Thus revealed, the creature buried its nose in the tire-tilled soil...
March 12, 2008
Why I want Barack Obama to win.
Category: Serious

How 'bout these Democratic primaries, eh? I'm not sure just how much I want to write here -- this could easily turn into a novel-length entry if I don't keep myself in check -- but I've been wanting to share my thoughts on the race for some time now. And it just so happens that Geraldine Ferraro's recent comments have given me a perfect occasion to do so!

According to Ferraro, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is." In another interview, in which she discussed this response, Ferraro affirmed that she responded "in large measure, because he is black" when asked why Obama is where he is today. And now, rightfully so, in my opinion, she is taking a lot of heat for these remarks. But whereas Ferraro seems to think that she's being attacked because of her own skin color, I submit that people's response largely stems from the obvious ignorance of her comments -- whether they fully realize it or not.

Now, I admit that Barack Obama's skin color has played a role in his success this far. In fact, in the beginning, I didn't even like Obama all that much because he was clearly being used as the Democrats' token black. Every time I looked, he was being paraded out to give the same speech about how he came from mixed parentage and how that symbolizes the promise of America and blah-de-blah blah -- it basically amounted to, "My mom was white, my dad was Black, ergo America is wonderful." I wondered if he was capable of talking about anything else. People have accused Obama's more recent speeches on hope and change of lacking substance (I disagree), but these speeches are overflowing with depth and meaning when compared to his old rhetoric.

So certainly Obama's skin color aided his rise within the Democratic party, if only because the Democrats were so eager to use him to better appeal to the people and further their own agenda. And it probably factors into the reasons that people support him, though I would hardly state that it is the only or even primary reason -- or that, if the color of his skin were different, people would not feel so strongly about him. Rather, I think that the primary reasons that people are behind Obama are because he a) is an eloquent and inspiring speaker, b) is running an excellent campaign, c) appears cool and downright presidential in his debate performances, and d) successfully presents himself as being uniquely poised to bring about some much-needed positive change in this country. There are, of course, other important reasons regarding Obama's platform (which albeit is not that different from Hillary Clinton's), but still. Does Ferraro mean to suggest that people would vote for Obama even he were a poor and rambling speaker, seemed thoroughly uninformed, unkempt, and unfit to lead in his public appearances, and had been thoroughly defeated by Clinton in each of their debates -- simply because of his skin color? Please.

(An aside: the not uncommon perception that a person of color largely achieves success in America because of his or her skin color -- and not because of any individual merit, skills, or accomplishments he or she may have demonstrated along the way -- is probably the main reason that I oppose race-based affirmative action, as I think that it encourages people of all racial backgrounds to assume that this is indeed the case. This does not mean, however, that I am opposed to all forms of affirmative action, and it certainly does not mean that I think -- for example -- college admissions should be based strictly on academic test scores and should not take into account the unique experiences and insights that diverse individuals can bring to campuses and thereby enrich the minds and outlooks of their fellow students. And while the color of a person's skin certainly has an effect on that person's experiences due to the treatment that that person may endure, the kinds of situations that may result, and so forth, I do not think that it accurately suggests meaningful diversity by itself.)

The real truth is that if voters saw Obama as a black man -- as opposed to a qualified individual who just happens to be black -- they would not vote for him. Clinton blames the sexist media and lingering concerns among the public about a woman's ability to lead for her losses, but it is telling that when she explicitly says she will be the first woman president she does it to applause. Jesse Jackson and others have rightly pointed out that if Obama made similar statements about being the first black president, the response would be very different. Hillary Clinton openly flouts her gender and her campaign benefits from it; the only reason that Obama's does so well is that he is so adept at downplaying his skin color. After all, if Obama's skin color were such an obvious advantage, why would the Clinton campaign keep going to such lengths to ensure that we recognize it? (With the condescending and insulting comments that Bill has made on the campaign trail and way that Hillary has dismissed her losses in some states as having occurred "because they have a lot of 'proud' black voters," I would seriously be hesitant to vote for her in a general election.)

