The Ongoing Evolution Of Obama's "Post-Racial Politics"

Ginger Thompson, Jeff Zeleny, and Kitty Bennett write today about Obama and his staff's internal wrangling over the place of race in the campaign. They show Obama's evolving sense of what it means to be a "post-racial" candidate.

Thompson begins with an early strategy meeting, in which Obama lays out his philosophy in five words:

Halfway into the session, Broderick Johnson, a Washington lawyer and informal adviser to Mr. Obama, spoke up. "What about race?" he asked.

Mr. Obama's dismissal was swift and unequivocal.

He had been able to navigate racial politics in Illinois, Mr. Obama told the group, and was confident he could do so across the nation. "I believe America is ready," one aide recalled him saying.

The race issue got all of five minutes at that meeting, setting what Mr. Obama and his advisers hoped would be the tone of a campaign they were determined not to define by the color of his skin.

Obama has shown a desire to box away his experiences as a student activist during the 80s. In his autobiography, he has been dismissive of his days in the anti-apartheid, pro-multiculturalism, pro-affirmative action battles at Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard. He regards his experiences in Chicago's Southside, which he still cites as the transformative period of his life, as certainly more authentic. Yet his language--drawing freely from Gandhi and Chavez--suggests he has a more conflicted relationship to his student activism years than he is ready to admit.

Was he so eager to suppress the memory of that era's campus culture wars (over multicultural curriculum, affirmative action, hate speech, etc.) that he embraced too naive a view of how to articulate an approach to race in his campaign?

Staff divisions didn't help. Early on, high-ranking white advisors deliberately steered him away from African American audiences.

Instead of following a plotted course, Mr. Obama's campaign has zigged and zagged, reacting to outside forces and internal differences between the predominantly white team of top advisers and the mostly black tier of aides.

The dynamic began the first day of Mr. Obama's presidential bid, when white advisers encouraged him to withdraw an invitation to his pastor, whose Afro-centric sermons have been construed as antiwhite, to deliver the invocation at the official campaign kickoff. Then, when his candidacy was met by a wave of African-American suspicion, the senator's black aides pulled in prominent black scholars, business leaders and elected officials as advisers.

Aides to Mr. Obama, who asked not to be identified because the campaign would not authorize them to speak to the press, said he stayed away from a civil rights demonstration and did not publicize visits to black churches when he was struggling to win over white voters in Iowa.

Remember this Cornel West rant on the weekend Obama announced his candidacy? Black aides struggled to rectify this mistake. Thompson later describes how Obama took care of the snub of Reverend Jeremiah Wright and the Covenant With Black America. (West is now prObama.)

(In an aside, Rev. Al Sharpton takes credit for Jena 6, not only inviting comparison of himself to Martin Luther King Jr. and Obama to LBJ, but entirely rewriting the history of the protest. It was actually called by Color of Change and organized by thousands of young activists working in an entirely decentralized manner on the web and in the schools.)

Obama's black advisors pushed to make Michelle Obama central to the campaign.

"It took Barack a while to agree," said Charles J. Ogletree Jr., a Harvard professor who is part of the black advisory group. "But we told him she had to be the one to confront the myths and fears of black voters.

"Here was a black woman, a mother, who grew up poor, learned to sleep without heat and rose above that to get an Ivy League education," Professor Ogletree added. "But she was also the kind of woman who would take her shoes off because her feet hurt. She was real from the moment she stepped on stage."

In other words, Obama's black advisors told him, forget the "color-blind" pitch. Michelle embodied the idea that no one could escape history, that a "post-racial" politics still needed to account for racial solidarity and to directly address the desires and needs of racially oppressed communities. She delivered big-time in South Carolina, the turning point for Obama in the African American electorate.

But, in no small part because of their denial of the realities of race, Obama and his campaign still had to play catch-up against the Clinton campaign with Latino leaders and communities.

The campaign claims it has learned from California, and his Latino field director says Obama will apply to Texas the same kind of attention it has lavished on Iowa and South Carolina.

One quote should raise worries. Here's his top advisor, David Axelrod, who seems to suggest that the campaign still views even African Americans more as emergent--useful for votes and campaign donations--than insurgent--needing to be considered carefully in agenda discussions.

