The Obama opportunity

Feeling dismayed about the way race remains a persistent theme in the presidential campaign, months after the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy? You shouldn’t be. With the selection of Barack Obama as the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee, we’ve begun the next chapter of the civil rights movement. We shouldn't expect this to be any easier than the historic battles in Selma and Montgomery, Alabama, but we should also realize the possible gains in our country’s race relations could be just as great.

How can we best use this moment in time to make a big step forward for racial understanding and racial justice? In particular, how does the racial aspect of this year’s presidential campaign relate to the types of things that the many organizations, communities, and individuals who are working on racial equity in this country are addressing?

A few months ago, I heard Melissa Harris-Lacewell, from Princeton University, a Barack supporter, say on the “Democracy Now” radio show that the state of race relations in the U.S. at this point in history is such that we shouldn't expect to elect a black president without having a wrenching debate about race. She added that we'll have to go through it to get to the other side -- we can't go around it, or over it, or under it.

You know, that really fired me up. I had gotten depressed watching the TV pundits recycle the Wright thing, and had just stopped watching, horrified at the place the national conversation had gone. There didn't seem to be anything I could do. But then I realized that we have an opportunity every bit as historic as that of Obama’s nomination, and that is to use this moment as a chance to move to greater progress and understanding on race.

The really important thing is that this is the first time since the Black Power movement that large numbers of black people and white people are working together. That's part of Barack's miracle. The other part is that it's multicultural as well as multiracial, and that's completely new.

We have a new opportunity to explore the meaning of “race” (it doesn’t have a biological basis) and the meaning of “racism” (it’s more than personal prejudice or bigotry—it’s social). This time of our country becoming more diverse, of ethnic categories blurring, could be the turning point. We can create a large-scale, multi-ethnic movement to close racial disparities and create racial justice.

What hasn't changed is that there's resistance from those who benefit by keeping us all divided. What also hasn't changed is that a fight like this can't be won just over the airwaves or even on the Internet. If people want to see greater equity among all people and a stronger democracy, they'll have to get out and fight for it. To do that they'll have to be mobilized and trained, not just to get out the vote but to carry on a conversation in our communities that competes with and eventually replaces the one on TV. Then, we must also work to take those conversations to the next step, to create communities that include and work for everyone, of every color.   

I personally support Barack Obama and will work to help him become our next president, but that’s not my point. What’s important now is that we have an opportunity to use Obama’s nomination to turn off the TV -- and yes, talk about race - but also to work together to make big gains toward greater racial equity, no matter who wins the election.

Harold McDougall is a professor of law at Howard University and a board member of the Paul J. Aicher Foundation, a non-partisan organization that oversees the work of Everyday Democracy.

Comments

[Julie Fanselow]

Harold, thank you for this thoughtful examination of the possibilities that Obama's candidacy has presented to us this year.

I found this essay by former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales that comes at this same idea from his Latino (and Republican) perspective.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/02/opinion/oe-gonzales2

He wrote: "As we move to the next phase of the presidential campaign, some people may try to discourage discussion about race relations in favor of issues they say are of greater importance: the war against Al Qaeda, the cost of energy, the sub-prime mortgage crisis. However, we need leaders who appreciate – and who choose to confront – the crucial elements of racial inequality within these so-called bigger issues. Those are the leaders who are likely to be successful in finding effective solutions to our most important challenges."

If Democrats, Republicans, Libetarians, Independents, and others can agree on this, perhaps we really can seize this moment as a time to work for greater equity.

[Will Ehrenfeld]

Thanks for the eloquent discussion of the possibilities Obama offers as a candidate. As a long-time volunteer on his campaign, I've talked to hundreds of voters who never believed it was possible that a black man could or would ever make it this far. I spoke with one African American woman in New Hampshire who said she was praying for Obama to lose, simply because she feared for his life if he made it to a national stage.

If Barack Obama loses the election and disappears from public life (both unlikely, in my opinion), his legacy as the first black presidential nominee has already been. His existence and stature reaffirm what is possible for whites and blacks (and everyone in between) alike in the country. Maybe he's proving that the country really is forgetting about race more quickly than many scholars and activists who work on this issues would guess, or maybe he's moving us in that direction. One way or another, his election will be transformative for race relations in America.

I think (and hope) that you're right, and that this is a turning point in our quest for a post-racial country and world.

