The Obama-Clinton Show

When I first posted about Barack Obama in July 2004 after his now-fabled speech at the DNC, one astute observer in the comment thread wrote, "Part of his power lies in the way he frames the issues. He tilts the landscape against the opponents of change." Bingo. Obama's power comes from his ability to tilt the landscape against opponents of change. Exactly what that change will look like once he's in the Oval Office shuffling policy papers remains a bit of a mystery; but as I see it, I'd rather roll the dice with Obama than suffer 4 more years of dismal certitude under either Clinton or McCain. With Obama, at least we can entertain the possibility of progress in DC.

Not that I'm quite on board the chugging honking whistling freight train of Obama-mania, even if I confess that I sometimes get misty during his momentous speeches (I get caught up, you know how it is). I still have reservations about some of the compromises he has had to make to get to where he is; I have serious problems with the fundamental structure of the Democratic Party; indeed I'm likely to end up voting for a third-party candidate like Cynthia McKinney (calm down, my state is safely blue). Moreover, I tend to view the whole spectacle of presidential politics as a grand charade during which tremendous national energy gets spent endlessly chattering about which pre-approved palatable public figure is to be the next temporary PR/sales representative of the global neo-imperialist gangster state. Nevertheless, I think that on the whole, the Obama phenomenon is a positive development in US politics. I hesitate to call it a full-fledged "grassroots movement" at this stage, but it's certainly more of a groundswell than his rivals' stiff-throated calls for upstanding in-the-know citizens to shun the dark horse and goose-step in line with an orderly dynastic succession. Obama's essential message is one of populist empowerment, whereas Clinton and McCain's messages are fundamentally deflating and paternalistic in philosophical orientation, aimed more at appealing to unresolved childhood issues rather than lofty visions of social uplift and liberatory self-determination. Clinton and McCain go around trying to drain the air out of rooms which Obama has pumped up with hope.

~ ~ ~

That's my elevator-chat breakdown of today's big-stage electoral scene. You may have noticed that I didn't mention the explosive issue of race in this little exposition; because in my view, race is not the primary driving factor in this election. Of course race is ever-present in US society; but as far as I can see, Obama's success in the Democratic primary has occurred not because of, but in spite of, his being Black. So prodigious are his political, oratorical, and organizational skills that he has to some extent leap-frogged the color line and somehow overcome an attribute which is ordinarily a handicap in the socio-political machinations of mainstream society. He has implemented Sun Tzu's strategic advice and turned a nominal weakness into a social strength.

Needless to say, there are white folks who believe that African Americans have it easy in the US, being the beneficiaries of a foolishly generous edifice of handouts and quotas on the upwardly mobile speedway. This worldview is the result of the cognitive indoctrination according to which white people are socialized in US society, wherein the systemic advantages, privileges, and conceits of whiteness are rendered invisible, as are the systemic injustices and entrenched obstacles facing people of color. Thus, the gradual erosion of white privilege and racism, and the ever-increasing autonomy and visible success of people of color, are seen by some white folks as somehow unnatural, an indication that "politically correct" white liberalism has gone too far in its self-flagellation and that whites are now being discriminated against. As twisted and upside-down as it is, this view does not necessarily indicate any spiritual failing or moral flaw on the part of the individual who sees the world through this lens; it indicates that they were socialized in racist society and remain locked in their conditioning, and that they must undertake a certain amount of anti-racist education and reflection if they wish to free themselves from this erroneous and dehumanizing perceptual prism.

~ ~ ~

It seems to me that one of the principal sources of confusion when it comes to racial disourse is the stunning lack of clarity and consensus regarding the exact meanings and definitions of the words "racism" and "racist". Those of us who spend significant time doing anti-racist work end up developing a variety of nuanced concepts surrounding these words, but many people never explore those meanings and instinctively respond to talk of racism with strong emotions and weak understandings. Racism is a complex multi-dimensional interdisciplinary subject which cannot be reduced to an absurdly-shallow bifurcation of the populace into laudable "not racists" and condemned "racists". Racism is an overarching, interlocking set of economic, political, social, and cultural structures, beliefs, and actions which systematically advantage one racial group at the expense of all others. A statement, thought, belief, assumption, or action can be described as racist when it plugs into the overarching grid of racism, like a node which lights up once it plugs into its compatible network, thus transcending an individual act of bigotry or prejudice and fusing into broader institutions and societal forces.