"He believes you can have the support of the black community, appealing to the pride they feel in his candidacy, and still win support among whites," Mr. Axelrod said.

Do "post-racial politics" merely mean a new way of marginalizing a racial justice agenda?

Jeff Chang is the author of Can 't Stop Won't Stop: A History of the Hip-Hop Generation and the editor of Tot al Chaos: The Art And Aesthetics of Hip-Hop. He blogs at: www.cantstopwontstop.com/ blog.

Follow Jeff Chang on Twitter: www.twitter.com/zentronix

Comments

[Phife]

First, I think Jeff Chang is a talented analyst. I've been repeating his thesis about Hillary's apppeal to immigrants (top down) versus Obamam's (bottom up) for a week or two now.

To me, post-racial politics, doesn't mean forgetting or ignoring racial issues. I think it means that we are aware of identity politics but not held captive by them. I think the old civil rights paradigm forced us to look at everything through the lense of our identity (as some Hillary and even some Barack supporters are still trying to do).

But, everything is not race or gender related.

I think there's also an aspect to post-identity politics of letting go of past grievences and giving people a break. I don't think we need to fire every employee who uses a racially insensitive term. I try to let the small things go (like compliments about how articulate I am). And I think people outside of my identity group appreciate not being taken to task over every slight.

The upshot of letting the small stuff go, is that when I do bring up a racial/identity issue, my argument is taken much more seriously, as people know that I don't make such claims arbitrarily or in bad faith.

I think Barack represents this post-racial identity well and this is a major part of his appeal.

[nihilon x]

Agreed -- as a black individual who has had little direct experience with racism (despite growing up in the South, quite the contrary in fact) it seems that sometimes the best way to address racism is not to make an issue of it.

Granted, there are times when you can't avert your attention from truly blatant acts of discrimination but ultimately the bigots and racists are part of dying breed who will only become less and less socially acceptable as time goes on.

Despite having grown up in a very "post-racial" multicultural environment, as you said, I still understand the need to remember the past without living in it, and to change the present while remembering that the worst is past.

[nihilon x]

Or "has passed" depending on your tolerance for puns.

[Boadicea]

I find your blog offensive and I suspect others will, too.

The focus on identity politics in this primary race is 100% generated by the Clinton campaign. It is their narrative, created in the hopes of marginalizing Obama as "The Black Candidate" and you continue that narrative. And why are you not talking about gender with the same "concern troll" tones?

Obama has been saying exactly the same things since he entered politics. Not for him the kind of 180 that John Edwards took. Not for him the triangulating of Hillary Clinton. Obama is straight.

It is very sad that many Americans still do not understand that by constantly dividing themselves up by their differences, in the media, in their writings, in the (Mark Penn-driven?) polls, in their writing, that they prevent the healing that is so important to take place.

We will never join the 20th century if we do not get past this constant need to talk about the comparatively small differences we have, like skin color and religion. Hundreds of excellent books, starting perhaps with Tony Robbins' Awaken the Giant Within, outline why it is counterproductive to talk constantly about what's wrong instead of building on what's right. I suggest the author pick one up.

[nihilon x]

I agree with you that we need to put identity politics aside, but the reality is that they still exist.

Some people can let go of them more easily than others and for those who can't, dialogue is essential.

[theplaintrutho1]

