opinion

Killing him softly
by Dr. Carlos E. Russell

It seems to me that Barack Obama’s defeat in New Hampshire underscores, once again, the subtle if not two subtle obstacles facing black people in America and the dilemma we, as Americans, face. Essentially, the primary obstacles that confront us are two-fold and are interwoven: namely, as black people in a majority white society, our hands are tied and, equally important, is the fact that many white people fail or are unwilling, either by design or ignorance, to recognize or accept just how deeply imbedded in their subconscious are the elements of racism. It is something they overtly deny and sometimes are unaware of. Similarly, in my judgment, many black people still suffer from the “we sick massa?” syndrome; meaning an over identification with their former slave masters to the extent that his “illness” becomes theirs. Those who do so tend to see themselves as intrinsically connected to what the larger society say is true and, in so doing, are often willing to refrain from independent and “pro group self interest” political and social behavior.

Let me attempt to elucidate.

During the waning days of Iowa and prior to the actual voting in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton, without any major challenge from the media, or accusation of “playing the gender card” was permitted, as was her right, to openly call for the support of women. Her primary pitch was that as the first woman president she was the embodiment of fundament change. This she offered as a rallying cry for women voters and as a subtle attempt to trump the possibility of Obama’s equally important rallying cry of being the first black president.

In a column in The New York Times, immediately following Hillary’s defeat in Iowa where women turned to Obama, feminist Gloria Steinem reiterated the importance of Hilary’s candidacy by extolling the difficulties she faced, as a woman, in attempting to become the first female president. After all, men had been elected president therefore, Obama, as a man --- even a black man, would not be as transcendentally significant or important as having the first woman president. She quite astutely and accurately described the mind-set of America and its relationship to women but somehow she purposefully left out the mind-set of America to black people. Had Barack Obama used Hillary’s approach, which, much to his credit, he has not used, namely that a victory as the first black president was equally significant if not more so than the election of a white woman, he would have been politically tarred and feathered. Hillary’s untied hand permitted her to court the women vote with impunity.

Here is the irony; factually it is true that the presence of blacks in Iowa and New Hampshire is numerically insignificant; hence, had Obama projected his blackness, as Hillary did with her gender, it would not have won him many votes and could have alienated many of the white voters who did vote for him. Strategically he could not have made the claim. However, the same is not true in other states, like South Carolina where at least half of the voters are black. Here, if we follow the script, he will not be able to make the claim for fear of alienating whites in other states on “Super Tuesday.”

This notwithstanding, if one is to truly understand the dilemma facing Barack Obama and any future presidential black candidate, it is imperative that one objectively and I believe rightly, make the case that white women have benefited from the victories of their men, while black women were still being lynched or placed at the bottom of economic and social ladder. It is true that white women were denied the ballot until after it had been won by black people but even after it was won, the conditions of black women and black men did not substantially change in America. One cannot disavow or cavalierly dismiss when it suits one, the existence of Jim Crow.

Here is another point that needs to be underscored and examined within the context of the possible change in America’s body politic and social psyche.

After Obama’s victory in Iowa, almost without exception, the media --- left, center, and right, hailed it as a “break through” in American politics --- a new day, one that would resonate across the world! After all, an African-American of mixed heritage with a Kenyan father and a mother from Kansas, whose middle name was “Hussein” who, in his youth had been exposed to Islam, had impressively won Iowa by amassing white voters and had beaten Hillary among white women and independents. For the pundits it was the dawn of a new day and the birth of a “coalition” for change. This they echoed almost in unison. Race, in political contests, they further implied, may well be a thing of the past. It appeared, they said, that Obama’s race did not seem to deter those who listened to and heeded his message. Indeed he was projected as erudite, a brilliant orator, gracious in victory and one who had connected with the people, etc. These, they expounded, were the traits that, aside from money and a brilliant organization, had given him victory. The accolades heaped upon him were monumental and mind boggling. Then came New Hampshire and a projected double digit supposedly margin of victory did not materialize! Sadly, the anticipated victory was not to be. Something happened “on the way to the forum.”

I now ask, and they are really questions and not conclusions: Is it possible that given the expressed euphoria of what was perceived, by the media, as an undeniable Obama victory, especially his reception by the women in Iowa and the young and the huge turnout that his presence generated, served to rekindle the fear of some of those who instinctively still harbor the resentment of ever having a black man as president of these United States? Is it possible that Obama was beset by the “Bradley syndrome?” Bradley, one may remember, was the former four times mayor of Los Angeles who, when he attempted to become governor of the state, and after the polls projected his victory he was defeated. Some say that those whites who supported him as Mayor could not see him as governor of the state of California. Is it possible that Obama’s “surge/movement” also placed similar fear within the hearts and souls of those within the democratic party’s establishment in New Hampshire and perhaps nationally --- the fear of losing power to a new generation; one led by a black man --- that they were energized and felt compelled to man the barricades against the emerging hordes of unbelievers who challenged the perceived transgressions of an aging party? Is it possible that the media unwittingly or wittingly also played a supportive part in the temporary defeat of Obama? I am inclined to accept the above queries, with their possible unpleasant answers, as very important elements in the “unbelievable” outcome of what, given the hoopla, was not expected to happen.

