Moving Beyond Talk and 'Race Entertainment'

Senator Barack Obama's speech today was eloquent, insightful and unprecedented.

Unlike the analysis of race that conservatives, liberals and progressives have made in the past, Senator Obama's marriage of race with the nation's economic challenges was deeper and broader than any speech given in recent memory. He brilliantly steered this campaign season away from the old, business-as-usual politics, to the visionary politics that Americans demand during a race for the White House.

I'm reminded of another politician who initiated his own conversation on race, former president Bill Clinton. In 1997, the then-president launched a year-long race initiative. But Clinton's race dialogue took place without a corresponding economic proposal. As a result, the race talk in the absence of economic action ran the risk of being merely -- what I called at the time -- "race entertainment."

There's been too much talk about race in politics for too long. Senator Obama gave us an opportunity to take positive action.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did the same thing. When he died, Dr. King was not organizing a discussion about race. He was organizing a "Poor Peoples' Campaign" to fight for economic and racial justice. Dr. King argued that the money we were wasting to conduct an immoral war in Vietnam should have been used to conduct a moral war on poverty at home. And the economic effect of money invested on a war on poverty at home would have had an even greater positive economic impact on a booming domestic economy than the war in Vietnam. Sound familiar?

To talk about race without committing to a quality education for every American child, as well as fairness in wealth and income, is just talk. And all of that talk can only lead to more hostility, frustration and racial animosity. That's been the path for too long. No more talk.

Barack Obama gave us a real choice today. Some may want to continue with the economic and race entertainment of the past, but I join him in choosing something much better this time.

-- Congressman Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. (D-IL)

Read more HuffPost coverage and reaction to Obama's speech

Comments

[SteveManz]

It is time Barack and the rest of the leadership in the black community (including Jesse Jackson Jr.) speak out against interracial violence by blacks. The white women from the University of North Carolina and University of Auburn are just the latest white victims where the suspects are black males.

How many white women kill black males? Not nearly as many black males murder white women. Why doesn't Jesse Jackson Jr. and the rest of black leadership speak out against this? When a black is killed by a white, many, many whites speak out against it. Why is there a double standard where the black community does not speak out against violence committed by its people (mostly black males) against other races?

If they continue to not speak out, no other group - white, Asian, Hispanic, native American Indian - will want them to live with them.

[HBeachbum]

This is funny coming from a man whose father is the biggest race-baiter on the planet.

[Jazzylady26]

Still being bamboozled by the man from flimflam I see. The fall is going to be longer, deeper and harder than I thought.

[ModeratelySpeaking]

Of course JJ Jr. won't read any of these comments, but you should know that his memory is quite short as is the memory of the average Obama supporter. JJ Jr. is a blatant racist, but he is polite when he does it.

Forget the Hilary had "no tears for Katrina" interview?

Or the "Do you want to go down in history as the one to prevent a black from winning the White House?" comment to Cleaver?

Keep in mind that while Obama may actually believe he is a "post-racial" candidate, his campaign and the people in his campaign, JJ Jr. being his campaign co-chair, are anything but "post-racial."

[realpolitic]

Why should not a black person feel pride at another black for being elected president, as women woud if Hillary was elected. Your idea of elimating any idea of color serves to help only you because all it does is reinforce the status quo and the status quo is male all white candidates. When that orthodoxy is disturbed people like you get offended.

I thought people on the right do not like to accuse others of racism, as you accuse Jackson, because those on the right get accused of racism all the time. And the memory of the average Obama supporter is short, you say. You make such sweeping generalizations. I am glad this is not an approach practiced by many with a good deal of racial antipathy.

[fullkelly]

A racist preacher is no different than any other racist, he just has a larger audience than some. Ona thing about listening to a racist preacher is that the listner CHOOSES to listen.

[iswearington]

why is it that when blacks bitch about the racism they have endured for generations...someone calls them a racist? should we just shut up and never mention white racism.you'd all just love that wouldn't you.the idians were murdered...blacks were enslaved...the mexicans had the northern half of their country taken away from them...but when anyone brings it up...they get called racists. what kind of evil shit is that?

