Oh, well. You knew I couldn’t stay away from the Obama story for too long, didn’t you? Just finished Glenn Loury’s raw and provocative essay at the left-leaning political blog Talking Points Memo. As I said a few posts ago, I really like Loury as a scholar and commentator. I had the chance to interview him when I was with Christianity Today. He has an amazing mind and is quite forthright in his opinions. This current essay is no exception.
Loury seems to be continuing in the vein of Shelby Steele’s current book about Barack Obama, A Bound Man. Loury observes that Obama can only win enough white voters by sustaining this narrative of the “post-racial black man,” and yet he cannot win without the support of black voters who, on some level, are probably hoping that, if he wins, he will retain enough of his blackness that their perspectives will finally be understood and represented by the White House.
Yet, Loury feels somewhat ambivalent about this tightrope that Obama is attempting to walk. He’s especially conflicted about Obama’s now-legendary race speech. “I can’t get past the fact that Obama was negotiating with the American public on behalf of MY people in Philadelphia last week,” he says. “In the process, he presumed to instruct a generation of angry black men as to how they ought to construe their lives. I am not sure that Barack Obama has earned the right to do either of those things.”
He adds: “The narrative-defining moves that Obama is making now, in the heat of a political campaign and in teh service of his own ambitions, must be critically examined as to what impact they will have on the deep structures of American civic obligation, for generations to come.”
Following Obama’s Philadelphia speech, I also remarked that it was a shame that such an important speech about the reality of the racial divide in America was wasted on an ugly presidential campaign. And indeed, the speech’s message was promptly lost in a barrage of partisan spin.
But Loury goes further. At the heart of his concern is that Obama’s talk of “change” and of transcending race are disingenuous ways of diminishing the controversial but needed voices of black activists like Jackson, Sharpton, and (dare I say it) Jeremiah Wright. Loury writes:
At bottom, what is at stake here is a fight over the American historical narrative. Obama, a self-identifying black man running for the most powerful office on earth, does threaten some aspects of the conventional ‘white’ narrative. But, he also threatens the ‘black’ narrative — and powerfully so. In effect, he wants to put an end to (transcend, move beyond, overcome…) the anger, the disappointment and the subversive critique of America that arises from the painful experience of black people in this country. Yet, the forces behind his rise are NOT grassroots-black-American in origin; they are elite-white-liberal-academic in origin. If he succeeds, there will be far fewer public megaphones for the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons and Cornel Wests of this world, for sure. Many will see that as a good thing. But a great deal more may also be lost including, just to take one example, the notion that the moral legacy for today’s America of the black freedom struggle that played-out in this country during the century after emancipation from slavery – I speak here of Martin Luther King’s (and Fannie Lou Hamer’s, and W.E.B. DuBois’s, and Ida B. Wells’s and Frederick Douglass’s …) moral legacy – should find present-day expression in, among other ways, agitation on behalf of and public expression of sympathy for the dispossessed Palestinians – who are, arguably, among the ‘niggers’ of today’s world, if ever there were any. (We all know that Rev. Wright’s publicly and vociferously expressed sympathies in this regard – his condemnation of America’s support for what he called ‘state terrorism’ in the Middle East – are a central aspect of the political difficulty that Obama now finds himself having to deal with.)
Speaking for myself, and as a black American man, if forced to choose, I’d rather be “on the right side of history” about such matters, melding the historical narratives of my people with those of the ‘niggers’ in today’s world, than to make solidarity with elites who, for the sake of political expediency, would sweep such matters under the rug (or, worse.) My fear is that, should Obama succeed with his effort to renegotiate the implicit American racial contract, then the prophetic African American voice – which is occasionally strident and necessarily a dissident, outsider’s voice – could be lost to us forever.
For the record, Loury is a Clinton supporter. My beliefs and personal mission tend to bend more in the direction of that “transcending race” vision of Obama. Yet, at the same time, I recognize the value of prophetic voices, and I still believe the historic African American experience has a lot to contribute to any discussion of who we are as a society, nation, and church—and what we need to become. I don’t want to abandon the cultural uniquenesses of any race or ethnic group, for I believe God reveals something special about himself through every culture. Yet, I don’t want race and culture to become idols either.
Can Obama successfully blend his post-racial narrative with a prophetic edge that remembers our history and regularly challenges us to become a better people in spite of it? I don’t know if we’ve ever asked so much from a president. Usually, we just want him to keep the taxes low, nominate “our guy” for the Supreme Court, and veto this or that bill. If Obama wins, he’ll have to balance those expectations with the task of not being “too black” or too detached from the implications of his blackness. Such would be the lot of our first black president.
“My fear is that, should Obama succeed with his effort to renegotiate the implicit American racial contract, then the prophetic African American voice – which is occasionally strident and necessarily a dissident, outsider’s voice – could be lost to us forever.”
I agree that Loury makes some interesting points, but I would argue that this final line grossly overestimates the power of one man (even if the one in the oval office) and grossly underestimates voices of dissent and prophetic protest in our nation. I might even go a step further and say the statement seems disingenuous at best. Can he honestly believe that election of one man, even one with a compelling “transcending race” ideology, could actually quell other strong black voices and perspectives? Let’s not think so little of our prophets, both past and present, who are known for their courage not their acquiescence.
I also thought the “elite-white-liberal-academic” line falls into the same category.
[…] Reconciliation Blog: The Peril’s of Obama’s narrative […]
Underneath the surface appearances, Obama is a materialistic socialist. So I’d have to agree that the prophetic voice, which is against socialism (see “Christianity vs. State Socialism” http://acimmessages.blogspot.com/ ) might be stifled.
