Race and the Presidential Race

[question everything]

The Wall Street Journal

Race and the Presidential Race
By JASON L. RILEY
December 11, 2007; Page B18

Ask a political strategist why Barack Obama is unlikely to become our next president and prepare to hear that he is too liberal. Or too inexperienced. Or too far behind Hillary Clinton in the national polls for the Democratic nomination. But that type of analysis is not what Shelby Steele serves up in his new book, even though it is titled "A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win." For a minute breakdown of the electoral mechanics of an Obama candidacy, look elsewhere. What you'll find in these pages is a deftly argued discourse on the racial aspects of the Illinois senator's presidential quest. Mr. Steele aims to explain what it says about our nation -- a place where a single drop of black blood once meant the difference between bondage and freedom -- that a man born to a white Kansan and a black Kenyan is now a plausible Oval Office candidate.


(snip)


It is true that blacks have sought the presidency before, most notably Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. But Mr. Steele says that they were never in any danger of being elected because of their confrontational style. Both insisted on dangling America's racist past in the face of white voters. And while that approach endeared them to nearly all the civil-rights leadership, a large swath of their racial kin and a smattering of very confused white folks, it ultimately limited their cross-over appeal. In a nation where blacks constitute just 13% of the population, blunt racial pandering could take them only so far. Mr. Obama, by contrast, is what Mr. Steele describes as a bargainer, a black who appeals to the white majority by agreeing not to play up the nation's shameful racial history in return for not having his skin color held against him. Whites don't feel threatened by Mr. Obama because he gives them the benefit of the doubt, grants them a kind of innocence. Mr. Steele argues that this implicit agreement is what explains Mr. Obama's wide mainstream acceptance and makes him our first viable black contender for the White House.

Yet bargaining also has its limitations. Mr. Obama can't win without near-unanimous support from black voters, and nothing makes these voters more suspicious than a black politician who is beloved by so many white people. This is what makes Mr. Obama the "bound man" of the title. "If, to please blacks, Obama does more challenging, he begins to lose his iconic status with whites, his ability to flatter them with trust," Mr. Steele writes. "If, to please whites, Obama bargains more, trades more innocence to whites, he loses votes among blacks -- a vital constituency in the Democratic party -- who define blackness as challenging, as withholding innocence from whites." Don't feel too bad for Mr. Obama, however, particularly since this bind is of his own making. As Mr. Steele details, he has consciously cultivated a certain type of racial identity, and it prevents him, ironically, from allowing his own experience to inform his ideas and his politics. A black U.S. senator by way of Columbia University and Harvard Law School is a testament to the fact that individual responsibility brings black advancement. But Mr. Obama, like the black political left generally, insists on painting all blacks as victims who are still relegated to the margins of society and have no recourse except racial preferences and government largess.

Mr. Steele's diagnosis of Mr. Obama's dilemma is compelling and hard to fault. And given that the author himself was born to a white mother and a black father, he brings unusual insight to his subject matter. But ultimately "A Bound Man" makes a stronger argument for why Mr. Obama shouldn't win than it does for why he can't. I'm not persuaded that Mr. Obama's racial bind dooms his candidacy, and that's not because I want him to succeed. Presidential candidates are regularly put in the position of having to placate supporters who disagree among themselves, sometimes quite strongly. The successful ones are up to the task of bridging these divisions, and to date Mr. Obama's political career has been nothing if not successful.


URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119732889929620059.html (subscription)

[question everything]

1. No comment from Obamanites? (nt)

[FrenchieCat]

2. I disagree with the primary premise of the OP that somehow IF Obama

is non threatening to Whites in his rethoric substance and loved by them, he will be seen as "suspicious" by Black voters.

You better believe that Black Americans will be voting for Obama in drove, in particular if it appears that he can win, say like....in a lily white place like Iowa.

The point is, Black folks would love Obama to win. Many of them just aren't yet certain that he can win based on what they know about White Folks' tendencies as a whole, historically.

Watch a majority percentage of Black votes go to Obama in the primary......which will quickly and most likely quietly prove this guy's thesis totally inaccurate!

[ecstatic]

3. If Obama gets just one more endorsement from a well known black person, he's finished

That's my prediction.

The article is wrong when it comes to why Obama does not get 100% of the black vote. It's not about him being black enough--for black voters, I think it's more of a question of "can he win," and if he can, what would the consequences of that win be?

I think the article is correct, however, in describing the tight rope Obama has to walk in order to keep white voters. If he comes across as too pro-black, or too confrontational, he then loses his rockstar appeal and is then viewed with the same scorn that many view Sharpton and Jackson with.