Our "View"

ABC’s daytime talk show The View was full of discussion of Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright over the past week and a half, culminating in an appearance by Obama on Friday. We break down the discussion that took place on the popular program and offer commentary about the conversations.

First, it’s important to be aware of the show’s premise (from its website): It “is ABC Daytime's morning chatfest, featuring a team of dynamic women of different ages, experiences and backgrounds discussing the most exciting events of the day.” Anchored by Barbara Walters (who receives unnerving deference from the other women), the show has changed co-hosts over the years (Star Jones, Rosie O’Donnell and Meredith Vieira had stints of various lengths), but now includes Elisabeth Hasselbeck, Joy Behar, Sherri Shepherd and Whoopi Goldberg. Each apparently has a role to play. Walters is ostensibly the journalistic conscience of the program, though she is much more in touch with celebrity gossip than hard news. Goldberg is the “alternative voice”; replacing the controversial O’Donnell, Goldberg, with her overt progressivism and tell-it-like-she-sees-it style introduces the daily “hot topics” to be discussed. Hasselbeck is the token conservative voice. A former reality TV star applies talking points directly from AM talk radio and withstands constant attacks from the other women. Shepherd and Behar are comics (as is Goldberg) who put forth perspectives and humor, both intentional and otherwise. (For an example, consider Shepherd’s infamous moment where she admitted to not being sure the Earth is flat. The video of the original statement has been scrubbed from the Internet, but here is her defense of the comment the next day.).

What has become particularly interesting over the past week or so is Behar’s emergence as the intellectual backbone of the group. While the others resort to absent-mined categorizations and heuristics, Behar applies social science theory to the concept of racism. The day of Obama’s “A More Perfect Union” speech in Philadelphia (March 18, 2008), the crew engaged in a conversation about Obama’s responsibility to address Wright’s comments. Typical of many white responses to this situation, Walters said that it was too bad that racism has now become an issue and that she hoped we could “rise above” racism, as if it was this situation that brought about racism. It takes a special sort of arrogance or naiveté to not understand that racism is an issue every day in America; the only difference is that white folks have to think about it now. But if Walters gets her way, all that messiness will stop soon.

The next day, in response to the speech, Hasselbeck parroted the talk radio host line that Obama threw his grandmother under the bus by noting that she has made remarks that contain racist stereotypes. She then went on to use the faulty but common reciprocity argument by equating Wright’s comments with those of Don Imus by noting Obama’s outrage of the latter’s remarks about the women on the Rutgers championship basketball team last year. As Behar was trying to make a point, she noted that Imus’s comments struck Obama personally because he has two little girls, at which point Hasselbeck interrupted to say “It struck me and I’m white!” The equation of her being “struck” and that of an African American being struck is as offensive on its face as she likely believes it is empathetic (which Shepherd politely pointed out). Behar indicated how pleased she was to have heard such a “literate” speech by a presidential candidate on race. Walters, with a smug smile, noted that some might interpret Behar’s remark as racist.

This is a wonderful example of the intellectual shortcuts that people use to try to be politically correct. Walters was clearly thinking about the controversy over Joe Biden’s remarks in early 2007 that Obama was refreshing because he was “clean” and “articulate.” To a less sophisticated observer (as Walters is), this makes sense because paying a compliment to a person of color must be racist. What she fails to understand – and Behar points out – is that Biden’s remarks were reflective of his racism because he was using the “compliment” to distance Obama from other African Americans, as if this characteristic was not normally found in that population. Behar, on the other hand, was using the term “literate” to distance Obama from other presidential candidates, the vast majority of whom throughout our history have been white men.

When Goldberg returned on March 24 (Walters was not present), she weighed in with her perspective that there was nothing wrong with having close friendships with persons who have differing worldviews or perspectives (she mentioned her friendship with former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich). Hasselbeck quipped that she would never stay friends with someone she knew was racist. The half-second of silence was deafening. It was as if everyone in the studio recognized what a ridiculous statement she made, but no one was sure how to respond. (If you want to hear her parallel of Wright’s comments with Jeffrey Dahmer’s culinary habits, have at it.)

At this point, Behar provided what would have been the most thoughtful response about racial inequality on mainstream television to date if Obama’s speech hadn’t been given a few days earlier. She explained that she learned studying sociology in college that racism was “an institutional thing” and that it was “top-down.” She continued by noting that “you can’t be racist if you’re in the oppressed minority,” something we refer to regularly in this space but hear very seldom in the mainstream media. She continued, “So you have to call it something besides ‘racism’ according to the sociology professors that I took.” (We prefer “bigotry,” by the way.) At this point, Elisabeth felt perfectly comfortable saying, “Well, I don’t agree with those professors. I don’t think every professor is right. . .” (Check out the intellectually vacant commentary on this idea by the folks at NewsBusters.)

