Reflections on Obama/West: Locating the Controversy (Sept. 2011)

V v

The 2011 ABS

ABS Executive Committee President and Immediate Past President Sandra Barnes Vanderbilt University [email protected] President-Elect Earl Wright II University of Cincinnati [email protected] Interim Executive Officer BarBara M. Scott Northeastern Illinois University [email protected] Treasurer Wanda Morgan West Chicago Public Schools [email protected] Secretary Zandria Robinson University of Mississippi [email protected] Member-at-Large Sherrill Sellers Miami University of Ohio [email protected] Membership Chair Ebonie Cunningham Wilkes University [email protected] Publications Chair BarBara M. Scott Northeastern Illinois University [email protected] Student Representative Brandon Jackson Florida State University [email protected]

IN THIS ISSUE

The 2011 ABS Conference Update ………………………………………………….. 2 By ABS President, Sandra Barnes

Conference Greetings from President Barack Obama ………………………. 3 With Introductory Note by Sandra Barnes

2012 ABS Conference Call For Papers……………………………..……………… 4 By ABS President-Elect, Earl Wright II

A GRIOT FORUM: CROSSROADS IN BLACK PROGRESSIVE THOUGHT Reflections on Cornel West‟s Critique of the Obama Administration

An Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………. 6 By Philip Kretsedemas

Obama: To Criticize or Not to Criticize, That is the Question………..…… 10 By Aldon Morris

Cornel West vs. the President: When Intellect and Political Acumen Meets Performance Art as Entertainment…….…..…… 12 By Robert Newby

Dr. Cornel West Trips Over White Supremacy ………………………….…….. 15 By Korie L. Edwards

Reflections on Obama/West: Locating the Controversy ……………..….… 19 By Jolyon Wurr

Barack Obama, Cornel West and the Neoliberal Plutocracy ……..……... 23 By Thomas Volscho

On President Obama at 2011 …………………………………………………….…… 25 By Mark Christian

What Can Work….And What Never Will ………………………………………… 27 By Kristine Wright

Obama Matters…………………………………………………………………………….. 30 By Anthony P. Browne

The Griot The Newsletter of the Association of Black Sociologists

Website: http://associationofblacksociologists.org Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/blacksociologists?ref=ts

September 2011

2

Conference Update “Engaging the Global Community through Research, Teaching, and Service” From the 2011-2012 ABS President, Sandra L. Barnes

I would like to thank each of you for participating in the 2011 ABS conference. Despite the change in venue from Chicago to Las Vegas, membership involvement was undeterred. The theme, ―Engaging the Global Community through Research, Teaching, and Service‖ fostered excitement and inquiry via a plethora of cutting-edge sessions, panels, and roundtables. In addition to the Opening and Closing plenaries, other highlights included; the two part panel on the presidency of Barack Obama, Revolution and Reality: Power, Pessimisms, and Populism as well as the Special Scholar‘s session by Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, The Real „Race Problem‟ in Sociology: The Power of White Rule in Our Discipline. The professional development session sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation‘s New Connections program focused on health-related funding opportunities and the two part film, ―Beyond the Bricks,‖ informed attendees about contemporary challenges facing Black males. The Student Paper Competition Winners Session highlighted research by Chandra Waring and James Jones. In addition to the many opportunities for fun and adventure in Las Vegas, the Awards Luncheon speaker, Las Vegas Senator Joe Neal, provided much insight about his thirty

year role as a community activist. And as usual, the ―more senior‖ ABS members out-danced their younger peers at the House Party! I am also pleased to report that the conference was paid for in full before it even began. I hope each of you enjoyed the 2011 ABS conference and found it informative and fun. Your dedicated volunteerism and financial support bodes well for our continued success. I am excited about plans for the 2012 conference in Colorado that have already begun by our President Elect, Earl Wright II. I know that you will continue to support ABS with your participation, ideas, and finances. Have a great fall season and get excited about the future accomplishments of our great organization!

s

3

Conference Greetings Letter from President Barack Obama ABS Members: I am very excited to share the letter with you that I received from President Barack Obama about the ABS 2011 conference. It did not arrive in time to be included in the actual conference program, but considering his responsibilities, it is an honor to receive such correspondence. The actual embossed letter that includes the White House insignia will be placed in the ABS archives. Sandra L. Barnes: 2011-2012 ABS President

4

The tradition of Black sociology includes persons like W. E. B. Du Bois, Ida B. Wells, George Edmund Haynes, Monroe Nathan Work and Lucy C. Laney as well as institutions like Atlanta University (now called Clark Atlanta University), Fisk University, Howard University, Tuskegee Institute and Tougaloo College.

Black sociology is not narrowly defined as research performed by Blacks. Instead, it is as an area of research, which may be performed by scholars of any persuasion, which is focused on eliminating the social oppression of Blacks and other historically disenfranchised groups through objective scientific investigations into their social, economic, and physical conditions. Moreover, such work has the express purpose of obtaining data aimed at understanding, explaining, and ameliorating the problems discovered in the Black community in a manner that could have social policy implications.

From Du Bois‘ pioneering efforts as leader of the Atlanta Sociological Laboratory (1897-1914) to the contemporary invest-igations of many leading sociologists, the tenets of Black sociology have thrust the discipline in a direction that is solutions oriented and impactful in the lives of everyday people. The tradition of Black sociology emphasizes prescriptions for social problems such as the disproportion-ate number of incarcerated Black males; high rate of HIV/AIDS among Black women; and high unemployment and poverty levels for Blacks. It is within this tradition of Black sociology that we welcome the submission of papers for the 2012 Association of Black Sociologists conference. We especially welcome submissions that focus on eliminating or

ameliorating social oppression and on constructing or impacting social policy. Papers that examine traditional substantive topical areas are also welcomed. All interested individuals are invited to submit formal papers, informal discussion topics, open refereed roundtables, open informal discussion roundtables, poster topics, and proposals for organized sessions (including: Regular Topical Sessions, Author Meets Critics, Regional Spotlight Sessions, Thematic Sessions, Poster Sessions, and Workshops). All submissions must be made on an ABS Submission Form to be considered. The form may be returned in pdf or Microsoft Word. Those persons interested in submitting papers and/or organizing a session should submit requests on the appropriate form via email to: Earl Wright II, 2012 Program Chair, at [email protected]. ALL Presenters, Discussants, and Session Organizers must be current members of ABS and must register by the early registration deadline of March 31, 2011 for final acceptance in order to be included in the final program. The deadline for submissions is March 2, 2011. Requests submitted after this deadline will not be included in the final program. Other registration information, payment forms, and on-line payment options will be available via the ABS website in December.

“Embracing the Past, Impacting the Future:

(Re)Establishing a Commitment to the Tradition of Black Sociology”

5

Embracing the Past, Impacting the Future:

(Re)Establishing a Commitment to the Tradition of Black Sociology

August 16-18, 2012 Denver, Colorado

Presentation Submission Form A submission form must be provided for each individual abstract, roundtable, or poster presentation. If you are proposing an entire session, panel, or roundtable, a single submission form should be submitted. Submission Type: _______ Individual Session Presentation _______Individual Poster Presentation _______ Individual Roundtable Presentation _______Entire Session (4-5 persons) _______ Entire Panel (4-5 persons) _______Entire Roundtable (4-5 persons) Provide the name, contact information (affiliation, organization/company, state), and e-mail address for each presenter: Primary Presenter ____________________________________________________________________________ Co-presenter(s) ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ Note: The primary presenter is responsible for submitting the abstract, coordinating co-presenters, and insuring that session/panel/roundtable members submit the appropriate dues and registration fees by the early registration deadline. Presenters are responsible for providing their own laptops and handout copies. Presentation, Session, Panel, or Poster Title: Abstract (provide below or attach to this form - 250 character limit) Presentation Details: Will the presentation include PowerPoint? Yes _________ No _________ Will you bring an LCD machine? Yes _________ No _________ Submit this form to Earl Wright II at [email protected]

6

A Griot Forum

Crossroads in Black Progressive Thought Reflections on Cornel West‟s Critique of the Obama Administration

An Introduction Philip Kretsedemas, UMass-Boston

This forum was inspired by an ABS Discourse listserv discussion that occurred several months ago, concerning Cornel West‘s criticism of President Obama.1 As many ABS‘ers are probably aware, West raised questions about the progressive credentials of the Obama administration, about the administration‘s silence on the economic situation of black/African American populations as well as launching into some controversial statements about the cultural authenticity of President Obama. A great deal has happened since Cornel West went public with his criticism. We‘ve witnessed the wrangling over the debt crisis, the shootings in Oslo, riots in the UK and anxieties over Hurricane Irene. And most recently, President Obama unveiled a new $300 billion jobs plan. If this jobs plan had been unveiled several months ago, it is possible that some of the contributors to this forum may have pitched their argument a bit differently. But it is also likely that none of the underlying concerns and differences that are expressed by all of these essays would have been substantially altered.

1 For coverage see; http://www.theroot.com/buzz/cornel-west-fall-out-over-his-obama-comments-continue http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/the_obama_deception_why_cornel_west_went_ballistic_20110516/ http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2011/05/west_obama_a_bl.html ; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4M4uBdrI_s

Even though they are commenting on a rather ephemeral incident (as is the nature of all news), all of these essays tackle issues that run much deeper than the incident itself. As the contributors point out, Cornel West‘s critique raises lots of questions about where black progressive politics is today, about what sort of action is needed to improve the situation of black/African American populations, about how to go about building and strengthening progressive constituencies (and how these constituencies can best influence the policies of Democratic presidencies), and about how to go about raising these issues in the public sphere. We cannot hope to resolve all of these issues in the following pages. But we do hope that this forum will be received as an earnest (even if imperfect) attempt at initiating an open discussion about them. ABS members may recall that similar issues were explored in The Griot‘s November 2010 interview with the late Ronald Walters. This forum can be regarded as an attempt to continue the discussion that was initiated by that interview.

It also bears noting that this forum is just one example of the sort of discussions that can be facilitated by The Griot. If you have ideas for other topics that you think would be suitable for The Griot (and would be willing to help me recruit writers) please email me at [email protected]. Ultimately, the content of The Griot reflects the sorts of things that ABS members want to write about. This special issue, for example, couldn‘t have happened without the willingness of all of the contributors to weigh-in on a complex and controversial topic. I am deeply appreciative of their generosity of spirit (since there isn‘t much reward for doing this kind of writing in the way of formal, professional recognition). I also appreciate that the contributors represent a broad spectrum of the ABS membership; including former ABS presidents, new and long time ABS members, scholar-activists, doctoral candidates and junior and senior-level faculty. My apologies go out to those ABS members who would have liked to write a

7

commentary but weren‘t asked. In the interest of keeping this issue to a manageable length, only people who posted to the original listserv discussion were invited to write. But if you feel inspired to write a response to any of the issues raised herein, please feel free to send something to me for the November 2011 Griot (by November 1st at the very latest).

