Politicians do two things better than anything else. The first is they are masters at saying whatever it takes to get elected. The second is they obsessively crunch numbers; and the only number that counts is the number of votes they can get to put them over the top. These two crass and cynical talents of politicians aren't mutually exclusive. Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama is a fast study of a well-meaning politician that's cultivating those talents.
The Donnie McClurkin flap is a virtual textbook example of that. When this writer called Obama out on his scheduled October 28 South Carolina gospel tour appearance with the Grammy winning, anti-gay morals crusader, Obama snapped back with a public statement hotly insisting that he's a staunch opponent of homophobia and that he vehemently disagreed with McClurkin's views. He probably means it. He's been the paragon of political correctness on gay issues in press statements, and in his campaign stump speeches. But Obama is a politician. It would look awful strange for him as a liberal, and a self-professed change America, consensus guy to say and do anything else. That goes hand in hand with the second thing politician Obama has mastered, counting votes. When it comes to getting those crucial votes, flowery statements and speeches on tolerance mean little.
Obama has looked hard at the numbers in South Carolina and elsewhere, and knows that there are a lot of socially conservative blacks who loathe gay marriage and any talk of gay rights. Their numbers have not budged one inch downward in the past decade. In 1996, 65 percent of blacks were opposed to gay marriage. A decade later a Pew Forum poll found that 64 percent of blacks still vehemently opposed it. While the opposition to same-sex marriage among blacks is frozen in time, white and Latino opposition to it has dropped. The only other group whose disdain for gay marriage hasn't budged an inch downward is the hard line evangelicals.
Put the words black, evangelical, and voter together and it translates out to thousands of potential voters ripe for an overt or subtle tap of anti-gay sentiment. South Carolina is the first big state primary, and blacks make up nearly fifty percent of Democratic voters in the state. A good chunk of them are evangelical leaning. Their votes can make or break Obama's national efforts. McClurkin can help, and help him in a big way. He's black, popular, and an outspoken evangelical. Obama can have it both ways with him. He can publicly denounce his views, which he has, while latching onto to his crowd-pulling coat tails.
The South Carolina saga is no aberration when it comes to a politician reading the evangelical political tea leafs. The first big warning sign that the issue of gay rights could inflame, polarize and even energize blacks within and without the black pulpit came in October, 2003. At a tightly packed press conference, five of Michigan's top black prelates publicly called on the state legislature to amend the state constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The subsequent ballot measure passed and more than fifty percent of blacks backed it.
That touched off bells and whistles among GOP strategists. They knew that they had hit the political jackpot. Gay bashing could gain a few more black votes for the GOP, soften black support for the Democrats, and all without the risk of alienating core white conservative Republicans. The Massachusetts court ruling in November 2003 upholding gay marriage was even more cause for euphoria by GOP strategists who were working overtime to hammer down the blooming alliance with black evangelicals. A Pew Research Poll taken right after the court decision found that far more blacks than whites sharply disagreed with the court's decision.
Bush capitalized on that sentiment and of course the rest is bitter history. But the gay bash card has lain tantalizingly on the political table since the 2004 election and it can be played by any politician seeking votes among conservatives. Democrats do not dare play the card the same crude, naked bigoted way that some Republicans played it. That would ignite howls of hypocrisy and alienate party liberals. In fact, it's almost laughable to hear the tortured gyrations that blind faith Obama backers go through to justify his flirt with McClurkin. If Republican presidential contenders Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, or Mitt Romney had publicly hyped an appearance with a very public gay basher, they'd scream bloody murder. But Obama did just that and he gets a free pass. Amazing!
While Obama will publicly say and do the right thing in condemning homophobia through the front door, the temptation to cash in on it through the back door is evidently just too irresistible. It's crass, cynical, but it's politics baby pure and simple. And that's all the more reason to keep the heat on Obama to dump McClurkin.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is
The Latino Challenge to Black America: Towards a Conversation between African-Americans and Hispanics (Middle Passage Press). hutchinsonreport@aol.com
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Wikipedia says that Donnie McClurkin was raped by a male relative (an uncle) when he was a child. Perhaps he confuses homosexuality with pedophilia. A number of people do.
There is no doubt that McClurkin"s views on gays are disturbing. Obama quickly issued a statement unequivocally disagreeing with them, but explained that the singer"s views reflect a broader struggle within the black community (in this case) to come to terms with homosexuality both in the home and as an issue of the political discourse.
