Don't Talk to Strangers: Obama as Other

It is wise advice for parents to tell their children not to talk to strangers. It was not until THIS WEEK, however, that such an admonishment was applied to listening to a speech by the president of the United States.

Barack Obama plans to give a "back to school" address on Tuesday "about the need to work hard and stay in school." In such a polarized political context, it is refreshing to have a visible leader speak about something on which folks from every political persuasion can agree. Except that with this president, in this context, conservatives are suspicious about the content, demanding to see the text of the address in advance.

One-time Republican presidential hopeful Gary Bauer called the speech an "unprecedented" use of power." He was not making a cheeky reference to President George W. Bush's surveillance of U.S. citizens, Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus or any of the invasions of sovereign nations that the U.S. has undertaken over the years. He was being completely sincere, and so was the chairman of the Florida Republican Party in a memo that accused the president of using "taxpayer dollars . . . to spread President Obama's socialist ideology." A Republican state lawmaker from Oklahoma is quoted as saying, "As far as I am concerned, this is not civics education — it gives the appearance of creating a cult of personality. This is something you'd expect to see in North Korea or in Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

Of course, such an argument is wholly without merit. There is certainly a "cult of personality" around the U.S. president for school children, and there always has been. Fred Greenstein's groundbreaking work with children in the 1960s revealed that presidents are perceived as "benevolent leaders" to children, irrespective of their parents' political beliefs. There have always been portraits of the current president hanging in schools, courthouses, post offices and other public spaces. Portraits do not invite "a critical approach" to presidents, as the Arizona state schools superintendent said should happen; indeed, they invite "worship" of our nation's top leader in the name of patriotism.

Is this paranoia racially driven? A solid case could probably be made for that, but we are not going to make it. What we will do, however, is explain how these accusations work to erode Obama's image as part of a larger push to portray him as "other." As we always do, we will take the social science approach and focus on the effects of this communication rather than the intent of the folks who are crafting and delivering the message.

Social science research reveals that racist messages in political campaign communication almost never occur as a result of a candidate using direct ("explicit") racist language. Rather, there is a combination of images and code words that are effective because they activate deeply-held racist predispositions in the minds of voters (not just White voters). Again, this work speaks to the way that such messages have the potential to affect voters; it makes no claims as to whether such appeals were intended by the candidates or their campaign teams. In some case (like the infamous Willie Horton ad from 1988), we can know intent because the architect (in that case, Lee Atwater), admitted as much (in that case, after he knew that he was dying -- far too young -- of cancer), but for the most part, we cannot, as President George W. Bush used to say, know what is in their hearts.

In our most recent work, we found that there is a tendency to use in-group/out-group language to indicate "otherness," a tactic which has the potential to be greatly exacerbated when the "other" is a member of a racial or ethnic minority group. Such language often comes by way of the choice of first person pronouns in combination with images that suggest the race of the in group. For instance, if a White candidate is running against a Black candidate in a district that is majority-White, he or she might run an ad that includes only White citizens, with language about "our values" or "our priorities," signaling that those priorities are different than those of a candidate of color. There is nothing inherently racist about candidates trying to convince voters that they are more "relatable" than their opponents; as a result of the way race has worked in America, however, the priming of group identity with images in combination with such language can work to the advantage of a candidate who employs such a strategy.

We can see this very clearly in Barack Obama's opponents over the past two and a half years. From the Democratic primaries through the election through the first six months of his presidency, detractors from all political persuasions have used language that pushes Obama into the category of "other." The specific elements on which Obama is accused of being different change (quite frequently, in fact): He has been labeled as un-American in at least these ways by political elites: communist/socialist/Marxist, elitist, corrupt, terrorist sympathizer, foreign-born, a thug, fascist and racist (ironically, this is considered to be un-American). None of these labels are racist in and of themselves (even "racist"), but when leveled against a person of color, the dynamic is inherently different.

Does that mean that any attack against a person of color is racist? Certainly not (though Obama's opponents have used that argument, as well). First, even if the messages are racist by these scholarly definitions, that does not mean that those who crafted the message did so intentionally (did we mention this already?). Second, there are all sorts of ways that a person of color can be criticized on political grounds without playing into preexisting negative stereotypes about that person's race or ethnicity. Suggesting that Barack Obama is trying to deceive people has a racist effect because African Americans are presumed to be shifty, dishonest and criminal. To argue that Barack Obama's health care proposal is bad for America because small businesses would have a difficult time with the provisions, for instance, is wholly non-racial. Some progressives have argued that all of Obama's opponents are playing on race because the overwhelming visible criticism of him has been based on fear appeals related to negative stereotypes about African Americans.

This latest criticism over the education speech is no different. The argument is that Obama is trying to play a shell game with the American people, to "get at" our children, and to be dishonest about his true intentions. Such a criticism aimed at a White president (or official or candidate) carries no racist associations, as Whites are not, as a group, commonly assumed to have such characteristics. Since such stereotypes do exist about Blacks, however, the effect of this charge is different.

Former Republican Speaker of the House (and likely 2012 presidential hopeful) Newt Gingrich came out in support of the president's speech on Sunday, but implied that his support was related to the fact that he believed that the text of the speech would be made available so that parents could choose whether to allow their children to be exposed to the message. This is consistent with the calls from many of those who have criticized the speech, suggesting that Obama is trying to hide the content from parents. We do not know how common it is for presidents to release the text of their speeches weeks or days ahead of time (though it is quite common for text to be released to the press hours ahead of time for publication assistance), but in the larger context of conservative attacks on Obama over the past year or so, the request is troubling, as it signals that Black folks -- even the president -- cannot be trusted to talk directly to our students without parents having the chance to censor.