Wading into the Controversy One of the thorniest issues that this controversy raises is whether it even should be discussed in the first place. It‘s not uncommon for progressives to bemoan all the time and energy that goes into these sorts of discussions (while, at the same, continuing to participate in them). The general idea is that we should be doing something more constructive than criticizing and expecting the Democratic establishment to be something it‘s not.

There is definitely something of value in these sentiments. If you want Democratic presidents to take a stronger progressive stance, it only makes sense that you have to build stronger progressive constituencies. But it‘s also possible to see how discussions about contentious issues are a necessary part of this process. These are precisely the sorts of discussions that can be used to clarify the priorities of this stronger progressive constituency that everyone seems to want.

Of course, these discussions come with their own unique set of challenges. The most obvious challenge that they pose has to do with the substantive policy and political issues that they raise. But there is another challenge which is no less important. This second challenge concerns the ethics of the discussion event itself—having to do with the way we position our claims and engage others.

For example, we should reflect on the way we express our concerns (raising issues without demonizing the other side—keeping in mind that, at some basic level, we should all still be on the same side). But we should also not try to kill the discussion in the name of unity. We need to be civil, but we shouldn‘t let our concern for civility become a device for censoring public

discourse. If we‘ve reached a point where open disagreements about important political matters have become too uncivil for our tastes, then we‘re in a sorry state indeed.

All of these issues are pertinent to Cornel West‘s criticism of the Obama administration. Even though many people disagreed with the substance of West‘s critique, much of the critical response took issue with the language that he used. In this regard, the main concern wasn‘t West‘s politics but the highly personalized nature of his critique—which seemed to attack President Obama as an individual—making derogatory insinuations about his personal character and cultural upbringing.

It bears noting, however, that the critical response to West‘s commentary has also been rather personal. Some of these critiques seem to be more concerned with de-legitimizing West as a public intellectual instead of grappling with the substantive issues that he was trying to raise.

This forum, on the other hand, is premised on the idea that we must be able to talk about the issues raised by Cornel West. There are reasons to be concerned about the way that West framed his critique. But West also made some important points about the marginalization of progressive perspectives (and especially of black progressive voices) within mainstream Democratic politics that should not be lightly dismissed. The contributors are fairly evenly divided in their approach to these issues. About half of the contributors have focused on the way that West framed his critique of President Obama (explaining how West‘s language undermined the argument he was trying to make). The rest of the contributors pay more attention to the broader political and policy context. This latter group of essays is not exclusively focused on defending West‘s political position (even though all these essays are sympathetic to West‘s basic arguments). Their common denominator, however, is an interest in describing the historical and political context that explains West‘s frustrations. And instead of focusing on the personal dimension of West‘s critique, they situate it

8

within a broader legacy of black progressive thought and activism

One irony of West‘s critique, however, is that even though it lays claim to a long tradition of black political activism, it is out of step with mainstream, black public opinion. President Obama‘s approval ratings have slipped a bit, but he still enjoys strong support (hovering at about 85 percent) among black/African American voters.

So Cornel West may be on the side of black solidarity but—at least, in this instance—black solidarity is not on the side of Cornel West. Irrespective of their personal misgivings with some of the policy positions of the Obama administration—most black voters still think positively of President Obama and a great many of these voters are probably going to sympathize with ―Obama‘s side‖ in the West/Obama melodrama.

Another irony of West‘s critique is that it sheds light on frustrations that have become widely shared among white and Latino voters—not black voters.2 Many black people (and especially the youth) still see the election of President Obama as a sign that better things lie ahead. But other Democrats (and borderline Democrats) who are feeling the economic crunch may not be as buoyed by the racial symbolism of having an African American President. When the next election cycle comes around, they will be looking at their pocket books, the (un)employment rate and living conditions in their local communities. And unfortunately, they‘re not going to judge the Obama administration relative to what other administrations have done over the last few decades. They‘re going to judge it relative to the changes (or lack thereof) that they see on the ground in their daily lives.

So it bears noting that the complaints that West has raised are not specific to the African American community. And in any event, the situation in low income, black/African American

2 See this recent Huffington Post article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/19/obama-liberals-unions-latinos_n_931667.html?icid=main%7Ccompaq-desktop%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%7C222467

communities is just a more extreme version of the situation that exists across the US. It‘s only because of the history of US racism that this continuity can be obscured by pundits who treat ―black issues‖ as if they are completely outside the scope of reasonable, public discourse. Aldon Morris sums up this dilemma in his opening essay when he asks, ―Is not Black America a part of America?‖ Morris uses his discussion to counter many of the arguments that have been used to silence black people who have raised questions about the Obama administration‘s policy platform. Morris sympathizes with the concerns raised by Cornel West, but his argument is not just a defense of what West had to say. It is also about the right to raise questions of one‘s political leaders and to advocate for the interests of black communities in the public sphere.

This would appear to be a basic right that any citizen of a liberal, democratic society should be able to freely exercise (as evidenced by the unruly antics of the Tea Parties). But due to the racial double-standard that runs through the heart of US democracy this—of course—has never really been the case. Black political discourse (not to mention social movements) has more often been viewed as a threat to civil society and not an expression of the very same values and ideals cherished by other citizens and residents Morris‘s essay demonstrates that the struggle to claim the right-to-speak is still an issue for black political commentators. This is not a dilemma that is unique to the Obama era, but the world-historical significance of the Obama Presidency certainly adds a new twist on this dilemma. Who‘s Black?

Robert Newby‘s essay tackles these issues from a different perspective—offering a counterpoint to the views of Aldon Morris. Newby‘s commentary explains how the language used by West contributes to the same vitriolic political climate that has been created by rhetoric of the Tea Party and conservative media pundits.

Newby challenges the validity of Cornel West‘s critique, but he also takes

9

issue with the language that Cornel West used to criticize President Obama. Newby argues that black intellectuals should be more careful about the way they express their views in public—and be especially mindful of the way that these critiques can be exploited by the administration‘s adversaries. According to Newby, West allowed his principled critique to devolve into a laundry list of personal slights that ended up becoming fodder for the mainstream media. In the process, West undermined his own position as well as undermining public respect for the Office of the President.

The next two essays by Korie Edwards and Jolyon Wurr take a closer look at some of the issues raised by Newby‘s commentary. Both essays explore the limitations of West‘s critique by situating his language (and assumptions) within an analysis of US politics and racial discourse. Edwards argues that West‘s analysis of Obama has become entangled within the very same racist and sexist political culture that he wants to dismantle. Edwards points out that there are a number of unsettling continuities between the words that West used to describe President Obama and the racist stereotypes that have been historically used to stigmatize black males. Irrespective of West‘s political standpoint, Edwards argues that his language still resonates with the coded racist discourse used by the likes of Donald Trump. In this regard, the most dangerous thing about West‘s commentary is that it has the potential to validate these stereotypes for a mainstream audience, precisely because it is being voiced by a respected black, left-wing intellectual.

Wurr‘s analysis is more focused on dissecting the very idea of the Obama/West dichotomy—treating it as a mass media construct which has been fueled by West‘s own commentary. He goes on to argue that West‘s sense of being betrayed by Obama the neoliberal was conditioned by West‘s imaginary construction of Obama as a progressive. It bears noting that this expectation wasn‘t completely imaginary (if one studies the content of Barack Obama‘s campaign speeches, his vote against the Iraq war, and his left-liberal voting record as a Senator). Even so, Wurr points to

compelling evidence that Obama‘s ties to the neoliberal intelligentsia were there all along.

Where To From Here? The next two essays by Mark Christian and Thomas Volscho re-direct the discussion to the issues that were raised by Aldon Morris. They pay more attention to the reasons why West is frustrated with the Obama administration—drawing attention to a pattern of policy decisions which reflects the ideological influence of economic elites. Both writers make the point that these disappointments are not unique to the Obama administration. Volscho points out, for example, that Bill Clinton eventually became a ―white mascot‖ for Wall Street and Christian acknowledges that Obama‘s politics of compromise is, in part, an attempt to maneuver through barriers that would have obstructed any black person who was elected to the Presidency. Even so, both writers pay more attention to the value of West‘s commentary than its limitations. These two essays also demonstrate that critique is not a substitute for meaningful action.

Their analyses of the Obama administration operate as a remapping of the recent history of black politics, the neoliberal policy regime and the Presidency. Although they acknowledge the constraints that the President operates under, they also warn against becoming acclimated to these constraints. The point of critique, from this vantage point, is not to denounce and paralyze—but to find a way to move forward. The final two essays by Kristine Wright and Anthony Browne venture further into this territory. They both grapple with the question, ―What kind of action is required at this time?‖ Notably, the prior two essays (by Christian and Volscho) end with an appeal for more decisive action on the part of the Obama administration (which would appear to have been answered—at least in part—by the recent unveiling of the President‘s jobs plan).

10

Kristine Wright, however, takes issue with these kinds of appeals. She points out that any long term strategy for improving the situation of black people is going to have to come from the bottom up and not from the top down. She calls for a renewed commitment, on the part of all people, to grassroots mobilization that is oriented toward effecting change at the community level. Anthony Browne makes a similar argument, but he takes it in a somewhat different direction. Wright positions her politics of grassroots mobilization as a third way that eschews the critical mindset of Cornel West and the insider politics of Al Sharpton. Browne, on the other hand, challenges the idea that community activism, political critique and being supportive of Democratic presidencies are mutually exclusive things. Basically, he reminds us that it‘s possible to walk and chew gum at the same time—and for evidence he points to a long legacy of black political activism. Browne‘s essay opens up a different way of thinking about the critiques that progressives have levied at the Obama administration. Obviously, the 2012 elections will be important. But it‘s also possible to support the Obama administration‘s re-election campaign, while holding the administration accountable to the interests of black/African American communities and continuing to build stronger progressive constituencies.

Browne‘s essay also implicitly challenges the idea that criticism of the Obama administration will necessarily discourage its grassroots base. If this criticism is used to refocus the Democratic party‘s attention on the concerns of its constituents (and especially, of black/African American communities), it would not be a bad thing at all. As Browne reminds us, no one gets federal policy makers to take their interests seriously until they start speaking up for themselves.

If, on the other hand, we get intimidated by the concerns that people voice as they get more involved in progressive politics, then we may end up heading down a different path. Discussions like the one hosted by this forum become

nuisances. We allow progressive constituencies to be perceived as problems that have to be de-mobilized instead of being energized. This is also the context in which ideas about black solidarity can become complicit in their own self-censorship.

The end result is a more acquiescent Democratic electorate, which isn‘t going to do much of anything on its own volition. If this is what we end up with, the Obama administration will find itself struggling, once more, to implement its policy agenda with little active grassroots support—leading to the same predictable outcome, in which progressive ideas are shunted to the margins of the mainstream policy debate. As Anthony Browne and Kristine Wright point out, if this happens it will ultimately be our fault.

