Say It Loud: I’m Running for President and I’m Proud!

Note: This is the first of four posts that we’ll be physically writing together, as we are both at Princeton University teaching Political Communication for the Junior State of America Program (our eighth summer doing so).

This past Thursday, Tavis Smiley hosted the first All-American Presidential Forum with Democratic presidential candidates at Howard University. The conversation was limited to domestic issues, and most of those centered on racial issues. Whether one might call it “pandering” or simply “being attentive to the audience,” there was universal attempt to connect with the overwhelmingly black audience in the auditorium. Most of the comments were quite predictable (e.g., none of the candidates argued that we were past our racial issues or that we need to work harder to rectify injustice based on race), but a number of items are quite notable.

It was not surprising, for instance, to hear the candidates signal their opposition to the Supreme Court decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 et al. Repeatedly referencing the landmark desegregation case of Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka Kansas, the candidates noted how the June 28 decision was an embarrassing step back for establishing a culture of racial equality.

Bill Richardson, however, made a very interesting and revealing statement about his thoughtfulness on the issue of race (though unless you read this blog regularly or are otherwise familiar with the nuances of race theory, you might have missed it): He noted that race was more than policies and laws, but that it also involved “dealing with bigotry and racism that exists in this country.” As we often note in this space, these are two terms that are too often used interchangeably in our public discourse. It is possible that Richardson was merely being redundant (he’s not the smoothest candidate in these “debates,” in case you hadn’t noticed), but it is equally possible that he recognizes the important difference between systemic racism and individual-level bigotry. (It would have been nice if he had elaborated on it, but alas, even the thoughtful Tavis Smiley, in the halls of the esteemed Howard University, must succumb to the pressures of covering as much ground as possible and limiting each candidate’s time to speak.)

Dennis Kucinich made reference to his support of Jesse Jackson Jr.’s bill that would move to amend the U.S. Constitution so that equal opportunities in public education were ensured. Mike Gravel made reference to “black African Americans.” We thought it a curious distinction (perhaps Teresa Heinz Kerry is an appropriate example that not all “African Americans” are black?), but we were pleased that straight shooting former senator didn’t harken back to his youth and refer to “Negroes” or “colored people.”

For his part, Barack Obama was, of course (and as usual), in a unique position. While all of the candidates used first person plural pronouns to connect with the audience, there was an ambiguous feel from the white candidates, as in “We Americans.” When Obama used it, however, the connotation was that he was speaking of (and to) black Americans more specifically. That placed him in an awkward position. On the positive side, a meaningful connection with the audience was easier to construct. On the negative side, to the extent that he said things that might be hard for a black audience to swallow, he left himself (once again) open to the charge that he’s “not that black” or “not really black.”

For instance, when he spoke of AIDS, he said, “We don’t talk about these things in our schools or churches.” If another candidate had uttered the same sentence, it would have suggested that, on the whole, Americans do not approach such issues in schools and church. But from Obama, the implication was that the topic was not specifically discussed in black schools and churches. One might also interpret this as attacking homophobia in the black community, a criticism that none of the other candidates would have been able to pull off.

Joe Biden seemed to try, though, arguing that there was “denial” in the (black?) community about issues relating to HIV-AIDS. On the other hand, Obama seemed to want to capitalize on homophobic attitudes by engaging in a cheap frat-boy yuk to reinforce his heterosexuality. While Joe Biden was arguing that there is no shame to wear a condom or be tested for AIDS, Obama interjected, with a big smile on his face, that he wanted to make clear that he was tested with his wife. That brought applause and laughter from the audience. The gag worked to suggest that any inferences of his sexuality were comical – that his masculinity was above being questioned.

At other times, Obama clearly used “us” to refer to the black community. When referring to the criminal justice system, he argued that “it’s critical to have a president who sends a signal that we are going to have a system of justice that is not just us, but is everybody.”

Interestingly, when Obama charged that the African American community is weakened and that it “has a disease to its immune system” (a cleaver play on words in answering the AIDS question), the camera panned to scholar Michael Eric Dyson, who has famously engaged in a public defense of the black community – and black youth in particular – when folks like Bill Cosby have set their critical sights on such issues as responsibility and self-respect.

On the whole, it was refreshing to have an entire town hall meeting with the slate of candidates focused on the issue of racial equality. We can hardly wait for the Republican All-American Presidential Forum on September 27.

Outsourcing Attack Politics: Obama Apologizes for Racially-Insensitive Memo

Barack Obama had to apologize (again) this week. This time, it wasn’t anything that he did personally. His campaign drafted a memo that criticized Hillary Clinton’s ties to the (Asian) Indian-American community, and the memo (of course!) ended up in the hands of Clinton staffers who leaked it to the press.

Obama called the memo a “dumb mistake” and said that he scolded his campaign officials for it.