Speaking of the voices of descent, did you happen to see Pat Buchanan’s March 28 blog post? It is very discouraging to see how out of touch Buchanan is with how unequal the playing field is for African Americans. Very sad! Obama said, “Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race.” This is clear evidence of that.
Sorry, I messed up on the Buchanan link. Try this one.
I saw a panel convened near the end of the Black State of the Union conference in New Orleans, back in February.
Cornell West was supporting Obama, but said he would become his biggest critic the day after Obama took office.
I think the prophetic voices may feel more freedom to be heard, with Obama in office. Prophets will feel he has a debt to them, because he got in with the help of the black vote. It will be up to Obama (and the media) to listen.
I do think the job of being president is so difficult, that any new one may be overwhelmed with learning the job, early on.
I don’t think the country is post-racial. I think a different term needs to be found. I think Obama’s response to some of Wright’s issues was more accurate. He said that the country is capable of change, and has changed. Because we have made progress doesn’t mean we’re post-race. With the rising Latino population in this country, race issues increase in complexity. We need accurate and positive ways to discuss the dynamics. Our goal may be to be post-negative polarization–or something like that. There is potential for radical paradigm shift, but it doesn’t mean anyone should compromise history or identity.
I see 2 nebulous factions emerging from the din of the proverbial megaphones you aptly point out in this conversation. They are, as I see them, “Bridge Builders” and “The Dissident voice”. Ed G, Obama, and most of the people interacting in this blog I could aptly categorize as “bridge builders”. And then there’s the “Dissident Voice”. This includes the Jackson/Sharpton contingent, of course. Then there are those on the “white” side– Buchannan, Rush Limbaugh, etc… (Yes, I’m comparing Jackson to Limbaugh, and as a political moderate, having listened to everything both parties have to offer, I feel I’ve earned that right.) 🙂
I know that Ed sympathises with this “prophetic black voice in America” in his book, so I tread lightly when I make these points, as he brings a “black” perspective to the party, to which I am not in the first person privvy.
That being said, Loury’s point seems so eloquently ludicrous to me. He fears this “prophetic dissident black voice” may be silenced once ushered into this “pending post-racial era”. But indeed, wouldn’t (as a result of TRUE reconciliation) this “prophetic voice” be FULFILLED? Were the prophets of the Old Testament SILENCED or FULFILLED in the birth, life, death, and resurrection of the Christ? Is the prophet AFRAID of his own prophecy?
The problem I have with the “dissident voice” on both the lily-white and black sides of the equation today, is that if we ever find ourselves in a “post-racial” era, or more delicately, in an era of racial reconciliation, these “megaphones” are out of jobs. When the “angry black man” has nothing left to be angry about, Jesse Jackson loses his impetus. Likewise, when the “right” becomes less “whitened” and more “enlightened”, Limbaugh and his EIB network will finally be laughed right off the air. (And Robertson will have some ‘splainin’ to do, and so-on.)
On the topic of reconciliation, I’m throwing my hat into the ring with Obama and the bridge-builders, over that of the dissenters on either side, every day of the week. And twice on Sunday. I’m just so happy to see a “bridge builder” (Obama) with such a loud megaphone. In today’s day and age of the competitive media, and advertising ratings, anger and venom and arguments sell. So it’s the “dissident voice” that typically gets the most air time. We should all chose to tune in to a more open-minded (I didn’t say watered-down, white-washed, or unimpassioned), true “solution”-minded product.
Clarification– perhaps in my previous post I fail to recognize/accept that there needs to be some differentiation between “post-racial” culture, and a “racially reconciled” culture. I would like to define them as one-in-the-same, as the only “post-racial” culture that should be acceptable is one that is “racially reconciled”, and not merely “non-racial”, “white-washed” or what-have-you… just a premise I’m basing my points on above…
Thanks, Tyson, for your insights. Just read a challenging post by Jimi Izrael at The Root that is somewhat related to this discussion. Check it out here:
http://blogs.theroot.com/blogs/thehardline/archive/2008/04/07/dream-on.aspx.
The reader comments at the end are also interesting.
Just read the Izrael post and comments. Powerful. And he summarizes the basic thoughts that I was trying to capture.
It ain’t over… but it’s time to pass the torch…
I think that part of what is implied in being “post-racial” from the white side is colorblindness-as-virtue. It is this notion, in part, that creates anxiety in Loury’s voice. If being post-racial means that we deal with everyone on equal footing (as Dr. King implied) that would be one thing.
But I fear that most whites liberals read the Obama narrative as Loury suspects: finally we get to get past discussing race. . . whereas blacks who support Obama read it in the opposite: finally we can have a healthy acknowledgement of and discussion about race.
But the reality is that it sounds a lot like those who control the new voice of virtue (the post racial voice) will once again be primarily made up by those in control of society and its institutions. If Obama must play the post-racial game to be made President, can he stop playing when he makes it? Is he playing it too understanding? Too evenhanded?
While I am definitely working hard to be in that bridge builder role, I don’t believe for a moment that the ground is level in terms of what those who are white and those who are black must do or bring to the table. Both must come with great endurance but the rules aren’t “fair”.
Leaders don’t normally ever want to pass the torch so the hesitancy on the part of the previous generation is very human. Izrael and others might consider the way John Perkins movement gave an alternative to the beat them over the head approach or the pacification approach. The 3 R’s include . . . move into impoverished communities as key strategy. . . now that makes for a crazy narrative!