[stezo5435]

Whatever you are LOOKING for you will FIND! Our VISION precedes our REALITY.

Unfortunately too many people have lost sight of authenticity because they have been duped so many times. Shake the etch-a-sketch and try and see things anew. It's a new day.

[gatorgreenwell5]

The way to unite our country is not by attending a racist church whose reverend follows an ideology such as this:
In a set of "talking points" on the church's Web site, Wright proclaims himself an exponent of "black liberation theology." He cites James Cone, a distinguished professor at New York's Union Theological Seminary, whom he credits for having "systematized" this strain of Christianity.

Here is a quote from Cone, explaining black liberation theology (hat tip: Spengler, a pseudonymous columnist for the Asia Times):

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.
Could Obama really have been unaware for all these years that his spiritual mentor follows a racially adversarial theology, one that demands of God that he be "for us and against white people" and that he participate "in the destruction of the white enemy"? It doesn't exactly sound like the sort of change we can believe in.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120568855824539755.html#WRIGHT
This is insane.

[todayslies]

It was, in many ways, a brilliantly written and delivered speech"something we've come to expect, of course, from Barack Obama. It did an excellent job of providing context for the black experience in America, explaining how the average African-American could gravitate to a controversial church like Jeremiah Wright's, and how those experiences might understandably be misunderstood by white America. It took a stab at uniting the black and white American experiences under the common problem of economic anxiety, brought on by the real enemy of working people in our country: unfettered corporate greed. In this regard, the speech still should have gone much further. More on that in a minute.

It was a brave speech. Barack Obama has been running as a post-racial candidate this entire election cycle. Today, he turned into the wind, and tackled the racial crimes, conundrums, and tragedies that have buffeted our nation since its inception. Obama challenged our country to deal with the race issue in the here and now, to no longer keep this conversation tucked away in our racially homogeneous tribes, where our separate white and black safety zones allow us to say what we really think about the other.

He did so knowing that after today, there is no going back. As an unnamed Obama adviser was quoted as saying, "Race is now officially on the table. It"s not going away after this,". Race will be a part of his candidacy for the remainder of the primary, and, if he is so lucky, the general election. This is not something Obama wanted to happen, but at this point in the midst of the Wright controversy, it is obvious he felt he had little choice. Even braver, rather than offering banalities on unity and togetherness, he picked at some of the ugliest scabs in our national discourse, in effect claiming that his candidacy possesses the unifying power to do so without making the wounds worse.

That said, while I feel that the speech was a rhetorical victory, I am worried that in certain ways, it was a missed opportunity, and possibly a political failure.

The speech can be judged by who its intended audience was, and who it ended up becoming. His intended audience should have been the white blue collar males that, after the Virginia primary, were flooding towards his candidacy, but after Ohio, and Jeremiah Wright, have been flooding away from it.

Instead, the speech seemed more tailored towards the media, and Obama's base. Political journalists have swooned over it all day long. Chris Matthews probably had to change his pants twice on Hardball tonight, calling it "the greatest speech on civil rights in our nation's history".

It's a fine civil rights speech, and deserves much praise, but Barack Obama is not running to make a point, or win the argument about race in this country. He is not running for Civil Rights Leader of America. He is running for President of the United States. In a country with a still-white majority population, the two are unfortunately incompatible.

Fascinating frames like the following are crack for the media:


"I can no more disown him (Wright) than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."


Brilliant, honest, touching, hard-hitting stuff. But is it really helpful to his political prospects? I love the parallel. The entire blogging unit of The Huffington Post loves the parallel. His base of young white liberals and African-Americans loves it more than anyone.

But I've since heard more than a handful of other white folks"on both the left and right"say things like, "that wasn't a very nice thing to say about his poor old grandmother." Instead of getting the intent of the story"to remind people that Obama's experience is actually as a black and white man"a lot of white blue-collar folks hear that anecdote and think how rude it was for this young black man to say that about that poor old white woman. Plus, they're reminded about how they too, sometimes get scared around young black men. And soul-searching introspection on those feelings is likely not their next step.

As Obama himself said today, "I have never been so naive as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy - particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own." So why is he attempting to do that very thing at its greatest crisis point?

