Flashback

From Benjamin Wallace-Wells' "The Great Black Hope" in the November, 2004 issue of The Washington Monthly:

Four years ago, the same could have been said about Cory Booker. And so, the most compelling question about the politics of race right now may be this: Is Booker the next Barack Obama? Or is Obama the next Cory Booker? [...]

In the late 19th century, the Republican Party was operating a shameless affirmative-action program for retired Union generals from Ohio. The result was a string of mediocre presidents. In the late 20th century, Democratic Party politics created a powerful market for moderate Southern governors. The result was one middling president, Jimmy Carter, and one pretty good one, Clinton. Politics has its archetypes and its demands, and they will be heard. There's now an emerging market for a certain kind of black president, the fulfillment of which will be both harder and, potentially, more powerful than any archetype we've seen before. It might be Obama, or it might be Cory Booker, or it might be someone else entirely. But chances are, somewhere in America, that person is watching Obama's career carefully, and dreaming.

And of course what we're seeing from Obama is that it's hard. The sort of politician who can appeal to white voters -- an Obama or a Booker -- tends to run into trouble with black voters early in his career. And as Reverend Wright has made clear to all of us, a politician who threads that needle successfully can wind up haunted by his associations from back when his primary political problem was convincing black people that he was sufficiently authentic. Majority-minority districting is to blame for some of this, but it's an intrinsic issue for black politicians as long as black and white perceptions of America remain pretty far apart.

Comments

It probably doesn't help to have people like Matt implying the only reason Obama would join Trinity is because he needed to prove he was "authentic" for political purposes.

Posted by DTM | June 5, 2008 4:44 PM

Cory Booker is among the young crops of young black leaders that play a prominent role in the national stage in the coming years. They have to emphasis the need of them being judge on the content of their character, their records to burnish their national appeal. For America to move forward, we must re-litigate the 60's. It is time to move on, racial politics have to become the things of the past or at the very minimum be left to the GOP an their identity politic crisis.

Posted by lamine | June 5, 2008 4:45 PM

Sly! MattY is apparently trying to plant the idea that BHO's "interesting" associations were only in the hazy past, when in fact he only ditched Wright a week or so ago and he still has plenty of other "interesting" associations. Better shills please.

Posted by TLB | June 5, 2008 4:53 PM

I'm really dreading the appearance of Steve "SS" Sailer in this thread.

Posted by ben | June 5, 2008 5:04 PM

A suggestion for the Dem activists.

McCain campaign has solicited video profiles of Americans who have worked for a greater good with little or no regard for their self interests.

If I had the means and the skills I would flood the Republican's campaign with videos of Obama.

That would be really awesome.

Posted by gregor | June 5, 2008 5:04 PM

There's only one politician in America that I like more than Obama, and that's Cory Booker. It would be a mistake for him to stay in Newark too long. I'd love to see what he could do as Governor of NJ, but the fact is, he seems to be a really, really good mayor, largely because a city is small enough that the force of personality of a mayor can actually make more of a difference in a city than in working the bureaucracy of a state government. I think Cory Booker has amazing things in his future, but I wonder if it's something other than the Presidency. Perhaps the leader of a nationwide effort to reurbanize and revitalize American cities. I could see him doing that.

Posted by Craig | June 5, 2008 5:04 PM

Very well and succinctly put.

I think one of the shames of the Wright episode was that I saw hardly any news organizations talking to black people about what they thought about America, whether they agreed with Rev. Wright.

Of course that could have sunk Obama's candidacy, if it turned out there was a lot of agreement. Tricky world...

Posted by mk | June 5, 2008 5:06 PM

It’s not just the young minority politicians. It is young minority professionals and students that go through this all the time. Sadly, our parents and grandparents are still suffering from post traumatic stress disorder due to over 300 years of racial strife, prejudice and injustice. Sometimes I want to tell them to just move on (I am only 30) because I see things in through the lens of my perspective. My friends are people who are from all over the world who happen to be straight and members of the LGBT community. Then there are days like tomorrow (the anniversary of RFK's death) that remind me that it was only 40 years ago when the civil rights act was passed, the death of Matthew Sheppard that happened JUST a few years ago and many deaths and abuse of women at the hands of men they love. These things make me understand their perspective. It is not until the older generation confronts the sins of the past that they will move on and it is not until we younger people understand the past that we will appreciate the life we have today..