I admit, though, that I support Barack Obama for the presidency in part because of his skin color. Not because of any commitment to racial solidarity or belief that Obama will prove more sensitive to and cognizant of the particular needs of the black community (though he very well may be), but rather because he would not be winning this contest if people were not proving able to view him as an individual and avoid defining and confining him by the color of his skin. Many times in my life -- particularly during my days at Yale -- I have felt like some sort of talking animal. People have been willing to listen to me and tolerate me, and even compliment me on occasions, but subtle comments and mannerisms frequently betrayed the reality that they thought of me as a representative of a separate if not outright inferior species. I once wrote a short story about a talking parrot that was largely based on my experiences, but I now think that a talking dog is a more direct analogy. A person might listen to a talking dog and even find what it is saying to be clever, but ultimately people are more impressed by the fact that the dog is talking than what it is saying. And even when people are willing to admit that the dog is actually intelligent -- even more intelligent than most people -- they may still have reservations about allowing it to eat at the table or jump up on the furniture. They certainly don't want it dating their daughters.

But people who support the notion of President Obama are not simply saying that he's an effective token black for the Democratic party or that he's a "fine black gentleman" -- they're saying that they trust this individual to lead the United States of America. And I admit that I find that fact -- and the reality that so many people are behind it -- to be incredibly inspiring. Now, I won't venture to speak for Michelle Obama in explaining her comment about being proud of her country for the first time, but I will say that it makes perfect sense to me. I'm not even old enough to have witnessed the Civil Rights Movement or the atrocities that made it necessary, but even in my short life I've seen my fair share of discrimination and injustice. I would have thought it utterly unthinkable that a "person of color" could have a realistic chance of becoming the president -- and it's hard to be proud of a country in which you feel that a significant portion of the population is consistently relegated to the status of second-class citizens (even if some group members may "prosper" in a material and financial sense).

The incredible support for Obama, however, gives me hope not only that perhaps this won't always be the case, but that I may even witness an important shift in how people regard their fellow Americans of different skin colors even in my lifetime. I now think that I may soon see a day when "people of color" are not viewed as racial representatives or not-so-unique extensions of The Inferior Minority Consciousness, but rather as people deserving of respect and true acceptance and having their own individuality affirmed and recognized. And, should he secure the Democratic nomination and go on to win in November, I think that a successful President Barack Obama will be a huge catalyst in that regard.

I admit that I will be upset if he loses, but -- at least for the time being -- Barack Obama's campaign has given me hope. It is admittedly an unfamiliar feeling for me, but it is not entirely unwelcome. 🙂

-posted by Wes | 11:30 am | Comments (8)
8 Comments »
  • the Jax says:

    Well said, Wes--too many of my friends are uninformed and may not even vote, while others support Obama but can articulate no real reason why. I'm sure at least one is behind him exclusively for "brown pride", a sore point between us. My significant other is actively involved in the Obama campaign and flying to Pennsylvania in April, but most of his talking points concern the latest "dirty trick" the Clintons have pulled/are pulling.
    I didn't vote in the primary because Edwards dropped out before California, and I still don't see much difference between the 2 contenders. I'll just let the zealots fight it out and take what we get in November. Oh, I'll definitely be at that poll in November.
    Clinton does obviously divide and conquer, focusing one day on the "black vote", then on the "senior vote", then the "union vote" etc, and Obama tries to push this "one America" idea; he is missing the "cynic vote": you can't eat hope. And I still don't believe our votes are actually counted.