One cannot ignore homophobia by sweeping it under the carpet, and then wonder why it is there, why one"s attempts to whitewash dissent didn"t work, and why there is still dirt on the floor that lies beneath that carpet.
When Obama talks about unity, he is not saying that it already exists. One cannot achieve unity and change unless one is willing to directly engage those with different views.
Thus, Obama"s acceptance of a financial contribution or a form of support from McClurkin is both sound of doctrine and morally legitimate AS LONG AS OBAMA DOES NOT SUPPORT HIS VIEWS AND SAYS SO PUBLICLY, which he has. In a similar vein, amongst the thousands of us who donate to the campaign, there are many who do not agree with Obama himself on everything.
Indeed, it is the Senator himself who frequently points out that, as President, he may at times disagree with us and we may disagree with him. Either way, however, he will still fight for us, not against us. That speaks to the direction of Obama"s political ideology. While most politicians support a laundry list of issues first and join a party or caucus second, Obama does the opposite, because he recognizes, as few politicians do, that any policy platform must first rest on a philosophy "in this case, of hope and change" before earning any legitimacy.
Obama is embracing McClurkin as a citizen, not as a thinker. And in doing so, his message of unity is magnified in its unexpected and splendid admixture of strengths and challenges. "There are easier choices that you can make in this election," Obama says in his stump speech, "people who will follow the well-worn grooves¦people who will deliver pretty much more of the same."
I like the objective view you give this issue. I often have to remind myself that 'people are people' and while I recognize that most of my family does not agree with my pro-equality stance on GBLT issues (not that they're even aware of it, with what little talking we do), I have chosen to adhere to my beliefs that GLBT citizens with the same zealotry that my grandmother chooses to use to decry them whenever they're mentioned. As far as I know, none of us down here have met that oh-so-elusive Supreme Deity and, as a result, couldn't possibly know what Their intentions or beliefs or emotions are about anything, let alone something so small as who and what makes us happy. I choose to believe that the only thing that could matter is that that we ARE happy.
And as a black person, it does gall me to see the blatant abuse hurled at GLBT citizens by those of my race when I know perfectly well that they were on our side fifty, sixty, one hundred years ago when we were still considered second-class citizens. The hypocrisy makes me lose my appetite and I'd give anything to be able to do something like visually record God (I don't usually refer to the Parent as such, but my term would need background information and lead to a discussion on gender, etc.) being interviewed and asked all these questions about whom and what They care about.
I like to think it would be a huge eye-opener to we small-minded little mortals down here who seem to believe that we're the center of the universe (heliocentrism all over again) and wouldn't want to detract from that lovely feeling.
Anyway, thank you for your lovely post and for explaining your point so eloquently and without bias.
One hundred years ago? You paying attention today? You are still a second class citizen and I am not addressing your sexual preferences. As for their being on our side, all those years ago, it would hardly be an issue because no one was out declaring sexuality during that time. It was just people.
It galls me when people want to jump on the Civil Rights bandwagon. Like, who was not there? Look at the pictures--that movement was well documented. Look and see who was there. I am not talking about the large marches, I am referring to the everyday folk who boycotted the bus company, who were out there with the other every day folk who were disenfranchised, who, even as they paid their taxes, were denied the services those taxes paid for. Just every day Black folk who faced incredible hostility every day of their lives, faced the threat of murder, losing their homes, all of this with the cooperation of law enforcement.
What we know is that most of this nation was silent on the matter. Now, like Stonewall, everyone was there.
The question that's gone unaddressed here, as far as I can tell, is Why Exactly so many black evangelicals are against marriage equality.
I mean, seriously! I've been to predominantly black christist temples. I've seen their choirs. Who's kidding who here?
This is exactly why I refuse to donate or otherwise support racially-based civil rights groups anymore, and haven't for the past decade or so. The spectacle of group of Americans who should, if anybody does, know better, supporting the sexual orientation version of Jim Crow is beyond disgusting. Apologists can tart it up however they will with appeals to culture and religion, the essential moral decision is the same, to-wit:
"Civil rights was fine for us, in fact the failure to recognize us as citizens equal under the law has been The Great American Sin. But [insert contemptuous chuckle here] surely you can't be suggesting that it applies to Those People."