I find these post/comments as questionable as the Supreme Court decision to make Bush the president in 2000.
After Obama's win in Iowa, I continued to feel great about the four candidates I could gladly live with no matter how it finished, Kucinich, Clinton, Edwards, or Obama. I'm still trying to be fair in my assessment of the remaining two, but the Hillary supporters make that very hard, as the primaries have not yet come to my state.
Almost everything they state (Hillary supporters) is worse then the MSM. Accusations without proof or leads to those accusations, which I could never get from the MSM. So I turn to the blogs for correct information.
Things like: a) "Obama gets all the MSM attention. "But Hillary and Rudy got all of their attention & coronation for about a year, no complaints then. b) "Obama is labeling his opponents as racist. "Please show me where I can read this at, so I can make an informed decision. c) "Hatred for Sen. Clinton". I would love to be able to read this stuff, d) "All Obama offers is rhetoric, nothing of substance. "I've listen very close to both candidate's "stump speeches", and Hillary states she will do this & that and fix everything, but she never explains how She will accomplish these fixes. Obama is a little better, there's more detail, that I can't go into here, but when I compare that to Clinton's, I, I, I, I will, I can, I, I, I, it seems to me there is a lack of explanation of how. Yet, Clinton supporters claim she has MORE substance??? e) "Resko" (not sure of the spelling) The Clinton's have dealings with this same man, not to mention, Her list goes on & on, Walmart, even though the unions financially support Her etc. I could go on & on, but I will not. Somehow I think Her supporters do Her an injustice or are engaging in rhetoric themselves, as they NEVER offer any LINKS or evidence to support any claims or disparages they make. How does an undecided make an informed decision?

[JasonEverettMiller]

Her's a good place to start as far as Barack os concerned.

He has a long legislative record, both in DC and Illinois, that has informed his answers in this 52-minute uncut interview with the editorial board of the SF Chronicle that was very illuminating, even for an Obama supporter: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?o=0&f=/c/a/2008/01/18/MNSNUH8DR.DTL.

Obama '08!

[Purple Girl]

Any Public Servant who is willing to sell out our country, it's people and our principles for fear the Corps will pull out of our country are doing Us a grea t injustice- corpist.

[BillLumbergh]

The man isn't one day into his tenure as frontrunner, and he's already being attacked for not promising handouts based on race.
What were some of you crybabies expecting, reparations?
This entire nation is in a dangerous decline, and yet some people still feel the need to speed that decline by breaking Americans into factions based on race.
Sickening, just sickening.

[LarBear]

BILL....
Obamarama is the New, MTV, American Idol, Candidate... He draws big crowds... Wow, that's a Presidential quality for sure... So Obama speaks, with the cadence, of a revivalist Preacher, as a practiced way, to hold your attention... Its done in short burst, 4/4 musical time, which is used in Superlearning, to reach the Subconscious mind... Lots of repetition... Used by Preachers and Hypnotists everywhere, because that works... "Yes we can"...
Bush uses the "we" word a lot also...
Brothers and Sisters, reach into your hearts, give me your money, give me your vote....
A lot of us don't like the MTV, sleaze and foul language is normal, disrespect is normal, pimped out Obamarama generation followers...
Those that insist on "Free Speech" to support their lack of respect for others... Those who use sleaze to accuse the Clinton's of bad behavior... Those who supported David Shuster's "Pimping Chelsea" remark... Rationalizing foul language is widespread and "normal" now...
Rationalizing her age made it ok... Rationalizing those accused by Obamarama Campaign were the racist, rather then the Obamarama was playing to Race and the Race Card... Nothing the Clinton's had said was about Race, or skin color... Obamarama has played to Race from early onwards...
Just like more than half of Americans think Saddam and Iraq had something to do with 911... Even though that is totally false... Just been well spun by the Bush Administration... So too, Obamarama links and spins the Clinton's as Racists... Spins Hillary as a pro War Candidate... Even though it was she who challenged the Pentagon about removing our troops, not Obama...

[ifreez]

You argument fails for many so many reasons it baffles me. I will only address two.

1) You cannot equate MTV with youth. There have many things in common and each inform the other, but they are not synonymous. From each you can take good and bad. The youth movement is a good thing and is not synonymous with foul language nor bad behavior. An example of this is mass church movement that mimic Hip Hop, but instead the message is on god and upliftment. They indeed gather in large stadiums, have large audiences, and cheer loudly -- like Obama rallies.

2) Hillary Clinton said the February primaries are not fair because they are in Black History month...

[zull2]

"Racial politics", as it were, were heavily focused on putting people of non-white ethnicities into political office. However, the real goal is to improve conditions for all people regardless of race, so in reality, we need to become a lot more colorblind in this country. The goal of equality was to take the focus off race and put it on quality of character, quality of experience. By making things fair, the ultimate goal is to bring people together. If someone feels like they lost a job opportunity purely because of their race, naturally they're going to be pissed. It goes both ways. If we were all more blind to color and ethnicity, we'd know that we lost to the more experienced person, not just because we were born the way we were. By refusing to make a big deal out of his race, Obama essentially leads by example. Everyone else who does the same is also leading by example. The more of us who follow that example, the less divided we all will become.