Adults talk to our children everyday without our input: teachers, firefighters, police officers, other children's parents on "career days," etc. Presumably there is no opposition to such speakers because those folks are not "strangers" -- they are members of our community. In the past, presidents of the United States were very much considered to be members of our community -- even largely in communities of color.

But this president will never be accepted as "family" or even as legitimate to many Whites. Once that is understood, it is not surprising that parents would not want their children to hear what he has to say unless and until they approve the content ahead of time. If you are not "one of us," you do not get to talk to our children.

Update (9/7/09, 12:39pm CDT): The text of the president's speech to children can be found here.

Moving Forward in a New Era

It is undoubtedly a new era in American racial politics. While most of the old rules still apply, there is a new dynamic in place that will affect the way we (and others) approach racism in our work. THIS WEEK, we offer our analysis of the inauguration with an eye toward the future -- not just of the nation, but of the Race Project and research, commentary and analysis on race generally.



We have no interest in being the sobering voice that kills the collective euphoria that is sweeping the world this week. The symbolic nature of Obama's rise to power is an important element in the struggle for civil rights in and of itself; the fact that he will probably work to move us forward in this area while in office (and, we believe, even more so after he leaves office) is icing on the proverbial cake.

There was a good bit of hyperbole swilling about yesterday, but a lot of it was accurate. This is, indeed, a new era. There has been a shift to the left that is comparable to the shift to the right that occurred when Ronald Reagan took office. If it can be sustained for a similar length of time, there is a real opportunity to socialize a new generation into the core American values of putting others' needs before our own intersets, acknowledging the lasting power of the legacy of slavery and segregation to earnestly combat injustice and inequality, and fostering a genuine belief in the dignity of each individual that translates into equal opportunities for every American child.

That is a tall order, indeed, and one that is in competition with a very troublesome economy and a fractured foreign policy record for the attention of the new president. Not everyone will be pulling in the same direction. Despite impressive nonpartisan demonstrations from the likes of U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham and others, there is a small group of folks who could not listen to Obama's speech with an open mind and heart and who have already begun the countdown to the 2012 election (which clearly indicates that they have no plans of helping or even rooting for a successful end to the recession, a smooth withdrawal from Iraq or any of the other plans Obama has for his first term).

In a speech at a forum immediately following the ceremony yesterday, Stephen highlighted three categories of citizens in terms of their response to the historic event. The text of that speech appears below.

Finally, we would very much like to invite TWIR readers to share their thoughts about the inauguration. Where did you watch it and with whom? What did you feel and think? We would love for the comments section to be a repository for the reflections of our readers -- people who are constantly thoughtful about race and politics.

Stephen Maynard Caliendo
Faculty Panel Following Barack Obama’s Inauguration
North Central College
January 20, 2009

Americans’ responses to this event can generally be categorized into three groups:

One group – the smallest – is sickened by today’s events. These folks never wanted to see a minority (a woman or a member of a racial minority group) in the White House.

Another group, comprised of mostly young people, is unimpressed or even frustrated by the attention being paid to Obama’s race. These are folks who consider themselves “post-racial.” They understand that it is a big deal because it is a “first,” but since they are not overtly bigoted (and know very few people who are), they do not fully grasp the significance of the moment.

A third group – by far the largest – is moved beyond words. Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, folks in this category reflect upon this, a day many thought they would not see in their lifetime.

The first group, the bigots, will have their day yet. They will not go quietly, though I am confident that they will be rendered increasingly irrelevant. They will devise new ways to couch their racism, deny the impact of our racist history, and make certain that any failing President Obama has will be at least in part attributed to his race. Look for suggestions of an “affirmative action” president from members of this group. They subscribe to the familiar double standard when poor folks need help it’s welfare, but when CEOs need help, it’s government aid. They will use Obama’s presidency as a way to accuse poor people of color of resorting to victimization and laziness – after all, if this black man can be president, racism is clearly not a problem, right?

The second group is, of course, the future. They will push forward with their vision of a color blind society. I would advise members of this group to try to move into the emotional space of the third group today. See it through their eyes. Try to understand that reminding ourselves about the struggle results in two positive outcomes: 1) we are less likely to repeat our same mistakes, and 2) we constantly remember that progress does not equal equality.

It is squarely on the shoulders of the third group to move the significance of this moment forward. For it is you who remember that the streets of Pennsylvania Avenue this morning are lined with the blood of Malcolm X, Medgar Evers, and Martin Luther King, Jr., just to name a few, the sweat of Rosa Parks, John Lewis, Morris Dees and Jesse Jackson, again to name but a few, and the tears of Nelson Mandela, Mamie Till, and millions of people of all races, ethnicities and nationalities who have watched as a nation that in so many ways is the beacon of democracy, justice and equality has fallen far too short of those ideals for far too long.

But today is truly a new day. The next generation will not see race as a barrier to the highest office in the land any more than the current generation sees having been divorced or having experimented with drugs – both of which were once deal breakers, but now are quite irrelevant.

The next generation must understand, however, that Barack Obama became president in spite of his race. His election does not make it equally likely for a black man or a woman of any color to be elected to any office, though it makes it more likely. His election does not mean that African American babies born today have the same chance at prosperity as white babies born today. His election does not lift from our collective shoulders the burden of doing the hard work that is necessary to heal the wounds of the past and the present. His election does, however, mean that we are much closer to those goals and to that work.

As someone who has committed his professional life to combating injustice and inequality, I’m very proud to be an American today – more than any other day in my life. I’m proud to share this moment with you, on this campus of this College, which has such a strong commitment to social justice. I’m thankful to those of you who decided to share this moment with us, as well. And I’m looking forward to moving into a new era with an optimistic outlook about moving closer to realizing the potential that is America.

Thank you.