Posted by Ann | June 5, 2008 5:11 PM

No sh!t it's hard. Obama had to humiliatingly sacrifice himself during his 2000 primary challenge against Bobby Rush by overtly appealing to the (white) Hyde Park liberals in an effort to show the Chicago media that white people would vote for him. Not a smart idea in a district that is 70% African-American -- unless you have different goals (like running for a Repulican-held Senate seat in 2004).

Think about that for a second. In order to successfully thread the needle in a statewide race -- in the most friendly state to black politicians -- perhaps the most talented politician in the past 20 years had to intentionally tank a U.S. House race just to show that he wasn't one of *those* African-Americans.

Posted by Joe | June 5, 2008 5:12 PM

A national black candidate has to "represent" sufficiently to blacks and blend in harmlessly to whites. Take a look at the gauntlet Obama's had to run - it ain't easy. Very, very few blacks aim for the pathetic, contemptible Larry Elder mode - a homely, high-pitched schmendrick who embraced Hannity's America primarily so he could afford the cheap, blowzy, ditzoid "Club" blonde hoes he always lusted after. And, affirmative action notwithstanding, there just aren't that many openings to be the dork rasta NPR film critic a la Elvis Mitchell. Much less, careers in rap or the NBA. Obama is a near-impeccable force for good. Let's honor his achievement and get the brother elected.

Posted by Trevor | June 5, 2008 5:29 PM

James Earl Carter a middling president. Mr. Benjamin Wallace-Wells must be smoking lefty luckies and/or snorting the nose candy. James Earl Carter was the worst president in our history, although the current incumbent is giving him a run for his money.

Posted by SLC | June 5, 2008 5:32 PM

Of course that could have sunk Obama's candidacy, if it turned out there was a lot of agreement. - mk

And a lot of crypto-racist white people would feel confirmed in their prejudices because "wow -- those black people hate America": such people certainly are not going to stop to think why African-Americans think the way they do. I, for one, think we white people, in spite of the occasional "race riot", have gotten off mighty easy considering how America has treated (and still treats) African-Americans.

Posted by DAS | June 5, 2008 6:10 PM

James Earl Carter a middling president. Mr. Benjamin Wallace-Wells must be smoking lefty luckies and/or snorting the nose candy. James Earl Carter was the worst president in our history, although the current incumbent is giving him a run for his money.

Posted by SLC | June 5, 2008 5:32 PM

Oh give me a break. Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, Andrew Jackson, Dubya, Richard Nixon, Grant, and Coolidge are all easily worse than Carter, just off the top of my head.

Posted by lfv | June 5, 2008 6:18 PM

Buchanan automatically wins. He's the only president to have tried to break the country up. How do you think the Confederates just happened to have huge military stores, guns, ammo just lying around despite not being industrialized in the least? Because Buchanan and his Secretary of War spent four years getting ready. That's going to go down as "worst" no matter how you play it.

Posted by Greg | June 5, 2008 6:26 PM

I think it's unfair to suggest that "The sort of politician who can appeal to white voters -- an Obama or a Booker -- tends to run into trouble with black voters early in his career.". Demonstrating one's bona fides to local constituents is a requirement of all politicians. John Kerry found this out early in his political career as well in his first congressional bid, not at all unlike Obama's experience in losing to Bobby Rush or Cory Booker's experience in Newark.

This has been true for politicians from Adam Clayton Powell Jr., to Bobby Kennedy, to Douglas Wilder. It is also true for John McCain as one sees him struggle with appearences in New Orleans or on the Edmund Pettis bridge, communities where he's trying to build ties at the later part of a career as opposed to the begining of his career.

As Lynn Swann, Michael Steele and Ken Blackwell discovered to their detriment in 2006, African Americans most strongly support candidates that are concerned with their interests regardless of their race. This fact has only ever been a benefit to the Democratic party and is one of the things that has kept Barack Obama in good stead.

The really huge story that so often gets missed and is really the game changer is the evolution of huge swaths of the broader white community in it's enthusiasm to support black candidates state-wide and indeed now with Obama Nation-wide. That emergent generational ethos combined with quality African American candidates (All of which produced by the Civil Rights Movement) is what is truly so revolutionary. The axis of that past/future divide runs through Kentucky and West Virginia on one hand and Oregon and Wisconsin on the other.

