Our Identity, Ourselves

We're all prisoners of who our parents and grandparents were, where we grew up, what language we spoke, where we went to church, what tribe we belong to. But sometimes, we can be liberated by that experience as well. Growing up white and Catholic in suburban New York in the 1960s and 70s was not exactly like putting down roots in Selma, but I do remember words residing in the common parlance then that would deeply offend today. And I do remember certain paths in life being essentially closed to women and to African-Americans - paths that lay wide open for my ambitions. That experience informs how I think today.

That was then. As Johnny Thunders said, now is today. And over the last two weeks or so as a black man beat out a white woman and was in turn beaten by that very woman in fair turnabout, the fissures of identity politics reappeared on the smooth plaster ceiling of our imagined American reconciliation. And two questions have been asked aloud to which there is no explicit answer: are we a post-racial society, as some suggest - and are we ready for a woman president?

I don't know, but as the media tarts up supposedly racial tensions between the two leading Democratic candidates, I was pleased to see the contenders themselves step up today in a joint attempt to cool those embers. I give Senator Barack Obama a great deal of credit for this statement - it serves his own campaign and the American electorate very well indeed:

Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton have historically been on the right side of civil rights issues. They care about the African American community.… That is something I am convinced of. I want Americans to know that is my assessment.

The Clinton campaign, somewhat unfairly accused of having some kind of strategy about raising the spectre of race (both the Clintons' record and their own political self-interest argue strongly against it), posted its own conciliatory comments.

We differ on a lot of things. And it is critical to have the right kind of discussion on where we stand. But when it comes to civil rights and our commitment to diversity, when it comes to our heroes - President John F. Kennedy and Dr. King – Senator Obama and I are on the same side.

And in that spirit, let's come together, because I want more than anything else to ensure that our family stays together on the front lines of the struggle to expand rights for all Americans.

As Digby noted, "This has the strong feel of a negotiated truce." And that's a good thing. Maybe we can get them both on the ticket, after all. One of my favorite political analysts, Chris Bowers, has a great post up about identity politics today and he argues that we're all blinded at times by identity. But he also argues that a black-feminist battle on the left helps no one but the Republican nominee. Ain't that the truth.

Comments

[bruce b.]

Nice posting, Tom. Democrats have to tone the whole thing down. Efforts to do this have been posted on DailyKos as well in the last day. Some of the language there has gotten out of control.

The rhetoric of the last few days reminds me of one of my mother's sayings: "you're cutting off your nose to spite your face." Obviously neither Clinton nor Obama can win without the other's supporters. But -- if the whole coalition manages to, well, coalesce, watch out. Imagine a Democratic ticket that draws women of all ages to the polls the way Hillary has shown she can do, and draws young people the way Obama can, and cuts into the independent vote (Obama) while mobilizing the working class base of the Democratic party (Hillary), and also excites Blacks and Hispanics (actually, both of them)... that has some pretty exciting potential. I don't want just a victory. I want a 1932-style re-alignment.

To move from the sublime to the ridiculous:

Bowers, in the posting you link to, claims that Republicans have significantly more sex than Democrats, and Thompson and Obama supporters have significantly more sex than Clinton and Giuliani supporters. He cites statistics to prove this.

Assuming for a second that his statistics are correct (not a safe assumption, of course), I at first was somewhat surprised. But, then, thought I to myself, a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats are probably married, so that it one explanation. And of course noone would ever want to have sex with a Giuliani supporter, even if you were married to one. Perhaps ESPECIALLY if you were married to one. But why should the Thompson and Obama supporters, who seem to have little or nothing in common, have so much more active sex lives than the Clinton supporters?

[John Q. Netizen]

Tom,

Tom,

When you called for Obama to forcefully disavow the sexism of the coverage of Hillary before New Hampshire, I thought you were wrong. Obama isn’t responsible for Hillary’s press coverage. And a campaign is a war. If he benefits from credulous press coverage, that's life.

But Obama is a member of Trinity United Church, an Afrocentric church with a few Christian trappings and I think he should talk about that, the way Romney has about his Mormonism. Obama has a close relationship with Jeremiah Wright, which he wrote about in Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. This relationship was decisive to his political maturation, and therefore is fair game for analysis.

Wright’s daughter publishes a magazine, Trumpet. Trumpet’s man of the year in 2007 was Louis Farrakhan.

Don’t you think that Obama should clarify his relationship with Jeremiah Wright?

[bruce b.]

I hope TW doesn't fall for JQ Netizen's inflammatory statements. It is slanderous to refer to Obama's church as having "a few Christian trappings." Is it your claim that Obama is not a "real" Christian? That African-American Christian denominations are not "real" Christian denominations?

And Obama is responsible not only for his pastor's POLITICAL beliefs, but the (inferred) political beliefs of HIS PASTOR'S RELATIVES? This is pure McCarthyism. Disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself, Mr. Netizen.

I expect this line of attack on Obama from the right wingers. I hope that TW swats it down like the ugly and poisonous mosquito it is, and fast.

[bruce b.]

