Obama, Race and Our Segregated Power Structure

People are talking about Barack Obama making history tonight.

Yet in America's long struggle for racial equality, 2007 was a paradoxical year. Just as our political system seriously contemplated a black President for the very first time, the Supreme Court declared the end of racial integration policy, halting voluntary local remedies to desegregate public schools under Brown vs. Board of Education. Presented with the rise of Barack Obama and the fall of Brown, most people have focused on the good news.

Many Americans were captivated by the self-proclaimed "audacity" of Obama's January announcement that he was running for President. Obama made it clear he was not running to send a message or to register voters but literally to get elected. His campaign initially worked because the political elites accepted this unprecedented proposition. Reporters took Obama's candidacy seriously from its inception, and the donors did, too. Obama has already secured more than a footnote in history, shattering records for individual contributors to his campaign. Win or lose, he is arguably the first black American to be treated by the political and media establishment as a fully viable presidential contender. It is an achievement that cannot be claimed by any other racial minorities. (Jesse Jackson's campaigns did not attain such standing with the political establishment, despite their significance for many voters.) We should not gloss over this development. It is a meaningful step towards addressing a resilient, uncomfortable American fact: our national power structure has always been, and stubbornly remains, overwhelmingly white, from all forty-three Presidents across history to ninety-five of the one hundred senators serving today.

That segregated power structure was reinforced by the Supreme Court's sharply divided June decision to ban integration programs in public schools. Most educational policies that consider a student's race for the purposes of integration are now illegal. Like the original Brown opinion, this year's decision is not neatly confined to K-12 schools, either. Brown consecrated a new national ambition for racial equality in the public sphere, delegitimizing both explicit and implicit racism in government, and laying a foundation for remedial measures to equalize many other facets of our society. Many critics contend that this case, Parents Involved In Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, augurs a disturbing slide backwards. It bans integration programs, sharply restricts race-based government remedies and sets the stage for future bans on other remedial programs, such as affirmative action, as Justice Stephen Breyer warned.

But will the public really stand for this sweeping attack on Brown's legacy?

Yes. In most of the country, public opposition towards measures to remedy America's history of racial discrimination, from academic recruitment to professional affirmative action, has actually outpaced the conservative court. Even putting aside the South, generally liberal electorates--including California, Washington and Michigan--have passed state referenda completely banning affirmative action. Hostility towards affirmative action runs so deep, in fact, it is a staple of attacks against black political candidates. Senator Jesse Helms perfected coded campaign racism in 1990, with an infamous attack ad darkly juxtaposing his black opponent's face with the text "For RACIAL QUOTAS." Which brings us back to Barack Obama.

Some commentators have latched onto Obama's success as proof for the flawed claim that the United States has completely achieved equal opportunity for all, obviating remedial programs like affirmative action. "Obama embodies and preaches the true and vital message that in today's America, the opportunities available to black people are unlimited if they work hard, play by the rules, and get a good education," writes Stuart Taylor Jr., a columnist for The National Journal (emphasis added). Taylor presents one man's unusual political arc as a universal lesson for all "black children": "Obama's soaring success should tell black children everywhere that they, too, can succeed, and they do not need handouts or reparations." Obama's success is definitely inspirational, but is that because it is an average example or a remarkable exception?

As a politician, Obama is an accomplished black man who knows that some voters still see him, before all else, as "the black candidate." It seems as if commentators either fixate on how his blackness makes his candidacy historic--as I just did--or debate whether he is "black enough." Obama dutifully protests these lines of inquiry, assuring audiences that his qualifications, vision and personal experiences transcend race. This is not only true, it is a political necessity. Obama knows that he is unlikely to win as the "black candidate," let alone the "affirmative-action candidate."

Few other campaigns in recent memory have pressed meritocratic credentials as forcefully as Obama's aides. Today's candidates tend to downplay their Ivy League educations in favor of more humble qualifications. Yet it is rare to hear Obama's history discussed without a reference to Harvard, or his prestigious stint as editor-in-chief of its Law Review. Even when his campaign is not emphasizing it, reporters highlight Obama's education far more than any other candidate's. Take, for example, articles from the major newspapers about the leading Democratic candidates in the first ten months of this year's campaign. Obama's Harvard Law credentials turn up a whopping 178 times--six times the thirty Yale references for Hillary Clinton. John Edwards's law school was only mentioned once, in an article about how he met his wife.

This emphasis is vital to Obama's candidacy. He earned his past success and current prominence, in this narrative, as evidenced by his academic achievement and intelligence. The story line aims to banish the racist thought, lurking beneath our public discourse, that perhaps this candidate succeeded only because of his race. Sometimes it seeps out anyway. During a January appearance on Fox News, columnist John McWhorter offered the baseless claim that "the reason that [Obama is] considered such a big deal is simply because he's black." McWhorter implausibly continued, "If you took away the color of his skin, nobody right now would be paying him any attention."

Such baseless attacks obviously predate Barack Obama. Even the most extraordinarily successful minorities are either attacked for their achievements, or the meaning of their educational and professional advancement is contested. Like other talented, smart and successful black Americans who have broken barriers (including Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice), Obama excelled in an institution that used affirmative action to propel qualified minority applicants. Having proven their mettle as leaders, it is clear each of these figures would excel without affirmative action. And no one knows how their careers would have developed in a society without remedial measures for discrimination. Yet their paths show how the United States has benefited from applying affirmative action in public institutions.

I try to tell more of that story in the rest of this essay for The Nation. (This post is an excerpt of Part I.)

