Today's must-read column: Chris Caldwell, writing about Shelby Steele's new book about Obama, speculating on how Obama could totally transform the discussion on race in America:
Mr Steele roots for Mr Obama passionately, but believes he has walked into a trap.To understand why, we need to understand Mr Steele’s theory of US race relations, which centres on white guilt. “Given the shameful history of white supremacy,” he writes, “ ... there is nothing less than a profound, even ferocious, need in white America to dissociate from racism.” So in the wake of the civil rights era, a dynamic arose in which whites bartered political and economic power for absolution, or what Mr Steele calls “racial innocence”.
Blacks engaged in this barter in two ways. Some were “challengers” – political firebrands such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who in Mr Steele’s view assumed whites were racist until proved otherwise. This approach eventually wears out a society’s patience. By contrast, “bargainers” – such as Oprah Winfrey or Bill Cosby and now Mr Obama – base their lives on the assumption that white America will live up to its promises of equality.
This is no dead end. For white people, writes Mr Steele, “gratitude is transmogrified into a real and powerful affection for the black who inspires it”. Bargainers can become beloved national icons.
But there is a pathos in bargaining, too. It leads logically to real freedom – individual blacks taking charge of their own lives. “Just because we were oppressed,” Mr Steele writes, “it does not follow that there is a force other than our own assumption of responsibility – our own agency – that will lift us up.”
Yet that reality cannot be avowed politically without disrupting the biracial bargain. Mr Steele notes that, since Mr Cosby began lecturing and agitating for black self-help about a decade ago, he has lost his iconic status for both races. His approach shuts off the tap of power for hardline black leaders and the tap of forgiveness for whites.
[snip]
America’s decades-old racial bargain was designed for baby-boomers. Now that the gap between white and black opportunity has narrowed and the country has filled with immigrants of many other races, that bargain is losing not just its support but its internal logic.If Mr Obama is now the candidate best positioned to offer a better bargain, it is for reasons that are more generational than racial.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
That was a beautiful piece you wrote about your wife and your tenth anniversary. . .congratulations and may you have many more!
RW-
Bush, if you recall, ran on "I'm a uniter, not a divider"-bland nothingness. Admittedly his experience as governor was limited, but Obama has literally done less than nothing. If the point is he's somehow superior to Bush, pardon me if that doesn't add very much. It does seem that he's trying to do something similar to Bush in 2000-say very little, take no stands, be bland. Add in a dash of Clinton 1992-"change", "agent for change", what ever-voila, we have a suppsoed campaign of nothingness. "Obama-because?", about get there? I suppose copying the last 2 cynical and winning campaigns is good work for a pol. But this absurd idea Obama is "transcendent" is a freaking joke.
At some point, you have to take some stands and decide what matters and what you'll go to the matt on. So far, if you agree with Obama, you're being "inclusive", if you disagree "divisive". Love or loathe HRC, you have a good idea where she stands. And again, his tax plan could be the work of a bored 6th grader rather than a real policy. "Uh, $100K, nah, $200K, uh, I dunno?"
And we know on abortion, Obama would only vote "present" as a state senator some 7 times.Some profile in courage there. I believe people of good faith could come down on either side, but to not take a stand one way or another is an abdication of responsibility. And especially so when a strict constructionist viewpoint holds that abortion should be decided exactly by each state legislature. There are no such voting "present" indecisions in the Oval Office.
Bugg,
If we can agree that the line between the "rich" and the "poor" is a moving, shifting line that tracks the distribution of income rather than the political rhetoric of either party, there might be some objective data to consider. If, on the other hand, "rich" and "poor" is more a matter of "us" vs "them", why bother trying to find consensus?
But to ask that question is to answer it. If it is meaningful to have greater household income greater than four out of five households, census data that break out incomes into quintiles could be such a delineation . . . but I doubt it. We all think of ourselves as "middle class;" my household income couldn't be all that much more or less than the typical American. But if your household income exceeds $100K, welcome to the economic elite. And rather than argue about where the line should be, consider how well (or poorly) 80% of us get along with less.
Simply, you're wrong. $100K for most 2 fmaily incomes is no longer elite. I don't know what incomes are like around other parts of the country. But in the Northeast though, preparing close to 1000 tax returns, I can state emphatically that $100K isn't all that uncommon for a husband and wife both in middle class professions-teacher, cop, fireman, constuction, nurse, low level financial services.That's hardly elite. Which comes back to the point-Obama didn't really give it much thought, if any.With AMT and hikes in tax rates, you aren't going to be financing the latest crazy liberal spending spree Obama will propose on the backs of millionaires, but out of the wallets of working and middle class people.
Aside, when those people fill out the FAF for their kids getting into college and get practically no financial aid, it's another kick in the keister.
Were I running things, April 15th would be Election Day too. It's not a coincidence that on the calendar tax day is as far from Election Day as could be. Just someone ask any of these guys-how are you gonna pay for that?
Racial bargain: what? ? I didn't follow the argument. But I do think that Obama symbolizes a step forward, progress, if you will, away from the race issues of the past generation. Not everything is solved, not by a long shot, but it is past time to quit rehashing the same arguments and counterarguments.
For those of us who are younger, multiculturalism is a done deal, not something to be agonized over. Our American idealogy of justice and freedom and tolerance should trump all ethnicity and religion - it is what makes our nation unique. (Though an argument can be made that English profiency for all citizens and residents would be for the greater benefit of all.) I myself am part Mexican - by ethnicity, not nationality, as much of that branch of the family has been on United States territory for quite a bit longer than it was United States territory. The cultural factors of honor and family loyalty from that side of the family lay strong enough claim on me that I typically identify myself as Hispanic instead of white, if forced to choose between the two, though to be honest, I'm a bit of an outsider to both groups.
As far as expertise goes: our current President demonstrated very little knowledge of foreign policy when campaigning. I would argue that knowledge and expertise in that field is of paramount importance to the leader of the Free World. Obama not only knows the subject, he has lived it. You can fault him on many other areas, but not that.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.