One more point: according to the McCarthyite rantings of Mr. Netizen, there are two degrees of separation between Obama and a Farrakhan supporter. I assume this is the closest relationship the rabid McCarthyite Mr. Netizen could find.

I posit that if one does some searching, one can find two degrees of separation (or less) between ANY of the Republican candidates and a rabid White Power group. And I will bet that one can find one or two degrees of separation between any of the Republican candidates and the anti-semite Ann Coulter.

Shame on you, Mr. Netizen. McCarthyism has no place in American politics in 2008.

[Tom K]

This racial bickering is very dangerous for HRC, and it is very much to her advantage to close it down. Obama could benefit (at least in the short term) by keeping its embers alive (since the majority community has no idea what's happening in the black community >90% of the time, it seems) so, to the extent he doesn't do that, it is to his credit.

I caught some of HRC on Russert, and was very surprised that she responded to questions about the concerns of Congressman James Clyburn. She seemed to be saying, "I understand that some people have taken my comments out of context for political reasons", instead of saying, "I expressed myself poorly."

Her inability to turn off the political machine, while usually a great strength, is sometimes her greatest weakness. This LBJ/King thing shows a blindness to the black community that will have further consequences before the campaign is done. WJC can cover a lot of blunders, but she shouldn't assume the goodwill of the black community is an endless resource. In my opinion.

[Tom W.]

Bruce, I agree with laying off Obama's relgion, whatever it is -I don't care and it's not fair game at all. I've posted on that re:Romney and it goes for all of 'em.

That said, close relations always come up in these campaigns - and you sometimes get the damned-by-association stuff, which is generally not very valid. Rev. Wright holds some opinions that might be considered radical in the context of this campaign (on Israel, for example) but they've been out there for a while so I don't think it's that big a deal.

I think the racial stuff hurts both candidates, and I was really surprised the Obama campaign stirred the embers on it. Now, howeve, it's the media stirring it up and trying to keep it going - both candidates should do everything they can to cool it. I hope they will tonight.

Politically, there's a clear split in the African-American electorate between the old guard and younger voters.

[Tom K]

*I think the racial stuff hurts both candidates, and I was really surprised the Obama campaign stirred the embers on it.*

Tom, I get the sense you believe this, and Hillary may, too. Generally, I assume she speaks from political calculation rather than veracity, but the political calculation here is so off, she may well be speaking her heart.

Well, newsflash -- either she subordinates her privately-felt grievences and lays down her arms on this fight, without trying to suggest that Obama started it, or she will NOT be able to claim the sort of support from the black community that even an average D traditionally has, much less that of WJC.

[Tom W.]

Listen, they did stir it - it's not a belief it's a fact - there's a memo from his campaign explicitly stirring it. He's wise to back off that. It's as bad as Clinton's kindergarten moment as a tactic, and much more dangerous to the party.

Further, I do indeed believe this stuff is good for neither candidate - some of the old guard (which still commands votes) in the African-American community is becoming passionately anti-Obama, while the yonger voters are becoming anti-Clinton.

[bruce b.]

TW says:

That said, close relations always come up in these campaigns - and you sometimes get the damned-by-association stuff, which is generally not very valid. Rev. Wright holds some opinions that might be considered radical in the context of this campaign (on Israel, for example) but they've been out there for a while so I don't think it's that big a deal.

The Farrakhan bogeyman is used by the right wing to tar and feather every possible Black candidate. It is McCarthyism, and it is disgusting.

Richard Cohen goes on and on about this in his Washington Post column today. He has to admit that there isn't the slightest shred of evidence that Obama himself is anti-semitic (in fact, there is every piece of evidence to the contrary). But his PASTOR, Wright, is a guy who on occasion has said nice things about Farrakhan. Says Cohen, "Will Obama be praying with this man (Wright) before the inauguration?"

There is still SUCH a double standard. Has anyone checked all of Clinton's associates, and what they say about Farrakhan? I wonder what you would come up with if you checked all the statements of that moron Bob Johnson.

I recall the NY Mayoral election of 1989, when Dinkins first beat Giuliani. Dinkins, who doesn't have an anti-semitic bone in his body, had to denounce Farrakhan over and over and over again. But I attended a Giuliani rally in Forest Hills, where Orthodox and Hasidic rabbis danced prominently in the front row with Bob Grant. Do you recall Bob Grant? he was a rabid racist with a longstanding radio talk show. He practically invented right-wing hate radio. I believe he was the one who first called Dinkins a "mens room attendant." Giuliani would frequently appear on his show, to stir up Giuliani's base.

But Giuliani's association with Bob Grant was never questioned, only Dinkins's non-association with Farrakhan. The only association was that the two were apparently of the same ethnic background. (Even that is not true: Farrakhan is West Indian.)

[Tom K]

I don't know if he did or he didn't, and I couldn't follow your link to check on it because there was none. I regard the argument as about as significant as who, as between two children, first called the other a poopy head.

Regardless, it is VERY STUPID of Hillary to be arguing the point. I am just amazed to see her pursue such a self-destructive path -- her crisis moment has passed, and she has no reason to be playing with fire in this way.

