Racial Idealism vs. Racial Realism: Obama and the DLC

Barack Obama's speech in Philadelphia eloquently displayed how the Obama and Clinton campaigns are divided by race idealism versus race realism.

Combining the statesman's calm cadences with the reverend's passion, Obama delivered what was arguably the crispest, most important delineation of U.S. race relations by a presidential candidate since Abraham Lincoln gave his House Divided speech.

In response to the ongoing racial pyrotechnics seen most recently in the controversies surrounding Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's former pastor whose racial denunciations from his Chicago pulpit have drawn criticism, and Clinton-backer Geraldine Ferraro who sparked controversy after saying, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," Obama used his abundant rhetorical gifts to advance the cause of race idealism. His speech tried to weaken the relentless pull of our racial past on our electoral present by pointing to a post-racial future.

"This nation is more than the sum of its parts," he declared before a very racially mixed crowd of supporters sitting and swooning in Philadelphia's National Constitution Center. "We may have different stories, but we hold common hopes." The elevated responses in the Constitution Center seemed to simulate the paintings of children and adults of various ethnicities dancing in a circle as they rise from the ground.

In stark contrast to Obama's strive-for-higher-ground idealism is the boots-on-the-ground march of the pre-eminent practitioners of racial realpolitik: the Clinton backers of Washington's Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).

Caught between the current reality of an electorate that's still mostly white and a primary process that reflects stunning demographic shifts, the racial politics of the Clinton supporters in the DLC reflect a strategic decision to consolidate their white base. Viewed from this vantage point, the DLC's re-engineered appeals to white racial solidarity preview the new politics of the white minority era that looms on the racial horizon.

More than any other political machine in this very tense political moment, politicians affiliated with the DLC have developed policies and made statements that reconfigure racial politics beyond the Southern Strategy -- appeals to white voter fear and anxieties with anti-black policy proposals that successfully transformed the once Democratic-leaning South into a Republican stronghold -- that still defines much of the Republican racial realpolitik. DLC affiliates have more or less formed a beeline to make racial comments appealing to white voters as an unprecedented racial reality has come upon America: white minority status.

DLC operatives seem to recognize how quickly the political process is moving past the black-white racial politics towards a Sunbelt strategy targeting a more diverse and demographically different country, increasingly concentrated in the sunny southern states stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Like Obama, the DLC recognizes and anticipates the inevitable domination of the electoral college by Texas, Florida, California and other states heavily populated by Latinos and Asians.

Among the most recent comments and policy proposals by DLC affiliates reflecting the Sunbelt strategy are: the Geraldine Ferraro statement; the strong support for the anti-immigrant policies of the very punitive, anti-immigrant STRIVE Act by Rahm Emmanuel and James Carville, an enforcement-heavy immigration reform proposal which many Congressional Hispanic Caucus members have said will increase racial profiling; the anti-immigrant ads used by DLC Chair Harold Ford during his Senatorial bid in Tennessee; DLC stalwart Bob Kerrey's claim that Obama attended a "secular madrassa"; the numerous racially-charged comments made by former DLC leader Bill Clinton, and, of course, Hillary Clinton in the course of her own campaign.

These most recent statements and policy proposals by DLC affiliates reflect the DLC's insights into the post-Southern Strategy, post-Dixiecrat moment. This vision was developed by several of the mostly southern founders of the DLC who, in their zeal to combat the GOP successes with white voters through the Southern Strategy, rejected the affirmative action and other "identity politics" in the Democratic party to return to the old white identity politics.

Asked about the statements by Ferraro and other DLC affiliates, DLC's press secretary, Alice McKeon, declined to make a statement. Asked if Ferraro was affiliated with her organization, McKeon answered, "I'm not prepared to say anything about that right now."

Longtime DLC critic and editor of the Black Agenda Report, Bruce Dixon, sees in the ratcheting up of racial politics in this primary season the DLC's aspirations to make Democrats more competitive against the GOP. "The historic position of the DLC is that they want to compete for Republican voters and corporate dollars," said Dixon. "Their support for the SAVE Act, the racial attacks on Obama are rooted in this desire."

