2008 It’s the Generational Issue, Stupid
posted by on March 17 at 14:41 PM
Obama, in a preview of his big speech on race tomorrow, starts to work up a generational explanation for the heated race and gender rhetoric that’s been coming from oldsters like his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and Clinton-supporter Geraldine Ferraro. It’s a smart move. His message: He can’t help the way that old people like Wright and Ferraro are so quick to get exercised over identity politics—in fact, he understands it, and even sounds like he sort of respects it in as far as it’s a kind of post-traumatic-stress symptom related to the times in which their identities were forged.
But, it’s not him. He doesn’t see the world that way. Which, of course, dovetails quite nicely with his theme of wanting to “turn the page” on an “old’ politics that is tiresome in its shrillness, counterproductive, and polarizing.
Here he is previewing the speech with PBS’s Gwen Ifill:
MS. IFILL: Anybody watching this campaign for the last week to 10 days would think it was all about gender and race between what Geraldine Ferraro said and what your former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, said. Do you look at this and think that maybe with a woman and a black man running against each other that this was going to be an inevitable conversation?SEN. OBAMA: You know, I’m not sure if it was inevitable. I think that there’s no doubt that race and gender are powerful forces in our society. They always have been. And I think it would have been naïve for me to think that I could run and end up with quasi-frontrunner status in a presidential election as potentially the first African-American president that issues, race wouldn’t come up any more than Senator Clinton could expect that gender issues might not come up.
But, ultimately, I don’t think it’s useful. I think we’ve got to talk about it. I think we’ve got to process it. But we’ve got to remind ourselves that what we have in common is far more important than what’s different and that if we’re going to solve any of these problems, we’ve got to come together and bridge our differences in ways that we just have not bridged them before.
MS. IFILL: Is that the speech you’ll be giving tomorrow in Philadelphia?
SEN. OBAMA: That will be a major focus of it.
MS. IFILL: You have also cast this as a generational distinction of the sort of things that Reverend Wright said being the baggage of a fiercely intelligent African-American man of his generation and Geraldine Ferraro’s as well. When does one person’s baggage become another person’s memory/history?
SEN. OBAMA: Well, you know, look, there’s a continuum. But I think that, you know, when you look at somebody like a Reverend Wright who grew up in the ’50s or ’60s, his experience of race in this country is very different than mine in the same way that Geraldine’s experience being an intelligent, ambitious woman, you know, is very different than a young woman who’s coming up today and potentially has a different set of opportunities.
Now, we benefit from that past. We benefit from the difficult battles that were taken place. But I’m not sure that we benefit from continuing to perpetuate the anger and the bitterness that I think, at this point, serves to divide rather than bring us together. And that’s part of what this campaign has been about, is to say, let’s acknowledge a difficult history, but let’s move forward in a practical way to get things done.
MS. IFILL: Has this been damaging to your campaign?
SEN. OBAMA: You know, the – I would say that it has been a distraction from the core message of our campaign. I think part of what has always been the essence of my politics, not just this campaign, but my life is the idea that we’ve got to bring people together. Now, part of that is biographical as somebody who comes from a diverse background with a white mother and an African-American father growing up in Hawaii and Asia. You know, it’s in my DNA to believe that all of us have something fundamental in common.
And that’s part of what makes America so special. And so, to the extent that, you know, the conversation over the last couple of days has been dominated by some stupid statements that were made by Reverend Wright, but also caricatures of Reverend Wright and Trinity United Church of Christ – which, by the way, is part of a denomination that is overwhelmingly white – you know, I think that that has distracted us from the possibilities of moving beyond some of these arguments.
Typical Clintons: even their campaign slogan calls somebody stupid.
kind of off message, and giving a big speech ensures being off message another 2-3 days debating whether Pastor Wright saying blame 9-11 on America or God Damn America or etc. etc. is or is not etc. etc.
Meanwhile, if Obama would take this race issue and use it to call for real change -- well, I guess then I'd be more jazzed about him. Democrats lose a huge fraction of the African American male vote in every election, due to the onerous drug laws that truly seem to be there just to make us lose votes. (Us Democrats I mean).
We lose 2 African American US Senators -and a rep - all the time -- like, for the last few decades at least -- due to DC not having voting rights.
Now, correcting those racial injustices would be real change.
@2: Talking about those issues would definitely be off message--not that you'd mind too much, unPC--but for the record, Obama's all about DC statehood.
dare i say this is the first thing i've read that makes him sound presidential!!?
in the same way that Geraldine’s experience being an intelligent, ambitious woman, you know, is very different than a young woman who’s coming up today and potentially has a different set of opportunities.
I can't wait for the Clinton campaign (and/or ECB) to explain how sexist that opinion is.
