Ain’t Too “Proud” to Beg: Candidate Spouses Exchange Over Patriotism

At a campaign stop this week, Michelle Obama, wife of Democratic frontrunner Barack Obama, quipped, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.” Conservatives in particular jumped all over the comment as an indication of her lack of patriotism. Noel Sheppard of “Newsbusters,” an online site that professes to combat the alleged “liberal bias” in the media, introduced his condemnation by noting that “Mrs. Barack Obama” made the comment. Conservative talk show host Mark Levin ripped into Michelle Obama on his program. Later in the week, Cindy McCain, wife of presumed Republican presidential nominee John McCain, noted that she is “very proud of [her] country,” in a clear response to Obama.

There are a lot of language issues to consider here, and some of them revolve around race.

First, though, we’d be remiss if we didn’t point out the inherent sexism on Sheppard’s part. Referring to Michelle Obama as “Mrs. Barack Obama” is to use antiquated phrasing that reduces Michelle Obama to a legal appendage of her husband. This language was developed at a time when women were considered to be legal property, passed from father to husband (as is still symbolized in the traditional American wedding ceremony). In those times, a woman’s identity was defined by her husband. While this language is still used occasionally, educated writers know to avoid it as gendered and, therefore, unacceptable. Sheppard is either ignorant of the sexism inherent in that phrasing or being intentionally insulting.

With respect to race, there are a lot of implicit issues at work. As a black woman, it is not surprising that Michelle Obama, in her 44 years on the planet, has not been “really” proud of America. Despite the positive developments during her adult years (roughly since Ronald Reagan took office), that are floating all around cyberspace this week in an attempt to embarrass her, it is understandable that those events would be filtered, in the mind of a black woman, through the lens of racist and sexist oppression. Whites who continually have seen their dreams realized by people who look like they do are slow to empathize with such a position.

Such egocentrism is evident in the words of conservative radio talk host Mark Levin, who angrily inquired and declared the following on his show (directed toward Michelle Obama, who was not on the show):

Have you suffered? Have you suffered, ma'am? I'm tired of people putting down this country. I'm tired of people pretending that this is still pre-slavery, pre-segregation, pre-internment.

For Levin and others, black folks need to simply “get over” slavery. Of course, black folks today are less concerned about slavery as they are about the legacy that slavery has left behind – a legacy that has just this year allowed a black man to have a legitimate chance to be elected president. From this perspective, it is not surprising that Michelle Obama is “really” proud of her country for the first time in her adult lifetime.

The word “really” in the quote is important and interesting in the context of the Los Angeles Times’s blog site, who omitted it when they first reported the story. A reader wrote in to note that different inferences could be made without that word included. That is, one might argue that it is one thing to never be “proud” and yet another to never be “really proud.” As a lawyer, we might suspect that Michelle Obama is thoughtful about language and chooses her words carefully. To ascribe a broader meaning to what she said is irresponsible at best.

The response from the Obama campaign was, in our view, lame and consistent with the campaigns unwillingness (likely for strategic purposes) to engage in more fundamental discussions of race:

Of course Michelle is proud of her country, which is why she and Barack talk constantly about how their story wouldn’t be possible in any other nation on Earth. What she meant is that she’s really proud at this moment because for the first time in a long time, thousands of Americans who’ve never participated in politics before are coming out in record numbers to build a grassroots movement for change.

Maybe she meant that (she’s proud of increased involvement), but she probably also meant what she’s accused by detractors of meaning: that she is finally proud because two people who look more like her than any other presidential candidates (with respect to race and gender) are positioning themselves to occupy the White House. Predictably, though, the campaign attempted to diffuse the statement with a more benign interpretation.

And, we might add, returning to the issue of sexism, Michelle Obama may also be referring to Hillary Clinton’s run (though she has not claimed to have done so, and the context suggests otherwise). As a woman who grew up not seeing equality in the public sphere, it would not be surprising that even though she is clearly in preference of her husband’s nomination, she is proud that America has finally progressed to the point where a woman could have a legitimate chance at being elected president, as well.

This leads us to our final thought for this week: Former National Organization for Women president Patricia Ireland once noted that progress is not equality. For those who have not been systemically disadvantaged, pointing to how much better things are than they were during slave times, during Jim Crow, or during times of legalized gender oppression is to suggest that marginalized groups accept what they’ve been given and not push too hard. Such a paternalistic suggestion simply reinforces what the Levins and Sheppards of the world argue against – that racism and sexism is alive and well in America. It’s not “as bad” as it used to be in a lot of ways, but so long as it exists, those committed to equality will argue that it must be combated. When major milestones are reached, those democrats (small “d”) will certainly express their pride.