And now Mr. Barack DoRight is sucking up to this morally bankrupt hypocrisy? Not a snowball's chance in a California wildfire is he getting my vote.
It would be crass, calculating, even cunning politics if Barack Obama set the plan in motion with his solution already in mind. Instead, the evidence, including the points made by Earl O. Hutchinson in this very column, supports the view that instead Obama saw a situation with well-entrenched, passionate people casting aspersions across a divide, and swiftly, creatively applied his diplomacy to craft a solution consistent with his vision of a UNITED States of America.
Next time somebody asks if this Senator has enough experience, recall his thoughtful, timely solution to what many were calling a crisis. The scale is different, obviously, from much of what a President deals with, yet the solution flows logically from the most able candidate for this office we have in the race. Barack Obama is going to make changes despite the naysayers; the only remaining question is which elected office he will be doing it from in 2008, and the evidence is mounting that he deserves the platform of the office of the President of the United States of America.
It may seem cynical that Obama would include an anti-gay black evangelical on stage with him. Yet, is it? Compare the politics of Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond who built their early careers on racism --and then later had to denounce it in order to remain politically relevant.
I don't see this with Obama. I see someone standing fast on his principles (I don't believe he is going to change on them later in life). The fact that he is adamant about what he believes and is able to attract black evangelicals to his side speaks of his ability to lead.
You can't be an effective leader preaching to the choir, you have to gain the confidence of those with different viewpoints.
I believe the word "cynicism" is better suited for the shenanigans of the Bush/Cheney camp than for Obama having one on stage with a controversial viewpoint to the liberal status quo.
Obama is smart to reach out to those whose views he does not hold. How else to start a conversation? How else to make them consider looking at things from another perspective? Only those who want to keep the situation polarized refuse to extend a little tolerance for the other to help them along to a larger perspective. I think Mr Hutchinson is grasping at straws because of his own prejudice and partisanship. Not to mention his very small minded, ever shrinking perspective. He certainly doesn't help gay people with such a polarized view of who can talk to whom and expecting any politician to shut out anyone who doesn't hold every view he has. That is the very conservative bigotry that gave us Bush/Cheny and the ascendency of the right's psuedo-christians who forget that tolerance and open mindedness is the very foundation of christianity.
I support rights for all Americans. Being lucky enough to live in Massachusetts, I have gay and lesbian friends who have married, and I celebrate their unions.
But politics is a tough business and if a good man or woman is not elected, he or she can't get the people's work done. The Democratic Party used to contain solid liberals and unreconstructed Southern racists. It wasn't pretty, but it governed and it gave us the New Deal and the civil rights laws of the 1960's.
We might not like all of the people who are willing to support Obama, but calling him out on a point of purity, at the risk of causing him to lose the race, is a short-sighted exaltation of feel-good principles over practical politics.
There's a simple reason why Obama gets a "free pass" on homophobia. Among the political left, and in the left-leaning gay rights movement in particular, race, gender, and gender identity have always trumped orientation in a hierarchy of oppression. This is based on the false perception that homosexuals, homosexual men in particular, are economically and socially privileged. (I note for the record that I'm writing this from a trailer park in South Louisiana.)
Before getting past Obabma's flirtation with Donnie McClurkin, we must acknowledge this simple truth in a non-racist, non-sexist, non-transphobic manner.
I'm sorry guys, but at this point, I am not standing on principle to get a Democrat in the White House! I have had it with the Rovarians!
About McClurkin (sp) - I cannot believe that Barak Obama would allow to represent him anyone whatsoever who had any discriminatory positions on anything. There is no acceptable context within which a homophobe who also espouses one can become UN-gay by sheer will and help from God. And I'm not even gay. Zero tolerance of all forms of anti-discrimination was supposed to be one of Obama's trademarks. It isn't good enough to just get another black man on board to balance out McClurkin. If Obama can't resist acquiescing to a minority or special-interest stance about this - he won't be any different as president. If he doesn't unilaterally dump McClurkin 100%, I will not contribute another penny to nor vote for Obama. I had so much hope for him.
On the one hand I can't blame Obama for doing what he thinks is going to get him elected and on the other I would like a politician who stood on principle rather than expediency. This is the game that politicians have to play under the current system. That is why we got Clinton who made all sorts of promises to get the gay vote and once in office promptly through us under the bus. Or why Bush pandered so much to the Latino's and then promptly gave us Gonzalez. Since we don't have a parliamentary system where different interest can share power we are left with a system where it takes a simple majority to win and politicians are then left to crunch the numbers to get that 50 + 1 = we lose.
