Obama and Black Paranoia

OK...so "paranoia" is a strong word. But I wanted to grab your attention. Perhaps projection is a better way to describe a couple of things that I'm hearing.

First, Obama received support from 43 percent of white voters, while 55 percent of the white electorate voted for McCain. On one hand, this is seen by many people as a remarkable achievement. Imagine that. Some 43 percent of non Hispanic white Americans--remember that white people represent slightly less than 70 percent of the total American populace--case their ballot for a president of color. Take yourself back two years and imagine someone telling you that. How many of us would have believed it?

On the other hand, I have heard some somewhat disgruntled mumbling about how it was "only" 43 percent of white Americans. The underlying sentiment with that word "only" thrown in is that not even half of white America supported his presidency.

Such concerns are befitting a people who have a short attention span for the details of history, but they do not account for one powerful anecdotal fact: that 43 percent is a remarkable achievement when compared with past presidential campaigns. Consider the percentage of non Hispanic whites who voted for the following presidents:

2004 Kerry - 41 percent
2000 Gore - 42 percent
1996 Clinton - 43 percent
1992 Clinton - 39 percent
1988 Dukakis - 40 percent
1984 Mondale - 35 percent
1980 Carter - 36 percent

Obama beat all of them except Clinton's second campaign, a president who by that time was often referred to as our "first black president." The truth is, the majority of white Americans are Republican or Independent while blacks and other racial minorities lean heavily Democratic. This heavily impacts those numbers.

On another note, and this is more in line with paranoia, I've heard many black people voice their concern that Obama is going to be "judged more harshly" than previous (white) presidents simply or primarily because he's black. This reflects old school thinking emerging out of the black community and it's definitely not without merit. Anyone with an honest eye on race relations would conclude that black Americans have undoubted been held to a higher standard than other people, especially white Americans. This is not news to anyone paying attention, especially black people.

But in fairness, if black people go into the Obama years wearing these lenses, then we're in for some serious disagreements because ALL presidents are "judged harshly," even for silly seemingly mundane decisions. Obama has just taken the world's worst job. For every friend he'll make two enemies. For each slap on the back he'll receive another in the face. Remembering the harsh way in which all U.S. presidents are judged will do wonders for averting unnecessary arguments about the kind of job our new president is doing.

So all of the people who have had this concern, get ready for your man to take a harsh smack down for the next four or eight years. Trust me, it goes with the job.

Election Day Irony (Part II)

I'm sure some people are confused about the difference between a "marriage" and a "civil union" and don't understand why it matters to many people in the LGBT community which one they are are allowed to experience. Here's my quick take on the core argument, and keep in mind that I'm not a constitutional scholar.

Here is a prefatory comment.

Religiously inclined Americans hold a wide range of ideological perspectives when it comes to the nexus between civil society and their churches. Some, like the televangelist Pat Robertson, think this is a christian nation and that Christian "rules" and "laws" should dictate the behavior of the people living inside of the boundaries of the United States. Others, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, call for a severe separation of church and state and do not even support voting.

So what about marriage?

Depending on where you stand on the continuum, it is either a legal dictate of our secular government or a covenant from god...or both. Sociologically speaking, in every society there must be some sort of legal union that is sanctioned by the state or cultural leaders because people who hinge their lives together must account for emergent legal issues such as who is eligible to be a beneficiary of a person's life insurance, land and other estate payments. For example, are parents, spouses, or children primary beneficiaries?

But over time, such "legal unions" have come to involve god and so most religious bodies weigh in on how they are performed and what they signify. Generally speaking, the terminology changes when god enters the picture and we start calling these unions "marriages." And herein lies the brouhaha.

Why would anyone come to imagine that the "proper" coupling who deserves a marriage license must be a man and a woman? Where did we get this idea? Why religion, of course. We just walked into murky water.

And it gets murkier. Religious leaders in the United States have the power to dictate the conditions of these unions (i.e., marriages) that bind people together and settle secular legal questions and claims. In other words, people acting "on behalf of god" involve themselves in the affairs of the state -- which means that they are also acting, in effect, as "functionaries" of the government. So one would think that they should either marry everyone who wants to be married or be relieved of the power to perform ceremonies for select individuals on behalf of the government, ceremonies that create legal contracts that are recognized by the courts. If they refuse to do this, one could reasonably argue that they can no longer have the privilege of acting as agents of the state.

A way to resolve the problem is to say that everyone, including all religious believers, should have to accept a contract called a "legal union." People could still be married in their church, but that ceremony would not be sanctioned by the secular government unless a secular authority was there as a witness. In other words, without a secular representative that ceremony would not generate the rights and responsibilities of a secular union (e.g., determine a person’s estate beneficiaries and so on).