There is an important political communication lesson here. The content of the memo was an analysis of another memo that revealed the Clintons’ disinvestment of a blind trust to avoid political embarrassment of its contents. While the original memo is rather dry, the analysis memo carries the headline “HILLARY CLINTON (D-PUNJAB)’S PERSONAL FINANCIAL AND POLITICAL TIES TO INDIA” and goes on to note:

“The Clintons have reaped significant financial rewards from their relationship with the Indian community, both in their personal finances and Hillary’s campaign fundraising. Hillary Clinton, who is the co-chair of the Senate India Caucus, has drawn criticism from anti-offshoring groups for her vocal support of Indian business and unwillingness to protect American jobs. Bill Clinton has invested tens of thousands of dollars in an Indian bill payment company, while Hillary Clinton has taken tens of thousands from companies that outsource jobs to India. Workers who have been laid off in upstate New York might not think that her recent joke that she could be elected to the Senate seat in Punjab is that funny.”

So the issue is certainly relevant to the 2008 campaign, as there are implications for American jobs being moved overseas. But for Obama’s campaign to not be sensitive to the racial/ethnic implications of such an acerbic tone in that context is disturbing.

First, it must be acknowledged that a sizable segment of the American public do not differentiate Indians and Arabs; accordingly, allegations of “ties” with that community work to undermine Clinton’s commitment to ending terrorism (which an even more sizable segment of the American public equates with Arabs, even though all Arabs are not Muslim, and most Muslims are not terrorists or even fundamentalists – it’s a shame that we even have to mention this!).

Second, in Obama’s apology statement, he states, “The issue of outsourcing is a genuine and important issue but to refer to one particular country was, I think, an error and I let all of us know that we've got to be more careful about how we communicate.” True enough, but outsourcing cannot be detached from India in the American psyche anymore than immigration can be detached from Mexico. Most of the “official” language does not identify the nations in question, but the implications are tremendously strong.

In all, this may have hurt Obama’s relationship with the Indian-American community, but it also hurts his position with racially/ethnically-sensitive voters, as well as those who believed that he might be capable of not engaging in attack politics. Such a belief is naïve, but for the young and formerly disengaged Americans that Obama had begun to draw into his campaign, this probably serves as a sour bite indeed.

One Girl's Crush...

I might be mistaken, but I’m pretty sure that neither Bill Clinton’s charm, nor Al Gore’s brain, nor George W. Bush’s “I’d like to have a beer with that guy” persona has inspired the kind of public, sexually explicit, lust-ladened fantasies among their respective 20-something generations as has Barack Obama. I’m speaking of course of the now-likely-to-become-infamous “Crush on Obama” music video, recently posted on YouTube.

Now I will say from the outset that the video is quite good. It’s entertaining, funny, and might even make you want to get up and shake your groove thing, bounce around a bit to the music while a sultry temptress conjures bare naked, Barack-me-tonight fantasies filled with healthcare policy, border security, John Kerry, the 2004 elections and presidential politics. It’s an ode to Barack Obama – potentially the first African-American president of the United States, and were this not the case, there would be no cause for pause. But there is.

Of course, everybody is asking, “will this help or hinder Obama’s election hopes?” I’m not a fortuneteller, so I won’t play that game with this one. I’ll just offer a brief reminder…

Remember Harold Ford, Jr. in 2006 – the black Senate candidate from Tennessee who ran an election shackled with a “playboy” label, secured by a Republican Party ad depicting a clearly promiscuous white woman eager to get Ford’s attention, a return phone call, and certainly more particular favors? Well, the same underlying and longstanding attitudes in the U.S. about race – particularly black males – and sex, interracial relationships, miscegenation, black sexual prowess, etc. pervade the ObamaGirl’s video, though in a different way than the RNCC ad against Harold Ford.

The Ford ad, in my opinion, intentionally appealed to these and other such stereotypes (see our blog about that issue last year). It is apparent that there is no such intention in the video. However, the two are both based on a similar set of attitudes and stereotypes – even if the stereotypes are a source of flirtatious admiration (for ObamaGirl). As they say, one person’s sexual attraction (Obama is “smart, black and sexy,” that’s why he’s so fine), may be another’s grounds for fear and loathing.

What plays well in liberal media (the internet, not Fox News), may not fare so well in living rooms, coffee shops, and around water coolers in Iowa, or New Hampshire, or South Carolina, where Barack Obama’s interracial sex appeal might send a different vibe – especially if they’re watching Fox News where brunette bombshells for Obama are cause for nonstop chatter.

Another reminder – that I was reminded of this week: The 40th anniversary of Loving v. Virginia; a mere forty years ago miscegenation was declared unconstitutional. Under the law, that is…

Bang Your Head! Ghetto Hell Will Drive You Mad!

This week, Barack Obama told a group of black ministers that President Bush has been ignoring a “quiet riot” in African American communities. The remark received less media attention than we might have expected, though it is one of the most straightforward assertions about race and poverty in America from a prominent political figure in recent memory.