As for defining what makes an individual person "a racist", I think it's a pretty fuzzy area, and not a particularly fruitful intellectual direction. Most anti-racists are much more concerned with identifying, understanding, and dismantling racism, than in exposing any individual as "a racist", whatever that means. Clearly, there are hate-crime types out there who organize their lives around advancing white supremacist violence and such; but most of the racism that people of color deal with in our day-to-day lives — especially those of us who interact with a lot of white liberals — is far more subtle and covert, more of a background buzz than an in-your-face threat. White liberal racism tends to manifest in unspoken assumptions, attitudes, and social dynamics which normalize and center white privilege, while deprioritizing, marginalizing, and dismissing the voices, perspectives, experiences, histories, cultures, agendas, and initiatives of people of color. White liberals who engage in these behaviors aren't "racists" in the same sense as the hate-crime types, but they are nevertheless participating in the replication and perpetuation of racism. Pointing this out is not "playing the race card"; it is accurate socio-political observation. Pointing this out is not the same as running around indiscriminately shouting "racist!" at every white person within earshot in some kind of rageful frenzy; it is constructive anti-racist critique aimed at illuminating an important but dimly-lit pattern, for the purpose of healing wounds which continue to bleed our society and our own humanity.

~ ~ ~

In February 2007, I wrote that "we might as well brace ourselves for a full year and a half of cringeworthy foot-in-throat racial punditry. With Obama in the presidential spotlight, talking heads and politicians and scribes across the land will have countless opportunities to comment on race and thus chomp on their feet; I'm expecting serious feasts of pale toes." And yes, Geraldine Ferraro has recently indulged us with probably the best example yet, not only with her initial knee-slapper about what an advantage it is to be a black man when running for president, but even more so with her petulant reactions to the flare-up: refusal to listen, flagrant denial, white victimization, shallow invocation of anti-oppression cred, and so forth. Isn't that how it usually works? If the white liberal blogosphere has taught us anything, it's that lots and lots of white liberals act this way when persons of color talk about racism.

Unfortunately, what I didn't quite envision a year ago was that the most egregious statements would come from feminists making false correspondences between racism and sexism. All forms of oppression do share certain characteristics, but each one operates along a different axis of life. Sexism often operates in the most intimate settings, as sexist men often live with, marry, and rely upon women; but racism tends to flourish on a more coldly institutional level, as racist white folks seek to structure their lives precisely so that there is no intimate contact with other races. Neither of these situations is more or less desirable than the other; they function across different dimensions and cannot be lined up for analytically-honest comparison or correspondence; as is true of all forms of oppression. Yet the Clinton campaign has generated a depressingly vocal line-up of white feminists who draw wrong comparisons and conclude that sexism is a more virulent force than racism in today's society. Some white feminists insultingly assert that women of color are betraying their gender by voting according to race, denying the possibility that there are other factors in this election. If the argument is that feminists should always vote for feminists, then I'm curious how many white women cried "betrayal!" in 1972 if women did not vote for Shirley Chisholm's presidential run (which garnered 152 electoral delegates, while the Mondale-Ferraro ticket in 1984 won a sorry 13 electoral college votes). Indeed, I wonder how many white women supported the truly historic presidential "dream ticket" of Victoria Woodhull and Frederick Douglass, who joined forces to run for the White House in 1872 and whose radical platform included women's rights and abolition of slavery and racism. The most prominent white feminists of that era distanced themselves from the Woodhull-Douglass ticket, not only because they decided that anti-racism was a secondary issue but because Victoria Woodhull controversially advocated women's sexual freedom.

The bottom line is that race is indeed at play in this election as it is in all facets of US society, but this fact is neither here nor there. Let's get real: being either a woman or a man of color is a historically-proven obstacle to the presidency; but these factors aren't insurmountable in this day and age. I don't believe that either race or gender is the single determining attribute in this campaign. I believe that those who reduce the Obama campaign to the notion that "Black man prez is cool right now" are masking racist sentiments which remain largely unexamined. Such people are sinking in the tides of history; the times have passed them by. A new tide is washing across this country, carrying a strange glimmering hope for progressive, redemptive, constructive change. I'm inclined to ride it and see where it goes.

[ Cross-posted at APA for Progress ]

Comments

[Carmen Van Kerckhove]

> Sexism can operate in the most intimate settings, as sexist men often live with, marry, and rely upon women; but racism tends flourish on a more coldly institutional level, as racist white folks seek to structure their lives precisely so that there is no intimate contact with other races.