At issue is whether such "discrimination" under the rubric of the government is constitutional and whether religious believers should have the power to control the secular affairs of the state when they are acting in such a "discriminatory" way. This is, after all, a founding principle of the United States. (Of course, such religious believers who think homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God rarely see their actions as "discrimination"; they're just carrying out God's will.)

In any case, this is the root of the idea that "prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional." At issue is that it's unconstitutional according to many state charters. With this in mind, it's only a matter of time before such anti gay marriage amendments are overturned in some states...or so it seems to me. But I'm no legal scholar. Remember, I'm the knucklehead who just last year said that we'd never elect a man named "Hussein" as our president.

I'll leave off with some words from Arnold Schwarzenegger in speaking about the passage of Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage amendment in California: "It is unfortunate but it is not the end because I think this will go back into the courts. ... It's the same as in the 1948 case when blacks and whites were not allowed to marry. This falls into the same category."

And while Aaaaarnold is probably correct in saying that this will go back to the courts, it will certainly go back to the voters and they will eventually pass a pro gay marriage resolution. Exit polls show that a majority of young voters of color actually voted against Prop 8 in California (i.e.,the youth actually supported gay marriage). So it's just a matter or time before more waves of young people register to vote.

Watch Keith Obermann, the liberal commentator speak on this. I'm generally not prone to admiring such a one-sided perspective and for my tastes Obermann seems like he's filled with a mix of hot air and self-righteousness, but there is something unique about the way he pushes this issue right into one's face that makes me smirk. Perhaps it's my own self-righteousness and arrogance. He misses a couple of critical points, to be sure, but on at least one point--that this is really about love and relationship--it's thought-provoking. Of course, if you think that God frowns upon LGBT love, however it occurs, then don't bother to click on the link. It will just upset you. Wait, I just watched it a second time and I think it's really worth watching.

Watch the Video.

One Notable Irony on Election Day

There is much to say about the election of Barack Obama, and no doubt we will. For the moment, however, let me say that it's ironic that the Americans who were instrumental in bringing our first president of color into office (black and Hispanic voters) ALSO played a major role in rolling back progress on the road to egalitarian same sex relationships and marriage. Exit polls show that approximately 70 percent of voters in these groups supported gay marriage bans.

This was almost entirely religiously inspired, of course, given the disproportionate numbers of Catholic and evangelical Christians in these two populations. "Thank you Jesus for delivering Barack Obama to the great white house built by slaves...and for protecting us from the sin of loving the wrong person." Right brain open. Left brain close.

OK, so I don't want to offend anyone who believes that homosexuality is a sin but please, read on.

I'm wondering when members of these two groups will comprehend what it has taken white Americans so long to understand -- when we deny others the valued rights that our own group relishes we inevitably weaken our own grasp of these rights along with our ability of our government to exercise them when needed. It's a rather sobering realization, to be sure, and one that anyone who does not have a reserved seat at table of the ruling classes would be wise to note.

What's truly ironic about this, in my humble opinion, is that in another 20-30 years the children and grandchildren of the Obama youth may well look back to this election as another "shameful chapter" in this country's history of unequal treatment of minority groups. "Oh yeah, sure they elected Obama," I can almost hear some politicized college student say, "but they buried the rights of the gay ( or some new term) community. What good was it?" Electing a black man will be less noteworthy than disenfranchizing a gay person.

The difference will be that when this conversation occurs the fingers will be pointed in some unexpected directions given how anti-gay marriage amendments were supported by so many racial and ethnic minorities.

Most of the time I open my mouth I seem to be wrong--I was just reminded by a former student that last fall I stated that this country would never elect a man named "Hussein" as its leader, after all--but mark my words, the youth of the future are going to be somewhat more open-minded about race than current generations but they will surely also see homosexuality very differently. They are, I am convinced, going to be much more open about LGBT issues than voters today. I guess every generation will have to wage its battle with bigotry and fear...and grow stronger from it.

Rock on to them. Personally, I must say that I hope they make more progress on this issue than the current generations are making.

Dropping the N-bomb - Part One

I was facilitating a group discussion last week and a white participant raised the question of why it's acceptable for black (and brown) people to drop the N-bomb but not white people. "It's an unfair double standard," she said, as have hundreds of other before her.

I've always found this to be an odd complaint. There are all sorts of things that each one of us can say to family and friends that would be off limits if a total stranger said those very same words.

But so many white people have voiced this double standard complaint over the years that I've come to see their struggle as rooted in more than the issues unique to race relations and the disturbing legacy of that word. What I see now is that young white people in this generation do not want to drop the N-bomb (with the "a" ending) as a means of entitlement, "If you get to say it, we get to say it." I'm starting to think that they want to do so because that word has become the "gold standard of cool."