I've even heard from some Democrats"yes, Democrats"who say maybe it was Obama's resentment of his white grandmother's attitudes towards blacks, that led him to a racially charged church like Jeremiah Wright's. I think such arguments are absurd and deeply narrow-minded. Unfortunately, so is the state of typical white racial thinking in this country.

What Obama also did not do with the speech was explain why he spent 20 years listening to a pastor condemn America, hate on white people, and spit on Israel. That's not what's really been happening the last 20 years in the Trinity Church of Christ, of course, but it effectively is what much of white America has come to believe.

Yes, Obama described Wright's outlook as "a profoundly distorted view of this country". And yes, Obama explained that Wright is more than the sum of these snippets of controversy: "The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor."

Fine. The retort I hear then is why does Wright say the U.S. government gave AIDS to black people?

What the speech really needed to do today was, at length, directly address the economic considerations from on high that have intentionally spurred the racial divisions in our country since the American Revolution. It needed to be, in many ways, his Howard Zinn speech.

It was good for Obama to start by empathizing with lower-income white Americans who feel robbed by affirmative action, who see no special value in their own white skin, who "don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race." But the argument stopped with empathy. It is absolutely critical that if you venture into why lower-income whites are resentful of affirmative action, you must complete the circle by explaining how our corrupt economic system requires whites to focus their anger on tiny programs like affirmative action, rather than the massive, non-racial corporate forces that are taking away black and white jobs, black and white health care, black and white homes.

The reason Obama must focus primarily on economics, rather than race, is that with two wars being fought abroad, a looming recession, a housing crisis, trade deals shipping our entire manufacturing base overseas, blue-collar white Democrats really don't feel the urgent need to solve this race problem in America. It is, unfortunately, probably the last issue on the plate"if it's even on the plate.

With one candidate focusing his attention on a controversial topic, which, though eloquently discussed, isn't at the top of voters' concerns, which other candidate is poised to jump right into an opening on the economy? Yep.

But, you say, Obama had to address this Wright controversy"it was eating his candidacy alive! I completely agree. The way in which I believe he would have been better served is by unifying the discussion of race more fully with the economic pressures that have caused these racial fractures in American life in the first place. It was still a brilliant speech. He has retaken the news cycle"no small feat after what he's been through the last couple of weeks. But it's just a news cycle, and the questions will continue to linger among lower-income white voters about Obama's racially questionable church-going.

It's not fair that Barack Obama should be judged by what Rev. Wright has occasionally said. But as life is not fair, many white voters still will do so.

He is still the front-runner for the nomination, and will still likely obtain it. The problem isn't with getting the nomination"it's how does he defeat a cultural icon like John McCain in the general election without grabbing a big share of independent white votes in swing states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Missouri.

His current base"young, affluent educated whites, and black voters"can't bring him over the finish line. And if he is ever going to silence the critics who say he is all hope and no results, he is going to have to throw some serious economic red meat on the table"sooner, rather than later. If he cannot get away from the race discussion, he must drag it over to the economic one.

My advice? Call John Edwards, and start the rewrites. Pennsylvania is a month away.

[ndnndpendent]

Today, Easter Sunday, I am not a Christian so I do not observe Easter. I am with the concensus that John Edwards will make an excellent VP--but he hasnt indicated any public support for Obama. This is a disturbing trend. And on this Easter Sunday, I told my children to be aware of my observation, as they grow older and at least try to understand the world as their mother has seen it.

If Barack Obama were white, Edwards, Gore, Dean and all of the major Democratic party statesmen and stateswomen would have coalesced behind him already. I asked my daughters to remember this day and their mother's observation of this stark statement, because, although America has come a long way from our racist past of manifest destiny and slave-owning----we still have a long way to go.

I dont like this silence exhibited by the Democratic leadership on its face; Richardson took a bold step and broke from his past relationship with the Clinton's of political exigency. He took a stand, even though one would think it was not an easy thing for him to do. He showed courage this week in acknowledging the inevitable that Clinton just cannot win this now. It is time for the major party leaders, the activists---especially JJ Sr., Jr., and Sharpton to urge the Democratic leaders to follow the lead of Richardson.