I think Obama's position is pretty bold. Telling everyone over age 50 that their view of race relations is toxic and outdated is not going to help him get their votes. So yeah, it's not a clear call for legal change like #2 wants, but at least he's proposing social change that carries political risk.
No, he's just telling them that thinking the way they did back in the 20th Century won't work in the 21st Century.
And they know it's true ...
That's great if they do, but I doubt it. I can't imagine many 60-somethings defer to younger generations when it comes to views about race, gender, and society. He's basically saying he understands where they're coming from (hard sell #1), but those days are no longer relevant (hard sell #2).
But they are no longer relevant.
How's that Pinto working out for you?
Wow. Obama has managed to come up with a bookish, semantic argument tailor made to convince NPR Democrats. 90% of whom already support him. Good job.
Meanwhile, Republicans scream "his minister hates America and white people!"
What a beautiful robe the Emperor has on! So shiny and elegantly decorated!
If it doesn't work at least he suggested a new way. I can't be the only voter who is so sick of identity politics.
I wonder how the older generation would view Obama's speech if they thought it would lead to the end of Affirmative Action. Level playing field for all!
But Sven, I thought your problem with Obama's support was that it was a lot of empty headed fluffy cute happiness? I thought what was wrong with the Obama Kids was that they were ignorant of hard facts?
I think you're kind of pissed to read a complex and compelling intellectual argument. And one that is not a turnout-killing negative attack. It appeals to the brain, but it doesn't make the voters get sick and stay home.
Combine this with his happy happy joy joy rallies and one would think there is something there for everybody.
"But I’m not sure that we benefit from continuing to perpetuate the anger and the bitterness that I think, at this point, serves to divide rather than bring us together."
Then why, Senator African American Obama, do you continue to cling to your support of states rights when it comes to the issue of same-sex marriage?
Why do you continue to advocate for states to exercise rights to discriminate against a minority group today just like they did decades ago...say during the 50s?
Or doesn't your enlightened and liberated and courageous viewpoint extend to filthy faggots?
e@13-
e, just to be clear, I think Wright is an unpatriotic dipshit. And Obama was extremely il-advised to continue to go to that church once he decided to get involved in politics. I don't believe that Obama didn't know Wright's views. Belonging to a divisive church is no way to convince people that you are a uniter.
And all this debate is about trying to correct the damage Obama's poor choice has done to his campaign.
Will I support Obama if he's the nominee? Absolutely. Do I think less of him because of this issue? Yes.
patrick, you're such a hater. Obama has pushed hard against Christian and African American homophobia. You know damn well he has shown courage on this issue. A hell of a lot more than the Clintons.
@9: Yes, yes, I agree the 60's are no longer relevant. I agree with Obama. If only everyone else was as enlightened as us. All I am saying is that this is a politically risky position to take (which incidentally makes his position even more admirable). People say that Obama is all nice talk and not about "real change" (see #2). My point is that he is actually saying something substantive instead of the standard please-everyone garbage that politicians usually take in order to minimize risk. He is taking a risk, just like I do when I drive my Pinto.
@Patrick: I'm not sure you'll find a more pro-gay candidate out there. Without prompting of any kind, the guy's gone to Southern Baptist churches in the South and asked them to be more Christ-like to homosexuals (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Kf0x_TpDris). That particular link is one on MLK Day at MLK's church in Atlanta.
We'll see if that translates to Federal lawmaking, but he's a lot more likely to help than Sen. Clinton (to say nothing of Sen. McCain).
@Big Sven
Somebody who operates by politics-as-usual would have quit his church and thrown Wright under the bus long ago. Clinton would have done that as soon as she was done using Wright to get the Chicago black votes she needed. Obama isn't quite like that. Clearly there is a point where he will distance himself from people, but he isn't just going to pretend Wright's 60's era black activism means nothing to him or to us.
I think the point that is bugging the DLC so much is that they can't get past the idea of being on the attack always. They envy Roger Ailes and Karl Rove so much and they'd to anything to be just like them. The reason that doesn't work for Democrats is that we need high turnout to win. If we were a minority party like the GOP, we could win by going negative. Hillary can never win by out-Roving Rove. Obama will win by leaving bridges unburnt.
I still think you need to take back your sneer at Obama's supposedly overly-intellectual argument here. It's a sound argument, and it flies in the face of your previous claim that Obama is intellectually lightweight.
@Big Sven: I personally buy his explanation. I've said some pretty inflammatory stuff over the last few decades, so if people cherry-picked my rants, I'd probably get some heat, too. And the "fire from the pulpit" is pretty much how that kind of church operates, so the likelihood of flammability is pretty high.
It stands to reason that, over the last few decades, that the general message was not of "damn America" but of community involvement, self-empowerment, and generally positive, Christian work. Wright didn't say this stuff daily, or the media would have more than 2 clips to show over and over. These speeches have been cherry-picked out of decades of sermons.
