A friend of mine sent me the Youtube link to the Obama speech yesterday on race and “A More Perfect Union.”
Barak Obama …
I am not one for following presidential elections. I’ve voted each time, but I do not get excited about electing the man (up until this year? God I hope not. Hillary is just as bad as all the rest) whose job it is to uphold US imperialism and fuel our hyper-capitalist system. But I think one thing that’s really interesting about the Obama campaign is that he’s getting radical minded folks to engage each other and those around them in at least talking about national electoral politics–in more significant ways than complaining about the next rich white guy to run our country or laughing (or crying) about the disgusting circus that is US national politics. The fact that some of my most radical-minded friends and fellow activists, who have my utmost respect, are huge supporters–even travelling the country campaigning!–has made me pay attention.
I’m still not 100% convinced about Obama (his international policies are atrocious!), but he definitely is different than anything we’ve ever seen before in ways that are exciting. On his website, his quote is: “I’m asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about change in Washington … I’m asking you to believe in yours.” Empty and co-opted rhetoric or not (and I’m not convinced it’s entirely empty or co-opted), this idea of actually engaging in politics and social change is counter to the mainstream American politic values of “elect that person and have them do it for me” which is so intrinsic in our hyper-consumer culture. I do feel confident that getting the Republicans out of office and getting Obama in will energize alot of folks who are tired of fighting against the brick wall that is the Bush administration, and will promote more organizing–and result in more victories!–around the country.
Will Obama be a key factor in starting the American revolution? Definitely not; he’s still the President of the United States. But he still is worth paying attention to and I will vote for him (at this point, we will see how things continue over the election cycle) if he gets the Democratic nomination.
He does promote in me the audacity to hope (sorry, I couldn’t resist). The fact that in his speech he was able to clearly articulate (in the words of Hannah, who also has a very acute media analysis of this speech) “the pain and resentment of racism in America, and the strengths and flaws of the institutions and processes we undertake to overcome that racism … with such care and nuance” is exciting to me. The fact that he’s bringing that conversation openly to the national stage as a presidential candidate is meaningful.
And I have to admit, that after to listening to Obama deliver his full forty minute speech, his kinda-cheesy closing did bring some tears to my eyes. It wasn’t so much the story, as the way he interpreted the story that was significant to me. He was talking about how a girl at the age of nine had made sacrifices to help her mother through a really difficult time in life–broke and sick–and she was there 14 years later working on the campaign to help millions of children that wanted to help their parents through hard times. I’ll leave you with the rest and the video clip at the bottom:
“Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they’re supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who’s been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he’s there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, “I am here because of Ashley.”
“”I’m here because of Ashley.” By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.
“But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger … that is where the perfection begins.”
7 Comments
March 19, 2008 at 3:55 pm
I share your interested ambivilence. I’m intrigued by the hope and expectations Obama is raising. People want to believe in something more. That could create openings and opportunities – for conversation but also activity. It may open up the landscape for what’s considered “politics” in this country.
I’m heartened that he found his voice to speak out on our deep seeded racism and the anger(s) that result. But I think he could have explored even further when it comes to the international situation. He could have talked about our racism towards “the other” beyond America. A perfect bridge would have been to relate Wright’s (righteous) anger to that of those who have suffered U.S. oppression and aggression overseas. Could he explain that like he did with his personal history or the Ahsley story? I don’t think he took on that task because he may deem it to much of a challenge for the American populace (and leave him open to further criticism). But if he wants to talk about our shared ” perfect union,” doesn’t it need to go beyond the U.S.? Tackling that would expose his perspectives on foreign policy. And those appear to be not much to write home about.
“Admire” the man but understand the System…….that creates all of us…….
