Getting beyond race is a national challenge
Posted 7 weeks 2 days ago byBarack Obama’s attempt to "get beyond race" in his quest for the presidency has run aground, at least temporarily, by the publicity over the racist remarks of his pastor of 20 years, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright of the Trinity United Church of Chicago. Obama is paying the price of not only his association but his undeniable acquiescence in the rants of a man who literally sees the world in black and white.
The contrast between the smooth veneer of Sen. Obama and the unbridled hatred of Rev. Wright, the man who brought Obama into church, married him to his wife and baptized his children, appears to be very great. But those who look beyond Obama’s carefully crafted rhetoric to the race-conscious core that accepts the balkanization of Americans into warring and irreconcilable interest groups, or just plain factions, know that Obama’s act was just that–an act.
It is certainly not surprising that Hillary Clinton should seek to make political capital on the heretofore transcendent black candidate but for more than the obvious reason that she has not moved beyond race either (not to mention gender, class, age, sexual orientation, etc.). It is because the whole Democratic Party, once dedicated to equality of income, has gone further down that road to equality of "lifestyles," according to which one’s choices are good, or at least tolerable, as long as one feels good about them.
If there is not a special place in the Democratic Party for left-handed redheads born after 1960 who live in suburbia, it is only nobody has thought of it yet; or, more to the point, no one has seen any political advantage in organizing people who fall into that category. To those who think that one’s accidental membership in some demographic group trumps our common American citizenship, there is in principle no limit to the fragmentation of the American people.
As Naomie Emery, writing in the Weekly Standard, pointed out, Obama and Clinton have the common misfortune of running for president in the same year while each of them seeks to be the historic candidate, the former to be the first black president and the latter to be the first woman president. It is difficult enough for rivals for the same office to concede defeat, but it is particularly difficult when their claims are based upon a nonnegotiable issue like race or gender.
We can date the beginning of the corrupt practice of classifying the American people by race and gender with the resort to affirmative action (read: racial preference) in hiring, college admission and contracting in the 1960s, and ultimately sanctioned by the United States Supreme Court in Fulilove v. Connecticut in 1980 (although encouraged by judicial winks and nods in the meantime). It became settled legal doctrine that members of groups who had suffered discrimination in the past were politically impotent and needed "heightened judicial scrutiny" because of those groups’ "discrete and insular" status.
Fortunately, Americans dedicated to human equality fought back, as voters in several states, beginning with California in 1996, adopted measures that reinstated the original color-blind, non-preferential principles of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Ward Connerly, a former regent of the University of California, continues to lead the fight, having won other victories in Washington and Michigan, and seeking another in Missouri this year.
But so powerful is the race preference faction that, while the people generally vote against it, leading politicians in both major political parties are reluctant to take it on. Sen. Bob Dole, running for President, ran away from Connerly’s initiative 12 years ago, and Sen. John McCain, the current presumptive GOP presidential nominee, is doing the same in his home state of Arizona. And we have to add President George Bush to the list, for his Justice Department failed to oppose racial quotas in principle in two Supreme Court cases involving university admissions in Michigan.
Given these facts, it is clear that more people than Sen. Obama have failed to "get beyond race" in our politics. Democrats have sold their souls to racial preference in public policy, and Republicans have been the "me too" party for fear of losing the votes of members of racial minorities. The question in both cases is why.
It is the "elephant in the living room": the abandonment of the fundamental principle that "all men are created equal," either out of brazen opposition or cowardly calculation. Of course, whatever the motive, the effect is the same, so Americans who are not members of "discrete and insular minorities" suffer real discrimination (which Sen. Obama openly admitted), and the presumed beneficiaries of racial preference are patronized as if they were incapable of succeeding without biased outcomes.
Legal preference for any persons because of their race or gender simply cannot keep house with equal rights. That is why Martin Luther King Jr. famously called for persons to be judged not "by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." We will "get beyond race" in our politics only when we put more stock in our common humanity than in our accidents of birth.
Thoughts
miscellaneous thoughts....
Submitted on April 24th, 2008 by John 2000It would truly be ideal to get beyond race.
It is impossible to get beyond race under the current conditions.
The American ideal and subsequent Amendments and laws are supportive of this ideal.
Blacks are the race in America having the hardest time approaching the ideal.
Some blacks, identified with both major parties (or independent thereof) have come far in getting closer to the ideal.
Many, if not most, are really quite capable of it.
Many are in a 'half-way house', torn between freedom and the heavy pull of racial identity.
The fear of freedom within a multi-racial context - appealing, yet frightening.
Demagogic and heavy-handed black leadership work hard to further crystallize total black identity by attacking the ideal while fanning the fear.
These 'communities', variously constituted, coalesce into what is the black voting block.
It constitutes power : it directly opposes the ideal.
It formed into a federal power block within the Democratic Party.
The party, with give and take over the years, mostly owned and somewhat controlled this block.
Nobody, neither foreign nor domestic, could help but notice this.
The plan came forth.
With quite a bit of help, 'we' can overpower this effete Democratic Party if we run a presentable black candidate who shares our basic views.
After the intra-party coupe is managed, 'we' can surely pull back together in time to defeat that other party.
We can pander Hope and Change while undermining, exaggerating, and exacerbating anything and everything.
Then we can try to fix everything.
The world will be happy! America will be freed!