[induraman]

I agree with you I wish we would get to the point were race does not matter in any vote. But that is not the case 80-90% of black votes are going to Mr. Obama is that because he has substance or because he is african american? The fact the White voters might be voting from him is more about being able to sound like a moderate to others by saying I am voting for Mr Obama. The american people are followers group think is a big problem in this country. If people think voting for someone just because he is black is going to just make everthing go away well there nuts! Mr Obama does not offer anything but a catch phrase which it looks like all it takes for people these days. Why think when you can just follow it looks like that thinking does cross racial lines.

[dolphingirl]

Are white women voting for Hillary Clinton because she is a white woman?

I can't speak for all black people, but I am a Black Woman and I am supporting Obama because I do believe that he has substance and will truly work for the people, while I believe Clinton is more interested in politics as usual. Not because he is black, and not because she is white. I would be proud either way, it comes down to who I believe will meet my needs and the needs of all Americans.

[nihilon x]

"But that is not the case 80-90% of black votes are going to Mr. Obama is that because he has substance or because he is african american?"

Anyone that knows anything about Obama understands that BOTH have some validity.

Regardless, blacks voted nearly 9 to 10 AGAINST Bush in BOTH elections, so I think we deserve the benefit of the doubt this election if for that reason alone.

If you had PAID ATTENTION to black voters in 2000, we wouldn't have suffered nearly a DECADE of evil from the Bush administration.

Don't fuck it up a second time.

[Herrington]

This is perhaps the highest and longest tightrope a man could walk, a black man for president of the United States. A woman reaching for the same goal has as difficult a prospect but different in nature, a different case to make. This is going to be indelicate.

Clinton must prove that she is a man, rather, possessing the qualities of a man that still are the definition of the job, toughness on crime and enemies abroad. Half the electorate are women.

Obama must prove that he is a white man, because no candidate with strong minority identification has ever been close to serious candidacy. Less than half of voters are, by definition, minority.

Both the candidacy of a woman and that of a black man run the risk of seeming inauthentic because of the needs incumbent on them. Both candidates have taken choices to position their candidacies. To say either has eradicated their essential selves, either woman or black man, is to presume too much power in public opinion.

What the poster seems to be questioning is authenticity. It is as if he thinks a woman who is tough is not really a woman, or a black man in whom whites find appeal cannot be a black man.

To this I would contrast how authentic it was to invade Iraq or to sell trickle down economic policy to the American people when you knew damned good and well they were lies.

No, to the extent that either of the Democratic candidates compromises racial or female issues to gain the presidency in the interest of a wider political objective is the extent to which they should be given credit for statesmanship.

[gsikev]

I agree . I think the race card is out there between Obama and Clinton but Obama is just better at using it without getting called out.

im still observing and learning.

[uheardme]

Meanwhile, Clinton and her minions are using the Gender Card blatantly and not getting called on it. It's offensive and it really detracts from her candidacy.

[induraman]

I agree I think this has been Mr. Obamas ace in the hole. I think folks think that there being progressive by voting for a black man.I can not vote for this man not because he is black but because he says nothing and will get run over in the general election. The dems screwed up again they had the right people and ticket that would last for 16 years if done right, but instead were going to loose this in the General election along with two strong canidates that never will recover. What is really interesting is that woman have had to claw and scratch to get to this point also and are choosing to throw that away. Does anyone also notice the sexiest undertone of all this, white men are voting for Obama because there more worried that a woman might win.

[nihilon x]

Or maybe Obama is simply the better candidate to many voters.