So yes it's hard but it's a fair thing to ask of any politician seeking wider office regardless of race whether or not they can transcend and build upon their local or base constituency. Because of the generational changes in the white community the potential for this kind of transitional pivot has never been greater for black candidates. But as Lynn Swann, Ken Blackwell or even better, Alan Keyes might tell you, you have to have that consituency in the first place.

Posted by Sihle | June 5, 2008 6:27 PM

I think that part of the reason that "black and white perceptons of America remain pretty far apart" is due to Trinity's preachers' talk about how whites are the descendants of slave owners who get cushy jobs in businesses owned by their grandfathers. That may describe G.W. but it suggests Trinity preachers don't realize that most of the whites and hispanics in this country are descended from people who arrived penniless after 1865.

I think the Democratic party runs the risk that whites who believe Obama sees white people the way Trinity does, and who know perfectly well none of their ancestors ever lived like anyone in a Faulkner novel, may just stay home.

The great irony is that white people who do recognize themselves as the descendants of America's landed elite are all hard-core republicans who would never vote for any Democrat so they could care less what Obama's preachers have to say.

Posted by Diana | June 5, 2008 6:31 PM

It's going to be interesting to see pollings of blacks after Obama loses to McCain thanks to Hillary and Cheney's Iran war.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 5, 2008 7:06 PM

Was Obama's State Senate district a majority-minority district?

Posted by Asher | June 5, 2008 8:06 PM

I don't quite agree with his analogies, though. I don't think internal or electoral politics pushed the Democratic Party toward nominating a black man. I think his color was a bonus for many people, and I think there's been a lot of curiosity about who the first black president will be, but I don't think there was any particular push for a legitimate black candidate. Certainly didn't seem to be the case in 2004, when CMB and Al Sharpton ran vanity campaigns.

Even this year, the Party didn't seem to be pushing for Obama to get it (at least, not before he was in the lead.) His electability due to color has been widely questioned. And the voters seemed skeptical of him until after Iowa. So I'm not really sure what Wallace-Wells is talking about.

You know, even thinking about his Democratic Southern governor example, they only got two Presidential nominees in a half century. That's not a huge trend. I admit that after the Clinton presidency, a lot of people pushed for Southern governors, since at that point (after the last two winning Democrats had been Southern governors) it seemed like a winning formula. Yet with that in mind, the Democratic Party went on to nominate...exactly zero more. So either it wasn't a very powerful archetype, or it went unheard.

Posted by Royko | June 5, 2008 9:33 PM

Matthew,

Why do you keep referring to Obama as "black"? He is half-black. I know the rest of the press keeps referring to him as such and I know he refers to himself as such but it still isn't true. Repeating the big lie long enough doesn't make it anymore true than the weapons on mass destruction in Iraq which all of the press also went along with. Does truth have any meaning to you? As for the argument that people look at him and see him as "black", this is a ridiculous self-fulfilling prophecy by the press. In any other country, someone who is brown and has a mixture of European and African physical traits would be considered mixed-race. The only reason that isn't true in the USA is because the media keeps calling him and other light-skinned people as "black".

Posted by rk | June 5, 2008 9:54 PM

Matthew,

Why do you keep referring to Obama as "black"? He is half-black. I know the rest of the press keeps referring to him as such and I know he refers to himself as such but it still isn't true. Repeating the big lie long enough doesn't make it anymore true than the weapons on mass destruction in Iraq which all of the press also went along with. Does truth have any meaning to you? As for the argument that people look at him and see him as "black", this is a ridiculous self-fulfilling prophecy by the press. In any other country, someone who is brown and has a mixture of European and African physical traits would be considered mixed-race. The only reason that isn't true in the USA is because the media keeps calling him and other light-skinned people as "black".

Posted by rk | June 5, 2008 9:55 PM

Matthew,

Why do you keep referring to Obama as "black"? He is half-black. I know the rest of the press keeps referring to him as such and I know he refers to himself as such but it still isn't true. Repeating the big lie long enough doesn't make it anymore true than the weapons on mass destruction in Iraq which all of the press also went along with. Does truth have any meaning to you? As for the argument that people look at him and see him as "black", this is a ridiculous self-fulfilling prophecy by the press. In any other country, someone who is brown and has a mixture of European and African physical traits would be considered mixed-race. The only reason that isn't true in the USA is because the media keeps calling him and other light-skinned people as "black".

