Critical Thinking Amid the Elation

by Shannon Joyce Prince

"Obama is hiding imperialism, neo-liberalism, and corporatism behind the language of progressivism."

Remember back seven years ago to the aftermath of September 11^th when the world was divided into the good and the axis of evil, those who had democracy and those whose envy of it drove them to murderous fundamentalism? Remember the charge of the extreme right - that anybody who didn't support the War on Terror or didn't show the appropriate level of hostility towards Islam or Middle Easterners or paused to quibble over whether or not "enemy countries" had weapons of mass destruction was unpatriotic and insufficiently American? Remember how the left, the middle, and the moderate right took issue with that kind of Manichean thinking while the war hawks said it didn't matter if those who were leading us to war were honest or which Middle Eastern country we bombed because we were representing the concepts of freedom and democracy, thus the nitty gritty about reality and truth weren't important?

I've been stunned to hear that same kind of rhetoric from the left. Either you support President-elect Obama or you're a too cool for school revolutionary snob, a Gloomy Gus, or someone too idealistic, unrealistic, or cynical to be pragmatic or useful. It doesn't matter who Obama is, what he does, says, or stands for - he represents hope and change and that's good enough. The left is currently doing what the right once did, conflating concepts with reality. The right said supporting democracy and freedom and supporting the War on Terror were one and the same. The left says supporting hope and change and supporting Barack Obama are one and the same -- and their elision is just as dangerous. Just as by employing the words freedom, equality, and justice the Founding Fathers were able to hide a white, male, propertied oligarchy in the guise and language of democracy, Obama is hiding imperialism, neo-liberalism, and corporatism behind the language of progressivism.

See, there's nothing wrong with hope as long as the person enjoining you to hope isn't also demanding that you abandon your critical thinking skills. Believe it or not, those of us who criticize Obama are not grumps who enjoy telling children there is no Santa Claus while merrily kicking puppies. I don't begrudge anyone their elation at this time. When my Creole grandfather, a man who had to leave school in the fifth grade to pick sugarcane, called me nearly in tears that Obama had won the election I shared his joyful moment with him. I didn't seize that moment to explain that Jason Furman was heading up Obama's economics team, that as a senator Obama repeatedly voted to increase funding for the war in Iraq, or tell him about the horrible things Obama has said about black fathers such as my wonderful grandfather. The problem, however, is that my grandfather supports Obama because he doesn't know those things. Many of the people that danced in the streets haven't taken the time to do any research on Obama, so part of their euphoria is based on ignorance. Another significantly large population - much of the black community - supports Obama based on the belief that he is secretly not what he has presented himself to be; that once he has sneaked his way into office he's going to rip apart his button-down shirt revealing a bright Superman "S" and suddenly become Martin Luther King's ideological heir.

I've heard another significant faction of people say that it doesn't matter what Obama does or doesn't do because now little black boys can see a black president and know that they can grow up to be president, too. But that's just it - those little black boys are going to grow up. They're going to analyze and think critically (one hopes) and be affected by Obama's rhetoric and his policies. They're going to need substance, not a symbol. And they deserve better than Obama.

"It's one thing for masses of white people to assume that racism is 90% over. It's another for a black man, Obama, to tell them this is so."

People who say Obama is dangerous, perhaps as dangerous as McCain, aren't crazy. What we realize is that while Obama might, and that's a big might, give in to leftist pressure and pass the kinds of positive legislation he didn't as senator, good legislation can be undermined by the racist ideology to which Obama subscribes. It's one thing for masses of white people to assume that racism is 90% over. It's another for a black man, Obama, to tell them this is so. Fostering those kinds of illusions is fatal. I've heard it said that Obama is obviously less racist than McCain and his rural white sycophants because McCain uses racial slurs and Obama doesn't. That doesn't make Obama less racist, just savvier. It reminds me of how aristocratic slave-owners had a hypocritical disgust for poorer, cruder slave traders, or how you read in many slave-owner narratives that genteel slave-owners proudly called their slaves "servants" instead of slaves. That didn't make the slaves any freer, however. Obama might not call blacks the "n" word, but his descriptions of blacks have depicted them as exactly that. Conversely, Obama may never call Afghans r*gh**ds, but if he widens the war in Afghanistan, Afghan civilians won't be any less dead. In fact, Obama's ability to widen the war with Afghanistan might be aided by his genteel language.

You see racists, be they black or white, aren't all as stupid as McCain. As Nancy MacLean noted in her book, Freedom is Not Enough, many racists have gotten hip to equality-sounding language. That's why Ward Connerly's anti-affirmative action bill was called the California Civil Rights Initiative. That's why one racist, nativist, anti-immigration group calls itself Vietnamese for Fair Immigration (though it's run by a white man.) Time after time Obama has treated blacks, Muslims, and Middle Easterners with contempt. No matter how beautiful Obama is when he smiles, poised when he debates, or eloquent when he speaks, he is still racist, and his racism, his willingness to undermine minority concerns, his eagerness to appease whites, his enthusiastic obscuring of both past and present issues of justice and equality are perhaps as dangerous to America as anything McCain could do.

As Derrick Bell, the first African American tenured Harvard law professor and one of America's most brilliant legal minds has pointed out, whites tend to allow non-whites to achieve symbolic racial landmarks only when it meets white interests more than black interests and often by using black figureheads. As blacks place their faith in slow but sure racial progress whites convert old oppressions into more covert forms. Only when blacks are aware of this strategy can they fight for meaningful victories. Interestingly enough, those who criticize Bell tend to do so not because his work is inaccurate but because it's "depressing." I'm sorry, but my concern isn't being the life of the party -- it's seeking liberation for all people. Those who castigate folks for not being appropriately jubilant at Obama's election are insisting that blacks content themselves, in perpetuity, with symbolism instead of real change. All those who don't know what Obama stands for or think he will exhibit qualities contrary to the way he has voted in the Senate and spoken in his speeches or expect him to be loyal to issues he's flip flopped on, are entitled to do so. However, it is irresponsible for those of us who believe that hope is only positive when wisely invested not to use all the research we can gather and all the thought power we can employ to fight for the rights and happiness of all people.

More Stories