And so Obama, to his credit, doesn't just dump the man who helped him find Christ, helped nurture Obama's early community efforts in Chicago, married him to his wife, and baptized his children. Obama states vehement disagreement with the cherry-picked statements, and asks that people understand that Wright's anger isn't something he shares.
What it comes down to is this: aren't people allowed to disagree with their pastors?
elenchos-
I take back my sneer at Obama's argument. I welcome the idea of moving beyond 60s and 70s identity politics. I just worry that his argument will go over the heads of the bulk of the voters he needs to convince. All the people who are receptive to that argument will support Obama if he gets the nomination. I worry about the "Reagan Republicans" who, though I wish it were not true, we need to win the White House.
Steve@20:
No. If Kennedy's priest in 1960 had been a fire breathing papist, Nixon would have won for sure.
@22: But Catholic priests seldom say anything provocative. Only the Pope gets to say interesting things and priests are loyal to papal dogma. And that was exactly the problem people had with Catholic candidates -- that their loyalty to a Roman would be greater than their loyalty to the US. So Kennedy had to convince people he would disagree with his church. He did. Why can't Obama?
@22: He really does seem like he will actually start shooting flames in those videos, doesn't he... :)
The following is admittedly conjecture, but:
That said, people are a lot less uptight about religion now than in the late 50's. Romney lost out because he was a huge phony, not (as much) because he was Mormon.
The most helpful thing for Obama about this whole situation is that he pretty clearly loves helping (why would he ditch a cushy lawyer job to help communities in Chicago otherwise?), and that his demeanor couldn't be further from his hot-headed pastor.
I think it's a net gain. The Muslim thing goes away, he'll get some people (like me and elenchos) who respect him for being forthright, and it's not damning enough for most people to consider it to be a huge deal.
*shrug*
I am not saying anything about any of Obamas rivals here, elenchos. Let's try to focus on our saviors words here, not fall easily into the bickering between millionaires vying for power.
His position may generally be better than anyone else's - it is still full of holes and thus worthy of being spotlighted.
You may not like how it sounds to turn his rhetoric against him, but that doesn't mean it is not an apt remark.
I might be a hater...especially when it comes to criticizing grandiosity that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Just because defending the constitutional rights of same sex couples isn't important to you, doesn't mean his remark is above reproach.
He and you are not exempt.
Patrick, given your passion, I'm sure you've taken the time to contact all of the campaigns and try to work with them to change things. Blogging endlessly (i.e., preaching to the SLOG choir) is not going to produce desired results.
Actually, I don't believe that chasing around the candidates like they are the celebrity du jour accomplishes anything.
Although I did stand outside of a Clinton fund raiser thrown by LGBT business interests in San Francisco with my partner last August holding a sign that read "Civil Unions are not equal." No one was very happy to see us...figures...self interest knows no sexual identity.
I do think it is more important to interrupt the crowing morons at blogs that spend all their time wrestling over foolishness (like goes on here all the time) in the hope that you might stop playing the role of sheep/idiot long enough to pay attention to what matters - policy not personality.
There are way too many people being led by the nose via the campaigns and the media to turn this election into an episode of Extra. And you love it. And you are fucking up any possibility of real change by being stupid enough to fall for it.
Stop cheer leading for wealthy politicians and start advocating for change.
Reviewing the comment threads around the internet suggests that the Newsmax-and-Hannity crowd, the die-hard conservative noise machine, have found their signature issue and they're running with it.
It doesn't actually seem to me that it's having much effect, but time will tell. It's possible they can keep the outrage going all the way to the general election, and that might shift a few percent.
Most people, I think, don't much care if Obama's minister is hotheaded and bombastic and believes some weird conspiracy theories, as long as there's no indication Obama thinks the same way. And clearly he does not. But if you're on the fence and you're constantly confronted with the idea that Obama's some kind of stealth radical, I suppose it could shift the dial.
Hard to say, really. I predict it won't matter. I predict Obama for the nom, and then for the win. But as Yogi Berra said, "Predictions are difficult, especially about the future."
All the white people out there that bought Kanye better burn their CDs in effigy then because he believes the same thing...
"And I know the government administered AIDS, so I guess we just pray like the minister say."
It will be lovely to have a President who can think and speak intelligently again! I can't wait!
I am sure Seattlites thought McGovern spoke intelligently too. You are simply deluded if you don't think this issue is having a major effect outside of the liberal power centers. The Republican propaganda machine is licking its chops. Obama won't wear an American flag pin. Michelle Obama is not proud to be American. Now this. Ugh, it's 1972 all over again.
can't we just turn the page on gay stuff too - marriage, equal rights and turn it on poverty, turn it on war issues and all the stuff the stupid boomer generation confronted society with in the 60s - its all so, so yucky
@23, maybe because Obama is not a Roman Catholic. Duh!
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).