March 19, 2008 at 4:29 pm
I have to say I listened to this with half of an ear yesterday, and because I had been following the dust-up over Pastor Wright, I heard it mostly as a response to that. In that vein, this is the part of the speech that jumped out at me:
“… the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam…”
“…Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all…”
Its now almost impossible to find long Wright quotes not taken out of context, but on Monday it wasn’t. The problem I have with Obama’s speech is that when I read Wright’s comments on Monday, I found that I largely agree with them. If I was Obama I would feel bad about casting him as old, backward, damaged and hateful, if a good Christian.
Nevertheless, I can see why Obama had to throw Wright under the bus, politically. And it seems good to me that even a fairly liberal analysis that recognizes at least the legacy of recent (more recent than segregation) institutionalized racism is in the MSM, even if the speech seems to imply that black anger is the main barrier to overcoming the effects of a racism which is past.
The speech is masterful politically, particularly in its linkage of white working class racism and class resentment with black resentment of racism. I wish I’d written it. I also wish Obama’s platform included the universal health care, full employment, and emphasis on multiracial class politics that the speech alludes to.
I am left wondering what part of his program is aimed to overcome institutionalized racism now and what obama “movement” members are supposed to do to engage with whatever that is, or with one another or others about race. Currently, it still seems content-free to me.
The implication of the speech is I think., is, elect Obama and race is over; Personally, I’ll take Pastor Wright’s “offensive” but slightly more substantive statements over that analysis.
Finally, I have to confess that my reaction to listening to the final anecdote about Ashely and the old black man was an extended eyeroll, but I am a cynical jerk.
A post I think is good on this, by Melissa Harice-Lacewell; shes the same woman who argued with Gloria Steinem on Democracy Now.
http://brownfemipower.com/?p=2468
March 19, 2008 at 5:06 pm
I don’t think that he threw Wright as far under the bus as he could have. He made clear that was repudiating his specific words, not the man himself, speaking of him as part of his family. (I actually though the comparison between Wright and Madelyn Dunham (Obama’s grandmother), which has been criticized, was a good one, that helped make his point, especially to the white audience. Its true that he portrayed black anger as being outdated, but he went further toward recognizing its legitimacy than has any mainstream American politician since Thomas Jefferson “trembled for [his] country when [he] realize[d] that God is just.” I don’t if this speech will save Obama’s electoral bacon, but it is historic.
March 19, 2008 at 10:14 pm
I think the comments have to be taken in the immediate context — the US economy is the weakest it has been since it became the dominant economy. The decreasing standard of living for the whole country and especially for poor communities like Detroit, where I live. What can the ruling classes do?
They need the active support of some sections of the population for their policies and the continued alienation and abstentionism of the rest. They have not been in quite this situation before — in so much economic trouble, in so much military and political trouble abroad.
I think there are African-American politicians who refract the discontent and anger of people for the neglect, disregard and exploitation of our neighborhoods and cities. I think that Obama speaks in a new way and reflects some of that discontent, just like Kwame Kilpatrick does in Detroit. But Obama is a representative of the wealthy classes. The content of his program is neo-liberal — Obama supports free trade agreements; the war against terror, big business healthcare solutions.
He makes no serious proposals for helping people keep their homes in the mortgage crisis, he makes no pledge to raise the minimum wage to at least meet the poverty level. He makes no serious commitment to increase aid for poor people, to provide jobs through public works.
In other words, he supports the policies that allow the continued domination of the world economy by a few very rich US, European and Japanese citizens with no serious inroads in their power.
Saying a few things that are true, no matter how heartfelt they appear, does not mean serious change will occur. I have no reason to believe that Obama will seriously challenge the fundamental policies of the Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush years — the years of neo-liberal policy in the US and around the globe. If anyone has any reason to believe this, please let me know.
And serious change is what the US needs if the suffering of millions inside the US and billions outside the US is going to end or even be significantly alleviated.
I don’t think change comes from voting for people. Change doesn’t come from believing in yourself either. Change comes from millions of people acting in concert, socially, for their interests against the powerful few who dominate the economy and politics.
One small way to encourage such social movements is to support all serious and sincere antiwar candidates — the Green Party’s most likely nominee at this point, Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, and any others who may appear. Voting for them is a vote for the future, which means challenging corporate rule of the United States.
