President Obama: The Bridge From Nowhere

During the primary season I argued that Barack Obama's chance to become President hinged upon his ability to be perceived as an honorary "white," someone like Oprah Winfrey, Tiger Woods or Colin Powell. Winfrey, Woods and Powell have transcended their racial identity in a society where racism still is a significant sub-text and "blackness" is still equated for many members of the white majority with being alien, discomforting, potentially dangerous..."that one."

Obama has come close to achieving this goal because of his unflappable personality, eloquence, intelligence and political acumen. Nevertheless, until the recent economic crisis his triumph in November was still very much in doubt. Despite the great unpopularity of President Bush and  the Republican Party, John McCain and Obama were in a tight race for the White House. Had Obama been white there is little doubt he would have had a double digit lead all along instead of barely edging McCain throughout the summer.

But all that has changed. Just as there are no atheists in foxholes racism can temporarily be put aside when the black candidate seems to be better equipped to lead the country from nowhere---an economic catastrophe in the making--- while his white opponent appears to want to stay the Bushonomics course.

Every day the Dow plummets, housing values plummet,unemployment and foreclosures rise and credit remains frozen Obama's numbers rise. Even if Osama Bin Laden turned himself in to McCain it wouldn't make a difference. It's the economy, stupid.

If headline-grabbing bad economic news continues unabated until November, as it should, and GOP efforts at voter suppression fall short, there is a good possibility that Democrats can not only regain the White House but have a working majority in Congress. Obama, if he has the will and the economy is righted, can begin moving the country towards a long overdue transformation--- European style regulated capitalism with a strong social safety net and vastly reduced economic inequality. 

If Obama can make health care approach universality, pass new laws, such as the Free Employee Choice Act, enforce old ones making it easier for the 40 percent of workers who wish to unions (as opposed to the 12 percent who currently belong) to do so, and change the tax code to reduce wealth and income inequalities Democrats can put Republicans out of business for a generation.

But Obama's will is paramount and he may be tempermentally unsuited to using power to bring about deep reform as opposed to trying to find a middle ground with an opposition that may still have bark if no more bite. In his public life Obama has often seemed more devoted to the process of perpetual democratic deliberation than fighting in a partisan way to bring substantive outcomes in the lives of people. Perhaps he truly believes the truth is always in the middle and that is why he chooses a non-confrontational path.

On the other hand, Obama's autobiography, Dreams from My Father, suggests he might be biding his time and that while presenting himself as a man who wants us all to get along he is deeply aware of the uses of power and the realities of powerlessness. After all, his legislative career has been in settings in which his party did not have the votes to impose its will on Republicans. As president, he might turn out to be a decisive leader who will be comfortable using his power.

Much will depend on whether Obama will be preoccupied with being re-elected or whether he wants to leave an indelible mark as an agent of change. He can be another Bill Clinton---a modest overly cautious reformer---or take a tip from his predecessor, George W. Bush, who aggressively utilized all his power as chief executive to implement his policies. Bush also engaged in illegal and unethical conduct, of course, but many of his actions, such as the unprecedented use of signing statements, were perfectly legal, if seldom employed, tactics designed to thwart an uncooperative Congress. (With a Democrats in control of the Senate and House Obama has no need for signing statements, but still might find some creative ways to implement his policies if Democrats fall just short of a filibuster-proof 60 seates in the Senate).

Obama's campaign, of course, has already changed American politics in a profound way in several respects, most notably how to raise money, organize volunteers and defeat smear and fear tactics by rapid counter-punching and maintaining a positive message. If Democrats make big gains in Congress, state legislatures and statehouses Obama can also stump for reforms in voting laws and proceedures that can reduce voter suppression that has routinely disenfranchised hundreds of thousands if not millions throughout the country.

Obama has a resource few leaders have: the intellect and  communication skills to educate the low-information citizen. He can mobilize public opinion in behalf of a program for profound change---to speak above the clamor of the right-wing officeholders in Congress and their media allies. The economic crisis can give him that opportunity, especially if it brings Democrats effective control of the legislative branch. But even if he falls just short of a working majority in the Senate he can frighten the opposition with the spectre of the people's wrath---but only if he chooses to arouse it.