It’s a fair point, but only to a point. Academics need to be held accountable for their work (and are), but that’s not the same as saying that a sociologist’s perspective on racism is dismissed because a talk show host with no advanced degree or study on the issue doesn’t like (“agree”) with the position. It’s yet another illustration of the anti-intellectualism that has become increasingly common under this administration: If the science doesn’t fit, just deny it. Global warming isn’t real because we don’t want to change what we’re doing and lose money. Evolution isn’t real because it is at odds with our religion. Racism goes both ways because we (white folks) don’t think it’s fair that we get accused of it and people of color don’t (and, by the way, “we” get to determine what is fair and what is not).

In any event, Behar continued to explain why racism doesn’t go in both directions, and Hasselbeck, in typical fashion asked if she was condoning Rev. Wright’s statements. (Similar to the way trying to explain the 9/11 attacks is invariably met with a statement that one is excusing them.) Behar said, “I’m disagreeing with your use of the term ‘racism,’” and Hasselbeck, not being able to understand that she doesn’t get to just invent her own definitions of things to suit her position, figuratively threw a fit and said, “I believe it’s racist, it’s a form of bigotry, it’s wrong, no matter what side it’s coming from, it is wrong!”

Here she’s correct, but she doesn’t know it. It is a form of bigotry, and most would acknowledge that the few snippets of Rev. Wright’s sermons that are under consideration are “wrong” (some are factually so, others are arguable). But she failed to acknowledge that the difference in definition is more than semantics: it is a distinction of concepts that is fundamental to understanding racial inequality and the reasons behind why Wright and others hold such views.

Reacting to Obama’s statements that his grandmother is a “typical white person who, you know, when she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know, there’s a reaction,” Hasselbeck pointed out that she doesn’t feel that way, at which point, Shepherd and Goldberg shrugged their shoulders and had looks on their faces as if to say, “yeah. . . and?” Similarly, Sean Hannity this week also went to great pains on his radio show to point out that he was not racist in any way. After a caller admitted that Obama’s speech forced her to look at herself and be honest, Hannity noted that he had to be honest, too: he “doesn’t think that way.” Fox News reported that Geraldine Ferraro was offended that Obama lumped her in with Wright, who she believes is a “racist bigot” – a term that’s almost as funny as South Park’s Eric Cartman calling his friend Stan’s dog a “gay homosexual.”

Hasselbeck went back to old faithful – the reciprocity argument – and said that people would be outraged if someone talked about a typical black person. Goldberg correctly noted that it is done all the time (though not usually so explicitly, we would add), and Behar returned to trying to explain that racism could only be a label for the majority (white) population. She said of whites “they can take it,” that they haven’t been oppressed. Hasselbeck said that she understood that pain (which she clearly does not and cannot), and demanded to know, “When does it stop?! Write me the rules, then; write me the rules on racism.”

Elisabeth, listen to us, PLEASE. The rules on racism are written. You can choose to understand them and work to change them if you wish, but to not even acknowledge that there are rules is unacceptable for someone who insists on talking about such things publicly. What is happening is that you, Elisabeth, thought you knew what the rules are (everyone just be nice to everyone else), and now that you are hearing that it is more complicated, you are unwilling to withstand the psychological discomfort that comes with it.

At one point in the discussion, Behar asked if someone could look it up, and the “crack research department” (Behar’s words) at The View went to the dictionary. It’s not the ideal place for a sophisticated treatment of a complex topic, but the two definitions Behar read helped to make her point. The first was not race-specific, but did note that racism usually involved the idea that one’s race is superior and fit to rule others. Say what you like about African American bigotry, but there are very few who claim that blacks are superior and deserve to rule over whites. The second definition had to do with the policy or system of government based upon such a doctrine.

Finally, Obama appeared on The View Friday morning (here is part 1 of the 4-part clip of the appearance). Before he appeared, Elisabeth Hasselbeck found another snippet of a Wright speech to critique, one in which he referred to the Romans who prosecuted Christ of having “garlic noses.” She made the comparison with the infamous “hook nose” caricatures of Jews, and Joy Behar tried to explain that the difference was that Italians’ noses were never points of contention that were used to oppress. Elisabeth shouted (having not learned anything over the past week, apparently), “I think racism goes in all directions!”

It does not. (sigh)

When she had her chance to question Obama, Hasselbeck said that when she heard him say there was one America at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 that, even as a Republican, she really liked that. He had to (try) to explain to her that the idea was aspirational, not descriptive. That is, by saying that he believed that there was “one America,” he was saying that this is how things should be – that that is what we must aspire to. It is enlightening to note that members of the public heard that as an indication that there was no racism – that we were already one America.

This is comparable to a Rorschach test, where psychologists can learn about clients by virtue of what they “see” in ink blots. Different people “see” different things because of the predispositions they bring to the table. Elisabeth believed that the only racism was people who perhaps use the “n-word” or tell racist jokes, so when she heard Obama say there was one America, she thought he meant “now.” For the same reason, conservative talk show host Michael Medved this week was irate at Obama’s explanation of why he did not leave the church. On The View, Obama was asked if he would have left the church if Rev. Wright had not retired. Obama said that he would have left if Rev. Wright did not retire and did not admit that the things he said (that are of issue currently) were incorrect. Medved was literally screaming that Obama was a liar because Wright never renounced those comments. But Obama never said that he did. Rather, Obama said that if Wright were still the pastor, he would have had to renounce the statements or Obama would have left the church. Wright did retire, so the second point was moot. But Medved brought to the table an assumption that Obama and Wright were of the same mind and that Obama would say anything to make the controversy go away. His (conservative) callers tried to explain to him that he was understanding the comment incorrectly, but after playing it several times, Medved kept screaming, “Show me where Wright has renounced these things!”

