OPINION
DOW JONES REPRINTS

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers, use the Order Reprints tool at the bottom of any article or visit:
http://www.djreprints.com.

• See a sample reprint in PDF format.
• Order a reprint of this article now.

The Obama Bargain
By SHELBY STEELE
March 18, 2008; Page A23
Geraldine Ferraro may have had sinister motives when she said that Barack Obama would not be “in his position” as a frontrunner but for his race. Possibly she was acting as Hillary Clinton's surrogate. Or maybe she was simply befuddled by this new reality — in which blackness could constitute a political advantage.

AP
Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama, June 4, 2007.
But whatever her motives, she was right: “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position.” Barack Obama is, of course, a very talented politician with a first-rate political organization at his back. But it does not detract from his merit to say that his race is also a large part of his prominence. And it is undeniable that something extremely powerful in the body politic, a force quite apart from the man himself, has pulled Obama forward. This force is about race and nothing else.

The novelty of Barack Obama is more his cross-racial appeal than his talent. Jesse Jackson displayed considerable political talent in his presidential runs back in the 1980s. But there was a distinct limit to his white support. Mr. Obama's broad appeal to whites makes him the first plausible black presidential candidate in American history. And it was Mr. Obama's genius to understand this. Though he likes to claim that his race was a liability to be overcome, he also surely knew that his race could give him just the edge he needed — an edge that would never be available to a white, not even a white woman.

How to turn one's blackness to advantage?

The answer is that one “bargains.” Bargaining is a mask that blacks can wear in the American mainstream, one that enables them to put whites at their ease. This mask diffuses the anxiety that goes along with being white in a multiracial society. Bargainers make the subliminal promise to whites not to shame them with America's history of racism, on the condition that they will not hold the bargainer's race against him. And whites love this bargain — and feel affection for the bargainer — because it gives them racial innocence in a society where whites live under constant threat of being stigmatized as racist. So the bargainer presents himself as an opportunity for whites to experience racial innocence.

This is how Mr. Obama has turned his blackness into his great political advantage, and also into a kind of personal charisma. Bargainers are conduits of white innocence, and they are as popular as the need for white innocence is strong. Mr. Obama's extraordinary dash to the forefront of American politics is less a measure of the man than of the hunger in white America for racial innocence.

His actual policy positions are little more than Democratic Party boilerplate and hardly a tick different from Hillary's positions. He espouses no galvanizing political idea. He is unable to say what he means by “change” or “hope” or “the future.” And he has failed to say how he would actually be a “unifier.” By the evidence of his slight political record (130 “present” votes in the Illinois state legislature, little achievement in the U.S. Senate) Barack Obama stacks up as something of a mediocrity. None of this matters much.

Race helps Mr. Obama in another way — it lifts his political campaign to the level of allegory, making it the stuff of a far higher drama than budget deficits and education reform. His dark skin, with its powerful evocations of America's tortured racial past, frames the political contest as a morality play. Will his victory mean America's redemption from its racist past? Will his defeat show an America morally unevolved? Is his campaign a story of black overcoming, an echo of the civil rights movement? Or is it a passing-of-the-torch story, of one generation displacing another?

Because he is black, there is a sense that profound questions stand to be resolved in the unfolding of his political destiny. And, as the Clintons have discovered, it is hard in the real world to run against a candidate of destiny. For many Americans — black and white — Barack Obama is simply too good (and too rare) an opportunity to pass up. For whites, here is the opportunity to document their deliverance from the shames of their forbearers. And for blacks, here is the chance to document the end of inferiority. So the Clintons have found themselves running more against America's very highest possibilities than against a man. And the press, normally happy to dispel every political pretension, has all but quivered before Mr. Obama. They, too, have feared being on the wrong side of destiny.

And yet, in the end, Barack Obama's candidacy is not qualitatively different from Al Sharpton's or Jesse Jackson's. Like these more irascible of his forbearers, Mr. Obama's run at the presidency is based more on the manipulation of white guilt than on substance. Messrs. Sharpton and Jackson were “challengers,” not bargainers. They intimidated whites and demanded, in the name of historical justice, that they be brought forward. Mr. Obama flatters whites, grants them racial innocence, and hopes to ascend on the back of their gratitude. Two sides of the same coin.

But bargainers have an Achilles heel. They succeed as conduits of white innocence only as long as they are largely invisible as complex human beings. They hope to become icons that can be identified with rather than seen, and their individual complexity gets in the way of this. So bargainers are always laboring to stay invisible. (We don't know the real politics or convictions of Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan or Oprah Winfrey, bargainers all.) Mr. Obama has said of himself, “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views . . .” And so, human visibility is Mr. Obama's Achilles heel. If we see the real man, his contradictions and bents of character, he will be ruined as an icon, as a “blank screen.”

Thus, nothing could be more dangerous to Mr. Obama's political aspirations than the revelation that he, the son of a white woman, sat Sunday after Sunday — for 20 years — in an Afrocentric, black nationalist church in which his own mother, not to mention other whites, could never feel comfortable. His pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is a challenger who goes far past Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson in his anti-American outrage (”God damn America”).

How does one “transcend” race in this church? The fact is that Barack Obama has fellow-traveled with a hate-filled, anti-American black nationalism all his adult life, failing to stand and challenge an ideology that would have no place for his own mother. And what portent of presidential judgment is it to have exposed his two daughters for their entire lives to what is, at the very least, a subtext of anti-white vitriol?

What could he have been thinking? Of course he wasn't thinking. He was driven by insecurity, by a need to “be black” despite his biracial background. And so fellow-traveling with a little race hatred seemed a small price to pay for a more secure racial identity. And anyway, wasn't this hatred more rhetorical than real?

