I've been thinking that some folks are considerably puzzled by Barack Obama. I don't think I am, and so I offer my take on who his constituents want him to be, and therefore the direction in which he has driven his ambition. It inevitably takes him across people like Wright, not because Wright is whom he is, but because he's a liberation theologist and that is a well-know checkbox on the list of Boule prerogatives.
Obama has obviously come across the political imperative of the Talented Tenth. It's hard to say exactly where or when but it is clear to me that this is the case. I believe that he has been drafted into black leadership in rather the same way all gifted black individuals do in this country. I cannot imagine that he didn't get through Harvard Law without some notion that he could succeed in accomplishing the lifting of all boats in ways black predecessors had not. As Spengler says, you may find Obama in his women. That is something I do not doubt. Michelle Obama, unquestionably gets Barry the proper profile - she is Felicia Rashad to his Bill Cosby. If he was ever confused about his blackness, as callous as it sounds, Michelle is the trophy wife to get him into the right circles of the liberal black upper class where Condi Rice and Clarence Thomas have their caberet cards cancelled.
There has to be some enormous temptation for Obama to swoop in and inherit the legacies of great black leaders and continue the Struggle that lives on in utopian dreams of millions of black Americans who feel unheard in the current political system. Temptations such as these will lead one to great black political churches like Trinity.
As I said before it is well understood that in the common black political parlance, dealing with 'social justice' and 'inequality' are the among the strongest ideas. The conceit, which is not entirely unearned, is that only a radicalized young population is capable of energizing the nation to address unmet needs, of the dreams of the poor and the oppressed. Racial identity plays into this but it has little to do with the endgame. To speak of race, always implies what to do with those outside of the mainstream. "America is a racist country" should be interpreted as whitefolks run the corporations, blackfolks live in the ghetto, this is not an accident. Social justice means 'leveling the playing field', 'black power' etc. It being a black power movement however means that blacks have every right to achieve this on black terms, not mainstream or 'white' terms. Only the latent threat that black folks weild, all the way back to slavery, by this reasoning, is capable of moving the most powerful nation on earth. It is moral blackmail, and it won't be satisfied until Reparations are paid or Obama is elected. (I think the goalposts would move again, but that's another story).
The temptation to reduce the reasons for the isolation of ghetto folks to white racism has always worked, but Obama is too smart to believe it's the only reason. But that doesn't change the fact that he commands the devotees to the liberal cause of 'social justice'. Social justice is an end to itself, and is not providing cover to some black racial supremacist or separatist agenda. It is a cover for multicultural patronage, pure and simple.
I once wrote that the black electorate always wants more government because our history is that we got none. And so there is a perception that only when blackfolks step up and demand government concessions will they ever get treated equally. This is taking the rhetoric of politicians very seriously, especially those associated with unions and machines. Blackfolks are hungry for patronage, why not get their share? It's all dirty. And that's what politics as usual means, and if the majority of politicians are white, well then obviously whitefolks are getting their patronage. If Cheney can have Halliburton and Iraq, why begrudge Obama and Wright? It's not like we're killing people to steal oil and get rich. Any documented corruption in American government is subject to such reasoning, where is black people's payoff?
Obama is therefore on the hook to deliver some genuine black patronage to his constituents, those he directly works for and those blacks who have adopted him symbolically. And thus he is obligated to take on the mantle of blacks who speak truth to power and demand some ethnic grease. But today that is done in the politically acceptable language of multiculturalism. Obama is in the position of answering the questions once and for all "What do you people want?" Everybody knows it.
So if social justice can and equality can mean proportional representation in colleges for blacks and latinos and all other underrepresented minorities, the Obama has to be the man to deliver those. In every aspect of Obama's policy, one can interpret that it means more for those who never got their 'fair share' of government largess. If you have to tax the rich white bastards, so what? They've already got the American Dream, we live the American nightmare. Sure it's self-serving, and Hillary Clinton is not?
The employment of Wright and Wright's church serves the purpose of keeping such principles of 'social justice' in mind and letting Obama know what kind of flack he's going to get for enabling it. And everybody who has a gripe against social justice, just because a black man is giving it to black Americans is going to have to face the wrath of Christian ministers who are not afraid to call America on it. From a purely Christian perspective, America is evil. This is not unpatriotic, it is the disambiguated 'America' of power, wealth, corruption, and world domination. This is America from the perspective of people who have hardscrabble jobs and have no idea how the economy works except that it doesn't give them a break. All of Ron Paul's people have the same idea. You have to do something radical to give the little guy a break, and only a new kind of politician can do that.
If you care about 'social justice' and 'equality' then Obama is your man. And you know the System is going to try any way it can to beat him down. Is this the politics of resentment? Yes. It is also largely the politics of impatience. There remains a presumption that there is a polycarbonate, transparent aluminum ceiling established for those who don't sell out the poor and powerless in America. Not so much that there is some absolute deprivation in lower middle-classness or minority exile, but that such Americans would do better if they had *their* president in power, who could arbitrarily stop the war, lower gas prices, get us all free health care or otherwise do whatever he wanted as the People's President. That is a sentiment that will always have a constituency in America, and Obama is their draftee. It's the job he really wants.
Everything that every American doesn't participate in equally is suspect in this liberal framework, and Obama seeks to adjudicate this. He is prepared to believe that all resistence to him is prejudicial and misguided, and he has ample precedent as one of the black upper class to believe that to be true. Does anyone believe that Thurgood Marshall would tell him any different were he alive today?
I am convinced that Barack Obama is playing a role that has been classically defined and is well understood in the context of the African American upper class and the Talented Tenth imperative. His actual faith in Wright's rhetoric is something of a distraction - it is his way to have the common touch with the herrenvolk of black outsiders, to the multicultural social justice rank and file, and to a new generation of voters. It's just one play amongst many, a hail mary pass to the long forgotten left wing wide reciever at the expense of his old reliable upper-class tight end. Wright has been called for unsportsmanlike conduct. So what? As long as Obama scores the winning touchdown, he expects to defy all resentment. It's his team, he calls the plays, and he won't disown any of his players.
Recent Comments