This is a really interesting analysis. Though I would argue that racism can operate in intimate settings as well. Racist white folks have often had intimate relationships with people of color, whether it's through friendship, marriage, sex, adoption, parenting, care-taking (aka mammies).

It's entirely possible to see the person you have a relationship with as the exception to the rule ("you're not like those *other* blacks") or to engage in racism against other ethnic/racial groups ("you're ok cause you're Asian, but it's those blacks that really piss me off").

[Kai]

Good point, Carmen. Agreed.

[nezua]

well said, bro.

as always, i'm ready to get my Swim on, but today i brought my surfboard. sun's out, baby.

[donna darko]

You have remember though violence against women causes more casualties than war according to the UN. This is mostly in private settings. Crimes that take place in private and public spheres should not be separated because this diminishes the seriousness of domestic crimes.

[Blackamazon]

I have to disagree with Carmen on the idea of the exception "to" the rule meme.

Far to often those intimate relationships are exceptions that " proves" the rule.

I can have an intimate relationship as long as the "other" is inherently subservient.

Of course my friend is special because my racism is structured on these people being not special , I'm Not RACIST, they just can't meet my basic standards ( that I don't apply to white people), SEE My black friend or candidate, ( whose resume and qualifications are almost ALWAYS embarrassingly long ) PROVES IT!

That is the benefit of having teh ability to structure your life like this. You're not only not racist but a "good" person

[Theriomorph]

Great post, Kai - thanks & linking. You articulated the dynamics of racism and antiracist response so well, and on the dynamics happening in this election season.

I'm thinking a lot about Sexism can operate in the most intimate settings, as sexist men often live with, marry, and rely upon women; but racism tends flourish on a more coldly institutional level... too – will ponder more at my place so I don't write novels here.

Thanks, as ever, for your work here.

[Kai]

Nezua, Donna Darko, Blackamazon, Theriomorph, thanks for all your comments! I'm glad some of us are tackling this difficult terrain in this thoughtful manner. I think we need an Intersectionality 101 site, now that might be helpful...

[Daisy]

Donna (The Silence of Our Friends) and I were discussing in private conversation some time ago, the major differences in yankee and southern racism, and how they historically manifested differently as a result.

For example, the following is a yankee framing, not a southern one:

"All forms of oppression do share certain characteristics, but each one operates along a different axis of life. Sexism often operates in the most intimate settings, as sexist men often live with, marry, and rely upon women; but racism tends to flourish on a more coldly institutional level, as racist white folks seek to structure their lives precisely so that there is no intimate contact with other races."

For centuries, southern blacks were so intimately connected with southern whites, they lived right in their houses and even nursed their babies. (And you know what else.) It's a whole nother thing than what you describe.

The difference has usually been summed up in the old expression (I even saw a sampler cross-stitched with it once!):

Yankee whites love blacks as a race, but hate them as individuals.

Southern whites love blacks as individuals, but hate them as a race.

Translation:

Yankees love the high-minded concept of equality, but when they meet the "other"--they often freak and just want to stay far, far away. They like the idea of black people, but real live black people are not at all familiar or known to many suburban yankee whites, and this leads to things like denigrating black-English speech patterns, ignoring African-American culture (or thinking an interest in hip-hop is sufficient), and assuming blacks are incapable (the whole "Obama is articulate!" thing, was a total yankee phenomenon of this type) and so on.

Southerners are often friendly, familiar and easy with blacks, have many as friends, live among them. They will tell you they have "had their lives saved" by black people's work (on cars, in kitchens, with children, etc)--they have no illusions they are incompetent--if anything you have the opposite assumption going on in the old south: Black people can do ANYthing, they don't need "laws"...Therefore, southerners freak at the THE VERY IDEA of BLACKS VOTING IN A BLOCK, or what they call "racial handouts," affirmative action, black-centered politics (or consciousness) of any kind--in short, anything that REMINDS THEM that they DID WRONG--the reparations thing will particularly make them rabid. And it's ODD, since you'd think they'd want to do right by their own friends... but the primary problem is how Afro-centered politics morally implicate THEM. At that point, they are conscious of race, in a BAD way. This is why race-baiting politicians have been so successful in the south; it is not simply racism per se, but how it manifests here. In the north, whites vote in more liberal blocks, but look at the personal behavior--an en masse stampede to move further and further out into the lily-white suburbs, and a wholesale exodus from public schools. But the voting patterns make it easy to attribute it simply to southern racism, allowing the white yankee liberals to obnoxiously preen while still sending their kids to private schools.