Comments

[OhgReaTone]

Obama has bridged the 'two-ness' of being both Black and American. Do not mistake him for the loud moth Al Sharpton.
Ohg
http://thefiresidepost.com/2007/10/11/obama-the-soul-of-black-folk-incarnated/

[1will]

While it is true that most of our politicians (I can't bring myself to call them leaders) are overwhelmingly white it is also true that blacks make up only 12% of our population. That 12% is mainly clustered in urban areas and they tend to elect black politicians for local positions. On the national level, at least for President, black candidates tend to run on affirmative action, quotas, welfare, reperations, etc. This is not going to get them elected by those these programs are not aimed at. Obama has dropped the traditional platform of Jackson and Sharpton (you in the media never gave Keyes any coverage). Had another black candidate adopted Obama's positions years ago it is possible they too would have had his success.
There is no segregation in schools. Your child can go to any local public school that serves your neighborhood. That's the problem for some in education. Some neighborhoods send poorly behaved, apathetical kids to their local public schools. When the schools recieve failing scores and get terrible reputations for violence or academics the community screams for something to be done. What to do? Politicians can't tell parents to step up and act like parents. Educators and parents can't mention that a child with no discipline at home, no parent to help or check homework and often no breakfast will not do well in school. A scheme to improve test scores in these schools must be invented.
That's why these politicians in education come up with busing. If you send 5-15% of the kids from poor neighborhoods and failing schools out to the suburbs they'll drag down test scores a little but maybe peer presure will keep them in line or encourage them to do better. If you send 5-15% of the kids from the suburbs to the failing city schools they will bring their higher test scores with them and bring up the schools average.

It's less about race then about an education numbers scheme.

[Locmar]

Remember what the republicans did to Harold Ford.

[longislandlol]

Obama will make a huge difference in fixing a broken America-- also on the world stage-- he'll be a peacekeeper-- all the world will love him-- he is a man of the universe...

[NoMoreDrama]

I bask in the glow of the RoboClinton Automotons that are going nuclear right now. If we could only harness the anger and despair that the rose colored glass wearing, fondly to the past looking, RoboClintonistas are spewing right now, we would be off foreign oil before the General Election.

OBAMA 08!

[sd4david]

There have only been 42 presidents. One served non consecutive terms and is counted twice-Grover Cleveland-who is counted as our 22nd AND 24th President. But your point is still spot on!

[illinoisan]

Obama wins Iowa. Obama all the way.

America is back, Baby!

[midtown]

About time we had a Black President. The symbolism alone will kill about 50% of the racism in this country. I am white, BTW.

[Charles TW]

I find it almost impossible to believe that America could allow a black man with an Arab to enter the White House without a mop and broom.
Barack Obama may well be that rare and extraordinary black male with the twenty per cent thicker skin required to absorb the flings and arrows of outrighteous racism that will pock the general elections, if he becomes the Democrats nominee. But make no mistake about it. Race will be a vital issue whether played out over the airwaves or in the privacy of voting booth.

www.charlestwilliams.com

[RealOpinion08]

Isnt it interesting that when Hillary was winning Rudy was winning. I think the GOP has had to rethink the whole strategy.

[Nutcase]

Chris Matthews is on TV now calling Obama THE agent of change. He is saying that his and Hillary's platforms are different. Unbelievable nonsense.

Obama takes his money and gets staff from corporations. So does Hillary. He supports NAFTA. So does Hillary. The litany goes on. He is not an agent of change. That is simply an absolute lie.

He polls worse than Edwards against the Republicans. He will do even worse than the polls because of the Bradley Effect. I lived in California at that time. More recently, I voted for Harold Ford but saw the Bradley Effect still come into play.

We do need change. We need to win. We need to carry as many other Democratic candidates in on coattails as possible. Obama can't do that.

To promote Obama totally, largely or even to a small degree because he is Black is not what we are supposed to be about. There have been Black politicians who screwed and embarrassed their constituents. There have been white politicians who have served Blacks well.

The opposite is true, of course, but color is not the key. Obama does not serve us well. He does serve the corporations well but I don't consider that as a part of us.

[duboisist]

I don't even know where to begin, so I'm just going to give this piece the attention it deserves:




(The empty space above is actually MORE than it deserves)

[TheKiddy]

Speaking of power structures. If Obama is black and goes with the status quo politically, then how does that shake the power structure, really? That's just symbol cloaked as change.

Yesterday, 30 of the top progressive economists in the country endorsed John Edwards for his stance on income inequality and power in this country. They didn't endorse Obama.

John Edwards is the only one seeking to make structural changes (working through our established democratic processes) that will substantively address the traditional power issues you discuss in your article.

[SCharb]

I stopped thinking of Obama as "the black candidate" months ago. I've all but stopped thinking of him as any race at all. He's far too deep to be summarized in so shallow an appearance-obsessed term.

Ask anybody why they support Obama, and the color of his skin will be the farthest thing from their minds.

Unlike a *certain* rival faction, Obama supporters will never say anything like "it's about time we had a black president!" when summarizing their support.

He's transcendent of such gimmicks.

[carfino]

One 'feeling' that I can't seem to shake. The Repugnant Party is feigning fear of Obama with the desparate hope he becomes the Dem's candidate next fall. I can say two words to sum up their fears..."Harold Ford". They know the majority of Americans will never vote for a black man for president. They know precisely which buttons to push to reinforce the racism in this country. They ran a grand total of one TV ad that sank Harold Ford like a stone in a pond. Remember the ad? A blond girl purring and calling his name.