End the practice of white privilege in the Democratic party---that Hillary Clinton is allowed to run a protracted negative campaign with little chance of success. Obama has essentially locked this up fair and square and the will of the Democratic base is clear. That this may be a historic first in America in another way if the white leaders of the party don't embrace the obvious that Richardson has already acknowledged. And that is that this may be the first time in American history that a white person is not on the ticket for President and Vice President---period. It can be said this may have been change over 200 years in the making, but when change comes, change is profound.

[niikeb]

You know I'm just waiting for him to support school vouchers. Its a non racist form of helping the poor. Affirmative Action only makes poor white people angry at poor black people while their both getting screwed over.

[realpolitic]

Wow, then maybe he should support the whole Republican platform and perhaps even change parties? Would that be a good idea?

[letuckerchicago]

Good insight. Particularly interesting is the analysis of how Obama's message goes beyond Bill Clinton's attempts to address race. While it was pretty courageous in these polarized, Fox "News" time, I suspect that Bill's offer of half a loaf was part of the classic triangulation strategy that he reached for time and again. Another point of interest during Clinton's tenure in the White House was his embrace of Rev. Wright - yes the same Rev. Wright who has been so vilified and dehumanized. I find Bill and Hillary's silence on their former friend and advisor Rev. Wright another example of shrewd tactics and leadership failure.

[realpolitic]

Yes, discussions of race must be linked to discussions of bettering our educational system and strengthening families. The war in Iraq is costing hundreds of billions we could invest in American infrastructure, health care, children, and education. These investments will make America far stronger than any mistaken overseas war would.

[DonA1]

For more than half a century, I have been inspired and moved by several Democrats; Dr. King, Jesse Jackson Sr., Mario Quomo. Obama is in good company. If you agree, please do everything possible to insure that his message is not covered over by lies and innuendo from all quarters.

[realpolitic]

Good thinking!

[ChaoticGood]

Whether or not, you support Obama, does not matter. What matters is that a national politician has challenged the citizens of the USA to grow up and face real issues in an adult manner. How refreshing. Political speech in the USA has become a conversation between "cartoon characters" and a public that mistakes entertainment for substance. What Obama has reminded us, is that we are responsible for our actions and cannot blame the "other guy" or government for everything that goes wrong with our lives. That is the lesson for Liberals. He also reminds us that the basis of all true religions is the "Golden Rule". That is the lesson for Conservatives. But most of all, he reminds us that the "American Dream" is not, to get rich quick, as we have been told by our corporate gods. The American Dream is "Freedom and Justice for All", and that is the lesson for the Corporate Elite. We have been to school this week. I wonder if we learned anything....

[researcher]

he is too intelligent to be president of this country. we are imperialists at heart and many americans are out and out war mongers.

what a waste of intellectual talent. he needs to go be with his kids and wife and help to develop his kids souls.

amercans have many lessons to learn before they are really for the likes of an obama.


"A nation that spends more year after year on military offense (and I mean offense) than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death". (Gunnels)

47 million without health care says it all about the compassion of most americans. this is a me society not a we society.

karma time in america.

[realpolitic]

Yes, Republicans fear intelligent leaders, look at Bush. They trust ideologues who do not think. Evangelicalism is another form of ideology, which, like being a neocon, has little patience for those without blind buy in. Thus, non-thinkers can be led more easily than others.

[Semper]

Americans must learn how to get up off their Knees. As a former executive, i use to ask my employees the difference between slavery and a job? the answer a paycheck. Americans use to have status. We had a middle class, well its going, going, going. Americans are so use to being in charge or thinking that they should, that their bosses hypnotised them, then pulled the shade over their eyes and puff, their money was gone, their savings were gone, and the dreams were gone. Well the new young generation of people can't wait any longer and they have chosen a leader whom they can trust. Most of the boomers really missed it. Their boom has become a bust, and they need to move over so that the younger generation who don't seem to have any hangups gravitate towards Obama. Sometimes I am amazed of how the older generation clings on to their racism as if it protects them from harm.