Obama: To Criticize or Not to Criticize, That is the Question Aldon Morris, Northwestern University

The 2008 election of Barack Obama

as President of the United States electrified Black Americans. We cried that historic night when it became clear Obama actually won. Incredibly, Obama had prevailed in the land that held Blacks in captivity over two centuries followed by another century of crippling Jim Crow. A major frame break ensued when Obama, his stately wife Michelle, and two beautiful daughters mounted the stage in Chicago where Obama accepted his historic victory. Those Black tears that flowed represented the unfolding of a triumphant dream wherein jubilee had finally arrived soothing the scars of disrespect borne by a downtrodden people. Now with a Black President all seemed possible; surely the business of the nation would be conducted differently. A sense of pride punctuated the air. The President has been in office for two and a half years. Cold realities have dimmed the jubilation of election night. Although Blacks have reaped bountiful symbolic rewards from Obama gracing the White House, few have experienced

11

concrete material gains. In many respects, Blacks—especially the working class and poor—have actually seen conditions worsen since Obama took office. The black/white wealth gap has widened; unemployment, especially among poor inner city Blacks, has risen to alarming proportions; the home foreclosure crisis has hit the Black community with a fierce disproportionate force; public education has deteriorated drastically; and poor Black and Brown communities continue to be devastated by crime. The murder of young people is now commonplace, even just a few blocks from Obama‘s Chicago mansion and the stately White House he occupies. There are complicated reasons why Black scholars have been reluctant to criticize Obama‘s Administration. Without doubt Black and minority communities are hurting even while the occupant of the Oval Office is African American. Yet, Obama did not create these problems bedeviling Black America. Additionally, American presidents are not all powerful in a world significantly controlled by multi-national corporations and wealthy classes. Moreover, Obama is confronted with a problem his forty three predecessors never faced: racism. Obama‘s power is curtailed by racism and his racist enemies lay in wait to destroy him. This combination of problems creates a toxic atmosphere that causes Blacks to question the wisdom of publicly criticizing Obama. This situation is especially befuddling for Black scholars who are supposed to study reality and expose the inner workings of social inequality. But most Black scholars, including sociologists, have remained silent rather than criticize the president. This silence was shattered recently when Cornel West, the famous Black philosopher, went public with passionate, searing, criticisms of Obama. For many Black scholars, West committed an unforgivable sin by publicly attacking Obama. I wish to defend West‘s right to criticize Obama‘s presidency because the duty of critical scholars is to question power despite politics or its skin complexion. In so doing, I unequivocally maintain that such critiques should be scrupulously respectful given the high office and unique circumstances surrounding the first Black

president. Hence West‘s name calling and personal slights were unfortunate and undermined the legitimacy of an otherwise powerful critique. Criticisms of West surfaced shallow reasons given by Black scholars opposed to criticizing Obama‘s presidency. The leading objection is that Obama is president of all Americans, not just Black Americans. Yet, is not Black America a part of America? Is not Black America a crucial voting constituency without whose support no Democratic president, including Obama, could win the White House? This position that Obama cannot pay targeted attention to Blacks who have endured historic targeted discrimination smacks of an inferiority complex.

Centuries of oppression may cause a people to think themselves unworthy, even in comparison with their historic oppressors. This stance is consistent with the claim that Blacks should ask nothing of a Black President because it is their responsibility to address their own problems. A closely allied view is that the president is a mere figure head lacking real power. Yet, this idea is inconsistent with the reason Black tears flowed abundantly on election night. They flowed because we thought a Black president would initiate desperately needed changes. Given Obama‘s presidency, there should be renewed interest in conducting studies to determine the actual power residing in the presidency. But it is naïve to conclude the presidency irrelevant the moment a Black person occupies the Oval Office. Another smoke screen is the claim that the president‘s performance should not be questioned on basis of his personal background. Thus, a hypothesis that Obama may be less identified with Black interests because of his early socialization in a white environment is automatically ruled out of consideration. Yet, why does it appear that Obama seldom discusses Blacks and race inequality, appoints precious few Blacks to visible positions and includes few in his inner circle?

Is it possible that Obama might see race differently had he been raised by African American parents, grew up in the inner city and attended an HBCU? The

12

relevancy of such a socialization hypothesis is consistent with basic sociology. That is, one‘s primary group and socialization experiences are crucial in shaping one‘s propensities and comfort levels. Ironically, most Black sociologists entertain the hypothesis that important cultural differences exist between lower and upper class Blacks which shape their views regarding mobility and inequality. Yet, no such hypothesis is permissible in evaluating Obama performance as president. Another measure preventing criticisms of the Obama presidency is the labeling of critics as jealous of Obama, especially Black men who are argued to suffer from the ―Jesse Jackson pissing contest‖ complex. Because many Black academics work on and live near predominantly white campuses, it is claimed they are unfit to critique Obama because they are elitist and mere spinners of abstract ivory tower knowledge. This claim is an ad hominem attack when it is not accompanied by a thorough and logical examination of the criticisms offered. Moreover, it represents the historic black anti-intellectual strand within Black culture characteristic of Washington‘s Bookerites and some preachers who dismiss Black intellectuals as irrelevant egg heads. Criticisms should stand or fall on merit, not personal attacks. Finally, there is the claim that the Black President should not endure criticisms by Blacks because they will be used by right wing forces out to destroy Obama. Even though reactionary forces will always invent reasons to get Obama, we should be mindful that criticisms by Blacks will be used by them to assist in achieving this end. Yet, Black silence runs counter to a higher principle. In a democracy criticism is crucial to ensuring the exercise of fair and equitable governance. Criticisms are even more important for the politically weak who must make their interests known to have a chance of placing them on the competitive agenda of a capitalistic society. This is especially true when the society is conditioned by race, class and gender inequalities. Again, such criticisms should be respectful and constructive. Moreover, they should always contain a critique of

those forces scurrying to misuse their messages to benefit false Gods. We are in Cornel West‘s debt for boldly critiquing our first Black president. Rather than rendering him a pariah, we should follow his lead by carefully dissecting his claims that the Obama Administration has privileged capitalist interests over workers, whites over Blacks and imperialistic wars over the equitable distribution of the world's resources.

We should learn from West‘s mistakes while unswervingly directing our attention to cultural and structural barriers blocking the realization of interests paramount to our survival. In so doing, we should never forget that Black scholars, including West and Black sociologists, occupy privileged spaces that can bias judgment and cast doubt on any essentialist claims of Black authenticity. Our criticisms should be subjected to the same scrutiny we apply to Obama and those who feel he is above criticism. Yet, we must embrace the courage to speak truth to power insofar as that truth can be rigorously ascertained.

Cornel West vs. the President: When Intellect and Political Acumen Meets Performance Art as Entertainment Robert Newby, Central Michigan University

Professor Cornel West‘s criticism of President Obama as a ―black mascot‖ for the ―Wall Street oligarchs and corporate plutocrats‖ who is afraid of ―free black men‖ was personal, petty, offensive and not befitting of someone of Dr. West‘s stature. As a well-established leading black public intellectual, his words carry some weight. His critiques of imperialism on behalf of the dispossessed fit very well with an anti-capitalist, anti-racist, progressive left—a left that tends toward an ideologically pure set of standards. His credentials elevate him to a rare level of certitude when it comes to matters of race, or ―Race Matters.‖ Because of his stature as a public intellectual, it is

13

even more critical that he be held accountable for contributing to the Tea Party, white nationalist‘s politics of de-legitimization of the President. West is aiding and abetting the white nationalist opposition to the President and what Ishmael Reed refers to as the Jim Crow Media. First and foremost, we are talking about the President of the United States, the world‘s most powerful head of state. Moreover, to be the first African American to be so elected reflects an epochal achievement for President Obama, in particular, and for African Americans, as a people, more generally. From a long history of being excluded from citizenship, to being the nation‘s Top Citizen, has put a new face on America and what has historically been a white nation. For a majority of whites, however, the President does not represent the America they have always known. As a consequence, it was not long before there was a movement ―to take our country back,‖ resulting in the birth of the Tea Parties. The Tea Parties‘ reaction to the Affordable Healthcare Act shows how respect for the ―office of the presidency‖ has been voided and replaced by racist depictions of President Obama. The respect due to the office was nullified because of its occupant. The racism of the Tea Parties is vicious, to the point of picturing the President of the United States as an African witch doctor with a bone through his nose. Such presentations of African Americans had not been seen since the 1960s when the white supremacist South was attempting to maintain Jim Crow. Their goal is to delegitimize the president, no matter his accomplishments. The vitriol has been so extreme in its demeaning attacks on the President that it took William Thomas, a Canadian writer, to remind us that: ―America – He‘s Your President for Goodness Sake!‖ He went on to say: There was a time not so long ago when Americans, regardless of their political stripes, rallied round their president. Once elected, the man who won the White House was no longer viewed as a Republican or Democrat, but the

President of the United States. The oath of office was taken, the wagons were circled around the country‘s borders and it was America versus the rest of the world with the president of all the people at the helm.

Rather than respect the office of the presidency, America‘s racist right is committed to demeaning and delegitimizing the President, thereby undermining his programs and his ability to govern. It is in this context that Professor West‘s remarks, showing such disrespect for the President and the presidency, must be understood. By calling the President a ―black mascot‖ for Wall Street, he seeks to delegitimize the President in the eyes of America, in general, and African Americans, in particular. This is in direct contradiction to the high regard the President is held among African Americans. Even at this moment when there is grave angst about the economy and what the President should do about it, his approval rating among African Americans is above 80%. Because he is president, Ellis Cose, in his book The End of Anger, finds that African Americans feel more positive about their lives. Even in the face of this popularity among African Americans, the basis of West‘s complaint about the President is that he is not ―Malcolm‖ or ―Martin.‖ Or stated otherwise, West is raising the question about whether the President is black enough? Or radical enough? Is that the level of sophistication we are dealing with here? Is there an expectation that we should be equating the elected President of a majority white United States with that of ―outsider‖ social movement, charismatic leaders? Not only do the demeaning characterizations raise questions about the President‘s blackness, Professor West is belittling the President for not being more openly anti-capitalist. This President, like every other U. S. President, has his ―obligations‖ to the ―free market‖ economy. Professor West claims to be upset because the President has not sought his advice. Given his deeply held anti-imperialist intellectualism, it would be curious to understand how his advice would enhance the president‘s ability to govern. On the