It has been an eventful and, to our tastes, useful discussion of race surrounding Wright’s statements and, more importantly, Obama’s speech. The women on The View come from different backgrounds and reach a wide audience daily. The discussions are useful and, as we’ve seen, often quite sophisticated. We hope that the viewers walked away from those programs thinking more deeply about race than before they tuned in. As for Elisabeth Hasselbeck. . . we hope she reads this blog.

Speaking Truth to Power: The Role of Liberation Theology in American Life

In the past few weeks, more than one commentator has opined that Reverend Dr. Jeremiah Wright’s sermons about American foreign and domestic policy have no place in a space that is awarded not-for-profit status by the government. While this makes sense to many of us, it is important to examine the assumptions that come with such a belief.

Assumption #1: Churches’ missions, as not-for-profit organizations, must not be about social or political change, but rather only about worship and “service” to community.

As has been noted several times over the past few weeks, much social change has been rooted in organized religion. With respect to race relations, perhaps the most lucid reminder came from E.J. Dionne, who noted that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. preached what many considered (and consider) to be radical ideas from the pulpit. King was a revolutionary whose methods of force came through the power of nonviolence. That this was less threatening to progressive whites (particularly as compared to King’s contemporary, Malcolm X) is not incidental. King and Malcolm understood how their dynamic affected the potential for meaningful change, as well.

Pondering the purpose of organized religion is far beyond the scope of this space (and our expertise), but it is certainly too narrow of a construction to argue that worship be limited to giving thanks, asking forgiveness, and providing time and space for the study of scripture. What use is religion if it is not helpful to persons to make sense of their contemporary existence? Is not religion a guide by which the faithful are expected to live their lives? For the words of any holy book to make sense, they must be placed into both historical and contemporary context. Individuals can embark on such a process on their own, but traditionally, religious institutions have provided support and guidance.

Then what does it mean to take sacred texts and apply them to the real world? Commonalities in all religions (outside radical sects) include striving for peace, social justice, compassion, empathy and sympathy. For whom? It’s the province of historians to elucidate the plight of ancient peoples. The stories in holy texts are relevant only insofar as they apply to contemporary life. Contemporary life in America is characterized by widespread inequality of opportunity with respect to employment, housing, education and access to vital services such as healthcare.

Many houses of worship (of all types and colors) are involved in community activity that is designed to redress these inequalities. One way is to be reactive (host shelters, food banks, clothes drives, etc.; offer skills training; raise funds for charitable purposes). Another method is to try to alleviate suffering at its root, which is the etymological basis (Latin) of the word “radical.” In contemporary language, “radical” is synonymous with “extreme.” In some sense, it is admittedly out of the mainstream to actually work at the root or “cause” of a problem instead of merely treating symptoms to provide a (false) sense of security that something is being done. Liberation theology (within Christianity) refers to the belief that Jesus Christ’s life was and is about liberating those who are oppressed. It is not surprising that many white Americans are not familiar with such religious teachings because whites are not, as a group, oppressed (though white women are oppressed with respect to white men, LGBT folks with respect to heterosexuals, etc.). It is troubling, though, that such a sense of ethnocentrism exists even amidst such transcendental contemplation that relieving the suffering of others is not more central to “mainstream” (white) religion. As we suggested last week, this past weekend would have been a wonderful opportunity for Christians to consider Obama’s speech and reflect on what might be done in their pews and beyond to address racial inequality. We encourage anyone who heard relevant sermons this weekend to summarize in the comments section.

The arguments of whites who were or continue to be outraged by Dr. Wright’s comments assume that his words were somehow out of bounds in that setting. Who is to determine what is in bounds? Government? The framers insisted on a free and independent media because they understood that a media controlled by government could not be free to be critical. Similarly, religious groups that are held hostage by government’s continual threats of financial ruin are hardly free from excessive government entanglement that the First Amendment also prohibits.

[For an interesting, if brief, discussion of church’s not-for-profit status, see this piece on the IRS’s investigation of Obama’s speech before a United Church of Christ congregation in Hartford, CT last year. See also here. Also, interestingly, there has been a lively discussion at pregnancy.org]

Assumption #2: Persons are responsible for and assumed to be in agreement with ideas of their mentors.

Arguments that Obama did not distance himself enough from Dr. Wright are off base. The real question is, Why should he have to? One reason is the ridiculous suggestion that a person be held responsible for everything espoused by someone whom he or she admires. It is a sign of a lack of understanding of intellectualism to subscribe to such a position. Should Aristotle be held responsible for the ideas of Plato (many of which he disagreed with)? Was George H.W. Bush held to the ideas of Ronald Reagan (Iran-Contra anyone)? A church is a multi-faceted community that is, to borrow Obama’s phrase about America, bigger than the sum of its parts. A head pastor or priest or rabbi may very well be the public face of the institution, but to assume that all members agree in total with all that is said is asinine. Are we to have all Catholic parishioners register as sex offenders if their clergy were found guilty of molestation?