I can’t vote for a candidate who wants to move troops from Iraq to Afghanistan to “fight the war on terror.” He ain’t antiwar.
March 20, 2008 at 4:07 am
Obama is a Kenyan-American raised as if a “white American” by a white mother and white grandmother and who spent most of his childhood in multi-racial Hawaii, with an Asian-American sister. Some of his childhood was even spent as an overseas American in Asia. Unlike most “African-Americans,” he is not descended from any ancestor held in slavery in America. This has led some in the traditional black community to charge that he is “not black enough.” The question must be “not black enough for what?” Not black enough in background to represent someone’s stereotype of the “black community?” But he is not running for that, he is running to be our President — the President who represents all of us.
March 20, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Interesting quote from Mike Huckabee re Jeremiah Wright:
… One other thing I think we’ve got to remember: As easy as it is for those of us who are white to look back and say, “That’s a terrible statement,” I grew up in a very segregated South, and I think that you have to cut some slack. And I’m going to be probably the only conservative in America who’s going to say something like this, but I’m just telling you: We’ve got to cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told, “You have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie. You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant. And you can’t sit out there with everyone else. There’s a separate waiting room in the doctor’s office. Here’s where you sit on the bus.” And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would, too. I probably would, too. In fact, I may have had a more, more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me.
Maybe Obama’s more right than I think about changing times. Or maybe it’s simply a matter of clergy solidarity.
It does illustrate a point that Obama’s speech alluded to. The Northern white working class, which did not actively participate in slavery or Jim Crow, often feels unjustly blamed for black oppression. Southern whites, on the other hand, know that they have oppressed blacks–they just want to avoid their just desserts.
March 20, 2008 at 4:48 pm
All of these responses give a lot to think about. Some things that stood out to me:
Talking about racism focused mostly on whites and blacks in America and not looking at the international picture: his view of race in America is definitely not radical. His view of race on an international scale is even further from that. One very glaring example is Obama’s policies and rhetoric around Israel-Palestine (“stalward allies,” etc). It’s disgusting.
Obama addressing Wright and Black anger: Once again, his race politics are far from radical. I agree no1chile over kdg on this one in regards to the specific example of Wright, though. He didn’t distance himself as much as I thought he would. As for calling Black anger divisive and outdated, this makes obvious his liberal analysis of race politics in his color-blind-who-cares-about-justice-let’s-just-move-on-as-one-big-happy-family approach. This is far from surprising, though, coming from a front runner in the US presidential elections. But still, he didn’t dismiss anger completely in his speech, nor promise that racism would end if he was elected, and there was some good analysis in here–the same pieces that spoke to kdg are the pieces that stood out to me.
Fred comparing Obama to Kilpatrick in Detroit REALLY made me rethink my excitement. My very sophisticated political analysis of Kwame Kilpatrick is that he is one hot mess, so pointing out how they share common traits is cause enough for me to pause. As Fred states, both of these men are representatives of the wealthy classes and at the end of the day, have these interests in mind. Obama’s platform is very neo-liberal and will not be changing current power structures in the slightest. Even if Obama’s presidency does allow more room for organizing and political dissent in our country, he would still call out the troops against his own people if there was a massive general strike or a threat to any imperialist economic institution. That is if they’re not all busy in the Mid-East fighting the war on terror …
After all this, though, I go back to my original statement that what is definitely encouraging to me about the Obama campaign is that he’s got people thinking and talking (even Mike Huckabee apparently) about issues like race. And even if most of thoses conversations are not going to be directly questioning/challenging the white supremacist capitalist patriarchy, America is talking about race right now and that is a conversation that has been avoided in the MSM (and is still not handled very well at the moment) for a really long time. It’s an entry point for now, and that makes me more optimistic about people’s willingness to think about change than I have been since King George was so obnoxiously thrust into our living rooms, newspapers, and psyches on the daily more than 8 years ago.