14

night of the November 8, 2008 election, President-Elect Obama reminded all that he would be president ―of even those Americans who did not vote for him.‖ Like it or not, open anti-imperialism has no place in the White House. This brings us to a very important question: What do Rush Limbaugh, Mitch McConnell and Cornel West have in common? On November 9, 2008, Rush Limbaugh, the number one voice of the white nationalist right wing declared, ―I want Obama to fail!‖ Along with Fox News and right wing radio, the major shapers of white thought, Limbaugh makes it his mission to convince white nationalist America that President Barack Obama is an evil, socialist Kenyan force that must be defeated. To further ―blacken‖ Obama, he demonizes the national health care policy by labelling it ―Obamacare‖ and calling the program, reparations for black people. Clearly, Limbaugh is committed to fulfill his goal to make Obama a one-term president. Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell went to the Heritage Foundation to embrace Limbaugh‘s position of wanting Obama to fail, to make him a one-term president. As Senate Majority Leader he has used the power of his position to filibuster a record 200+ times. The obstructionist Republican power in the Senate has done everything in its power to make sure the Obama presidency fails. Specifically, the Senate leader‘s avowed goal is to make Obama a one-term president. Unlike Limbaugh and McConnell whose aim is to maintain a white nationalist hegemony, West wants to undermine the President for personal reasons, primarily, even though he frames his attack on the President as ideology. Dr. West made his scurrilous attack on the President in an interview with Christopher Hedges, an anti-fascist author/activist. Needing to make his point with the white left, he relied on an anti-capitalist challenge to frame his critique of the President. In that interview, West poured out the issues and personal slights he had been subjected to by the President. But it took ―The Root,‖ a black Web site, and his former African American Studies colleague at Princeton, Melissa Harris-Perry, to reveal that the ideological

attack was very much rooted in personal jealousies. Among the many instances in which West felt the President had slighted him was that while he did not get a ticket to the inauguration, the bellhop who had carried his bags had tickets. It is this same personal vendetta that led Professor West be wedded to Tavis Smiley. Like West, rather than being a supporter of the President, Smiley has wanted to ―hold the President accountable‖ as he pimps a Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. movement ideology. This estrangement between Smiley and the President began during the 2008 campaign. To begin his accountability test Tavis Smiley invited Obama and Hillary Clinton to be on his Summit with Black America. Hillary needed to appear to court the black vote. Obama volunteered to send Michelle. That was not good enough. Smiley wanted to hold Obama accountable to his black community. In reaction to the question as to whether America was ready for a black president, he argued that ―America was ready for a black president but maybe not this president.‖ As indicated by his scathing, disrespectful attacks—under the guise that the president is not doing enough for Black America—West, in concert with Tavis Smiley, has been organizing in opposition to the President. With the claim that the President was wrong to compromise in order to get the debt-ceiling raised, they are doing a multi-city tour to raise the issue of poverty. According to Steve Harvey, West and Smiley are themselves ―Uncle Toms‖ for attacking the President. Their politics are the politics of defeat for the President, for personal reasons. They are a mockery as far as much of the black community is concerned. In the case of Tavis Smiley, rather than being concerned about the black poor, he was a major advocate for Wells Fargo‘s sub-prime loans. West, on the other hand, rather than helping the poor, is reputed to charge in excess of $30,000 for speaking fees. Yet, for this President who has done so much for the nation toward a progressive agenda (e.g., having passed national health care, saving the auto industry, stopping the hemorrhaging of jobs from the U.S., saving the nation from default, etc.), their attack is

15

a distraction that must be denounced as serving the same ends as the right wing‘s program to make the President a one-term president. West owes the President, the nation and the black community an apology. In a nutshell, the problem is that rather than performance art for the sake of entertainment, as is the case of West and Smiley, President Obama is using his intellect and political acumen to govern a troubled and divided nation.

Dr. Cornel West Trips Over White Supremacy

Korie L. Edwards, The Ohio State University Author of The Elusive Dream: The Power of Race in Interracial Churches.

Dr. Cornel West became a media

focal point as a result of his recent criticisms of President Barack Obama. The criticisms which have received the greatest attention come from an interview West conducted with the online political blog, truthdig.com. In this interview, West‘s central critique is that President Obama does not care for the poor and working classes, as evidenced by his policies and political appointments. While I am in some ways sympathetic to West‘s general criticism that President Obama must pay more attention to the poor and working classes, West‘s claims can be antithetical, ahistorical and astructural. I first address the core of West‘s criticisms of President Obama‘s policies. I then address how he presents his criticisms which, in my view, can have dire implications for the national discourse on race. Before I turn to the crux of West‘s criticism, I examine one of his key assumptions. In his truthdig.com interview West calls President Obama ―a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats.‖ Implicit in this criticism is that President Obama has the authority to challenge the existing power structure—what West calls a Wall Street oligarchy and plutocracy—but chooses not to. Now this claim is inherently contradictory.

In a true oligarchy or plutocracy, power is consolidated within a very small aggregate of people, in this case the super wealthy. If American society is actually run by Wall Street oligarchs and plutocrats, then no politician who is not a member of this small class of people—regardless of his or her race—would be able to destabilize the existing social structure that favors the wealthy. By definition, the presidency in a Wall Street oligarchy or plutocratic government is a powerless position unless it is filled by a member of the oligarchic or plutocratic class. I do not disagree with West that America has oligarchic and plutocratic tendencies. Rather, I disagree with the premise of his argument. West is attempting to have it both ways. He wants to lay blame at the feet of President Obama for the government not doing more for poor and working people. But he also claims that we live in a society run by super wealthy financiers and business people. Either we do not live in a Wall Street oligarchy and plutocracy and President Obama has complete agency, fully embodies the role of president and makes independent decisions, in which case, criticism of his actions and positions towards and about the poor and working classes are warranted. Or, we do live in a Wall Street oligarchy and plutocracy, in which case any criticisms of social policies and their impact on the poor and working classes ought to be directed at persons and entities who are members of that ruling class—not a president, especially one like President Obama who is not and never has been a member of that class. It is true that many of the pieces of legislation President Obama has signed have not been explicitly directed at helping the poor and working classes. For example, some economists claim that the Dodd-Frank Reform and Consumer Protection Act does not sufficiently chastise Wall Street or help Main Street. I am most concerned about the direction of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and now Libya, and their disproportionate effect on the lives of those who are disadvantaged in our society, the poor and working classes and people of color. However, West‘s assertion that

16

Obama is ignoring the poor and working people is an overstatement. Several of President Obama‘s signature pieces of legislation have targeted poor and working class people. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, for example, disproportionately targets populations most affected by the Great Recession. As Dr. Larry Bobo highlights, it expands aid to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (aka food stamps program), the Head Start and Early Head Start programs (another program aiding children of poor families), expands unemployment benefits, and funnels aid to disadvantaged neighborhoods.1 There is also the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act which makes it more difficult for credit card companies to exploit their customers. This law will have a greater impact on the lives of the poor and working classes and people of color who, research shows, are the most likely victims of credit card company abuses.2 Then there is the landmark Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obama‘s massive healthcare legislation) which will expand Medicaid eligibility to about 21 million poor and lower income people. With the new healthcare law, people who make up to 133% of the federal poverty guidelines (this is, for example, an annual income of about $14,500 for a single adult and an annual income of about $29,700 for a family of four) will become eligible for Medicaid in 2014. The other 20 plus million people that the health care law targets are more squarely working class. Single adults with an annual income of about $43,000 and families of four with annual incomes of about $88,000 will have access to subsidized health insurance come 2014.3

1 Bobo, Lawrence. 2010. ―Obama and the Great Progressive

Disconnect.‖ Pathways.

2 Devah Pager and Hana Shepherd. 2008. ―The Sociology of Discrimination: Racial Discrimination in Employment, Housing, Credit, and Consumer Markets.‖ Annual Review of Sociology 34:181-209. 3http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Blog/How-

the-Affordable-Care-Act-of-2010.aspx

No doubt all three of these policies will help women and people of color since these groups are disproportionately poor and working class in this country. The landmark pieces of legislation passed during President Obama‘s administration that provide aid to poor and working people are some of the most impactful in decades.4 We must recall that these bills were passed in a context of staunch and entrenched opposition from a growing conservative, far right movement in what has emerged as the Tea Party and virtually no active mobilization (by active, I mean people on the ground organizing, not just critiques) from the left. Indeed, administrations and congresses of the past sixty or so years have been unsuccessful at doing much at all for poor adults, largely because of a lack of successful social organization on behalf of the poor.5 The federal government has actually retreated from helping the poor. One of the most comprehensive laws that aided poor people, especially poor women, was Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) passed during the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration as a part of the ―New Deal.‖ AFDC was abolished in 1996 with the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act during President Bill Clinton‘s administration and replaced by Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF) –which has a five-year lifetime limit on cash assistance for the poor and targets the mythical ―welfare queens.‖ Thus, given the political climate in regards to poor people, the accomplishments of the Obama administration are notable.

While progressives, such as West, most assuredly ought to continue to advance an agenda that fights for the rights of the poorest among us, they do a disservice to the cause for the poor and working classes if in this process they delegitimize the major

4 Alter, Jonathan. 2010. The Promises: President Obama,

Year One. New York: Simon and Schuster.

5 There have been attempts at social organization on behalf of the poor and working classes. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the SCLC were moving in this direction at the time of his assassination.

17

achievements already undertaken. They do this by continually claiming that these achievements are at best not enough or at worst harmful and only helpful to the wealthy class. Acknowledge what has been achieved, provide specific policy solutions for what can be done in the future to further improve the condition of the most disadvantaged in our society, and effectively agitate for change on the ground. Otherwise, there is a risk of creating a vacuum of progressive social policy in the political arena and ultimately surrendering the national discourse on domestic policy to social and political conservatives. It is our civic duty to critique the actions and policies of civil servants in a democratic society. This is how these officials remain accountable. However, West goes beyond mere criticism in his comments and enters into a discourse of racial politics and psychoanalysis. Thus, how West frames his criticisms of President Obama also demands discussion.

As mentioned earlier, in the truthdig.com interview, Dr. West refers to President Obama as ―a black mascot‖ and ―black puppet.‖ Later in the interview West calls President Obama ―a kind of black face of the DLC [Democratic Leadership Council].‖ He also refers to President Obama as a ―friendly face‖ of the American empire. I find the use of this sort of rhetoric, especially when used by a prominent figure like West, to be particularly problematic in a white supremacist society. It is at best derogatory, at worst racist. I come down on the side of racist.

Race is about consolidating power among a particular group who has physical characteristics that fall within a certain phenotypic lexicon. In the white supremacist American context, this means that people who qualify as white are perceived as worthy of power and valuable resources (e.g., income, wealth, education, etc.). It also means that what whites believe and how they act are perceived as normative, valid cultural expressions. People who do not meet the physical criteria for whiteness are framed as racial ―others‖ and thus abnormal and not worthy of any of the power or valuable resources they have. As the unstated yet understood center to

which all groups must adapt, whites are perceived to be the superior group.

There has been an ongoing project of racially ―othering‖ President Obama since before he assumed the presidency. We have the ―birthers‖ and their most well known representative, Donald Trump, who quite explicitly claim that President Obama is not worthy of the presidency because he is not a legitimate American. We have folk at Tea Party rallies carrying large placards depicting President Obama‘s face affixed to the top of a supposed African savage body.