In short, anti-intellectuals such as Rush Limbaugh and his contemporaries take advantage of an opportunity to bash black folk while maintaining that it has nothing to do with race. It only “has nothing to do with race” if oppression has nothing to do with race. Granted, there are individuals who believe this. No matter how many statistics they see of disproportionate levels of incarceration, unemployment or underemployment, income and wealth or other forms of “success” between blacks and whites, there is no recognition that something besides individual choice is at work. Most, however, understand that there are barriers that are unique to persons of color, which means that oppression has quite a bit to do with race. Both Obama and Wright understand the black experience in a sophisticated way. That they express their ideas about rectifying it differently is beside the point. Obama and Wright have very similar views about race and American policy, even if they disagree on some specifics. Limbaugh and others may not be as interested in Obama distancing himself from the inflammatory rhetoric as they are with trying to get Obama on the record of opposing Wright’s broader ideas of the necessity for social change through examination of systems. Obama was unwilling to do that out of principle. If Ronald Reagan’s attitudes and policies that contributed to prolonged disadvantage of minority groups can be tolerated by virtue of sentiments such as “you always knew where he stood, even if you didn’t agree with him,” then even the “angry white guys” should give Obama the same courtesy.

Assumption #3: Being critical of government is “political,” but not speaking out against perceived injustice is not political.

In the 1960s, there was a slogan: If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. It is a pithy phrase that serves to both instigate change from passive progressives and point out the passive promulgation of reactionary ideas. This is markedly different than the “with us or against us” rhetoric preferred by many conservatives. In this case, noting the power differences between groups results in an understanding that not fighting to balance power is just as malicious as fighting hard to keep inequality in place. In fact, the silence is more dangerous because it is not easily identified as working to maintain the status quo. If all the burden rests on the shoulders of those without power, change is unlikely at worst and slow at best because of the unwillingness of those with access to power (“allies”) to help.

For houses of worship, then, refusing to acknowledge and address systemic barriers to participation in a democracy is tantamount to advocating to keep things unequal. How else can the large protestant “megachurches,” for instance, justify their members driving $70,000 vehicles that get 9 miles to the gallon while the planet is undergoing climate change and children are starving on the other side of town? How many would continue to attend if, week after week, they were reminded of their privilege and encouraged to sacrifice more for the betterment of others or society as a whole?

Preaching to a group of folks who have not been systemically disadvantaged presents a different context than that which Dr. Wright faced each Sunday. He led a group of people who understood the systemic contributions to racial inequality, so he was on firm footing to articulate “radical” concepts that seek to destabilize what they understand to be an unjust system. For Limbaugh, it is “patently obvious” that Dr. Wright “hates America,” so Obama should separate himself from such ideas. For the simplistic thinker, this is convenient. Any criticism of American systems or institutions is impermissible – certainly not from a man who leads a group of people (blacks) who are assumed to always be trying to get something that they do not deserve. For Limbaugh, Hannity and others, America is good, fair, and “right,” and any suggestion to the contrary is un-American. One might argue, however, that believing that America cannot do any better than it has by its minorities (racial and otherwise) is un-American.

[Oprah Winfrey’s bulletin boards were alive with discussion of black liberation theology this week.]

There are some who view organized religion as merely a method of mind control – a way to keep the masses subservient and placated by promises of a more blissful life after death. Others, however, see it as a way to make meaningful changes in the lives of communities on earth (perhaps as a prerequisite to earning a spot in the blissful afterlife). In either case, religion cannot be relegated to government-sanctioned expression, lest it be irrelevant beyond any argument whatsoever.

Ferraro, Wright, Paterson. . .(sigh): Big Week in Race

The delay in this week’s blog is inexcusable in some ways, but predictable, as well. You would think that by our 81st blog we would realize that no matter how much racial news is pouring in, we need to cut off the “week” at some point and write. With all of the rapidly unfolding developments this week, we just didn’t know when to stop watching and start writing. So we decided to write immediately after Barack Obama’s watershed speech on race today.

Before we get to that, though, here are the other two issues that were relevant this week:
1) Geraldine Ferraro claimed not to be a “racist” after saying that Obama has only done as well as he has because he is black. We had a lot to say about this (original title of the blog: “This Week’s Non-Racist: Geraldine Ferraro”), but since we write weekly and it happened early in the week, others beat us to the punch. We recommend a careful read of Orlando Lima’s excellent piece on The Huffington Post. In short, though, Ferraro argued that since she has fought for rights of racial minorities that being called “racist” was out of bounds. Her anger toward the media and the Obama campaign appears to be grounded in the assumption that black folks are always looking for a reason to call a white person “racist.” Actually, many black folks would say that they feel quite stifled in talking about race – a notion that is directly relevant to the comments made by Rev. Jeremiah Wright that were so ubiquitous this week.