I have been a supporter of Barack Obama since he announced his intention to seek the office of president of the United States. I am not certain if I will continue to support him. I have to give the matter serious thought. I am certain that I am disappointed in his decision to share the stage with Mr. McClurkin. Mr. McClurkin is permitted to be a homophobic bigot, but I'm also permitted to express my total disagreement with his point of view. When you take controversial positions, particularly ones that posit that some groups of people should be denied the rights that you enjoy, then you should be willing to accept that some people are going to call you out for your bigotry. What if a white candidate was appearing in a forum at which an openly racist entertainer was performing, how many of us (yes, I'm black) would find that acceptable, just because the white candidate said that he or she personally renounced racism? I'm a southerner and a common phrase that I heard while growing up was, "if you lie down with dogs, you're going to get fleas." I can't tell Obama with whom to lie down, but he may need to buy some flea powder.
Here's what I want to know: Has a gay pastor accepted an invitation to speak? Is this true?
Yes, it is
... continued
Let's be honest about one thing in all of this. Liberty in this country is being replaced by fear and hate. It's not enough to point a finger at the bad people and say that the good people should draw a line in the sand against them. There are TOO MANY. If we don't engage them, then it's not going to stop. They are going to keep getting worse. It's happened before. It can happen again.
It is happening. The only way to stop it is with the truth. The truth that there is nothing to hate or fear from people who are different. But if you can't get thru to people, you can't get the truth thru.
This is why, and I say this as someone who would vote happily for Obama or Edwards or Gore or Hillary, that it CANNOT be politics as ussual in this country. The Republicans know it. Listen to their debates. It's do or die for them. They aren't fucking around. Neither should we.
This writer is making a racist arguement. He's saying that Obama should not accept support from a BLACK Conservative Christian who is anti-gay.
Let's be REAL clear about something. MOST White Conservative Christians are not only anti-gay but RACIST as well.
If you want to be fair about not accepting support form anti-gay Conservative Christians then you have to refuse support from racist Conservative Christians. Forget about support from Conservtive Christians.
Some have already stated that Obama engages those he may even consider evil people. That IS what this is about.
The writer claims that this is not the kind of situation where one should engage. That is absolutely wrong. There is a HUGE difference between pandering to small powerful rich lobbys and engaging large people groups. Remember, public service is about serving the public. The whole public.
Where large parts of the public are wrong... you HAVE to engage them. If you don't engage them then you will leave them to the small rich powerful who WILL!
I grew up in a Conservative Christian church and I went to school to be a minister. I quit after a couple years of work at a church. Why? Because of the fact that I couldn't get anyone in church to address the prevailing racism, sexism, anti-gay bigotry, etc. They wouldn't even talk about it. I walked away in dissappointment and disgust. I decided that these people were bad, but only hurting themselves at least. I joined the 10s of millions of Christians who are not apart of any church.
Now, 10 years later, looking at how the Conservative Christian churches in the US have become 1000000 times worse and are actually mobilized into a support base for Republicans.
I was wrong to think that you could leave that kind of hate and fear alone. You HAVE to engage it or it will grow and... well, in the case of this country, take over society.
Last night, John McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis...
In a candid interview via satellite from China, Olympic...
Update: Keith Olbermann had Rachel Maddow on "Countdown" Tuesday night to celebrate...
"How honest are we if we tell the truth most of the time &...
Obama's been to Hawaii. We're moving...
I've read the comments. I know what some of you think. Yawn. It's not a story. He's not...
UPDATE: A day after Roseanne's blogs from below...
The New York Times' Kit Seelye is backing up NBC's Andrea Mitchell, who reported on...
Michael Phelps, Michael Phelps, Michael Phelps. With all the play his name gets right now,...
NEW YORK — The suspense didn't quite compare to the identity of "Deep Throat,"...
As much as I dreaded turning 30, believe it or not I'm actually starting to...
Turning conventional neuroscience on its head, new research suggests the...
BURKE, N.Y. -- Everywhere that Janet and Ken Tacy...
Loading comments…
Posted October 25, 2007 | 09:16 AM (EST)