Dixon has for many years also questioned the relationship between the racial statements and policy proposals of DLC members and the major funding it receives from corporations and from foundations like the Bradley Foundation, a philanthropic organization which gave the Progressive Policy Institute, the DLC's think tank, over $200,000. Bradley Foundation also has a long history of giving money to organizations and individuals dedicated to decimating civil rights like Charles Murray, author or the controversial Bell Curve who still supports thoroughly baseless racial ideas like the belief that there's a correlation between race and intellectual capabilities. "The Clintons, Rahm Emanuel and the DLC have to say these (racial) things because their corporate sponsors need a segmented and divided workforce," said Dixon. "They can't possibly do anything else."

Yet, given the chronic inflexibility of politicians of all stripes to articulate the real problems of race in the United States, Obama's race idealism may, in fact, mark the beginning of, as he promised, real change. Charles Murray himself noted this on the National Review website after Obama's speech. "As far as I'm concerned, it is just plain flat out brilliant--rhetorically, but also in capturing a lot of nuance about race in America," he wrote. "It is so far above the standard we're used to from our politicians."

Race idealism, who knows, may very well carry the day beyond the primaries and the general election.

Comments

[clr2]

Lovato why do you always say "anit-immigration" instead of using anti-ILLEGAL immigration? Do you see the difference? We spend BILLIONS to educate and provid health care for ILLEGAL ALIENS who don't belong here. We should be using that money on our own citizens. We should enforce our laws. All ILLEGAL ALIENS should be deported, those who hire ILLEGALS should be heavily fined, and we should return to the original intent of the 14th amendment and do away with anchor babies. LEGAL immigration is great - ILLEGAL immigration is sucking this country dry.

[BatedBreath]

Thank you for this post. I couldn't quite put my finger on why I was feeling so much animosity toward the Clintons. This explains it and I realize now it wasn't my imagination. I knew the DLC had taken the party in a conservative direction, but this is beyond the pale. Why don't they just join the gop?

[BongWater]

Great post. More information about the DLC please. They are the worst liars and a most reprehensible group of scum for what they are doing to the Democratic party.

They will probably try to force Clinton onto the ticket after Obama trounces her in the primaries, as he is now doing.

No one in the party should stand for this outrage. If Clinton is on the ticket, a full scale revolt is the only reasoned response.

This is the kind of stuff the DLC does quietly, while no one pays attention.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/090607J.shtml

[USAdaughter]

I'm so TIRED of this dialogue! I mean in the grand scheme of EVERYTHING does this even matter. My head is going to explodde if I have to read one more blog post or comment about this topic. Obama tried to put this to rest yesterday, whether you support him or not...can't you see that whether he leaves his church or stays, or is black or a woman or whatever won't matter if we do not have a president that inspire the masses to get off their duffs and get involved?

I mean this conversation is useless and if it's being perpetuated by those who hope it will drive the candidate leading in popular vote and pledged delegate count out of the race, then whether you succeed or not- we all lose, because our nation's difficulties transcend all of these things.

I don't care about HRC's tax returns, I don't care who donated money to her husband's library, we need to hold our next president accountable for what they do when they are in office. And we need to start by electing someone who is flexible, intelligent and interested in what is happening in the everyday lives of the citizens of this country.

Please let's move ON and talk about what really matters. It's so sad that people will abandon their sense of reason just to promote THIER candidate--and that goes for both Obama and Clinton supporters.

For the record, I voted for Obama in my state's primary and I started this race out as HRC enthusiast--and I think she would be a competent president. However, I believe in this moment in our Nation's history we need a president that is asking us not to believe in his ability to bring about change, but in our own...and we also need to realize that the president's health care plan is not necessarily going to become law, that while it's important that the president understand the dynamics of the laws, his job is executive---and not legislative. We need someone with GOOD judgement, objectivty, even temperment and the desire to LISTEN and not to be heard.