This blatant racist construction harkens as far back as the 17th century when people of African descent were understood to be literal savages and therefore unworthy of even controlling their own bodies. Then there is the portrayal of President Obama as a Hitler-like figure. This is a bizarre association because it equates genocide to advocating healthcare reform or bailing out the American auto companies. Regardless of the tenuousness of this association, the intent is clear—to construct President Obama as evil as Hitler, the most demonized man in modern Western history, and therefore unworthy of the presidency. By using his national platform to construct President Obama as a ―black‖ whatever for whichever group of white people, West has engaged in a project of racial othering of his own that too reinscribes white normativity and reproduces white supremacy, and that ignores the historical potency of past racist constructions of black men. ―Black mascot,‖ ―black puppet‖ and ―black face‖ are all just modern day manifestations of the racist constructions that began to emerge in the early 19th century that demasculinize and infantilize black men. We have ―coon,‖ ―Stepin Fechit,‖ ―sambo,‖ ―buck,‖ ―Uncle Tom,‖ ―Jim Crow,‖ and the list goes on. These caricatures depict black men as 1) lazy, shiftless, crazy, ignorant and good-for-nothing; 2) broad grinned ―darkies‖ singing and dancing for the pleasure of white audiences; 3) violent, uncontrollable oversexed and white-women-loving; or 4) happy, congenial workers performing their duties for the approval and benefit of whites. Up through the early 20th

century, whites portrayed

18

these black male characters in black face. Donald Bugle in his book Toms, Coons, Mulattoes, Mammies and Bucks, says that these racist constructions―[stress black] inferiority….[and] poke at [the black man] by presenting him as either a nitwit or childlike lackey.‖6 West‘s constructions of President Obama as a ―black face‖, ―black mascot‖, and ―black puppet‖ have the same effect as their rhetorical predecessors—they depict a black man, in this case President Obama, as simple, powerless and easily manipulated. Framing any black man in this manner is dangerous because it perpetuates the already effective and easily accessible construction of black men as unworthy and incapable, only relevant when they gladly perform at the behest of whites. West continues his project of racial othering when he attempts to psychoanalyze President Obama. West says: As a young brother who grows up in a white context, brilliant African father, [President Obama‘s] always had to fear being a white man with black skin. All he has known culturally is white. He is just as human as I am, but that is his cultural formation.

West goes on to say that, ―Obama feels most comfortable with upper middle-class white and Jewish men who consider themselves very smart, very savvy and very effective in getting what they want…He‘s got two homes. He has got his family and whatever challenges go on there, and this other home. Larry Summers blows his mind because he‘s so smart. He‘s got Establishment connections. He‘s embracing me. It is this smartness, this truncated brilliance, that titillates and stimulates brother Barack and makes him feel at home. That is very sad for me.‖

According to West, the reason why President Obama behaves and thinks as he does is because he was raised by white people. He is really a white man who just happens to look like a black man. He has to

6 Page 4 in Bogle, Donald 2001. Toms, Coons, Mulattoes,

Mammies and Bucks: An Interpretive History of Blacks in American Films, 4th ed. Continuum International Publishing Group.

navigate ―two homes,‖ his black home life and the upper class white social circles, to which he desperately aspires to be included. This struggle that President Obama supposedly has is sad for West.

Here, West moves on to engage another racist construction of blacks, the ―tragic mulatto.‖ Historically, the tragic mulatto is characterized as a person who struggles to find a place in this world. He or she is often portrayed as having a desperate, almost psychotic aspiration to be accepted by whites to only be summarily rejected by white society and banished to a lifetime of blackness or/and psychological dysfunction.

West‘s analysis of President Obama‘s racial identification is, of course, very thin. It does not account for President Obama‘s choice to live in neighborhoods of color for most of his adult life. It does not account for why President Obama publicly defended the critical race theorist Derrick Bell while a student at Harvard Law School. It does not account for why he chose Reverend Jeremiah Wright as a mentor and attended Wright‘s church for twenty years—a black, middle class church that has as its motto ―Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian.‖

But, none of these biographical details really matter because any such discussion ultimately devolves into back and forth attempts at providing evidence for or against President Obama‘s black authenticity. How do we determine who is authentically black? If both your parents are black and you grew up in white neighborhoods and attended white schools, are you not authentically black? What about if you choose to attend a mainstream state university instead of a Historically Black College or University, are you not authentically black? The problem with a discourse of black authenticity is it is an astructural perspective of race, obscuring the reality of how white supremacy works. The American white supremacist structure does not distribute power and resources to people based upon how authentically black they are. It first distributes power and resources based upon whether or not people are perceived as white by dominant society. A national discourse that distracts from this social fact inadvertently reaffirms the white

19

supremacist structure because it does not challenge the structure‘s foundation, which rests on a belief in white superiority and black—all kinds of black—inferiority.

On a recent episode of the Tavis Smiley television show, West defended his characterizations of President Obama. Unfortunately, even in his defense he draws upon a racist logic, one commonly used to justify other racist depictions of blacks. He says: ―I love mascots. I love puppets. [President Obama] is still a human being…[Black mascot or black puppet] is a put down in terms of the role that he chooses to perform. It isn‘t an attack on his humanity.‖

Essentially, West claims that his characterizations of President Obama are not as bad as some say because they do not detract from President Obama‘s humanity. This logic sounds quite similar to that which many whites engage when explaining the persistent subordinate position of blacks. Whites too have conceded that blacks are human beings. They have for some time now. So, they now justify their privilege relative to blacks with something along the lines of: ―Since blacks are as human as we are and we are doing pretty well, it must be that they choose to work in jobs with low pay and little prestige. They choose to be ‗welfare queens.‘ They choose to be arrested and locked up.‖ Should those who draw on this logic be let off the hook simply because they recognize the humanity of blacks? Of course not.

In the end, by drawing on a legacy of racist constructions used to demasculinize and infantilize black men and then justifying those constructions with a contemporary racist logic, West—w ho brought race to the forefront of popular discourse in the 1990s with his book Race Matters—has fallen victim to the very white racist structure that he claims to be subverting.

I continue to be impressed with Dr. West‘s intellect. I appreciate his important contributions to the fields of race, religion and African American studies. One of the reasons why West‘s scholarly work has been so influential is because it is often located within a historical narrative that is used to elucidate a better understanding of

contemporary macro-level social patterns. Yet, in this recent entree into the political arena, West has forgone these central qualities that made his scholarly work so intellectually provocative and relevant and instead assumed a position that lacks historical and social contexts. It is my sincere hope that West returns to what has made him a prominent scholar. And use his national platform to deconstruct social structures of disadvantage that continue to subjugate the poor and working classes and people of color.

Reflections on Obama/West: Locating the Controversy

By Jolyon Wurr, University of Chicago

The so-called Obama/West controversy exists as an interpersonal dispute mainly via the explicit framing provided by West. Woven within the interpersonal frame are broader issues regarding political goals and tactics. In Venn diagram fashion this frame intersects a long established normative social discourse about the motives, tactics, and manner of criticism of black actors in American social life. While the latter frame includes both inter-racial and intra-racial discourses (including but not limited to the U.S. White and Black communities) of special relevance here is the part of that issue contested mainly within the space constructed by individuals and institutions of black discourse. A few quick clarifying observations about each frame are in order.

Insofar as an Obama/West inter-personal controversy exists we know of it mainly due to the reporting provided by West himself in his now famous interview posted by Chris Hedges on May 16, 2011 in truthdig. West describes the conflict as involving a personal and political betrayal by Obama. We have mainly West‘s interpretive description of public and private affronts—Obama distancing himself from West even while West is vigorously campaigning for Obama, West and his family unable to gain insider tickets to

20

Obama‘s inauguration, and Obama ―cuss[ing] .. out‖ West in a brief quasi public rebuke at an Urban League event.

There is an asymmetry in the dyadic controversy that is structural and, perhaps, also personal. Structurally, West‘s central critique is pitched at Obama who occupies a central place on the national stage. West‘s place on this stage is so far into the wings as to make him invisible to most of the audience. To be sure, the consequence Obama and his political apparatus attach to West‘s role most certainly influences the manner and degree of Obama‘s attention to West. So far, that attention, at least publically, has been minimal but the earlier Obama/Jeremiah Wright controversy provides an example of how strategic contingencies force semi-direct engagement between actors of dramatically disproportionate prominence. Much public discourse involves the question of whether or to what degree West‘s issues are merely personal and without merit as political critique.

That the interpersonal dyadic frame is woven into broader discourses about political tactics is clearly recognized by West. The degree to which West‘s charges engage those broader issues provides some measure of the relevance and efficacy of his tactics. West positions himself to Obama‘s left, a democratic progressive populist to what he sees as Obama‘s neoliberalism. A self described belief in Obama‘s progressive populist leanings informed West‘s decision to commit himself publically and actively to Obama‘s 2008 presidential election.

West notes that ―I have to take some responsibility. I could have been reading into it more than was there. … I was thinking maybe he has at least some progressive populist instincts…‖ In this sense, the Obama/West controversy represents the same tactical question that faces any political actor positioned on the far side from the middle: is it better to join the candidate‘s political coalition and fight an inside strategy to redefine the center, or does such a compromise require abandoning the core commitments necessary for the realization of one‘s political values? My linear metaphor assumes that West‘s politics are closer to the

edges than Obama‘s but it should be noted that many supporters of edge politics believe fervently that they actually represent a majority of ―the people‖ (or in rightist parlance, ―the American people‖) but that this truth has somehow been co-opted, subverted, submerged, marginalized, sold-out (etc.) by the political process.

The bubble of West‘s belief in candidate Obama appears to have been burst even before Obama took office as ―the announcements [of Obama administration appointees] were being made … [and indicated] a centrist, neoliberalist policy.‖ These appointments lead West to the conclusion that Obama was actually a Clintonian centrist and ―a kind of black face‖ for neoliberalism. In forwarding his edge strategy via an arguably ad hominen component that deconstructs the racial identity of the first black president of the U.S., West intersects a longstanding discourse about the motives, tactics, and manner of criticism of black actors in American social life. While that discourse includes both inter-racial and intra-racial versions, West‘s ―blackface‖ metaphor invokes a rhetoric that is of particular poignancy within intra-racial Black discourse space (e.g., as critiqued by Nsenga Burton on May 25 in The Root).

Barack Obama‘s personal, professional, and political biography were all readily available during the presidential campaign and, to this observer, there was nothing in that history that suggested a progressive populist as much as a pragmatic, tactical centrist.

To be sure, his personal socialization evidenced an experiential trajectory remarkable to presidential biography (bi-racial parenthood; significant formative period of life spent living in Indonesia with an Indonesian father figure; a life experienced as a phenotypically ―black man‖ within the context of U.S. racism, etc.). But his coming of age as a political figure occurred as a student at Harvard Law School and then as a faculty member at the University of Chicago, hardly incubators of populist progressivism and, especially at the U of C, places where the neoliberal discourse was and still is a central organizing paradigm to which all others

21

must respond: it would be difficult to emerge without some fairly deep and complicated engagement with such ―neo-liberal‖ thinkers as Richard Posner (who writes a blog with U of C economist Gary Becker), Richard Epstein (a libertarian) and others.

On the ―populism‖ interpretations, one could add the evidence of how little traction Obama achieved when he challenged Bobby Rush in the 2000 democratic congressional primary within a largely black, low to middle income congressional district and was defeated by a two to one margin. Finally, the alacrity with which Obama embraced the right wing American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), abandoning commitment to a just peace for Palestinians in order to neutralize electoral opposition from influential American Jewish organizations that might push centrist Jews to vote Republican, suggested nothing so much as a tactical centrist willing to trade specific social justice commitments in the interests of consolidating an electoral base. Barack Obama‘s background certainly informs his beliefs about social justice and public policy but it also gives him a clear sense of the broad and contentious intellectual, political, and popular terrain within which personal ideals emerge as social outcomes.