[Stephen Buckley]

I noticed that former Attorney-General Gonzalez uses the term "racial inequality", but that Julie Fanselow often uses the term "racial equity".

So, I can't comment on the posting until I understand if there IS a difference (like the dictionary says) or if some people simply WANT them to mean the same thing (but aren't telling their readers that that they are using those words in separate way).

[Deanna]

Interesting, I noted the term "racial equity" and appreciated it, in that it seemed to come from the positive vision of where we want to be, or where we as a society, hopefully strive to be.

I'm delighted at the opportunity that Obama's call to 'talk about race' has opened, but there's still so far to go, and it's still not easy. And, while there's many who want to engage in dialogue and see change, there's still people like the lifeguard at the public beach yesterday who had a beach towel with a confederate flag on it. But then, too, there's people like me who called it out and reported it--who won't let racism win. Is Obama responsible for that? Maybe, in the sense that with his vision of change he promotes a personal accountability and hope that we all can adopt.

[Nancy Thomas]

Thank you, Harold, for this positive and hopeful message. I agree that Senator Obama's candidacy begins a new and inspiring chapter in the ongoing struggle to achieve civil rights and racial equality in this nation.

I worry, however, about the effect of straight talk about race on Obama's presidential candidacy. I worry that, as Obama said, "discussion on race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn." Is there a way to talk about race without rerailing Senator Obama's candidacy?

For reasons far beyond his race, Obama needs to win. We can't afford four more years of policies that, over the past six years, have destroyed families, our economy, our environment, our image abroad, our urban communities. Poverty levels are rising. Schools are resegregating. Global warming and terrorism threaten the world, not just the US.

Today, the Associated Press reports that "Obama's image has deteriorated with two crucial groups: 52 % of whites view him negatively, up 12 points from November. And 48% of independents have an unfavorable view of him,up from 31% last fall." Sure, polls can be (and usually are) misleading. But let's not lose sight of what needs to happen over the next four months: we need to oust the leaders that have put us in the dire position we are in. McCain's voting record (87% consistent with Republican policies) offers us a preview of what we will have if he wins.

I want to eradicate racism and all forms of social injustice. I also want to rebuild this nation. I believe that Senator Obama is the best candidate for both challenges. So when I speak up for Senator Obama, I am armed with facts, statistics, his specific plans, his record, his views on religion and faith, health care, social security, a new way of doing democracy -- I do this because I don't want people to point to something ("I don't know what he stands for...") when what they are secretly thinking about is his race. THEN, I am also happy to make the case for a president who can and will confront racism and social injustice.

[Julie Fanselow]

This is turning into a fascinating discussion on several levels.

Semantics: Stephen wonders why I (and Harold, who wrote this post) use the term "racial equity" instead of racial inequality. As Deanna remarks, the former speaks of a goal, of what we're working toward but have not yet attained. I guess you could say we are "glass half full" folks. By the way, "racial equity" is a term we use often here at Everyday Democracy, as in our "Communities Creating Racial Equity" initiative.

Race and the election: Harold speaks of the need, not simply to talk about race, but to close disparities and "to create communities that include and work for everyone, of every color."

We're talking social justice, pure and simple, and I don't believe it's a partisan issue - not when a former Bush administration official says we need to address it, too. I know there are many people from both parties for whom helping the poor and creating greater opportunity are paramount goals.

If there's a partisan or ideological divide, it seems to be over government's proper role in this work. As a nonpartisan organization, Everyday Democracy recognizes that government can have a role to play in this process - often through supporting dialogue-to-change through institutional settings. The Montgomery County (MD) Schools and the towns of Portsmouth, N.H., Stratford, CT, and Lynchburg, VA, are all examples of places where governments are playing a key role in creating change.

Yet we also work with and support countless communities where change happens through the work of volunteers, non-profits, foundations, and other private sources. Even the programs that receive government backing rely heavily on volunteers from the community to succeed.

In the end, it doesn't seem so important how change happens or who funds it ... just that it happens, and that, as Harold says, we can create communities that work better for everyone. Obama's background and his policies - including his planned expansion of the Bush administration's faith-based initiatives, and his goal of growing AmeriCorps - seem to be well aligned with the aims of building greater social justice. That's not to say that John McCain wouldn't pursue some positive social justice policies as well. We need everyone thinking of cross- or post-partisan solutions to the challenges we face.