Posted by rk | June 5, 2008 9:57 PM

Greg:

I love alternative-historical/conspiracy theories. Seriously. Have a link about this Buchanan prepared the south for the civil war stuff?

Posted by Arnold Evans | June 5, 2008 10:43 PM

rk,

Um, because he looks black?

Posted by Fighting Words | June 5, 2008 11:14 PM

rk, race is a social construct, and in the society Obama lives in, he's classed as "black" by the vast majority of the population. You are in a tiny minority if you disagree. In other societies he might not be; he might be classed as "Gentile" or "gringo" or "gweilo" or "gaijin" or "mestizo" or "Cape Coloured". But right now, he's black because his society says he is. It's like asking "why is Russell Crowe a celebrity?" Answer: because everyone thinks he is. (How did he become a celebrity is a different question).

Posted by ajay | June 6, 2008 5:06 AM

"It probably doesn't help to have people like Matt implying the only reason Obama would join Trinity is because he needed to prove he was "authentic" for political purposes."

Well, the alternative is that he joined Trinity because he agreed with Wright, and there are going to be enough Republican hacks arguing that, that self appointed Democratic hacks like Matt don't have to do their work for them.

"Why do you keep referring to Obama as "black"?"

Because this country's history of slavery and racism has made the vocabulary for describing intermediate racial mixes radioactive. And it's not hard to tell that Obama rejects being called "white", so that doesn't leave much to call him. Personally, I think we could get by without any reference to his race, I'd rather this campaign hinged on his legislative record, and history of policy statements. But I can understand why Democrats want to avoid that...

Posted by Brett Bellmore | June 6, 2008 8:39 AM

"Well, the alternative is that he joined Trinity because he agreed with Wright, and there are going to be enough Republican hacks arguing that, that self appointed Democratic hacks like Matt don't have to do their work for them."

When you agree with someone on some issues, does that mean you agree with them on every issue? One of Bush's political appointees was accused by his ex-wife of anally raping her while she tried to sleep, but I doubt that Bush is objectively pro-butt rape. Maybe, just maybe, Obama was attracted to Wright's programs of social outreach, which took a lot more of Wright's and the church's time than any of Wright's conspiracy theories.

Posted by Reality Man | June 6, 2008 9:03 AM

What Reality Man said. I'd add that TUCC was and is, as I understand it, also one of the most socially liberal black churches in Chicago - in terms of acceptance of gays, for instance.

Why do we have to have this black or white choice between "Obama hates American just like that awful Reverend Wright," and "Obama is an opportunist who joined TUCC cynically for political advantage." Surely there is a more nuanced position somewhere in the middle.

Also, I just wanted to note that in terms of majority-minority districting, outside the south this mostly isn't a result of gerrymandering, but simply of the fact that the Black population outside the south is very concentrated in a relatively small number of urban areas, and, in particular, tends to be concentrated in heavily black neighborhoods within those urban areas.

Posted by John | June 6, 2008 9:57 AM

Why do you keep referring to Obama as "black"? He is half-black.

RK,

Get off of your high horse. Obama refers to himself as black! Why don't you ask him why he does it?

It is NOT true that "the only reason that isn't true in the USA is because the media keeps calling him and other light-skinned people as "black".

That is a profoundly ignorant statement to make considering the racial and legal history of this country.

I will say what you myopically choose to ignore - the reason mixed-race people (only those that are mixed with black) in the U.S.A. often refer to themselves as "black" is because of the legacy of the "one-drop rule" which legalized racism by saying that anyone with even a "drop" of black blood - even if they looked "white" - was legally considered 100% black!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/mixed/onedrop.html

This was done quite often to cheat mixed-race heirs (children of slave owners and slave women) of their rightful financial inheritance and property.

Black/Mixed-race people, whether they looked like Obama or Cory Booker or Harold Ford or Jennifer Beals were not only legally designated as black - many freely chose to identify as black.

Posted by kara | June 6, 2008 12:56 PM

Crikey! fix the comments!

Posted by judson | June 6, 2008 1:21 PM

Crikey! fix the comments!

Posted by judson | June 6, 2008 1:21 PM