With each milestone in racial life in the United States, the trope of “postraciality” is dusted off and used by its proponents to call for an end to real, substantive progress in achieving social equality. Indeed, advocacy of postraciality has emerged from prominent people of color, such as Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele, who is African American, and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who is of South Asian descent. However, the impulse to close the door on race must be resisted. Well-documented and persistent forms of inequality, driven by institutional racism, inadequate public policy, and racial blinders, remind us on a daily basis of the unfinished agenda of equal rights. So does the daily venom on the right that is thoroughly racialized. The journey has never been to achieve benefits for a few at the top, but for the advancement of all, beginning with the many at the bottom.
Race Neutral or Race Conscious?: Obama’s Dilemma
This is one of those singular moments that nations ignore at their peril. . . . There have been a few prescient leaders in our past, but you are the man for this time.60—Toni Morrison, endorsement of Obama
It would be a mistake to reduce Obama’s election as primarily a victory for black America. His triumph is a collective one that highlights the persistence of the long struggle for democracy by a wide range of communities and constituencies. In this light, his win is a benefit for the nation and the world as a whole. And when we elected Obama to lead the nation at home and represent us abroad, for once, at least in this era, nearly the entire world rejoiced with us. In villages, towns, cities, favelas, barrios, prisons, army bases, cafés, and public spaces around the globe, people celebrated. In some neighborhoods people stopped traffic to dance in the streets.
Obama’s win—our victory—is also a repudiation of the conservatism that has dominated American politics for forty or more years. Manipulating racial fear, class prejudices, imperial global relations, and deregulated markets, conservative Republicans and opportunistic Democratic administrations in the 1980s and 1990s attempted to roll back the social and legislative advances of the Great Depression and the Great Society. But especially under the George W. Bush administration and the hyper-reactionary Republican Congress of 1995–2007, the nation and the world experienced the most radical retreat on political and human rights imaginable. All the while, transnational corporations, disproportionately U.S.-based, pillaged the nation and the world with the full assistance of the antigovernment Bush administration.
Obama has called for, and he should receive, fierce support for the progressive dimensions of his agenda: ending the war in Iraq, building a green capitalist economy, reining in constitutional abuses, reforming the health care system, focusing on job creation, closing foreign prisons where torture has occurred, and so on. He should also receive fierce opposition to his more conservative proposals and any stalling or rollback on campaign promises, like ending the Iraq War, closing Guantánamo Bay prison, and prohibiting torture. The Obama administration must also be pushed to fulfill its promise to address the urban issues that have been left to fester for decades. He must overcome fears of being called a “racial hostage” i.e., appearing to be obligated to addressing racial concerns, and a real—rather than imagined—effort to ensure equality for all must continue to forge ahead.
Obama seems to get it. In his July 2009 speech before the NAACP he stated:
I understand there may be a temptation among some to think that discrimination is no longer a problem in 2009. And I believe that overall, there probably has never been less discrimination in America than there is today. I think we can say that. But make no mistake: The pain of discrimination is still felt in America. . . . But we also know that prejudice and discrimination—at least the most blatant types of prejudice and discrimination—are not even the steepest barriers to opportunity today. The most difficult barriers include structural inequalities that our nation’s legacy of discrimination has left behind; inequalities still plaguing too many communities and too often the object of national neglect.61
The “some” he cites at the outset are the proponents of “postracialism,” who contend that only an individual’s personal shortcomings hold them back in today’s post–Civil Rights era. The reference to “structural inequalities” is significant because it implies the need for programmatic remedies that address institutional change. President Obama’s speech was well received by an audience that longed to hear the country’s leader speak in such clear terms.
Many supporters believe—or want to believe—that Obama will be a transformative political leader in a transformative time. They eagerly await the flowering of peace and social justice policies that will open a new chapter in the abatement of “the structural inequalities that our nation’s legacy of discrimination has left behind.” Whether Obama, carrying the weight of race on his shoulders in a manner that no other United States president ever has, will provide leadership and initiative on these issues is yet to be seen. At every opportunity, we should remind him to try.
Several ironies have already emerged. One, the race-based backlash against Obama might actually generate the type of crisis that will open up space for policy reforms relevant to the ongoing crisis in communities of color that has been ignored for decades. Such backlash could prompt a discussion that Obama’s White House feels it cannot otherwise initiate. An honest and frank discussion from a thoughtful and articulate president in the effort to resolve a crisis might be on the horizon. Then again, it might not.
Another striking irony is that, left to race-neutral strategies, the main beneficiaries of Obama’s progressive policies will be the very working-class whites who are mobilizing to oppose him. Obama’s White House might just be the best development in U.S. politics for generations for low-income and working-class white Americans. While certainly blacks, Latinos, and Native Americans suffer disproportionately from the wrecked state of the U.S. health care system, in terms of raw numbers it is overwhelmingly whites who are being harmed and exploited by the current state of affairs. As has nearly always been the case, the spread of democracy and inclusiveness to the nation’s communities of color reaps benefits for white people as well.