If she continues to alienate Obama voters (and some black voters who may not even support Obama) it will be very harmful in itself, but it will also show a surprising lack of political judgment that I image will resurface in other contexts.

If she's banking on a groundswell of anti-Obama setiment among older black voters . . . well, then I'd say her sanity, and not just her judgment, is in question. She may be able to keep those voters, because of all the goodwill she came in with, but she's burning it rapidly and I see no evidence to suggest that even among her supporters there are signifiance numbers of older blacks who are "passionatey anti-Obama". In her campaign, sure, and anecdotally, no doubt -- but as a movement? That defies common sense, unless she's tapping into that segment that feels he isn't black enough. If she's fishing in those waters, that raises a whole host of other issues, but I'm assuming that's not your point.

[bruce b.]

I said:

There is still SUCH a double standard. Has anyone checked all of Clinton's associates, and what they say about Farrakhan? I wonder what you would come up with if you checked all the statements of that moron Bob Johnson.

Let me clarify: I was not saying that anyone SHOULD check the statements, or that they would or should have any repercussions on Clinton. I was simply pointing out what a double standard in this regard still exists, and thus venting against the Cohen provocation.

I stand by the statement that this fellow Bob Johnson is a moron. The Clinton people should never let him on stage again.

[Tom W.]

Bruce, if there's a media double-standard in this race it has clearly benefitted Obama.

The thing about Rev. Wright is not that he's an acquaintance, it's that he's so close to Obama that he named his best-seller after his sermon. He's one of the inspirations of his public life. I don't find his opinions anti-Semitic at all - I do find Farrakan to be anti-Semitic. Wright's stuff is relatively mild, but it is the kind of race-centered writing Obama has tried to avoid.

[Tom K]

Here we are again, Catalonia in 1937. HRC is the CP, secretely in alliance with the establishment (as Orwell, at least, believed) in seeking to crush the popular uprising of Obama/POUM.

Meanwhile, the falange (of Rudy McCainabee) must be thinking, "even tho' we don't like either of 'em much, we don't really know why they hate each other so violently -- it seems disproportionate to their differences -- but hey, who are we to argue?".

[John Q. Netizen]

Obama's membership in Trinity and his close mentor/son relationship are completely relevant to taking the measure of the man. I reject the charge that this is McCarthyism.

The analogy with Republicans and White Power groups is revealing: are you conceding the point?

[tina oticica]

This was the best post on politics I read today, by far. I read it thru e-mail feed and then forgot where it was. I support Hillary and will continue doing so. Obama as vice-president would be okay. I Have a Dream. Did you know the government moved the birthday to the 21 st of January?

[bruce b.]

John Q. Netizen said:

Obama's membership in Trinity and his close mentor/son relationship are completely relevant to taking the measure of the man. I reject the charge that this is McCarthyism.

It is precisely McCarthyism. It is guilt by association. In fact, it is guilt by association by association. You are saying that Dr. Jeremiah Wright is guilty of saying some nice things about Farrakhan (he also says some critical things), and Obama has a relationship with Wright. I doubt you can find prejudicial or anti-semitic things that Wright himself has said or done.

Mr. Netizen says:

The analogy with Republicans and White Power groups is revealing: are you conceding the point?

You missed my point entirely. I was disputing the double standard applied to Obama by you and others. If the same "two degress of separation" is applied to the Republican candidates, all of them would fail your "litmus test." But noone makes this argument.

I just reviewed the Trinity United Church of Christ Web site. It is an activist, Black Christian Church. To make Obama's membership an issue is discriminatory. There is nothing in their theology that is out of the ordinary.

[bruce b.]

TW says:

Bruce, if there's a media double-standard in this race it has clearly benefitted Obama.

Please enumerate the ways in which Obama has BENEFITED from a media double standard.

I can enumerate one way Obama has been a VICTIM of the double standard: Richard Cohen's idiotic column today on Jeremiah Wright.

So what if Wright is a "Black liberation theologian". Is there supposed to be something wrong with that? Is it some sort of PROBLEM that Obama has a close relationship with this guy?

[Tom W.]

Well, maybe because his chief opponent has been smeared by the most obvious and explicit sexism while he generally has been lionized by the mainstream media (Cohen's poor column being an exception).

The ration of bad press, hit-type pieces, for Clinton v. Obama has easily been 20-1.

[bruce b.]

Tom,

Fair enough. I misunderstood your point. There has been a media double-standard AGAINST Clinton, not IN FAVOR OF Obama. For example, the ratio of hit pieces Clinton v. Edwards is probably 20-1 as well. There was the haircut flap, but there have also been pieces against Obama, for example, his relationship with that crooked developer in Chicago who gave him a loan of some type.

[Tom K]

I liked last night's debate:

OBAMA: Let's put an end to the bickering. Hillary is on the right side of the civil rights issue, let's be clear about that.

CLINTON: I agree. And Obama is . . . a carbon-based life form. Unfortunatly, I can't say whether or not he's ready to be President because, as you know, I have a strict policy of following the honored rule in American politics that candidates cannot comment on issues that are "up to the voters".