Let's face it. Urban African Americans are the epitome of coolness. It's been like this for generations. Jazz. Cool. Rock -n- Roll. Cool. Hip Hop. Cool. Timberland shoes worn by white people. Uncool. Tims worn by black people. Cool. You get my point.

Watch Dave Chapelle and Chris Rock and a long list of lesser others kicking around N-bombs. What white person with any healthy barometer of coolness does NOT want to be as cool as Chapelle or Rock? And what it looks like these days is you're not going to get there if you can't drop the N-bomb -- especially in mixed company, with black gatekeepers of cool nodding or laughing in approval. THAT is the ultimate statement that says "I'm cool," AND "I've been admitted into the club."

Very simply, young white people may be wrestling with "nigga" not so much as a racial signifier as a signifier of "cool." In comparison to the generations that preceeded them, black people have reshaped the word from its singularly hateful focus and now it stands in the center of the culture as an indicator of much more than the state of race relations.

More to come...

The Demise of the Race Traitor

I first heard the term "race traitor" about fifteen years ago while watching a documentary on white supremacist groups. A KKK member used it in reference to white people who marry outside of the white race and, in her estimation, weaken the "natural and God given supreme power of white people." Years later I began hearing references to race traitors coming from some members of the black and Chicano (i.e., Mexican American) communities. They used it to refer to black and Mexican people who do not embrace the "white privilege leads to white racism leads to black and brown disempowerment" paradigm. An example of this kind of race traitor would be Ward Connerly, the conservative-libertarian African American activist who has fought to roll back government and social policies that put minorities in special categories such that they are, in his words, "treated differently than members of majority groups" (e.g., affirmative action programs).

So recently I've read some references to Obama as a "race traitor" because he has stood behind some ideas that have been popular among people who are often demonized by leftists as racist and bigoted. One of these ideas is that some of the responsibility for impoverishment and disenfranchisement in communities of color rests with the members of those very communities. For example, Obama has excoriated black and Hispanic men for fathering and not taking responsibility for children. (Nearly two-thirds of black babies are born to unmarried women, as are nearly half of all Hispanic babies.) He has chastised people young and old for searching for a quick dollar but being unwilling to suffer through the sweat and strain of school and moving up the social mobility ladder from minimum wage to something better by way of hard work. Yes, this does sound reminicent of the criticisms that I've been listening to all of my life: "all minorities want to be on welfare" and "blacks and Hispanics don't want to work hard."

Certainly the problem is that such blanket generalizations are absurd and, for the most part, racist. Most people on welfare are white, after all, and the vast majority of blacks and Hispanics have jobs and work as hard as anyone else. But as a community activist who has spent many years in neighborhoods that have been rocked by joblessness and limited economic and educational opportunities, Obama has witnessed his share of people who actually do NOT take responsibility for the decisions they make and who consequently weaken the social fabric of their communities. What Obama has said is that when these decisions negatively affect others--as when a poor, unmarried woman gets pregnant or a jobless man gets a woman pregnant--other people must invariably step in to help provide social and economic assistance. In other words, responsibility must shift from one person to another person, family, or even an entire community.

Complicating all of this, Obama has argued, is that sympathetic observers and sometimes the actors themselves often try to defend the negative behavior by claiming that it is caused by racism, as though individuals could not have acted otherwise. This type of thinking, he insists, will never change the underlying structures of inequality that undermine poor communities; it only leads to white resentment and further unwillingness to critically example past wrongs and their present-day consequences.

In this sense, Obama represents a new generation of activists and thinkers in the black and brown communities, people who are willing to publicly examine the ways in which poor people participate in their own plight. They are open to examining the nexus of individual free will and the structural constraints of human behavior. In doing so they offer all of us an opportunity to step away from old arguments that bury opportunities for dialogue and move us toward some new kind of common ground.

Emphasis here, what is new about their approach, is that they want to do this publicly. Members of black and brown communities have always been engaged in this debate--it's just that somehow when the debate shifted to a public volume free will and individual responsibility were toned down while the structural constraints of racism and discrimination were voiced loudly for all to hear, especially white people. The fear has always been that if concerns about individual responsibility were carried into the public arena, then white people would use these concerns as an excuse to no longer accept their share of responsibility for the racism and discrimination that does exist and that does benefit white communities. This is why the Rev. Jesse Jackson whispered that he'd like to "cut off Obama's nuts" for continually attacking irresponsible black men. According to the thinking of Jackson and others, these black men would not be "irresponsible" if it were not for deeply institutionalized racism and descrimination, if they had had a fair shake in the marketplace of school and work.

Jackson's criticism makes sense, of course, but the genie may be out of the bottle and these new activists of color may not be willing to keep these criticisms localized to the black and brown communities. They want an open, honest conversation because they believe this is crucial for the change they want to see. And even if it means that leftists like Obama and Corey Booker, the young mayor of Newark, New Jersey, are sitting at the same table as conservatives like Connerly, the conversation is going to take place in public. The only way to create the change that all sides want to see, they say, is to focus on empowerment and THAT must come by way of a thorough accountability for people's actions--white people AND black and brown people.