It seems reasonable then, to more closely examine the foundation upon which West constructed his short lived belief in Obama‘s democratic progressive populism. In the truthdig interview West argues that he felt ―some progressive populist instincts that could become more manifest [emphasis mine] after the cautious policies of being a senator and working with [Sen. Joe] Lieberman as his mentor.‖ In other words, it appears that West did not base his initial interpretation of Obama on his record as an elected official (a record that began in Illinois State politics, well clear of Joe Lieberman) but rather, that he imbued him with ―progressive, populist instincts.‖ West goes on to explicate the social mechanisms through which he felt Obama‘s ―instincts‖ had been formed. In a manner that will not be unfamiliar to most of us who find ourselves trying to speak intelligently, in the moment, about

personally emotional and extraordinarily complicated issues, West goes on a verbal riff about identity and politics in a way that is broadly speculative, internally contradictory, and strategically explosive.

Jumping between levels of analysis West confounds racial essentialism and social constructionism. He argues that an individual‘s ―cultural formation‖ ―authorizes [their] reality‖ and that the authorizing essentials of Obama‘s cultural formation include maturation within a ―white context‖ in which ―all he has known culturally is white‖ except that his own phenotypic identity includes ―black skin.‖ In a somewhat gratuitous manner, West inserts the fleeting sub-clause ―brilliant African father‖ without directly elaborating, but here we can note that even Obama presents his father‘s social role as fleeting and largely imagined in his autobiography Dreams of My Father.

West‘s remarks read like the angry embarrassment of a scholar of race explaining a momentary, essentialistic infatuation with Obama‘s blackness. The insistent empirics of a presidential campaign and dawning administration seem to have dashed West‘s romantic lapse. His ex post facto apologia deconstructs the idea that individual political ideals and strategies ("instincts" in West's reductionist language) are coherently signaled by phenotype. Up to this point in the Hedges interview West‘s critique implies a profound and thus unpredictably disruptive question: upon what basis can or should the increasingly heterogeneous U.S. population with African bloodlines emerge as a salient political community and what kind of public policy is relevant? Yes, race matters. The real question is how it matters within a field of complexity in which race itself is—West has remembered—an uncertain, contested, and contextually contingent construction.

West‘s riffing apologia shifts level of analysis most abruptly when, in a quasi-Freudian turn, he reduces the argument about how experience and identity inform political goals and strategy to a psychol-ogical assertion that Obama has a fear of black masculinity. In self aggrandizing and patronizing terms West explains that ―dear brother Barack Obama has a certain fear of

22

free black men‖ that makes him, like a ―white brother,‖ so full of fear that he is unable to fully understand what an ―independent black … brother is saying to [him].‖ West then stakes out the essential features informing such a black brother and perhaps (though only incidentally acknowledged) black sister: ―these independent black folk…have a history of slavery, Jim Crow, Jane Crow and so on.‖

West‘s critique has relevance in spite of its internal contradictions and the disingenuousness of his articulation. West well knows that American‘s receive or are denied privileges in relation to the particularities of their phenotype and that people inhabiting African identified phenotypes face unique and deeply destructive modes of discrimination. He also knows that a range of factors connected to the particularities of community embeddedness and social location produce heterogeneity that affects individual and community identity and opportunity. This heterogeneity makes race, as a simple unitary construct, an unpredictable basis upon which to build social policy and, West seems to be embarrassed to remember, political allegiance.

It is beyond the scope of this essay for me to argue this point but in order to give my assertion some specification I‘d raise as one example the issue of how various educational initiatives seek to address the history of U.S. racial oppression—a history of slavery, Jim Crow, Jane Crow and so on—on the basis of unitary definitions of blackness that often privilege (at least in the short term) those structurally the farthest removed from the affects of that oppression (e.g., the children of professionals, those of mixed race parentage, recent African immigrants, etc.). Legitimate points can be made for and against such policies and outcomes. The fundamental point is that those who receive the direct benefits of programs targeted via simple unitary definitions of race are often not the ones whose circumstances justified the formation of the policy.

I do not suggest that West intended to open up such debate or that such a debate will emerge. But again, the context and mechanisms of modern U.S. political

discourse as exemplified by the Jeremiah Wright effect—in which a seemingly peripheral discourse can be promoted to center stage via scurrilous political entrepreneurship—indicates how West‘s perturbed riffing could spark gasoline across a range of discursive locations burning a path of uncertain distance and duration.

The Obama/West controversy so far does not seem to offer the essential elements for such exploitation. Whereas the Wright example could be easily exploited to consolidate fears of Obama‘s ―otherness‖ by anxious frames of racism and anti-Americanism, the Obama/West controversy might actually reassure the same ―independent‖ swing voters who were most anxious about Obama‘s affiliation with Wright.

After all, at a base level, West‘s critique is that Obama is too conservative and unsympathetic to ―victims of slavery‖ (to paraphrase how such a critique might resonate for many independents). Indeed, in the Clinton/Sister Souljah controversy candidate Clinton went out of his way to shape exactly such a reaction, calculating that the advantage raised among southern swing white voters trumped the disadvantage of offending some black and liberal voters. And just as such a strategy consolidated some Clinton support amongst the broad swath of socially conservative black voters, West might have conferred a similar (albeit less potent) gift on Obama: may we call Cornell West an Ivy League middle class elite in blackface?

The Obama/West controversy will probably have little effect on Obama‘s re-election possibilities. To the degree that it has any, that effect is just as likely to be beneficial as disadvantageous. I think West‘s comments were more provocative than systematically coherent. I think his political infatuation and love lost was more romantic than rational. And I think he nevertheless raised issues worthy of careful and reasoned debate, especially within locations of black intellectual discourse.

I don‘t think that such discourse typically has immediate and predictable political outcomes. But I do believe that theoretically and empirically engaged

23

conversation—giving voice to widely palpable but obscured social complexities—is the only way to demystify, humanize, and morally address such issues.

Barack Obama, Cornel West, and the Neoliberal Plutocracy Thomas Volscho, CUNY/College of Staten Island

The presidency of Barack Obama was viewed by some as re-igniting a progressive era in which the trends of rising inequality, state assaults on civil liberties, mass incarceration, endless imperial wars, and perhaps even systemic racism itself would be seriously challenged. By 2011, the dream has become a nightmare. Cornel West, once a fierce and tireless supporter of President Obama described the President as ―a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats. And now he has become head of the American killing machine and is proud of it.‖

This may not be a surprise because America‘s other ―first ‗black‘ president‖ (as named by Toni Morrison) had already learned the rules of the Wall Street-Washington power corridor. In 1992, Bill Clinton and Al Gore‘s run for the White House was framed around their ―Putting People First‖ program. The campaign theme emphasizing jobs, education, and infrastructure investment resonated well with voters reeling from the first ten years of Reaganomics and the 1990-91 recession. Clinton‘s close circle of supporters, however, could be divided into two factions: liberal progressives and Wall Street Plutocrats (Larry Summers, Alice Rivlin, Lloyd Bentsen, and most importantly Robert Rubin to name a few).

Not even two weeks after his inauguration, Clinton, in a meeting with his economic advisors remarked (with blood rushing into his face): ―You mean to tell me that the success of my program and my reelection hinges on the Federal Reserve and a bunch of fucking bond traders?‖ Clinton quickly abandoned his ―Putting

People First‖ campaign promises and embraced an austerity and deficit-reduction agenda. Clinton could have played chicken with Alan Greenspan, but ultimately Greenspan and the Wall Street faction of Clinton‘s administration prevailed.

Economist E. Ray Canterbery in his (2000) book Wall Street Capitalism has written that Alan Greenspan and the bond traders compromised Clinton in ways that Monica Lewinsky could not have. Even more ironic, the Lewinsky scandal may have temporarily saved the Social Security program from further assault by Wall Street. Cornel West‘s comment could be inverted such that Bill Clinton was a ―white‖ mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a ―white‖ puppet of corporate plutocrats who had also become head of the USA‘s imperial killing machine (in its relatively weaker pre-George W. Bush state).

In a June 2007 meeting at a Washington, D.C. ―power lunch‖ spot, Johnny‘s Half Shell, the heads of Lehman, Merrill Lynch, BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns, and a former Federal Reserve Chair, Paul Volcker, were all beaming with joy. They were meeting with a young charismatic freshman Senator from Illinois. While Hillary Clinton may have been supported by a handful of other Wall Street power players, the great fear of the Wall Street establishment was that Hillary might turn her back on them once it became politically possible. Two plausible criteria for elites‘ support of Presidential candidates are electability and controllability. From the perspective of the Wall Street Ruling Class, Hillary Clinton may have been electable, but potentially uncontrollable. Barack Obama seemed to be both electable and controllable. We can interpret his going to the Wall Street Financial Power Elite in summer 2007 to mean that Obama understood the politics of the Wall Street-Washington power corridor very well. Was he just using their support to get elected? The answers seems to be no because he has been ramming their agenda through at a lightning fast pace.

What Obama has been most successful at doing is talking like a progressive but walking like a plutocrat. He talked like a progressive during his 2008

24

campaign but in practice implements and supports policies in accordance with the Wall Street-Military Industrial Complex. Obama‘s key appointments have been drawn heavily from Goldman-Sachs. This is not difficult to understand because his second largest donor in 2008 was Goldman-Sachs. The Wall Street portion of the complex depends directly on bonds while the Military-Industrial Complex is indirectly dependent on the issuance of debt by the state to fund wars. Bonds are issued by governments (and to a lesser extent by corporations) to borrow money. Government bonds (or Treasuries) are auctioned off by only the most sophisticated Wall Street banks.

Thirty years of tax cuts for the rich and defense-driven deficit spending have increased the reliance of the federal (as well as state and local/city governments) on bonds and the array of Wall Street firms that buy and sell them. Keep in mind that the U.S. government bond market is several times larger than the stock market (more than half a trillion per day exchanges hands) and disproportionately owned by the wealthiest fraction of families. Thus, the holders of government debt have a disproportionate amount of power over budget deficits as compared to previous historical eras in which government revenue derived from taxation (giving state managers more power over spending).

Just as Wall Street rose to power throughout the 1980s, the primary justification for the Military Industrial Complex declined when the Cold War came to an end. New phantom enemies such as Osama bin Laden‘s al Qaeda ―network‖ and Saddam Hussein were exaggerated by neoconservatives to drive Pentagon spending (punctuated by 9/11) and the African embassy bombings in 1998. This coincides with the Wall Street neoliberal agenda—more war, more deficits, more bonds. But too many bonds in circulation and their resale value goes down (and so goes the capital gains income of the bondholding class); therefore cut the deficit.

Raise taxes on the rich to cut the deficit? No! Instead, what spending will be cut? The answer is the spending targeted toward the poor , people of color, and even

the European American ―middle class‖ but not the spending that benefits the Plutocrats from Wall Street, the Military Industrial Complex or Big Oil.