Anyway, just wanted to clarify the difference there, and Donna dragged me over hear knowing that I would yammer on! :P

[Daisy]

Over hear, and over here too.

Sheesh, sorry about that.

[Donna]

Yes I did drag Daisy over here because when she explained the differences between northern and southern racism alot of things clicked for me. I was totally dumbfounded when I lived for a few months in Virginia at how well black and white people got along, because I was always led to believe that southerners were the worst racists and hate blacks. Meanwhile I was in Newport News which is a working class suburban area and my neighborhood was integrated. My workplace was integrated. I did find it is similar to what you are talking about with sexism in intimate relationships, Kai. It was ok to have black friends and coworkers, but I didn't see any white/black marriages or relationships. That doesn't mean there weren't any, but obviously it was frowned upon or I would have seen at least a few. So beneath the surface there was still this sense of, "they're ok as long as everyone knows their place". And isn't that the same thing in these sexist marriages? We'll have no problems as long as the li'l woman stays in the kitchen and doesn't question the man's decisions.

[Kai]

Daisy, thank you for that, it's a good point. It's always wise to speak about US racism in specific terms because it does manifest differently in the North and South, you're absolutely right about that. I particularly like your analysis about what might be called "liberal southern racism" as being centered on not being reminded of past wrongs. And since Donna dragged you here, I blame her for dragging me back to your pad where I yammer on as well! Over hear and over their, too. ;-)

Donna, thanks for your comment and for dragging blogmiga Daisy here! I love a party. And this is a good one. ;-) You make an excellent point about the existence of either racism or sexism in apparently intimate settings: the foundation is that the oppressed group must stay in its place in order for things to go along smoothly; and if they don't, well then suddenly the intimacy becomes a lot less friendly. It's a pretty interesting train of thought, because in a way, keeping oppressed classes close by might actually help keep them under control, whereas allowing for large enclaves (say, Harlem or Chinatown) allows them to organize, think, and speak more autonomously and freely. Well I'm just thinking out loud; and like I mentioned, I rambled on a bit more about all this over at Daisy's if you're curious.

Anyway, always nice to have you both over for a visit! Cheers.

[edward]

"Obama's essential message is one of populist empowerment"

Hi Kai. Can you provide concrete evidence for this assertion?

People tell me that Obama "stands for change" but they go quiet when I ask them what kind of change. Is Obama just fluff with no stuff? Well there is some stuff, but it's not good: He wants to continue devaluing the dollar with runaway spending, he says that Iran is a "major threat" to Americans and we shouldn't rule out invading them, he wants to take away our freedoms with nazi-like legislation in order to "keep us safe". And the top 10 donors to his campaign are almost the same as the top 10 donors to Hillary and McCain.

The evidence i have seen so far does not support your theory about empowering people. Who is he empowering?

I'm talking about big issues like foreign policy and federal debt, not about, you know, whether he likes rap music, which to me would be nice to hear about *after* I've heard him address the big questions.

thanks,
edward

[edward]

I hope that last comment didn't sound too confrontational. I didn't mean it to be; just a curious question.
edward

[Kai]

Edward, well it's not too confrontational, but I think you might be barking up the wrong tree, because I've been quite critical about Obama for the past year. I wrote in the second paragraph of this post that "I tend to view the whole spectacle of presidential politics as a grand charade during which tremendous national energy gets spent endlessly chattering about which pre-approved palatable public figure is to be the next temporary PR/sales representative of the global neo-imperialist gangster state." Does this make it sound like I'm impressed that Obama "likes rap music"? Come on, man, isn't that rather belittling and racially suggestive? I said that Obama's essential message is about populist empowerment, not that he has or will necessarily enact policies which do indeed empower us all. Do you understand the difference? Obama repeatedly says "change comes from the bottom up" and "I can't do this alone" and such, whereas Clinton's essential message is that she knows what's best for us, because of her "experience". So, are you a Clinton supporter? Or third party? This info will help me if you have further questions going forward.

[donna darko]

An intersectionality 101 website, haha! Theriomorph's post reminded me sexism definitely operates on an institutional level too. Politically, economically and socially.

[Bq]

" I'd rather roll the dice with Obama than suffer 4 more years of dismal certitude under either Clinton or McCain"

"most of the racism that people of color deal with in our day-to-day lives — especially those of us who interact with a lot of white liberals — is far more subtle and covert, more of a background buzz than an in-your-face threat"

Yup, that's exactly it. I love how cogent and on-the-mark your posts are.