  • Brian says:

    wes -

    thanks for sharing.. - i voted for obama here in ohio.. - i found it odd, days later, that he lost to hillary by about 40,000 votes.. yet beat mccain by 20,000.. especially considering that ohio is generally a "red" state.. - then i found out that a lot of conservative pundits were telling people to "jump the line" and vote for hillary, as to sabotage obama's chance at winning an important state as he's considered a more legit threat.. - any thoughts on these types of practices?

    and, in more important news, recentley at Target i saw madballs greetings cards.. - if you love those gross balls, and you've done greeting card articles in the past, so please tell me you're going to cover this monumental occasion? =)

  • Wes says:

    Jax: That's unfortunate that many of your friends (who I'm assuming are around our age, yes?) may not vote, as it is imperative that young people get out and vote for change! I do wish the Obama campaign would spend more time actually responding to Clinton's attacks than simply pointing fingers and denouncing the campaign for its tactics, though. It's possible that he's saving his good responses for when McCain inevitably attacks him with some of the same material, but I'm still frustrated by the campaign's inability to explain, in detail, why comments like Ferraro's are patently unfair and why Michelle Obama might have said what she said rather than dismissing them abruptly and/or saying that mentioning these points is part of the "old politics."

    I mean, even the inexperience charge can easily be countered -- first by highlighting the experience that he does have (which is substantial and arguably more extensive than Hillary's, though not McCain's) and then by pointing out that a number of important and influential leaders in our nation's history were similarly "inexperienced." Rhetoric would require that he list them by name and elaborate upon the notable accomplishments that they were able to author despite their so-called "inexperience." And then, should Obama be pressed with the issue further, he could eloquently paint experience as a negative given that bringing about real change will require a comparatively fresh outlook. Yet he and his campaign haven't been nearly as vocal as they could be regarding this charge. 😐

    As far as I'm concerned, Clinton is no longer effective at conquering and is now primarily succeeding at dividing (and insulting). I almost certainly will not be at the polls in November if she wins the nomination -- unless, of course, I decide to turn out for Nader.

    Brian: That kind of thing is definitely shady, but it's technically allowed (at least in states that allow registered Republicans and independents to vote in the Democratic primary) -- so I view it as an unfortunate but legitimate strategic move. To cut down on it, though, I would prefer it if registered Republicans could only vote in Republican primaries and registered Democrats could only vote in Democratic primaries -- with independents able to vote in either but not both -- across the board.

    And I've heard about the Madballs (or Madcars, since they feature Madballs-inspired vehicles) greeting cards, but I completely forgot to look for them the last time I was in Target. But yes, if I remember to grab them next time, they could definitely be potential review fodder. 🙂

  • Wes says:

    Okay, apparently Obama responded more fully to the comments:

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITI.....index.html

    Good then. 🙂

  • Brian says:

    the particular card I saw had Swine Sucker on it, and, no trace of a car or any vehicle whatsoever.. - when i went to vote, they asked me Republican or Democrat, then when I choose, they gave me a card I ran through a scanner that brought up only the Dem. candidates.. - so, a Republican could just essentially lie in that scenario.. I don't think we have a "registered" system in place.. but i could be wrong..

  • dave says:

    I never heard Obama mention his parents. What I've heard is him implicitly criticizing the petty party of losers the Democratic party has become. When he talks of change, and working together, I hear a direct assault on John Edwards pitting rich against poor, and Hillary pitting herself against the world. Obama wants to work together, and Hillary accuses him of stealing her ideas - if she wanted to work together, she'd gladly share her ideas, right?

    The Clinton camp has been blantantly racist - Ed Rendell said on Face the Nation something to the effect that "America isn't ready for a black president."
    In other words, don't vote for Obama in he primaries because he's black and therefore can't win. I thought that this comment was akin to whem Malcolm X's teacher told him not to try to go to law school and get ready for a manual labor job because he was black. Except that Malcolm X's teacher was well meaning. This case is absurd - there are far far more people in America who won't vote for Obama because he is a DEMOCRAT than because he is black. And what, we're ready for a woman president, but not a black president, yet, hillary is discriminated against because she's a woman? Absurd. Plus Bill saying Obama only wins because black people vote for him? there is definitely more of a solidarity from women - they'll admit as much - towards Hillary. Plus, Black women are actually women, not genderless things. They have the same advantage to gain from a woman president as a black president, and to keep going down this road, how can we know black men don't vote for Obama because he's a man rather than because he's black, so is the country ready for a woman president? Nonesense arguments.