In fact—to make the system better for Plutocrats, hold constant the taxation of the poor, working, and middle class and redistribute its benefits to the upper 0.5 percent via subsidies to corporations—defense contractors splurge on military hardware and interest payments on the national debt to Wall Street. Contrary to the racist stereotypes of the welfare queen as women of African descent on welfare (pushed by Ronald Reagan and others) the true Welfare Kings rule Wall Street, Washington, and the Pentagon. They snort cocaine, wear expensive Italian suits, fly corporate jets to golf outings, vacation in the Hamptons, and cannot be bothered to pay taxes. The true test of Obama‘s administration: profits are up and people are down; 393,000 people deported, and 0 bankers prosecuted during the most widespread wave of white collar crime on record.

When a supporter like Cornel West turns 180 degrees against someone, it is very significant. If Cornel West was not speaking the truth, then (neo)liberals like Rahm Emmanuel would not get defensive. Obama is surrounded by men (and some women) from the financial elite and military industrial complex that are routinely telling him what a great job he is doing. Not only this, but post-Presidential Obama will sit on various corporate and banking boards and receive millions per year in speaking fees. This is to be expected and the ranks from which they (Obama‘s appointees) are drawn predict what type of interests his administration will be following. The income and wealth distribution in the USA is concentrated among the top ½ of the richest 1 percent—a level of income inequality not seen since 1928. Since around 1984, Democrats started holding out their hands to corporations for money. This was the nail in the coffin for the liberal-labor alliance and resulted in what Ralph Nader calls a ―two-party dictatorship.‖ Nader himself followed the ―lesser of two evils‖ strategy and supported Democrats for twenty years until 2000 when he decided to

25

run his own White House campaign (with modest expectations).

What contribution will Obama make to black progressive politics? There is no reason to believe Obama will do anything consistent with black progressive politics. Simply because one is of African descent does not necessarily mean that one will carry out policies and initiatives consistent with the interests of black progressives. For instance, Herman Cain, an up and comer in the potential Republican field for 2012 described himself as ―…an American first, black second, and I'm a conservative. So, I'm an ABC."

One might go so far as to analyze the relevance of other people of African descent among the elite (e.g., Condoleezza Rice, Clarence Thomas). J. Edgar Hoover descended from the slave-owning Hoover family of Mississippi and had FBI agents ruthlessly ―investigate‖ anyone discussing his lineage when he was the director of the FBI. One pathway for an American of African descent to make it into America‘s ruling class is by walking in the opposite direction of black progressive politics while paying some strategic lip service to past Jim Crow discrimination because it serves as a useful careerist political asset in a society rampant with colorblind ―racism was only in the past‖ ideology. The election of Obama likely strengthens those sentiments.

So what of Obama? Obama presides over an empire in decline dominated by a Plutocratic class that uses a two-party dictatorship to rule the government. This is the predictable result of a highly organized far-right shift in the USA that has been emerging slowly but steadily since the presidency of Nixon. It includes the militarization of domestic police and a massive incarceration system to prevent everything from the urban rebellions of the early 1960s all the way through the prison riots of the early 1970s. Even civil disobedience has become virtually criminalized. This neo-fascist systemic shift is so extreme that policies championed by the Obama administration appear downright conservative compared to some of the policies put forth by the Reagan administration. Writing for the Black Agenda Report, Paul Street characterized

Obama‘s administration as ―…deeply conservative and…a standard business-and white-friendly, military-imperial, centrist on the model of Richard Nixon, George (H.W.) Bush, or Bill Clinton.‖ Ignoring all personal rifts between Obama and Cornel West, Professor West has made a valid and legitimate critique of Barack Obama‘s administration. Such a concern had already been raised in the months before and after the 2008 election on the ABS Discourse Listserv. The concern was with how Obama would approach racial oppression. One sociologist (a seasoned Civil Rights leader) responded, on November 5, 2008: ―Barack seems to know how to maintain his equanimity under duress, and you should pull back and do the same.‖ A critic countered ―I am confident that if King were alive Obama would have a major headache to deal with as a militant and radical King pressed him to go beyond his political re-election comfort zone under an attitude that is now articulated simply as: "No Justice, No Peace." Obama, since his inauguration has spent every legislative opportunity proving the early critics correct. The real lesson of the Obama administration thus far is that it is not wise to be lulled into a false sense of security simply because the president‘s father was African. But this is no surprise because progressive change does not typically come from elected leaders unless they are forced by popular pressure to pursue such change. With popular pressure, Obama could move the country in the progressive and redistributive direction and even make a contribution to dismantling systemic racial oppression. This shift needs to happen very quickly.

On President Obama at 2011 Mark Christian, Lehman College, CUNY

In regard to President Obama's election triumph in November 2008, and in terms of the actual fundamental gains for people of color, specifically African Americans, I never expected anything other than a symbolic breakthrough. Nothing

26

more really than Booker T. Washington being the first African American invited to the White House officially in 1901 for tea with Teddy Roosevelt. If this perspective comes across to the reader as facetious it is not meant to be. It is merely a realistic assessment of the difficult political terrain that President Obama encounters on a daily basis: conservative, rigid, predominately White male politicians in both houses, and deeply suspicious of anything that speaks to empowering the many rather than the few in society. Indeed, at the time of his election I like millions of others was taken away by the joy and tears and the old folks' sense of pride in Obama's triumph. A victory that for the elder generations (born before 1955) could be relished as a fitting symbol for a new beginning beyond the virulent racism that they had endured in their lifetime. But, and I've always thought this even before Obama was on the scene, given the constraints any Black person would encounter under the power structure around him in the(ir) White House, and given the general conservative nature of all Americans, I didn't expect too much from this obvious symbolic political victory. Indeed, I think this is the point that gets lost, we forget too often what President Obama is dealing with day-to-day in the American political arena. The Tea Party is the tip of the iceberg in regard to the far-right intransigence in the US. Lately though, it is difficult to condone any of the things he is sanctioning in terms of foreign policy. For example, to suggest that the attack on Libya is to defend its citizenry is just not honest. Why hasn't there been a strategic offensive to defend the peoples in Darfur, or in the Congo? Overall, it is dishonest and eventually folks see through that kind of politricks. There are better ways to rid the world of dictators, and bludgeoning anyone who disagrees with the US is not a good symbol for the "Change" Obama was reciting during his campaign tour in 2008.

Moreover, if there is any supplementary evidence required that makes a mockery of his Nobel Peace Prize it is related to his hawk-like foreign policy style. Where is the dove? The man of peace?

We cannot stand by silent with such hypocrisy in our midst. There are only so many excuses one can use for someone who preached a "change" that has not yet emerged, yet revealed a "sameness" in the foreign politics of old. Yes, President Obama is correct to make fun of his Nobel prize. He does not deserve a medal for peace. In addition, of late, and this is just a sociological insight into body language, Obama's smile appears to becoming more fake, it lacks the sincerity it once seemed to possess. Minister Malcolm X used to say that "they" smile with horse teeth. Well I would add that dishonest folks smile with horse teeth. Dishonesty is not mutually exclusive to one people. Politicians are by virtue of their profession largely dishonest. It is rather melancholy to contemplate his fall from grace, again for the symbolic aspect of such a tremendous historical moment.

Maybe it is for the better that we can now witness his flaws, his over-compromising policies that move more in favor to Wall Street than they do Main Street. All indicators state that things are not improving for the great majority. One cannot blame all this on Obama's administration. We know that the previous administration left such a mess that it would take an economic miracle (or a nightmare like World War III) to completely recover from the Great Recession.

Again, I never expected much from Obama given the lay of the land. However, to echo Dr. King, "I ain't gonna study that kind of war no more"... while millions need help right here in the US. Policing the world is not a good foreign policy, it smacks of bullying, and most humans tend to dislike bullies. World leadership should endeavor to lead in a manner that does not give the impression of pandering to the hawks in order to look "tough" on terrorism. Indeed I believe it was Teddy Roosevelt, another imperialist, who stated in relation to foreign policy, "speak softly but carry a big stick," it is a universal response to those not following the foreign policy interests of the US. What about the millions of African Americans without a high school diploma? What about the hundreds of thousands of

27

black males in prison? I don't think I've heard him speak of these tragedies full on with vigor and outrage, other than to patronize and berate African Americans about pulling up their bootstraps. Yet Dr. King said, what do you do if you don't have bootstraps? This is not an excuse, as there is a responsibility on each individual to be the best he/she can be. However, the odds are firmly against African American males regardless of how hard one works to get ahead. I am not meandering, as it is all interrelated, as at the grassroots level folks want to know about jobs, incarceration rates, internal homicide in African American and other communities, education opportunities, and creating a better America for all. These are relevant social issues to the rank and file citizen in conurbations throughout the US. Therefore, all things considered, Obama's honeymoon is well and truly over. He has made many compromises against the best interests of African Americans and this is where the discontent lies. The renowned Nathan Hare stated on a recent ABSDISCOURSE listserv post (5/25/2011), "Ask not what Obama can do for the African Americans but what you can do for the African Americans." This is in many ways a correct position to take. We cannot put everyday lives in the hands of an incumbent president, no matter what his racialized background. At the same time, nor should he or she ever be above criticism.

The symbolism of an African American President is wearing thin, but this is to be expected. Not much different from watching the Cosby Show in the 1980s. Having the Obamas in the(ir) White House gives you hope and possibility—but ultimately it is mythical and largely unattainable for the vast majority of African Americans. Let us support and celebrate Obama and the symbolic victory of his election win, but let us not be naive and blinkered when he leans toward the old guard. He promised a change that would engender greater transparency, truth in politics, and fair play in US society and abroad. He has not yet delivered on his promise of change, and he will be judged on this in due course. Let us hope he delivers

something tangible before it all melts away like another dream deferred.

Crucially, the alternative to Obama is just not worth contemplating for any progressive thinker. We need to continue to hold hope that Obama will be a little more bold and less fearful of the right and their insidious methods in misleading the average American. He needs to stick to his mantra of "yes we can" instead of oscillating toward "it seems we can't" right now. If he and his administration fail to take heed of the criticism coming from the left of center—and not just the far-left—he will probably lose the mass support he received in November 2008.

Only time will tell whether Obama can make more of an impact in securing victories for those in dire social need. Yet with the "culture of cuts" central in mainstream politics, it is not going to be easy providing programs to improve the lives of the disenfranchised. In a sense, midway through 2011, Obama is between the devil and the deep blue sea. He surely can't sell his soul to the devil, therefore all we can look forward to is him learning to swim in the deep blue sea. He will surely have to watch out for the sharks who will be out to devour him. We should wish him well, but he's got to start swimming against the tide to be a real winner for the great many who are disheartened by his recent performance at home and abroad.