His comments were striking in their complexity. That’s not to suggest that Obama does’t think about race in a sophisticated way or would not ordinarily talk that way to a thoughtful audience; but on a campaign trail where he has been attempting to appeal to whites as well as persons of color, this was surprising. His words reflect critical race theorists’ ideas over the past generation, recognizing, in Cornel West’s famous words, “The crisis in black America is twofold: too much poverty and too little self-love.” Said Obama, "[Quiet riots] happen when a sense of disconnect settles in and hope dissipates. Despair takes hold and young people … believe that things are never going to get any better."

Our middle class white students, in particular, would answer that life is not fair, and just because people are frustrated or disappointed in their lives, they shouldn’t resort to violence. Obama was clear that he found violence to be “inexcusable and self defeating,” but offered an enlightened explanation (as opposed to an excuse) as to why, for instance, the so-called “Rodney King riots” in Los Angeles took place in the 1990s. He warned that like those not-so-quiet riots, years of neglect (such as we witnessed with the Bush Administration’s handling of the Katrina disaster) sow the seeds for the frustrations and conditions that allowed the acquittals of the white police officers who beat King to act as a catalyst to street violence.

The message is not only accurate; it is important. But we are troubled by the echoes of what Progressive Era muckraker Upton Sinclair encountered a century ago (also in Chicago, incidentally). His 1906 novel, The Jungle, went through pointed editing to remove much of the socialist content, consequently making him famous and leading to federal legislation to sanitize the meatpacking industry. But Sinclair was really trying to tell a story about the horrible working conditions and unfair treatment of those who made a living in those terrible packinghouses. He famously remarked, “I aimed at the country’s heart, and by accident I hit it in the stomach.”

Fortunately, the unedited version of The Jungle was published in 2003 by Sharp Press after being suppressed since its discovery in the 1980s. The parallel is that while as humans in a democratic society, we should care about and act to alleviate the suffering of people for no other reason than that they are suffering. Instead, in Sinclair’s case, the plight of the worker was virtually ignored by a middle class that was infinitely more concerned that there might be a thumb in their ground beef than the fact that there were workers missing thumbs.

And so here we are, a hundred years later, and the first black presidential candidate to hold “frontrunner” status in a nomination contest understands that he needs to appeal not to the nation’s compassion, but to our fear that these folks who we routinely ignore (when we’re not demonizing and blaming them) may ultimately hurt “us.” For middle class whites, the reason to act will be because it serves to insulate them from violence. It’s a similar reason that the same group embraced Dr. Martin Luther King’s form of direct action (nonviolent) in the 1950s and 1960s: the alternative was Malcolm X’s (“by any means necessary”).

It is a shame that Obama needs to appeal to white middle class self-interest rather than compassion and ideals of justice to rally support for action against poverty generally, and black poverty specifically. Whatever works, we suppose.

(By the way, if you’re hip enough – or of the right age – to get the allusion in this week’s title, you have our respect. . . or pity.)

*****

We would be remiss if we didn’t make sure you heard about this week’s Fox News blunder with racial implications. Thanks to our colleague Dr. Jon Mueller in North Central College’s Psychology Department, we were made aware of this curious (?) broadcast. Check it out.

If They Would Just Stop Acting So. . . BLACK!

This week, a Galesburg, Illinois high school denied five minority students their diplomas. The students fulfilled all the state requirements for graduation, but their parents apparently made too much noise during the commencement ceremonies. Several attendees noted that white students whose families made noise were not similarly denied diplomas.

It would be easy to suggest that the school officials are bigoted, but that’s not necessarily the case. They are, however, racist, and here’s why: they had a predetermined expectation about how people of color behave in situations like this. It’s an expectation that is certainly grounded in their experiences and in reality (just as most stereotypes that lead to prejudice are). Because of America’s history of discrimination, it is still the case that many black students graduating college or high school in 2007 are the first in their families to do so. Black students disproportionately face more obstacles during their time in school. Further, black culture is such that at many community gatherings – be it a church service, a film in a black neighborhood theater, or a graduation service – black folks often express themselves vocally. This tradition is neither preferable nor repugnant as compared to the Anglo tradition of sitting quietly until the “appropriate” time to respond. It’s just different. But in our culture, white folks make the rules, and they make them (consciously or otherwise) in accordance with their own cultural expectations.

Thus, to try to keep “decorum” in the ceremony, the rules were in place. Whether the black audience members violated them for their children and friends more egregiously than the white folks did is something we can’t know (and something that is pretty subjective anyway – did they employ a sound meter?). But it doesn’t matter. The school officials were affected by what cognitive psychologists refer to as “confirmation bias.” In other words, when the black students’ families broke the rules, it was expected, was consistent with the officials’ predispositions, and it was therefore noted. When the white families did so, it was processed by school officials as an anomaly rather than a pattern, and therefore not “recorded” as a violation in their brains. The end product is that the five students in question are now expected to serve eight hours of community service before getting their awards.

It’s instructive to read local community members’ comments about this story. Check out the piece in the online version of the Bloomington-Normal Pantagraph, with reader comments at the bottom.

It may or may not be an example of bigotry by school officials; it is definitely an example of racism.