don’t want to antagonize that special interest group.
So honestly, I don’t see very much real, significant difference, except perhaps in presentation, which may be more of an indicator of what the candidate feels they can get away with more so than what they actually feel they could accomplish should they win.
EM, I don’t understand. Policy platforms represent what candidates are interested in promoting…they represent a snapshot of what the candidates legislative agenda would be. If for example the candidate had a platform proposal suggesting they planned to end Affirmative Action, I’m sure that most people (including me) would use that information to reject that candidate.
But that doesn’t seem to be the case here.
Maybe I should take a step backward. What heuristic do you plan to use to choose who you give your support to?
Lester, that’s actually kind of my point. I have long been down on the political and electoral process in this country because of the undue influence of corporate dollars on candidates, the criminal manipulation of elections over the past decade, and the fact that few politicians are willing to say anything controversial for fear of losing a cushy position.
In all honesty I cannot come up with any reasoned method for determining who might be the “best” candidate. Francis L. Holland has been trying to convince me that things like education and Barak’s being the editor of the Harvard law review are they types of qualifications that should be considered. Having graduated law school myself, and interacted with my share of well-educated people I not very inclined to give much credit for those things.
“If for example the candidate had a platform proposal suggesting they planned to end Affirmative Action, I’m sure that most people (including me) would use that information to reject that candidate.”
NO candidate would ever come out with a position that would obviously alienate a significant part of the electorate, unless that candidate had already written of that part of the electorate and decided to pander to another group. Even then, the offensive platform is usually disguised or made to seem to be in the best interests of all people. For example, the argument against Affirmative Action is rarely couched in anti-Black terms. It is presented as unnecessary, or unduly unfair to others. Unreasonable and illogical positions just aren’t a part of any serious campaign. David Duke might campaign on an anti-Black agenda, but we all know what he stands for anyway. George Bush is almost universally reviled, but if ou just look at his political positions in isolation, without consideration of the parties presenting them, they seem pretty unreasonable. He was for education, fixing Social security, family values, and lots of other stuff that many people agree with. Of course now we know that the Bush administration is morally bankrupt and we can use this assessment of their character to evaluate them.
If you can agree with the above reasoning, how then do you use what a candidate puts out as a measure f what that candidate really plans to do and who they will align themselves with?
I’m not so much questioning your position, as I am looking for something that I can feel comfortable using to assess the candidates.
Affirmative action was a bad example, largely because the candidates who do propose ending it aren’t competing for our vote anyway. But at the same time one of the reasons why we don’t choose to support those candidates is BECAUSE of the stances they take. You know what I mean?
I do happen to think that the President should be at least as capable as I am to run the country. In fact, he should be MORE capable. I didn’t like Clinton as a President at all…but I had the sense that he was much smarter than I am, a great deal more curious, and more knowledgeable (which is different from being smart).
BUT those things should be “necessary but not sufficient.” I know what it takes to run Harvard’s Law Review, and that ALONE will only get you a drink from me….if i like you.
In today’s political climate, even given its conservatism, it is sometimes difficult to compare candidates to one another on policy. But inevitably this is the only tangible thing we have to go on. And in this particular case I actually think that Clinton, Edwards, and Obama’s policy platforms can be used as a pretty decent tool…particularly because they are so close as far as votes go in the Senate. Edwards for example is interested in going after payday lenders as an anti-poverty platform. Neither Obama nor Clinton are much interested in that issue–as measured by the ABSENCE of such a plank in their statements.
There are also a couple of websites that actually compare the records of the candidates that I think work pretty well.
The problem in any case is that if we don’t go on their policies, what we end up doing is using a series of shortcuts that don’t work half as well. And in Obama’s case because he’s black what could end up happening is that we see he’s black…see he is comfortable with being black, and take that as a proxy for his policy stances.
First of all, I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments on buying drinks for editors of law reviews… I love it in fact.
I don’t want this to sound like I am attacking you, so let me say this. I know I don’t have all the answers. What I do have is a lot of questions for people who claim to have an answer. I think that’s why I was so much better on the defense side of the table than the prosecution side. A prosecutor, in my opinion, should be sure beyond any reasonable doubt that a person they are prosecuting is guilty under the law. How often can you really be that sure, if you weren’t there then the alleged crime happened? A defense attorney, on the other hand, only has to be very adept at highlighting that reasonable doubt.