A President Obama could certainly have a great effect on race relations. His triumph might make even extremely cynical black Americans wonder whether American society has turned a corner and that racism and discrimination, while obviously still present, may not be the all-powerful forces they once were. The effect of this change of consciousness, particularly on alienated young black males, could trigger a self-fulfilling prophecy that might begin to weaken the power of the more self-defeating aspects of black underclass culture.

At the same time Obama, if successful, will make it a bit harder for  racist sentiment and discrimination to be tolerated within the white community, especially if, as is his nature, he seeks to unite all Americans around policies that make their lives easier.

Cultural changes within white and black communities would, if forthcoming, feed on each other and help the country move towards a deeper level of integration than has hitherto existed.

While outlining a best case scenario, it's necessary to acknowledge that factors beyond Obama's control could undermine his hopes. If the economy truly melts down and Obama can't fix it the racial divide could deepen as widespread insecurity leads to an exacerbation of racial tension. Whites could imagine that blacks are somehow being privileged by an Obama Administration whether true or not. Blacks might sink deeper into despair as their hopes are dashed.

The most realistic outcome of an Obama Administration is that he will bring about  incremental reform and be a black Bill Clinton who can feel the pain, or appear to, of whites and blacks. Even with modest accomplishemnts Obama's tenure will have had world-historic significance. He will be the first black leader of any country with a white majority and given the legacy of race few even a year ago could have imagined this pathbreaking accomplishment would have happened in the United States.

Comments

[Jim Krieger]

Good job. (Even I understood it.)Leave us hope your best-case scenario comes true.

[Kossack]

I took up your invitation to visit. Don't take this personally, but I'd say you're a pompous, insufferable ass -- based on your product on the Daily Kos, and here. While you are a gifted writer, you have a seriously inflated view of the value of your own opinion -- and you have a gift for offending.

[Another Kossack]

I also followed the link from the dKos. I'm not sure I agree with all of your points, either here about Obama, or on the dK, about Israel.

But I don't consider you more pompous or self-important than most bloggers.

I suspect you angered the earlier Kossack because of your statements about Israel not wanting peace. I have posted and commented on the dK for years and have never been troll-rated, except when I wrote about Israel.

Having said that, I do think your remark that Israel may not want peace, while somewhat overly broad, merits some consideration. We like to agonize at a distance over the dilemmas of the Israeli peace movement (and G-D bless them), but Israeli citizens have elected agressive bullies again and again. Even those with better PR have not made reasonable offers to the Palestinians for a viable state. (This includes Oslo).

I also think you are being just a bit perverse with your terminology of Obama being an "honorary white." There are black Americans who are not seen as threatening by many white Americans. Dr. Martin Luther King made a conscious effort to take this approach. I think it is needlessly provocative to term such behavior "honorary white." And, I think it mis-diagnoses both the problem African Americans are facing and the strategic response these people have adopted in facing the problem.

In any event, I hope your optimistic expectations of Obama are met rather than your cynical fears. I wish that for all of us. In an important way though, it depends upon each of us to make sure Obama lives up to the expectations we have projected onto his candidacy.

[Milton Mankoff]

Thanks for your comments. Yes, Israel is a red flag for many and for a long time I was neutral until I read some of the Israeli revisionist historians and people like David Grossman and Robert Fisk.

Re: Obama,I am hopeful too, but like you agree he needs to get pushed from the left to offset the "center-right nation" meme that dominates MSM.

Not sure how old you are, but I can tell you Martin Luther King was lionized after he was assassinated far more than before by the MSM. He was often seen as "going too fast" by people who favored integration but didn't really want to do anything militant to achieve it. King also benefited in MSM when Malcolm X and Stokely Carmichael came to be seen as alternative black leadership.

[Milton Mankoff]

Thanks for visiting. I do have strong opinions or I wouldn't blog. But, at the same time, I'm more than open to changing my mind when confronted with evidence. Unfortunately, your comment only focused on what you perceive as my nature (i.e., pompous etc.), and it would be more useful to deal with substantive criticism of my point of view. I might even come to agree with you.