As the old guard lose their grip on the public conversation, their ability to silence the "race traitors" is going to become increasingly difficult.

The Color of Poverty

I was listening to a story on National Public Radio this evening about "poor people"--which turned out to be about black and Hispanic Americans living in a central city somewhere in the U.S. I was troubled by how often we focus on black and Hispanic people when the topic is about poor people--as if the two are the same. Given this lopsided way race and poverty are portrayed and discussed in our media, it is not surprising that so many of us (including black and Hispanic Americans themselves) assume that connection.

In truth, however, half of all black and Hispanic families are "middle class." Granted, that term is extremely broad and, in fact, most Americans consider themselves "middle class"--including many people who earn over $100,000 and less than $15,000 per year. This is because for most people the category has as much to do with cultural values as it does income, wealth, and status.

Nevertheless, with respect to their economic circumstances, families can be considered more or less firmly embedded into the middle class. Economists call this "Middle Class Economic Security," and a report was published this past summer by Demos, a non-partisan public policy research and advocacy organization, in which the security of black and Hispanic middle class families was examined and compared to the security of middle class American families as a whole. (Unfortunately they left Asians and Native Americans out of their analysis.) By and large the research seems to be carefully crafted--and the findings are worth considering.

To begin, they measure "security" according to five broad indicators:

1. Assets: number of months able to live at 75% of a family's current living expenses using only savings
2. Academic Degree: a family with at least one person with a college degree is more secure
3. Housing: percent of after tax income spent on housing
4. Budget: amount left over at end of year after paying taxes and all expenses
5. Healthcare: number of family members covered by health insurance.

From these indicators, they create an "index of security" that they use to ascertain how secure a given family or group of families appears to be. Here is a summary of their findings:

While 31 percent of American middle class families are securely in the middle class, only 18 percent of Hispanic families and 26 percent of black families have the combination of assets,
education, sufficient income, and health insurance to ensure middle-class financial security.

And while one in five (21 percent) of American families are at high risk of falling out of the middle class, one in three (33 percent) African American familes and twice as many (41 percent) Hispanic families are in serious danger of slipping out of the middle class.

Keep in mind that the security index of "American families" includes black and Hispanic families and is not an index measure of white families -- and so it is skewed downward. Having said that, it is worth pondering just how many Americans of all ethnic and racial backgrounds are at risk.

Consider this:

* A full 95 percent of African-American and 87 percent of Hispanic middle class families do not have enough net assets to meet three-quarters of their essential living expenses for even three months if their source of income were to disappear. Both figures are well above 78 percent, the national average among all middle-class families.

* Sixty-eight percent of African-American and 56 percent of Hispanic middle-class households
have no net financial assets whatsoever and live from paycheck to paycheck. Just over half (52 percent) of Americans in general have no financial assets.

Check out the "By a Thread" report. It is worth thinking about.

Though it is essential to understand these differing patterns of wealth and poverty between groups, it is also important to notice how often our perception of this data is skewed by the sheer number of times the media mixes the term "poor" with the term "black" or "Hispanic."

Obama and Undecided Voters: What Role Does Racism Play?

There is considerable discussion these days about how racism of many undecided white voters might be the factor that keeps Barack Obama out of the White House. This is something worth pondering and an idea that I've been thinking for several months now.

In effect, large numbers of white people have conflicted feelings about black people and other racial minorities, just as many black and brown people feel conflicted about white people. And regardless of their political leanings, white people tend to want to be open-minded and accepting of other people who are not like them--and they tend to believe that they "don't see color." However, below the surface many of them unwittingly have questions and concerns that often do not become articulated thoughts.

At the same time, large numbers of white people feel inundated with the message that "all racism is bad." Naturally, they learn a coded language for how to think and act in multicultural situations or whenever one's behavior and ideas about race might be judged; they learn to say the right thing and appear as though they're a member of the multicultural team, even if they play for another side. Extensive research on "latent racism" (i.e., the racism that is largely buried just beneath the surface of our waking consciousness) clearly suggests that when the moment comes to pull the lever for a black man, many white people are not going to be able to do it.

Dick Meyer, an editorial director for NPR Digital Media, has written a very balanced piece that suggests that Obama's run for the seat in the Oval Office may well be derailed by our inability to create a society that is not mired in prejudice and racism. I'd like to think that Mr. Meyer's research is off base and ill-informed, that he's digging up divisive issues and playing the race card, and that the American public is progressing away from racism. But from what I know about the sociological underpinnings of racism in our society today, I think he may be on target.

You be the judge:

Against the Grain: Obama, Race and Undecided Voters