    He's actually had 18 years in public service, so the inexperienced charge is absurd. What is compelling is that he has come from relatevely humble beginnings, and skyrocked, after two terms in the Senate, to an almost presidential candidate. He is the best example of American democracy on the ticket. Hillary is entrenched - any country in the world would have the wife of an ex ruler on the ticket, likewise with mccain - throughout history, military leaders who have been at the top of the government for dozens of years have gone on to lead those nations. But Obama has a history of fairly untainted public service.

    That is the point of America - if Hillary is experienced, then by extension, doesn't any Prince have more of a claim to rule than any American president has ever had, since a Prince would have been surrounded by diplomacy and executive leadership since birth? I like the idea than any American can run for president and succeed, not just a military victor or the relative of a former ruler.

    It's lucky for her McCain is the Republican leader, because I think the only experience that really counts is executive experience. Legislators can always point to their votes without being accountable for the results. Nobody can really say Hillary brought about the war. Obviously, Obama didn't stop the war from happening. But they can both point to their record. At least Romney, Guiliani and Huckabee were accountable for the things that they voted for or brought about, good or bad. That illustrates leadership. And they can be held accountable for whatever compromises they chose or didn't to make things happen. What would Hillary, McCain or Obama have done if they couldn't hide behind 99 other Senators' votes? We don't really know. Not to support those other candidates, but I think executive leadership is much more important than committee based experience any day.

  • Dar says:

    Obama clearly seems to be more progressive than Hillary, and that is enough to have me wishing he'd win.

    Sadly, if he does, he'll be subjected to the worst smear cmapaign that the GOP and conservarive propoganda machine can muster. Those trolls over at Freerepublic.com will have a field day, especially with him supposedly being a secret Muslm (and thus eevilll!).

  • Wes says:

    Dave: Obama hasn't mentioned his parents too much as of late (except for in the beginning of his stump speech), but they were pretty much all I ever heard him about after they first trotted him out at the 2004 Democratic National Convention up until he started running for president. Up until that point I'd always viewed him as the Dems' token black, but I guess he realized that you can't win the presidency on tokenism.

    Agreed about the racism that the Clinton campaign is exhibiting and exploiting. There are a lot of people who seem to think that racism in the United States is all but dead, but the widespread (though admittedly subtle and of a less violent and overt nature than its pre-Civil Rights Movement incarnation) racism that prevails today can be seen in such blanket assumptions that Obama is only where he is today because of his skin color or that blacks only vote for Obama because he is black too. And I think that things like that are what makes it difficult for many minorities to be "proud" of their country.

    Good points regarding experience as well -- I just wish the Obama campaign would do more to highlight his experience rather than allowing Hillary to claim that she has so much more.

    Dar: Yeah, Obama's going to have to deal with a lot if/when he wins the nomination. The Muslim charge is fairly easily dispensed with -- he's a Christian and has attended the same church for 20 years -- though I think that response may be even more problematic considering the heavily racialized views of his religious affiliations. I'm worried that associations with guys like Rev. Jeremiah Wright could cause Obama to lose the election.

    I do wish he'd respond more honestly and fully to the Muslim charge, though. He may not be a Muslim, but he does have Muslim roots, spent some years in a predominately Muslim country, and apparently studied Islam in school. Does that make him any less qualified to lead the country? In order to resolve the situation in the Middle East, we're going to have to be able to work with Muslim countries and Muslim leaders -- and it is entirely possible that an elected leader who has some understanding of Islam will be better able to do that than a leader who wins because the people think that Islam is the Devil.

Leave a Reply...