For the millions of Americans who drove his campaign and voted for him, Obama’s victory was a collective and transcendent historic moment one rarely experiences in a lifetime. The country can retreat on the extension of civil and political rights to blacks—as it did after Reconstruction and during the Reagan era. Conservative administrations and movements can abandon or outlaw affirmative action—as happened in California, Washington, and Florida, and was unsuccessfully attempted in the 2008 election in Colorado. But none can undo Obama’s victory and the fact that it forever changes the image of the White House and who has legitimate claim on it. And this is the feeling that Obama supporters, across all the boundaries and dividing lines, have embraced. The notion that a black man has the right to govern the country—and that a family of color runs the White House—counters centuries-old views of exclusive white entitlement to power. Except for those who believe Obama has no legal right to be in the White House, itself a reflection of some whites’ extreme racial reaction to his victory, even his conservative opponents concede the historic change that has occurred. This transformed view of the White House was celebrated and acknowledged not only in the United States but around the world, as captured in the jubilant response broadcast on election night and the thousands of newspaper and magazine covers that followed.
However, redefining the symbolism of the White House is not the same as changing its racial politics. Obama will not, in fact, cannot, govern as a “black” president who mainly addresses the concerns of people of color, even though those concerns are real, serious, and national in scale. Beyond the fact that such a governing model is not Obama’s style or sentiment, the checks and balances of the U.S. political system and the deep-rooted racial suspicion that has animated a significant segment of his opposition will resist all efforts in that direction. As was seen in the first ye
ar and a half of his administration, issues of race, no matter how seemingly small, will take on an especially significant tone during his command in the White House. There was a remarkably large number of prominent race-related controversies during the first eighteen months of Obama’s presidency, including:
The revival of “Confederate History Month” in Virginia by Governor Bob McDonnell who initially did not even include a mention of slavery in his original press statement; Georgia and Mississippi governors, Sonny Perdue and Haley Barbour respectively, also declared “Confederate History” months and neither mentioned slavery in their official proclamations. All three neglected the interests, sensitivities, and history of their black constituents. 62
Fierce anti-Muslim opposition to the building of an Islamic Center that would include a mosque two blocks from the “ground zero” site in New York City. Nearly all national Republican leaders, from former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, joined the hysteria against the mosque, thereby fueling an atmosphere of religious intolerance. Even Senate Majority leader Harry Reid also came out against the mosque saying through a spokesman that he thought “the mosque should be built somewhere else.” President Obama eventually made a strong statement defending the legality and right of the Center, “As a citizen and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country.” However, after coming under fire from the Republicans and the conservative right, he demurred on whether that right should be exercised in this particular case. Obama has also made no public comment on the racist nature of much of the opposition to the Center. 63
The Obama administration’s refusal to attend or participate in the Durban Review Conference (aka Durban II) in Geneva, an international conference to assess the follow-up and legacy of the 2001 UN World Conference Against Racism endorsed by civil rights activists and members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Although Obama signaled before the election that he was interested in his administration attending the conference, under pressure from the right and Israel, the administration ultimately decided not to attend. The decision to boycott the conference occurred after the organizers made changes in key documents demanded as a condition for its attendance. While the Obama White House could not argue that the current documents contained objectionable language, it maintained that the documents still supported the original conference, which was unacceptable.64
Passage and then judicial suspension of an Arizona law (SB 1070) that would have forced police officers to check the citizenship status of anyone they “reasonably suspected” of being undocumented, i.e., an official obligation of the police to racially profile Latinos. On July 6, 2010, the U.S. Justice Department filed a lawsuit against arguing that it is unconstitutional for states to make immigration laws. The Justice Department did not tie its opposition to the law to racial profiling. On July 28, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton issued an injunction against key provisions of SB 1070 preventing its implementation.65
Resistance to the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, the first Latina and the first Latino, to the U.S. Supreme Court; conservatives attacked Sotomayor as a bigot when it was discovered that in a 2001 University of California speech she had stated, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” Talk show host Rush Limbaugh and former House speaker Newt Gingrich referred to her as a “racist” but she was ultimately confirmed by the U.S. Senate in a 68-31 vote. 66
Accusations that Obama’s Justice Department had a double standard for not harshly prosecuting members of the New Black Panther Party for an incident that had occurred outside of a voting site during the 2008 presidential election. The incident involved two members of the New Black Panther Party, Jerry Jackson and King Samir Shabazz, who on election day, November 4, 2008, stood outside a polling site in Philadelphia and engaged in verbal insults against whites who came to vote. The case had actually been reviewed by the Bush administration which decided to only seek an injunction against the men and their leader, Malik Zulu Shabazz. In April 2009, the Obama Justice Department dropped charges against everyone except King Samir Shabazz, thereby winning an injunction against him. In 2009 and 2010, conservatives cited the case as evidence that the administration tolerates racism perpetrated by blacks against whites.67