To Ferraro, we repeat our familiar refrain: We’re all racist. Few would argue that Ferraro is a bigot (at least not until these recent comments), but the argument was both racist and insane. Obama addressed the ridiculousness of the comment best when he appeared on Good Morning America. He noted that the best way to become president was clearly not to be black and have a name like his. But many white citizens, forever convinced that racial quotas are keeping hard working whites out of jobs and colleges, certainly would disagree. From this vantage point, it took 220 years to have the first black candidate who has a legitimate chance of being elected president because there were not any African Americans who were smart enough or who worked hard enough to take advantage of the disproportionate opportunities they have had over whites.

In a related issue, the Clinton campaign was far from emphatic with respect to its denunciation of Ferraro’s remarks. Obama commented on it, as did some left-leaning commentators. In the end, Ferraro reluctantly resigned her symbolic post on the Clinton campaign.

2) It is certainly worthy of note that David Paterson became only the third black governor in American history (and New York’s first) after he assumed the role in the wake of Eliot Spitzer’s sex scandal. If this momentous occasion were not sandwiched between Ferraro and Rev. Wright, it would easily be the top race story of the week.

But as it happens, the most relevant story this week by far has been the attempts to attach Barack Obama to some snippets of sermons by his long-time (now former) minister, Jeremiah Wright. This issue first surfaced in the last presidential debate when Tim Russert tried to insinuate that Obama was supportive of former Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan because Farrakhan had endorsed Obama’s campaign. When that didn’t work, Russert turned to comments that Wright made about Farrakhan to try to make the link that way. Since then, Wright’s sermons have come under scrutiny, forcing Obama to give what will likely become seen as an historic speech today.

Obama took great risks to talk about the realities of race in America in the speech. He began with the founding documents’ promises and the contrast with the decisions made by our nation’s founders. He said that they “chose” to continue to permit our nation’s “original sin of slavery.” This is important because he is developing a narrative that most whites reject: that slavery is a direct cause of racial inequality today. He noted that the answer to the slavery question was embedded in the Constitution. That is, by allowing inequality to be built into the Constitution, our founders set us off on this path that would be difficult to alter.

He went on to note that it took a war and civil disobedience to “to narrow the gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time,” and he continually noted that we need to move toward a more perfect union, echoing the language of the Constitution’s preamble.

Then he told his own story, noting that “in no other country on earth is my story even possible.” Transitioning to the current controversy, he claimed that Wright has used “incendiary language” and language that served to “denigrate the greatness and the goodness of our nation.” Said Obama, Wright, “expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country.” Obama claimed that the comments were both wrong and divisive at a time when we need to come together.

Rather than move past the so-called “race issue,” Obama claimed that “race is an issue that . . . this nation cannot afford to ignore right now.” He warned against distorting reality by amplifying stereotypes, and admirably stated that “we’ve never really worked through these issues.” Tracing the causes back to slavery, we can see the legacy manifested in segregated schools, economic inequality and the breakdown of the black nuclear family. This is far from an accepted truism for many white Americans, so his forcefulness in this regard is notable.

Obama then explained that Rev. Wright was socialized during a time when segregation was legal and prejudice was much more blatant and hostile than it is now. This, Obama argued, informed Wright’s ideas and passions. Worldviews from Rev. Wright’s generation are distinct. Anger and bitterness have not gone away. They find their voice in the barbershop, beauty shop or around the kitchen tables, if not in front of white coworkers. They also find their voice in the church on Sunday mornings. He noted the oft-quoted Martin Luther King observation that the most segregated hour in America is 11:00 on Sunday morning.

What Obama implied but did not articulate is that those resentments had a chance to shape the political landscape in a way that black hostility has not because of the legacy of white supremacy dating back to the founding. But he tried to make the point clearly that it was improper to dismiss anger or resentment as anecdotal and irrelevant. At one point in the speech, Obama noted that black anger is real and powerful and to wish it away only serves to widen the chasm between the races. He said that the legacy of discrimination is real and that it is not just in the mind’s of black people.

A similar anger exists within segments of white America. This refers to what social scientists have referred to as “racial resentment” in the white community. Obama acknowledged that descendants of immigrants often proclaim that they worked their way up, so black folks should not be complaining. He claimed that too often opportunity is seen as a zero-sum game. As a consequence, resentment builds over time. Such white resentments – like black anger – are not always expressed in polite company, but they have helped shape the political landscape. In sum, Obama offered that just as black anger has proven counterproductive, white resentments have distracted attention from the “middle-class squeeze.”

The political brilliance of the speech was the linkage to existing themes in Obama’s campaign. He noted several times that people would have to work together, that black struggles should be linked with wider struggles, and that the problem with Rev. Wright’s comments was that he spoke as if the nation was static, failing to recognize the progress that has been made and believe in the progress that can be made: “American can change. That is the true genius of this nation.”

The most emotionally powerful parts of the speech were when Obama talked about his grandmother’s bigotry and racism, and when he told the story of the white girl and the elderly black man who both were supporting his campaign. Again, this has been a consistent theme in the campaign since the beginning – people of all types coming together for a common purpose.