[darthmaul]

I'm sure that the Republicans would love the democrats to fight among themselves with Clinton supporters blaming all those not for her to be branded "Hillary Haters" and misogynists. Likewise the Republicans would like nothing more then the Obama people to brand the Clinton supporters racists. It's the old Roman tactic of "Divide and Conquer." Obama has to deal with the reality of the world as it is. Racism and injustice run deep in this country. That's true, but if he were to base his whole campaign on this fact, it would just polarize the electorate and he would lose. His task is a matter of finesse. And perhaps I'm wrong, but I think more and more we are faced with a class struggle. The Republican elite are the "Landed Gentry" while all the rest of us black, white, Latino etc... are the surfs. The only requirement for being a surf is to be poor! The Republicans have been quite successful at convincing poor white people to vote for them, in spite of their own best interests.

[WoodyCPM]

darthmaul: "And perhaps I'm wrong, but I think more and more we are faced with a class struggle. The Republican elite are the "Landed Gentry" while all the rest of us black, white, Latino etc... are the surfs. The only requirement for being a surf is to be poor! The Republicans have been quite successful at convincing poor white people to vote for them, in spite of their own best interests."
---------

No, you are not wrong. You are absolutely correct. This is the very crucible of American politics. And because we in America are not accustomed to talking about "class" and "class differences" as they are in most other parts of the world, we get the kind of distorted, fragmented, jangled politics in which in one cycle a Democrat can vote for Ronald Reagan and in another cycle vote for Barack Obama without a single glimmer of self-reflection about the politics that makes such voting behavior possible.

[MariaHopeful]

All of those lining up to beat up on Obama now that he is winning should remember one thing. The ordinary man and woman supporting him will not allow him to be swift-boated. Times have changed. Thanks to the web we can push back, fight back. This energized group of people are ready and willing to fight for him.
This one will not be swift-boated!

Go Obama!

[WoodyCPM]

I hope you're correct but the Republican Party works in nefarious ways. They're a very savvy bunch when it comes to politics because they have the best political and noise machinery that money can buy. One other thing to keep in mind. There is also a contingent within the Democratic Party that would be glad to see Mr. Obama fail. Let me quickly add that I'm not trying to obliquely refer to the Clinton camp. No, I mean there are right-wing operatives within the Democratic Party that are lying in wait for Obama, the DINOs of the world, who will do whatever they can to undermine his campaign and/or his Presidency, should he eventually rise to that level. There are Democrats that are just as connected to the ruling elite, the monied classes, the corporate interests as any Republican. They're the same people who torpedeoed Jimmy Carter's Presidency. Much of the old Democratic Guard hated him.

[MariaHopeful]

The Clintons and other reactionary forces have to stop Obama's momentum. They will throw everything and the kitchen sink at him and this is how I view this article. What is the point of it? Every body grows. And to win any election in the USA one has to be practical. I think Obama has been able to navigate all the pitfalls and deliberately set roadblocks and still remained true to himself and his message. He is authentically black whilst recognizing that he is not only black. He is talking about universal issues which affect every race and ethnic groups.

[AxelDC]

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." -MLK

Wouldn't electing Obama president without anyone caring about his skin color be a major step towards MLK's dream? Isn't that what racial justice is all about?

[Wanod]

Oh by the way, Hillary is finished in my book. Bill Clinton was a thorn in her side, she should have ran her own campaign, and kept him out of it. She also should have used seasoned adviser's and manager's, but she thought it was a win win, so she didn't need seasoned people. It was her's to loose, and as far as i'm concerned it's over for the Democrats. The next POTUS will be MCCain...The women that's voting for Hillary, will stay at home on election day.

[DRaymond]

My hope, and from what I can tell Obama's as well, is that Obama will become a transition to post-racial politics. The fact that the news reports focus so heavily on which race supported or did not support him make it clear that we are not at post racial politics yet.

But there is no way that a candidacy of a Jesse Jackson or an Al Sharpton would ever be the genesis of such a change because it was so rooted in a racial focus.

[Wanod]

Wow! What an intelligent conversation, for once people are thinking. M.K. you are correct, B.O. ran from the Black communities, and now he's using them. When he ran for congress, and lost, it was because he forgot about the Black's. They didn't vote for him, and now he's giving them a carrot, and they should be proud because he's black. Clarence Thomas sit's on the Supreme court, and he tried to derail everything that Thurgood Marshall did. But he's Black!

[Herrington]

I see you have only been posting here for about ten days. Develop a sudden interest in politics?