For the most part, the Obama White House exhibited restraint on these controversies and either intervened legally or spoke out without addressing the underlying racial dimensions. Many of these issues were used by conservatives to bolster their case that the Obama administration is “anti-white” and, as right-wing Fox News talk show host Glenn Beck infamously stated, that Obama himself has a “deep-seated hatred for white people.”68 However, two incidents stand out where Obama and key members of his administration actually allowed the right-wing media and politicos to dictate their response, leaving many inside and outside the black community unsatisfied and agitated. The July 16, 2009, incident involving Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, who is African American, and James Crowley, a white police officer for the city of Cambridge, Massachusettes, symbolizes the racial minefield that lies before Obama and the country. When Gates and his black driver arrived at his house, they found the front door jammed and Gates had to enter by the back door. Gates and his driver then attempted to force the front door open, an action that promoted a call to the police, though the caller did not identify the men as black nor claim that there was a crime being committed. After the police arrived, a confrontation ensued that led to some back-and-forth between Gates and Crowley, who decided to arrest the Harvard professor on the charge of disorderly conduct, a charge that was later dropped. A national controversy exploded over whether Crowley went overboard in making the arrest, given that in spite of the heat of the moment Gates was in his home and no crime had been committed. In response to a reporter’s question about the incident, Obama stated the police “acted stupidly.”69 His words were immediately pounced upon by conservatives. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, conservative Shelby Steele, who wrote a book in 2007 outlining why Obama could not win the presidency, opined, “Mr. Obama’s ‘postracialism’ was a promise to operate outside of tired cultural narratives. But he has a demon arm of reflexive racialism—identity politics, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and now Skip Gates.”70
Much of the black media and black public opinion, carrying two-and-a-half-centuries of police abuse and ongoing experiences with racial profiling, sided with Obama.71 Eventually, the controversy was defused when Obama invited Gates, Crowley, and Vice President Joe Biden to the White House to have a beer and discuss the matter. The “beer summit” was probably the first of its kind at the White House and was the most notable White House meal, outside of an official state dinner, since the Roosevelt-Washington supper more than 100 years earlier.
While the media focused on the short phrase “acted stupidly,” the whole of Obama’s remarks addressed not only the Gates incident but the larger context of racial profiling. He also noted that “race remains a factor in this society,” words rarely spoken by any white political leaders. His whole response was:
Well, I should say at the outset that Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here. I don’t know all the facts. What’s been reported, though, is that the guy forgot his keys. He jimmied his way to get into the house. There was a report called in to the police station that there might be a burglary taking place. So far so good. Right? I mean, if I was trying to jigger in—well, I guess this is my house now so it probably wouldn’t happen. Let’s say my old house in Chicago. Here I’d get shot. But so far so good. They’re reporting, the police are doing what they should. There’s a call. They go investigate what happens. My understanding is at that point Professor Gates is already in his house. The police officer comes in. I’m sure there’s some exchange of words, but my understanding is that Professor Gates then shows his I.D. to sh
ow that this is his house. And at that point he gets arrested for disorderly conduct, charges which are later dropped. Now, I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that, but I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry. Number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home, and number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. And that’s just a fact.
As you know, Lynn, when I was in the state legislature in Illinois we worked on a racial profiling bill because there was indisputable evidence that blacks and Hispanics were being stopped disproportionately. And that is a sign, an example of how, you know, race remains a factor in this society. That doesn’t lessen the incredible progress that has been made. I am standing here as testimony to the progress that’s been made. And yet, the fact of the matter is that, you know, this still haunts us. And even when there are honest misunderstandings, the fact that blacks and Hispanics are picked up more frequently and oftentime for no cause casts suspicion even when there is good cause, and that’s why I think the more that we’re working with local law enforcement to improve policing techniques so that we’re eliminating potential bias, the safer everybody’s going to be.72
The Gates incident, minor in many respects, underscores the inescapable challenge of race that the administration will have to address whether it wants to or not. It also shows that Obama’s reflex on race, in an unguarded moment, reflects the temperament and understandings of most African Americans. Fortunately, Obama has demonstrated that when he does take on the issue, his intellect, sentiments, and politics are generally progressive in direction. The struggle will be to get him to take up these concerns despite the political costs and the tendency of some of his advisers to move cautiously, if at all.
The Black History of the White House Page 41