Obama’s speech has the potential to allow him at once to “transcend race” (as he has clearly attempted to do from the start) while acknowledging the racial problems that exist in America. Further, he put forth a vision of progress. What is left to be determined is whether white folks will be willing to join in the conversation rather than just put their hands over their eyes like a baby who believes that this will make her invisible and make that which is in front of her disappear.

The reality in America today is that black preachers can talk about racial inequality in America in a way that black folks are not invited to do in a multi-racial setting. The conversations about race that take place around kitchen tables in black households is markedly different than those that take place in white households, largely because such conversations rarely take place in white households.

Most would agree that there are still many issues with racism in America. But if that’s true, why are white priests, rabbis, and ministers not talking about it in their sermons? Will they begin to do so this week? For Christians, for instance, Easter may be an opportune time to have a symbolic new beginning to approaches to doing God’s work on earth.

In short, Obama’s speech today was critical far beyond the Rev. Wright controversy or even the 2008 presidential campaign. If we are to make more progress toward racial equality, white folks must come to the realization that by pretending that we are all have equal opportunities, we are only prolonging the potential reality of true equality. The risk in the speech was that whites (particularly white men) who have been so instrumental in Obama’s victories thus far will reject the message as too uncomfortable for them to hear. Is this a preview of what would happen in an Obama administration? Will we be forced to talk honestly about race?

America may be ready for a black president in theory, but whether we are ready for such honest discussion of the legacy of our national embarrassment is quite another matter.

This Just In: White Guys are #1, Black Men Belong in Back of Bus

In what seems to be a stranger and stranger season of open racial bigotry, this week’s events involving race and language almost write themselves. Three very visible conservative pundits expressed openly bigoted comments that demonstrate less that they are hostile, hate-filled reactionaries and more that they just do not get it.

Reacting to Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean’s comments that the Democratic presidential candidates resembled America while the Republican side “looks like the 1950s and talks like the 1850s,” Tucker Carlson and Pat Buchanan engaged in a televised gripe session about how white men have been getting the short end of the stick. Said Carlson: “I must say, I'm not going to sit by a single more time and listen to someone slag on, quote, ‘white men.’” Atta boy, Tucker! Wherever there are those with no voice, there Tucker Carlson shall be. It’s about time someone stood up for the oppressed white man in America. (On a side note, Dean made essentially the same comments last September at National Baptists Convention and no one seemed to notice.)



But as angry as Tucker was, Buchanan’s comments were even more amazing. First, he noted that he was offended. Fair enough. We do not find it acceptable for anyone to tell anyone else what he or she should or should not find offensive. But Buchanan continues by attempting to make a logical argument about why white men should not be attacked (the following is absolutely true, we promise – watch for yourself above):

“. . .what did white males do? OK, they were the only guys signing the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, all the dead at Gettysburg, all the dead at Normandy.”

Media Matters has posted an historical assessment of his statement’s inaccuracies, but more interesting to us is the fact that his language – the matter-of-fact tone in particular – suggests that he really believes that white men have been successful because they simply worked harder than everyone else. Right, Pat: when it was time for the Constitutional Convention, the American Indians, slaves and white women were too lazy to show up. Sure, they were invited and urged to attend, but instead, they hung out on their plantations, made doilies and smoked peyote. If they would have just had a culture of excellence and pushed themselves, it all would have worked out fine.

As Bill Press tried to explain institutionalized racism and sexism in between quips, Buchanan added a very revealing statement: “I think you guys are self-hating white folks.” Predictably, Buchanan individualizes a systemic issue. If he conceptualizes the fight for racial and gender equality as being about each of us fighting for our own interests, then he surely believes that inequality (assuming he believes it even exists) is solely a result of individuals’ behaviors. That’s comforting to those who wish to believe in (or justify) the inherent good of a system because any evidence of injustice will be placed on the victims rather than the system that was built on, has led to, and perpetuates that injustice. In short, Pat Buchanan and Tucker Carlson cannot tolerate white men or anyone else advocating for equal rights for white women and people of color because they believe that the playing field is equal and whomever rises to the top deserves to be there.

Carlson was even so arrogant as to proclaim his own objectivity on the matter:

Let me just say this. I think -- and I'm not just -- you know, people say, "Oh, you're a white man. That's why you're defending white men." Actually, I'm being sincere. I'm defending this purely on principle. I don't think that you ought to cavalierly attack people based on their race or gender. And consider if that was any other group. "Well, this group is so-and-so or such-and-such." There would be an uproar. I think when you allow this kind of gar -- I mean, Howard Dean's an -- not very smart, so he gets kind of a pass, but a lot of smart people say this sort of thing.

Ok, let’s unpack this in four parts:

1. Does he really believe that he can simply detach his bias from his analysis? None of us can. The point of scientific research is to follow standard procedure so that we can get as close to objectivity as possible, but none of us can detach from our own reality. It’s a remarkably naïve statement.