The ideal will be pronounced accomplished.
Sweet Change.
Now what?
Walter Veltroni is a great
Submitted on April 1st, 2008 by AnonymousWalter Veltroni is a great politician, leader of Italy's Democratic Party (center-left)... not a Communist
Senator Obama Race Speech A Smoke Screen
Submitted on March 27th, 2008 by AnonymousObama gave that speech in hopes of turning our attentions away from his flawed judgment in attending Trinity Church of Christ for 20 years, and never noticing any of this hate America or hate the white man speech. He failed to repudiate the man, only the sound bites, as he calls them. Well Obama and family heard more than sound bites each week, they heard Black Liberation Theology. Which obviously has tainted Obama and Michelle Obama's way of thinking about the American government and whites in America. Try reading up on this theology. Also, check into Walter Veltroni, former Italian Communist Party member, Currently the Democratic Party leader (Socialist) of Italy. He met with Obama in 2005 in Washington. Walter is known as "the Obama's European Counterpart". Walter wrote Obama's preface to the Italian version of the "Audacity of Hope" in 2007. This is another instance of bad judgment by Obama. Associating with a known Communist. Remember too, he visited with William Ayers, Weather underground bomber of the 70's in Hyde Park, IL prior to entering the race. These friendships and associations form a pattern of lack of judgment. I for one cannot support Obama for President because of this baggage.
Senator Obama Race Speech
Submitted on March 27th, 2008 by AnonymousThere is no denying much needs to be done on race relations in this country, but with all due respect to claim Senator Obama's speech on race as historic or a turning point is very difficult to digest. Much of this country was not interested in a lecture on race from Senator Obama at this point and time, but an explanation as to why a presidential candidate would have a racist spiritual advisor for 20 plus years. Seriously, how hypocritical is it for a presidential candidate to have their own personal spiritual advisor of 20 plus years spew extremely mean spirited racial propoganda and instead of explaining the 20 plus year affiliation...a lecture on race relations is put forward.
Re: sunshine308
Submitted on March 27th, 2008 by KansasGirlI make the same point again (which has as yet not been countered satisfactorily. . .)
Why is a willingness to associate yourself with those who think differently than you a bad thing? I'll tell you this, if something was going to change Rev. Wright's mind about how divided America still is, it might have been seeing Obama's success with the white community. Or seeing his success with the black community, come to think of it, since Obama is as much white as black. Of course, now that Wright has been demonized by the media, he'll almost certainly remain virulently angry about race relations for the rest of his career. But the best way to change the hearts and minds of those you disagree with is to interact with them and break their stereotypes. Obama's presence in that church does not mean he is a racist. Neither do his remarks - which courageously represented the politically incorrect but true feelings of his grandmother.
These issues will not be solved by pretending that what people DO feel is not what they should feel, by claiming that anyone who recognizes race relations are still a problem is a racist themselves, or by condemning the willingness of some people to be associated with those who still hold wrongheaded or unpopular views. True reconciliation only comes with frank recognition of the reality and approaching the debate with humility and understanding, even where you absolutely disagree with someone's racist attitude. That's exactly what Obama has done.
what r we doing?
Submitted on March 26th, 2008 by sunshine308I think we have come a very long way since the 70's and truly most young people are color blind..which is great..there are problems but you speak as tho it was a problem that the whites have to fix.. I disagree..what do you think that Obama's reason for not denouncing his pastor and church are?? They embrace Cone's black liberation theology which is racist to the core..and demands of blacks to hate whites..He has been indoctrinated for 20 years in this doctrine.. therefore if you have an organization which I believe is very far from a Christian church, that not only uses this for their doctrine but promotes it and educates young people as well.. how will anything that whites do change this? It will take a huge effort on everyone's part to make the difference to this problem now.. and I don't have a clue how..There is racism on both sides, hate on both sides and those are never right..there are no excuses for hate mongering and racism.. In the meantime however.. we are voting for a president and it is evident that because of this particular issue of his beliefs for such a long period of time.. he should withdraw.. he is not a suitable candidate as he has racist feelings and attitudes and therefore cannot fairly govern us all. that was also evident when he said his grandma was a "typical" white woman.. no one would say a typical white, black, brown or red person unless they were racist...
What R We Doing?
Submitted on March 26th, 2008 by AnonymousI applaud Senator Obama and Richard Reeb for attempting to address the RACE issue and keeping it in the foreground.
The issue of race will always be with us. America build it's wealth on the back of slaves. Most Americans don't know how may Fortune 500 companies were based on this systematic racism.
Public schools were not intergrated until 1954. If you are AAARP member you were alive during all the turmoil. You would also remeber the Alabama race riot of 1963. "Sane" Americans allowed their fellow humans to be mawled by dogs, sprayed by fire hoses, and beat in the street.
I am a 41 year old native California and I remember watching the school busing crisis of the 70's. I remember "sane" parents shouting those N-word children won't attend a school with my kids. In 1992 I experience a race riot after the Rodney King verdict.
How far have we really come in dealing with the race issue? Race still divides our schools are neighborhoods and our socialization.
My suggestion is to ue Senator Obama's speech as at turning point. Let's use his speech to open a dialouge between American Whites, Blacks and Imigrants. The whole world is watching our hypocrisy. Let's deal with the race issue so when we tell the world that all men are truly created equal wre not lying.