What Can Work…. And What Never Will

Kristine Wright

Over a century ago, a struggle for the souls of black folk raged between different leaders with different approaches to black liberation. While all shared similar goals (of black freedom and self determination), these leaders embraced different and (often deemed) opposing ideological bends on how to achieve those goals. Should we work within a social structure and meet people where they are and build from there? Should we demand full human rights for all—always, regardless of the entrenched

28

power interests whose very existence depends on denying us that humanity? Or would our efforts be best spent uniting as a people to build a nation to rival any that might try to oppress us?

With each leadership approach, victories were achieved, and defeats were inevitable. Washington, DuBois, and Garvey may not have had all the answers, and could not have individually achieved black liberation, but unlike many, they dedicated their lives to this necessary cause—our freedom. No more could have been asked of them. To the all important question, ―what did you do to bring about change?‖ these men had answers. But the question never is: ―what is s/he (the leader) doing to bring about change?‖ The only relevant question is: ―what is each and every one of us doing to bring about change?‖ The reason black liberation eluded them is because so many individuals then could not answer that question. Many still can‘t. This recurring ideological debate regarding the path to liberation has plagued us since day one. It flared up again during the triumphs and tribulations of the Civil Rights Era, and its most recent reincarnation can be seen in the debate between Dr. Cornel West and Reverend Al Sharpton over President Obama and his leadership (or lack thereof).

Dr. West has expressed great disappointment in President Obama, seeing much of Obama‘s policies as an embrace of elite moneyed interests and American imperialism over the welfare of the mass majority of Americans, particularly African Americans who suffer disproportionately from all the plagues of poverty. Many progressives and left leaning academics agree with Dr. West‘s portrayal of President Obama, voicing their frustrations daily on blogs and via social media sites. On the other side of the debate, Reverend Sharpton avoids placing blame at Obama‘s feet. While he agrees that the interests of the majority are not represented in the current power dynamics, unlike West, Sharpton does not see Obama as a ―puppet of Wall Street oligarchs‖. He believes Obama is working within a hostile political environment but will act on behalf of the majority when the majority actively engages

him. Instead of seeing him as ―the‖ problem, Sharpton chooses to work with Obama to try to build solutions. Neither approach (West‘s criticism of Obama or Sharpton‘s support of Obama) seems to be getting us closer to the goal of progressive change. Again, nothing about this debate is new. The struggle for the souls of black folk rages on, with divisions forming and positions staked in concrete. While the debate has been respectful, it has monopolized a good amount of time and energy that one can only believe would be better spent in action, instead of debate. What Can Work: Action In his leadership and his humanity, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. provided a model of what can work. While the struggle for the souls of black folk raged during his era as well, Dr. King rarely criticized those that opposed him and his approach. For example, Dr. King refused to publicly debate Malcolm X when challenged. King would not debate, his secretary told Malcolm, because "he has always considered his work in a positive action framework rather than engaging in consistent negative debate." (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/malcolmx/peopleevents/e_civilrights.html). Dr. King was a true visionary because this "consistent negative debate" still takes up critical time today that could be spent serving and organizing our communities. While history teaches us what leaders have achieved on their individual paths, we will never know what could have been achieved had ―rival‖ leaders (Washington/DuBois/Garvey; Dr. King/Malcolm X) joined forces with a continuously engaged citizenry to collectively pursue a progressive path to freedom. Dr. King understood that the biggest threat to the civil rights movement did not come from those burning crosses (adversaries) or those with different approaches to the same goal (ideological rivals). The biggest threat to progress came from the MANY that stayed safely away engulfed in their own lives, complacent, and often distracted (inactive). These are the

29

ones that cry how horrible oppression and inequality are but do nothing to change it. It comes down to choosing to remain comfortable or to sacrifice, and unfortunately many stay comfortable. Progress takes sacrifice...progress takes ACTION. What Never Will Work: Insanity Some define insanity as doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. While positive actions can work to achieve progress, some things never will work and it is time we come to that realization.

Scapegoating: Whether it be Muslims, ―illegal immigrants‖ (read Mexicans), gays, ―big government‖, or Obama (from the right of the political spectrum), or Republicans, Wall Street, American imperialism, racists, or Obama again (from the left of the political spectrum), blaming others for our woes is standard practice. Instead of working actively towards progress, scapegoating allows us a convenient fall guy to point to when no real progress is achieved. The problem with scapegoating is that it provides excuses, but no solutions. So while Dr. West may be correct in his analysis of President Obama‘s policies, once Obama is no longer president, his critique will just shift to the next ―leader‖ who maintains the same policies and status quo power structure. An understanding of the problem may be achieved, but a solution to it never will.

Idealism: Depending on people's "better nature" gets you "status quo". There is no doubt that corporate fascists and their paid cronies in government will do what they must do to maintain power... this situation is understood and doesn‘t need to be revisited. Being surprised at corporatists and politicians for being corporatists and politicians is as effective as being mad at a dog for being a dog and barking. The time we spend criticizing, disillusioned and disgusted from unrealistic expectations is baffling and can only be understood as gripping on to idealistic

tendencies that counter progress. While it reveals our basic humanity to want to believe in our fellow mankind, that humanity could be better revealed through service and action. Instead of wishing for better from others (Obama, elected politicians, corporations etc.), we must demand better from ourselves! We must use our energy to seize our power and ACT! It's one or the other—they either control us, or we control them, and while critiques will not change power dynamics, actions will.

Negative Framing: In framing progress, we should be against nothing...just be clear what we are for (Iyanla Vanzant). When we concentrate on what we are against (racism, sexism, white supremacy, capitalism, fascism, homophobia, etc.), we frame the struggle in terms of negatives and sooner or later can lose the true purpose of the struggle...LIFE. If we frame the struggle in terms of life affirming principles—peace, justice, love, and sustenance, our eyes remain on the prize.

Ceding our power to ―saviors‖: Whether we are taught powerlessness (see Carter G. Woodson‘s Miseducation) or whether it is an inherent quality of human nature, most choose not to become personally invested (engage in action) until they feel in some way personally affected (self interest). Many might see the five alarm fire next door but few act unless they are immediately in danger from the fire—but by then, it is possibly too late. If not immediately in danger, we tend to cede our power to so-called ―authorities‖…leaders, experts, and other ―saviors‖, instead of acting on our own behalf. We need to realize that functioning out of self interest just gets us status quo (survival) ....functioning from self determination (seizing our power) can lead to progressive change. It has been said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. While the hell of slavery has ended for our people, the heaven of freedom still eludes us today. If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, the road to heaven (the ―promise land‖) should be paved with POSITIVE

30

ACTION (good deeds, acts, and service). Those that believe they can get to the “promise land" through the actions of others, be it a leader (Obama) or a Savior will find that promise land forever elusive. If we truly want to realize black liberation and end the struggle for the souls of black folk, the only relevant question we must ALL ask and answer is “What are YOU doing to effect change?” When we ALL have an answer to this question, progress will be realized. Yes WE can…but the struggle continues….continuously.

Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.

- Frederick Douglass

The time has come. This is it. People are always saying.. 'Oh they, they'll take care of it.' 'The government will do it. They'll' ...They who? It starts with us. ..it's US. Or else it'll never be done. - Michael Jackson

Obama Matters Anthony P. Browne, Hunter College

The 2008 election of Barack Obama

as president of the United States clearly represented another major step forward in the long struggle of African Americans for full equality. Given that Obama received more than 95 percent of the Black vote, and that the Bush administration‘s policies were often hostile or indifferent to the Black community, African Americans had every right to expect that the new President would substantively address their concerns.

Therefore, it is most ironic that as the Black community‘s concerns continue to be largely taken for granted by the administration, those groups who did not vote for him have used protest, media campaigns, and the ballot box to compel Obama to support their concerns of lower taxes and smaller government.

As has been well documented, President Obama inherited the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Then as now, due to America‘s history of racial and economic inequality, the Black community has disproportionately suffered. But unlike the period of the 1930s and 40s where Black leaders like Ida B. Wells and A. Philip Randolph pushed presidents to address the economic and social conditions facing the Black community, the current slate of national Black leaders—with few exceptions—have been largely reluctant to publicly demand that President Obama forcefully address the depression-like conditions facing many Black communities across the country. Why?

Despite record high levels of unemployment and underemployment, and unprecedented numbers of foreclosures, Black leadership has offered a variety of reasons for their silence. They argue that challenging Obama would risk either embarrassing the first Black president or worse provide fodder for the right wing who seek to make him a one term president. Moreover, these leaders also contend that criticizing the president would have a negative impact on the youth who were inspired by his historic election.

These explanations all ring hollow and in many ways are a profound betrayal of the rich legacy of Black leadership that includes Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglas, Adam Clayton Powell, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X and Fannie Lou Hamer—whose voices became the moral conscience of America reminding the country of the contradiction between its professed commitment to equality, and the racist treatment of African Americans. These leaders, who operated under much more difficult circumstances and at times great personal risk, led protest, threatened marches or publicly criticized sitting

31

presidents in the long struggle for racial justice.

In today‘s political climate, the right wing attacks on President Obama by the Tea Party and others has clearly resulted in the Black community closing ranks to support the President, even when they may privately question his policies. On the one hand, this is not surprising given America‘s long history of racial inequality; but on the other hand, this support has resulted in a situation where the Black community finds itself uncritically backing the President without raising important questions about his policies in relation to ongoing wars, tax cuts for the wealthy, cuts in government programs, downward mobility, abuses by the criminal justice system and skyrocketing rates of Black poverty.

Undoubtedly, the Obama presidency has resulted in a profound crisis in African American politics. As Black communities continue to bear the brunt of the economic downturn, they are essentially being told by leadership to suffer in silence. The current strategy of publicly placing no demands on the President, while either privately hoping that conditions will improve or that Obama will surreptitiously aid Black folk, is a reflection of either naiveté, confusion or self interest among the leadership class.

This strategy is deeply flawed on many levels: it represents a willful misunderstanding of the process of policy formation; it negates that the Obama presidency is due to overwhelming Black support, and therefore, his base has every right to make demands; lastly, it represents an abridgement of the right and responsibility of Black Americans as citizens to seek redress from the state. To be sure, compared to his Republican rivals, Obama was clearly the superior choice in the last presidential campaign. But for the first time in our history Black leaders find themselves unprepared to deal with a president who is also considered a Black leader. Obama‘s presidency continues to be a great source of pride as well as a tribute to the struggles of our ancestors. Nonetheless, Black leadership can still support this historic presidency while

also forcefully advocating for the needs of their constituents. History has shown that racial pride should never come at the price of policing dissent, eschewing mobilization or waging substantive critique. Regardless of who occupies the White House, current Black leadership must uphold the long tradition of challenging those in power to make sure that the struggle for racial justice never be compromised either on the basis of symbolism, racial loyalty or access to those in power. Our youths need to see that regardless of position, everyone should be held accountable!

The Griot Editorial Team

Cynthia T. Cook Cultural Issues & Current Events

Florida A & M University

Rutledge Dennis International/Global Issues

George Mason University Department of Sociology/Anthropology

Philip Kretsedemas Editor

University of Massachusetts-Boston

Arthur Paris Book Reviews

Syracuse University

BarBara M. Scott Conference Reports

Northeastern Illinois University