2. Very few serious social critics “cavalierly” do anything, but even fewer “attack people based on their race and gender.” Like Buchanan, Carlson believes the struggle for equality is about people not liking one another. Feminists are man-haters. Black people hate “crackers,” etc. As long as I don’t say the n-word or I have a black friend, racism isn’t my problem. In other words, it’s less the bigotry that these folks put forth but their fundamental lack of understanding of systemic oppression that is most dangerous and has allowed inequality to continue.

3. Here we go again with the faulty reciprocity argument. For instance, by this reasoning, historically black colleges are examples of black racism because “if whites had colleges targeted toward them, there’d be riots!” The reciprocity argument relies upon the false presupposition that people of all races are treated equally and have equal opportunities. It ignores the important element of power in race and gender relations. It’s like saying that labor unions should not be able to strike because employers are not allowed to simply stop working. If there were equal power between employers and employees, it would be a fine argument. As it is, though, businesses downsize, layoff, fire and otherwise wield power over employees. The threat of a strike is an attempt at equalizing the power difference. So it’s simply not credible to argue that Dean’s comments are inappropriate because if a minority group argued that a privileged group was “so-and-so and such-and-such” it would not have behind it the historic power of dominance that the reciprocal has.

4. Finally, acknowledging that “a lot of smart people” acknowledge systemic racism and sexism should be a tip-off that there is something to it. Rather than dismiss it out of hand because considering it is psychologically uncomfortable, why not wrestle with it a bit and try to understand the nuance instead of dumbing it down and oversimplifying it to pacify others who wish to ignore systemic inequality? Jon Stewart tried to explain this to Carlson and Crossfire co-host Paul Begala years ago when he went to the now-canceled program to explain to them why they are “hurting America.” If you have never seen it, be sure to check it out here.

We generally focus on effects and do not venture into the land of speculating on individual beliefs, but if you need more evidence of Buchanan’s commitment to the theory of the appropriateness of white supremacy, here you go: “. . . every president has been a white male, Bill, every one.”

Yep. You read that correctly. And because the other two ignored or failed to hear the statement the first time, he got it in again a few seconds later: “I would remind you, every single president has been a white male. Is that something wrong with America?” And then a few seconds later, on the same point: “Is that wrong with America?”

Yes! That’s right, Pat. That IS wrong with America. In a supposedly free society that values equality it is neither coincidence or biologically determined that the head of our nation for 220 years has been only white males. Just like in 1776 and 1787, women and people of color are just not interested in becoming president. They are too busy with other things. Or perhaps they are just not good enough genetically. For those who refuse to acknowledge systemic racism and sexism (lest something be “wrong with America”), this is the thought process. While we disagree with this perspective strongly and find it baseless to argue, we would respect the argument if those making it would simply be up front about their beliefs. If white men get most of the breaks, it has got to be one of three reasons: they work harder and deserve it more; they are genetically superior; or there are external constraints that give them an advantage. Those who deny the third must take up one of the other two, but they almost never do. Acknowledging that America is not perfect is not the same as “hating” America. That “love it or leave it” mentality is further evidence of the false dichotomy that only serves to reinforce existing inequality and perpetuate stereotypes and myths about people of color.

Enter Kellyanne Conway’s Friday night appearance on Larry King Live. Conway suggested that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were arguing about whether she should let him sit “on the back of the bus” on her presidential ticket.



Ok, so picture this: we are sharing a hotel room in Norman, Oklahoma this weekend because we are at the Political Communication Center archive viewing and coding some 1,200 ads. As we are relaxing and catching up on some news that evening, Conway makes the comment and we look at one another, both thinking that we must have heard her wrong. Neither of us said a word. Turning back to the TV, we see Obama supporter Jamal Simmons with a similar look on his face. Confronting Conway, he noted that her comments were “beyond the pale” but agreed to drop it as she stumbled around trying to explain how there was nothing racial about her comments (all while avoiding mentioning anything about race, by the way).

Some of you will choose to believe she was intentionally making a bigoted statement by using implicitly racial language, but she got caught. It is possible, of course. But watch her as she tries to explain herself. She actually looks like she doesn’t get it at all first, then it seems to strike her that she used lanhttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifguage she wishes she hadn’t, and then she spends the rest of the time pretending that she hadn’t come to that realization. All of this happens in the span of about 20 seconds.

Whether she meant it or not, it is inexcusable level of insensitivity, particularly as we are witnessing the fruits of the legacy of the struggles that bus segregation represents in the Civil Rights Movement. Along side O’Reilly’s “lynching party” statement late last month, we are seeing an amazing level of ignorance and/or bigotry in our public discourse. If this is a sign of things to come if Obama gets the nomination, we may have to change this space to “Today in Race.”

Woes, Ho-Ho's and Foes

This week, Tim Russert sought to play Six-Degrees-of-Louis Farrakhan with Barack Obama, Kwame Kilpatrick’s troubles got much more serious, we got an update on the horrific statistical inequality in the American justice system, and Obama told black folks to cut down on junk food (not the delicious chocolately Ho-Ho, per se, but it rhymed for the title). In short, the substantive issues explicitly centering on race in politics this week were varied, but the potential effects on attitudes about black leadership were consistent.