My heart is aching because I am starting to think that America does not deserve the public service Obama is offering us, and I hope he will not compromise anymore of his dignity or privacy just to appease people who have actually place so much importance on Rev. Wright.

The racism that I have seen exhibited, the anger at a man expressing his feelings about his country--- and just because he is African American man saying it.
If you were him, and had grown up being called disgusting names, and not being allowed to sit in the same space because your skin was a different color, constantly being pushed to the back of the bus or the end of the line, you might feel just the same way. I do not agree with the tenor of his statement, but instead or rushing to crucify him why are people not more interested in the cause of the anger- that is where healing begins.

It's the same thing with 9/11, we would rather believe the ridiculous notion that people want to kill us because "THEY HATE OUR FREEDOM" than discuss what america's impact on the rest of the world is and how we can be a more positive contributor.

I wish people were this ANGRY at the fact that we are fighting a war that our administration instigated based on fabricated evidence and ignorant rhetoric... or that there are people who never go to the doctor, no matter how much pain their in, because they can't afford it...even if they have insurance at work.

If Obama's not elected president, I think that's fine because a democracy means that majority rule must be followed, but if I hear ONE person say "Oh, I wish I could take back my vote, or I am one of those who is sorry they voted for McCain/Clinton" I'll lose it! Because the information needed to make informed decision is available, and even though our media is flagantry and recklessly negligent in their responsibility, if you have access to the internet and you care, you can find out what the REAL issues are.

I really pray for us in this country because we are headed towards a disaster

[AnninCA]

I'm going to take time to really re-read this and think about it, but you've hit on something that bothers me a lot about the political rhetoric of today. It's all the machinations about voter preferences. That is simply all speculation.

One year, plagarism is the supposed reason for a downfall. Yet this year? Nobody cares. I think that's because the theory behind the downfall was probably off-target.

I think redistricting often blows up in the faces of those who seek to control the vote. Look at Texas. It was pretty darn embarassing for Obama when Hillary won the primary in spite of the redistricting that favored him. That was a very loud and clear message from voters.

I think the truth is just what the long-time real politician, Bill Clinton, said.

Everyone, chill out. Let the voters vote.

Things only become clear after we hear from voters.

Until then? It's really all speculative.

BTW, I think this also applies to Obama. He was up against that ridiculous "electability" stuff early on. Obviously, that was pure baloney on the part of many pundits.

Ferarro was dead right when she said, in fact, his race is an asset this year. Maybe not in the past. Maybe not in the future. But it hasn't hurt him at all within the Dem party this year.

The stuff that is hurting him now isn't racial. It's the "devil in the details" stuff. It's the pastor, it's the lie about Nafta, it's the Monster, it's the *wink wink* about Iraq withdrawal after making that a center for his attack on HIllary. IT's the usual stuff that trips up politicians who are, in my opinion, out of their league on a national scale. You get by with a few missteps. They all make them. But once it piles up, it's an avalanche. Once you lose voter confidence, you need time to regain it.

He's pretty much out of time.

But anyway, thank you for a thought-provoking article. I'm going to take more time to mull it over.

[Lariti]

Mr Lovato starts out this article saying there's a difference between so called race idealism and race realism, and I was anticipating an interesting review of that topic, but this is a totally bogus and one-sided rant against the DLC. What I find interesting is the decision to couch what seems like a very practical decision by the Clinton campaign to focus on its hard-core Democratic base - working class voters of all racial stripes and creeds - and also bring in new groups, like Asians and Hispanics, which have if not been ignored, not really embraced by either party. How is this behavior racist? Obama, despite his own multiracial background, seems not to be able to tap into these groups - does that make him, in turn, racist?