I have no doubt that there were those who came out against Obama who did so because of past resentment and racist inclination. I also believe that there were elements of the “Bradley syndrome.” Fortunately, I believe that they were not the majority. I do believe however, that Obama’s surge shook the very foundations of the entrenched elders of the Democratic Party who are hell bent on retaining power and leading the country in a direction which, from my perspective, offers more of the “same old same old” philosophical policies and beliefs of yesterday. Sensing that their power was being threatened they mobilized their troops and resources and gathered to block Obama at the pass. They could not afford the surge to swell or become a tidal wave and sweep them into the sea.

To accomplish this, I believe that they were able to enlist the media on their side in the struggle by suggesting that their candidate was being treated unfairly. Thus, the men and women in the media, feeling guilty, perhaps unwittingly, began to attempt to soften their criticisms of Hillary. “What can Hillary do?” they now asked. “Has Hillary’s organization imploded?” “Can Hillary win the women vote?” “How can Hillary counter Obama’s movement and his charisma?” The marketing coup the grace, in my view, was her “emotional” outburst which was aired and re-aired ad nausea.

If one remembers the sequence of the “remaking” of Hillary as a “person” having emotion began with the question posed to her in one of the last debates. The question was prefaced by the statement, and I paraphrase, “It seemed that Obama was more “likable.” Her response “it hurt my feelings.” This too was played over and over but promoted as a “light moment” in the debate. This image, coupled with the image of John Edward’s support of Obama after Hillary had accused Obama of having said that Edwards was “unelectable,” was used to give the impression that the “men” had ganged up on the lone defenseless woman. However, when she later, very aggressively, lashed out at them many suggested that the fire that had been missing, fortuitously, had emerged.

When Bill Clinton challenged them by saying that they had been partial to Obama few seriously challenged him. When he made unsubstantiated attacks on Obama not much time was spent on his response except to say that “Obama stayed above the fray.” Neither did many suggest that Clinton’s attacks were off the mark. Perhaps the best expression of the point I am attempting to make regarding the “poor Hillary” strategy and the complicity of the media which, in my judgment, became a major factor in giving her victory among women, came from Republican Huckabee. His “Give Hillary some slack!” remark became an integral part of the image of “Hillary, the poor woman, under siege.” In my view women ran to the polls to defend their sister!

I do not believe that the “experience” argument really resonated. I believe that a different kind of the “fear tactic” found a home in the hearts of the New Hampshire voter--the fear of losing power and the development of a strategy that projected and morphed that fear into a notion that this nation would not survive without their traditional leadership. As John Edwards phrased it “the status quo.”

The question for Obama supporters is what can he now do? How can he regain the momentum? Is this possible?

It seems to me that while Obama cannot strategically allude to or call for black folks to vote for him as the first black president, those of us within the black communities must now do so in the same manner that Hillary has been able to proclaim that her victory is of great significance to America. Blacks must do the same for Obama.

Those young white single mothers and students who came out for Obama in Iowa and in New Hampshire must continue to reach out to their sisters and silence the sirens of fear; those white political progressives who understand the need to transform America to make substantive changes in the direction of this nation must mobilize and challenge their parents as they did in the sixties and the seventies; black and Latino legislators should not permit themselves to be cowed by the leadership of their party and be willing to overtly join the movement for change. If they hesitate and/or falter then black and Latino communities should rise up and deprive them of future political leadership. Black women must not be seduced by Hillary’s open appeal to women but to understand what an Obama victory would mean to their sons and their daughters and what it would mean for America: the odious stench of racism would begin to be removed from the air and nostrils of this great nation. In the same manner that Hillary believes that her success depends on the support of women Obama should be able to do the same but he cannot. It is our task to provide him with the base he needs. The question for many is still “Can America elect a black president?”

In the end this political struggle should not be about “a woman versus a black man,” it should be about “who can best transform America --- who can best make it what it needs to become?” I believe that, as Oprah said, “Obama is the one.”

In the best of possible worlds these distinctions would be irrelevant. Unfortunately we live in a time where they command center stage. Those who believe in hope and the need for an America that embraces and implements the expressed ideals and values written in our Magna Carta and our Bill of Rights must continue the struggle of electing Barack Obama as the next President of these United States of America. Let us not waver nor forget, as Frederick Douglass once said “without struggle there is no progress!” Today I replace “progress” with the word “change” Like it or not, change is in air, yes it is. We can make it happen if we try! Ask Sam Cooke….