We’ll start with Tuesday’s Democratic presidential debate in Cleveland, where Tim Russert asked Obama if he would accept the endorsement of former Nation of Islam leader Rev. Louis Farrakhan that was announced last weekend. Obama stated that he rejected Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic remarks over the years and eventually said that he both rejected and (after complaints from Hillary Clinton that “reject” was not the same as “renounce”) renounced Farrakhan’s endorsement. Russert would not be discouraged by Obama’s distancing, though, and took another approach. He proceeded to note that Obama’s (Christian) minister had kind words to say about Farrakhan at one time. As Glenn Greenwald astutely notes in his column at Salon.com, there seems to be a double-standard as to how closely a candidate is associated with remarks of his or her supporters. Further, Senator Clinton refused to “reject” or “denounce” the comments of Dallas Hispanic organizer Adelfa Callejo after Callejo noted that Obama’s problem with Hispanic voters is that “he happens to be black,” and, from her perspective, black folks did not help Hispanics when the former gained power, but rather took their numbers for granted.

But there is a substantive issue at stake – foreign policy in the Middle East. Specifically, both Clinton and Russert suggested that association with anti-Semitic remarks from a supporter could signal a lack of support for Israel as an ally. Tension between the African- and Jewish-American communities is nothing new. There are a number of scholarly books on the subject, and we have documented elsewhere that the issue served as a basis for claims of authenticity in a race between two black candidates for Congress in Georgia a few years back. If Obama gets the nomination, we can be sure that John McCain’s supporters will continue to raise the question – not because of any espoused policy by Obama, but because of the stereotype that black Americans are less committed to the Israeli state and Israeli interests as white Americans.

And speaking of stereotypes about black Americans – Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick is doing his part to perpetuate negative stereotypes about black men having uncontrollable libidos and a propensity to bend or break rules for personal gain. Kilpatrick has been embroiled in allegations of impropriety for some time, but this Wednesday, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that his administration did not have the right to keep private papers relating to his attempts to cover up an extramarital affair he had with his chief-of-staff. A slew of explicit text messages between the two surfaced and revealed the affair (which Kilpatrick admitted Wednesday in a televised apology with his wife), and now the attention has turned toward his cover up, including allegations of perjury.

Such a story does not help black candidates or black leaders generally because it plays into racist predispositions about African Americans. Cognitive psychologists identify a phenomenon called “confirmation bias,” which refers to the fact that we process information that we find consistent with our preexisting beliefs in such a way as to verify and perpetuate those beliefs, but process information that runs contrary to those beliefs as anomalous – outliers that are exceptions to the belief, rather than proof to the contrary.

Assumptions about black criminality were at issue this week more broadly as a Pew Center report was released showing the racial disparity in America’s prisons. One in 109 white American men (over age 18) are behind bars; for black men, the ratio is 1 in 15; for Hispanic men, 1 in 36. For black men ages 20-34, the ratio is a staggering 1 in 9. These numbers beg the question: Why such a disparity? The answer to the question is beyond the scope of this blog, but there are only a couple of options: 1) it is biological (i.e., black folks are genetically predisposed to crime) 2) there are inequalities built into the system that result in people of color being more likely to commit crime; 3) there are inequalities built into the system that result in people of color being incarcerated at a higher rate than whites who commit crimes at the same rate and/or 4) there are cultural differences between whites and people of color where criminality is accepted in the latter and law and order is valued more in the former. Of course, these are not mutually exclusive options. They challenge us to be clear about how our public policy takes into consideration systemic factors (such as poverty) that relate to crime and incarceration.

For his part, Barack Obama referred to stereotypes this week, as well, as he did not shy away from criticisms of what he sees to be problematic in the black community. Speaking to a predominantly black group of supporters in Fort Worth, Texas, Obama lit into black adults for not being more attentive to their children. He criticized them for allowing too much television and video games, not paying enough attention to kids’ homework, and allowing them to eat too much junk food. Obama invoked the age-old “fried chicken” image by asking if they had the Southern-style fast food franchise Popeyes in Texas: "Y'all have Popeyes out in Beaumont? I know some of y'all you got that cold Popeyes out for breakfast. I know. That's why y'all laughing. ... You can't do that. Children have to have proper nutrition. That affects also how they study, how they learn in school."

The problem here is that such comments were appropriate for his immediate audience – an audience that is in a position to weigh the criticism and the invocation of the stereotype. The wider audience, though, is not in such a position. White folks’ confirmation bias will likely result in them processing the information in such a way as to reinforce what they already think about black folks. Priming schemata that contain black stereotypes results in other stereotypes surfacing. In a week when Obama can only stand to be hurt by negative stereotypes, such a message is dangerous.

If Obama wins decisively on Tuesday in Ohio, Vermont, Texas and Rhode Island, he will likely cruise on to victory as the Democratic presidential nominee. But Hillary Clinton has shown every indication that she will fight hard through Tuesday at least. As has been the case all along, the “blacker” Obama looks in the eyes of white (and, at least in Texas, according to Callejo, Hispanic) Americans, the more remote his chances to win.