I would submit to you that despite the punditocracy's constant drumbeat to the tune that Hillary and Bill Clinton are racists - something I have never seen the slightest evidence of - it is actually the Obama camp that constantly keeps bringing up the issue of race while claiming not to want it to be an/the issue in the campaign. They can't have it both ways. Either you believe Barack Obama and the speech he gave yesterday (I am an HRC supporter, but I applauded his speech, and I do believe him) or you keep on keepin' on in just the way he described, lambasting "critics" where they don't necessarily exist, e.g., in this case the DLC. The DLC has always favored pragmatism over an ideologically driven path to nowhere - how is that racist????

Great idea for a topic - too bad Mr Lovato doesn't deliver. An honest assessment of these two poles - HRC realism vs Obama idealism - would be interesting, but this doesn't touch the real issues.

[Fabienne]

The DLC "realism" lost the Democratic Congress to Republicans, and lost the Presidency to George Bush. DLC "realism" gave us banking deregulation, the Federal Communications Act, NAFTA, without safeguards for the workers, welfare "reform", an emasculated OSHA, and an ineffective foreign policy, especially in regard to Iraq (years of sanctions that accomplished nothing but mass murder) and Rwanda. If the DLC is "real" politics, "real" politics is a failure.

[Fabienne]

From the latest that I've heard, it was Clinton's campaign that lied about NAFTA.

[timeforachangenow]

How DARE him.....

during the fifty three years I have lived in this country (in the south) I have watched and seen the way that the BLACK issue has been handled...

This country has made GREAT strides in equalizing the disparities between the races...

This country has admitted and made GREAT equalizing efforts to unify the races...

INCLUDING forcefully combining it's education system to accomodate the BLACK community...

for OBAMA to bring this contest back to being a BLACK issue tells a tremendous about who he is...

in his effort to "become" a true BLACK man he has ignited a potential FIRESTORM where one was not needed...

This contest should have NEVER been about RACE but now he has attempted to turn it into one...

His inexperience and inability to properly assess the condition in this country at present is allowing the message to be hijacked into becoming one of inequality for the BLACK man...

when in REALITY it is one of CLASS struggle and not COLOR struggle...

the Repubs have expanded the have and have not divide and forced a level of poverty upon us...

this is seen in the job market...

this is seen in the gas market...

this is seen in the grocery market...

it is high time to equalize the economics of this country and to give people hope for the future...

NOT in equalizing the races...THIS has and IS being done now...

but in the distribution of economics to the common middle class person...

it's time for the Corporate Class to share the wealth with everyone else and STOP hoarding...

THIS is the PROBLEM....

THIS is WHY the DEMOCRATIC party should be put back in the WHITE HOUSE...

TO equalize things in this country in an economic strata that threatens to sink this country...

without this equalization...we as a freedom loving country can no longer offer the leadership to the rest of the world that will show we are in fact above the fray in regards to race politics...


it truly IS TimeforachangeNOW!

[SamThornton]

The DLC seems to have deliberately reinvented itself as the Karl Rove wing of the Democratic Party, only without the brains.

Machiavellian triangulation is all very well if all one is interested in is power for power's sake; however, it seems to be increasingly self-defeating as more and more people in the electorate come to see it for what it is. To reduce the problem to its core, the question is, at what point do the means to secure power effectively kill the reasons for securing it? It's the same question we see playing itself out in the current Democratic primary campaign.

[larry278]

This campaign may cause a researcher of the progressive bent to name some newly discovered STD DLC. It may start a publicity campaign to curb the spread of the disease. I expect to see PSA's saying, "Help stamp out DLC'. This blog establishes that the DLC is a player in the USA's forces of reaction. The troll's comments establish that the DLC is an atavistic, reactionary front group which faces extinction if Barack Hussein Obama becomes POTUS #44. If US voters reject Hillary Rodham Clinton-it will end the Clinton dynasty & the DLC as a force in the Democratic Party.

[peterg76]

"a strategic decision to consolidate their white base"

This illustrates just how detached from reality strategists are. It's all manipulation of the market - it never occurs to them to have quality candidates or at least not openly sell out their constituents.

