Obama and the Politics of power... and race

As we head into the final lap of the primary season, we are assailed with a constant barrage of accusations and insinuations - from all sides. As the campaign comes to a climax we have a three-way battle royale underway. It’s ugly and getting uglier. But at it’s heart, it is really just the same old political battle over power – but this time it’s complicated by questions of race.

In the current race, Sen. Obama began to run based on a simple principle. Our politics is too divisive and Americans were ready for something better. He offered himself as the person who could facilitate a transition from the politics of divide, to the politics of coming together. He did so because he believed, pragmatically, that it was possible to change the political paradigm in this country. But he also knew, and told us, that change would not be easy. In fact, it would be damned difficult. And so it has proven to be.

So we have come to the present moment in time… a moment when the obvious has become obvious. What’s that mean? It means that Sen. Obama is obviously Black. And that fact has some pretty obvious connotations in a society that has been defined largely by its racial divide.  And like any “first” to break a long-standing barrier, he faces a higher hurdle than most. He has to prove that he is competent to do the job. But even more, that he is able to do the job in a fair and equitable way, without favoring any particular group, especially his own. This is a hurdle that White male candidates don’t have to jump.  

Sen. Obama has run for President as a Black candidate – but not “the” Black candidate. That is an important distinction, one that seems to be getting lost here.  As “a” Black candidate, he has run as the advocate for the American people and on competence and vision. As “the” Black candidate he is cast as the advocate not for the population as a whole, but just for a segment of the population – the Black segment. But the very fact that he is Black and the “first” means that there are more than a few that are willing to believe that he will represent Blacks before he represents their interests.

Now comes the Rev. Wright pseudo-crisis. Through the dint of opposition research, someone turned up some statements made by the good Rev. that could be made to look inflammatory. And because it suited their political purposes, they threw it into the public arena. Note that there is nothing about Rev. Wright that Sen. Obama is responsible for. Anymore than, as a Catholic, I’m responsible for statements of the Pope or the actions of a pedophile priest.

But, what the good Rev. does however, is surface some not so latent fears about Black people in general and the Sen. in particular - that is that as Black people we and he have interests that would necessarily take precedence over those of the nation as a whole. Comedian Jon Stewart asked the question jokingly, of Sen. Obama, the night before the Pennsylvania primary – The question went something like… How do we know that when you take power you won’t enslave all Whites?  And although said in jest, it is in essence what the Wright controversy is all about.  The fear is… to put it bluntly, that Sen. Obama is more Black than American! And therefore will put the interests of the Black community before those of the lager American community.

But on this score, Rev. Wright has made a valid, if little understood, point. He speaks as a pastor, and as a pastor he is an advocate for the members of his church and the community in which they live.   BUT - Sen. Obama speaks and acts as a politician. And as a politician he serves as advocate and leader of the broader American community. And although a member too of the Black community, he clearly understands and is committed to serving the interests of the American community as a whole, above those of his racial/cultural community if the two conflict. Black people get that – White people are not so sure.

In America today, where men and women of all races and ethnicities have entered the mainstream of politics and power, the question of loyalty to one’s group vs. loyalty to the broader American community, is a valid question. One we should ask ALL politicians. The distinction here is that the “group” in question is a racial minority - one with historical grievances that are well known. Can Sen. Obama serve the larger American Community even though he is a member of this smaller community? Can Sen. McCain, or Sen. Clinton server those broader interests above those of their groups – the interests of lobbyists, wealthy friends and contributors? The answer lies in both the candidate’s histories and their vision.

Americans have to answer for themselves a very basic question – Do we want to trust our fate… again… to the same types of politicians whose ideas of pragmatism are based on the politics of ideology and political contributions and division? Who campaign as “one of us” and govern as “one of them”? Or do we want to trust someone whose group is obviously different that our own, but who trusts us enough to invite us to come together as an American community and to actively participate in our political process, both during the election cycle and also long after the election is over.

We are living with the results of the politics of power and the purse, of divide and dominate right now. The question is - how afraid are we?