So as I dissect your reasoning, understand that I would very much like for us to come to a reasoned consensus about the best way to approach this issue.
Now having said all that, I don’t think Clinton, either one of them, is smarter than you, based on some of the shit I’ve heard them say and the comments you have made. Knowledge is a function of experiences, and therefore is a class-based issue. If you were given the opportunity to become knowledgeable on any number of subjects, I don’t doubt that you or I or most reasonably intelligent people (and I don’t mean educated people) would be more than capable. So in my mind, by pretending that these people are somehow more qualified than the rest of us, we are helping to perpetuate a system where only the privileged are deemed capable of governing. That’s a dangerous road to go down. And I honestly believe that the logic behind the whole “Qualifications” mantra is faulty.
It’s interesting that you mention comparing the very similar platforms of Clinton, Edwards, and Obama, and the payday lending position. I live in GA, where the state legislature has pretended to address that issue for the past few years. So on the one hand I could easily counter your position by saying that maybe Obama feels that this is an issue that can and should be handled at a state level. In fact my position is that addressing payday lending as a remedy for poverty is like addressing a pimple as a cure for cancer. Less effective actually because if you think poor people aren’t going to find some way to get the money they need and can’t work hard enough to get, then you are deluded about what poverty is all about.
So how you feel about a plank is important, and I understand that, and I can see how if some specific thing is of particular interest for you, having a candidate expressly on your side on that position would seem nice. But letting that be the “coup de gras” seems illogical as well. Suppose other positions are diametrically opposed to yours? The absence of a particular idea from any candidates written position doesn’t seem to me indicative of much of anything.
“The problem in any case is that if we don’t go on their policies, what we end up doing is using a series of shortcuts that don’t work half as well.”
I don’t want to roll with Barak just because he is Black, but I haven’t been given a better reason to go with him or against him(aside from Michelle Obama). That is indeed my problem, that we are using a series of shortcuts that just don’t work well for me, or for anyone that I can see. These are the criteria we have been using for a while and things are not getting any better. A definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing and expecting different results. One of the things I am hoping to get from my interacting with this community is some different, better results.
I appreciate you helping me out with that.
EM I appreciate your comments. And I think that you are generally right about the pitfalls of expertise, although I could make a counter-argument based on the current president as well as his early eighties predecessor.
On policies. If we take all of the policies a given representative has put forth, and then somehow rank their importance to us and their direction (in line with our ideas, against our ideas) then we should have a nice policy-informed way of choosing a candidate. And if in making these calculations it turns out that a given candidate hasn’t addressed one issue or the other, it does not necessarily HAVE to mean that the candidate doesn’t believe an issue is important. These campaigns are just starting.
But in the case of the poverty and inequality issue what I’ve been taking into account is the history of the Democratic Party in general, and of their presidential candidates specifically. Edwards isn’t just the only one to address poverty and inequality in this campaign to date (measured by policy proposals), I believe that he is the first major Democratic candidate to address these issues in decades. Which leads me to believe that the lack of a stance on Obama and Clinton’s part is due to a strategic decision to ignore the issue that falls in line with previous Democratic strategy. And this previous strategy of triangulation is deadly.
Edwards is definitely putting Poverty at the forefront of his campaign. That’s what impressed me about him in his last presidential run as well, and he has stuck to those guns since then. If I had to pick a single central issue, for me it would be Poverty. I don’t think that issue can be addressed without confronting the inequities in wealth distribution. But that’s to close to socialism or communism for the good people in Washington. If I was inclined to believe that Edwards could actually get the rest of the political structure to go along with his program, I still wouldn’t believe it had a chance for success because it doesn’t go far enough. As you say, the poor have been intentionally marginalized in this country and neither party has done much to change that.
I’ll continue to listen to the candidates, hoping that I will see something that really stands out to differentiate them or give a clue as to who might be best for the job. Maybe somebody will surprise me.
From the Archives: Strike One for Obama http://t.co/2d9xKTbn