[Nommo]

Ben, just go ahead and vote for Hillary or McCain. You make about as much sense as she ever has. That's the wonderful thing about representative democracy. "Old situations, new complications, nothing portentous or polite, tragedy tomorrow, comedy tonight!"

[onlinesavant]

I am REALLY getting sick of you closet haters trying to besmirch Senator Obama for not leaving his church.Firstly, it's funny how you all are the very same people who were trying to intimate that he was a Muslim (As if there's anything wrong with that.). Obviously, none of you actually saw the whole speech, and fewer of you still have EVER attended Rev.Wright's church. I challenge you to tell me one lie that the Rev espoused in the speech. Please. Secondly, for all you "offended" by the sound bites you heard (Again, I doubt any of you actually saw the whole speech.) tell me, how many of you were going to or did vote for Obama in a primary or caucus for him ? Seriously, I doubt very few of you haters.

[fulano]

Great post Roberto, well thought out and on the money as usual. The "speech" by Obama was so powerful and right on that Obama, who to his credit always takes the high road, may take this new momentum and leave the pack behind, I hope so.

[BigBen]

I don't believe you realize how absurd you are claiming the Bill and Hillary Clinton are racists. Bill Clinton had the undivided support of the black vote before the graduate of Rev. Wright's racist and American hating church graduate came on the scene. The guilt ridden elite white community felt the need to support that person and to do so they had to establish that his opponents were racist.Neither of the Clintons had ever uttered a racist word in their lives nor did they do so since the campaign began.They did however try to alert the black community of the fraud that Obama was perpetrating on them. Full of hatred and shame of living in America (instilled in them by the race bating Wright )Obama and his wife never left that church and just like it's congregation who supported Wright they were Americans during the week and American haters on weekends.Now that their cover has been pulled and Bill's claim that Obama is a fairy tale proven true you are filled with the bitter ashes of shame.A false hatred against America will not win a general election so Obama will lead the black community back into the wilderness of psychological slavery from which the Clintons had freed them and the extreme left wing elite will return to the outer edges of American life whence they came.If the Rev. Wright had the courage of his convictions he would have spoken up in the last week and accepted his part in this fiasco instead he remained silent and let his protege crash and burn. Shame on the whole church of Wright and his racist congregation.

[CitizenE]

Ben, from my perspective, just as much of the animus towards Hillary Clinton has misogyinist, so too has the antipathy toward Obama been racist. But of course there is overt, out in the open prejudice, and there is the other, and in this day and age, far more subversive and pervasive, thus far more insidious version of it. The 3 AM ad is an example of this. That ad implies that 3AM in the morning America's little blonde headed daughter would not be safe if that "boy" with the funny sounding name were in charge. Maybe it wasn't planned to give that impression, benefit of the doubt, let's say it wasn't. The ad betrays at best then an unconscious set of stereotypical values that go down deeply into the American racist mindset.
Obama's speech, a heartfelt plea for compassion for all, not just his pastor's, our racial fears and resentments, which given his background one can only find uplifting and inspiring, but also an appeal to our better angels that we acknowledge within ourselves that for obvious historical and contemporary reasons we have not yet overcome prejudice in America, argues audaciously that despite our worst demons, we can in facing the truth, move together to solve the larger problems we all face, and in doing so, begin anew to untangle the knots and heal the wounds that exist among us.
As far as I am concerned this speech did not prove that Obama would be better at the nuts and bolts of the Presidency than Clinton, but you are sadly mistaken and tragically underestimate Barack Obama by calling him a fraud or holding him up for shame, because it is clear from this speech he has the greater ability to reach out with his person to a far wider swath of American citizens in all age, ethnic, economic, gender, and political groups than Hillary Clinton.

[Nommo]

Screw all that misogyny crap. Hillary is a thief and a liar, a brand the American people shoul be well tired of.