But now the floodlight of a presidential campaign has trained on this usually hidden corner of contemporary black life: a mindless indulgence in a rhetorical anti-Americanism as a way of bonding and of asserting one's blackness. Yet Jeremiah Wright, splashed across America's television screens, has shown us that there is no real difference between rhetorical hatred and real hatred.

No matter his ultimate political fate, there is already enough pathos in Barack Obama to make him a cautionary tale. His public persona thrives on a manipulation of whites (bargaining), and his private sense of racial identity demands both self-betrayal and duplicity. His is the story of a man who flew so high, yet neglected to become himself.

Mr. Steele, a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and the author of “A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win” (Free Press, 2007).

My last reply as well. But this info may be of interest, in answer to your questions.

(Btw re Myers, I just thought, given his background, that it was interesting. Different. Something to think about. That's all.)

There are simple answers to your questions. The clips are outtakes of entire sermons, and admittedly pieces that are most controversial, but do not distort the message. The sermons have been avail from the TUCC bookstore. Interestingly, there are only a limited number of sermons sold in this media, but these are among them. Also prominently displayed in the book store, along with Obama's book, are books by Malcolm X, Farrakhan, and leaders of the former Black Panthers. I don't know if Cone and Hopkins books are sold there – Cone is the father of BLT and Wright's mentor. I've seen a TV clip where Wright essentially says that if you haven't read Cone or Hopkins you don't know Wright and the TUCC, and he's right. The diff basis for my perspective vis-a-vis yourself and most others, is my familiarity with Cone. I was there when this was born. At that time I was very active politically in Berkeley and also taking Comparative Theology at college. Most activists were not surprised by BLT's political bent, as it was derived from the Marxist Liberation Theology developed by radical Catholic priests in S. America (judged heretical by the Vatican), which we were very familiar with. But with BLT, God, Jesus, all Christian theology was placed in an exclusive black framework; the New Testament is a large black allegory thru which to inform the entire American experience. What was shocking was how, like its cousin the Panthers, it was so vehemently and uncompromisingly anti-white and anti-American. It isn't black supremacist per se, but that is implied, because whites are characterized as so hopelessly racist that they cannot be changed. (A reprint of a Wright sermon in 2006 in TUCC's Trumpet makes this case.) I sat in a pew one day with other activists that had supported the black cause since MLK, listening to epithets hurled at us and being blamed along with all of white America for everything wrong. It was the antithesis of MLK; it was a religious version of Malcolm X. It was a lighter version of Farrakhan, but “Christian”.

Obama knows all of this well. He talks about it in Dreams of My Father. His under-grad associations were primarily black activists, Marxist profs, Farrakhan followers (with whom he writes that he shared their sentiments, but not their methods). Of course Obama has had to deny not hearing the incendiary rhetoric in those specific sermons, but anyone who knows BLT and Wright knows you can't be a close associate (esp for 20 yrs) and not know this stuff. This is what defines who Wright is.

Why isn't more known about BLT? Because it was legitimized by Liberal theological academia in the 70's. A lot of theological studies have been radicalized for a long time. You may have read how Wright is a prominent theologian, widely respected. And he is. And among black churches, a non-trivial number (albeit certainly a minority) subscribe to BLT. There are many churches like the TUCC. You may find them in the United Church of Christ, like TUCC, because the UCC is the most Liberal major denomination. But many are non-denominational. Whites simply don't know this (or more to the point, don't care). Secular media certainly is ignorant about it. It's important to note, too – you'll hear this repeatedly in defenses of TUCC – that through the Liberal perspective, it is the good social works that are what's important. The longer-term effects of political grievance and anti-white separatism are downplayed. For that matter, many higher-educated Liberals essentially agree with BLT's anti-American views; you hear this often as well in TUCC's defense. While most black churches disagree with BLT, teaching the traditional color-blind theology, the good works that TUCC does plus black solidarity keeps many mum. But again, no one is paying attention; there are also plenty of black pastors (esp in the South) to preach intensely against Wright and BLT.

As a final note: Do I think that Obama shares Wright's extreme views? No, I don't. In a way, that only adds to the question of why he did not speak out while he was there. Obama needs to be candid with the voters about this major part of his past and be clear about what about it he considered sufficiently unobjectionable that it justified his continued participation. I saw a piece in the L.A. Times by an activist young woman who knows him from the TUCC, and she was frustrated that he has not been more candid with the “progressive” views he espoused there – policies which are distinctly aligned to the socialist dimension of BLT. This may be what kept Obama in the TUCC, i.e., it's ideological bent. We need to know.

Thanks again for all of your time and thoughts.

Again, I don't know enough about Obama's church. Maybe you know that this church was one that regularly and continuously poisoned minds as you describe. Here's what I find interesting: As you say, even these clips came from videos that were widely available. If they are all so inflammatory, why have we only seen 1 min. and 45 sec. of them? More generally, why do I not know more of the unspeakable things they're up to?–there's nothing secret about it; the congregation numbers in the thousands from what I understand (and Wright has spoken at hundreds of other churches and schools). If there's smoke, there's fire, but what if there isn't all that much smoke? Then, do we really need to make up our minds so quickly?

Finally, Black Power is not Black Supremacy.

It was nice you took time to make another reply. And I thank you especially for your constructive and respectful tone. I hope that my responses have met that standard.

After I wrote the following, which I'll leave here fwiw, I came across a piece written by a black fellow with the New York Civil Rights Coalition and formerly the NAACP. I'm guessing that you too will find this highly interesting and insightful . . .

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinio...

I must comment on your thought re Obama's faith and not rejecting Wright. Like yourself, I have little use for religion, at least the organized variety (I do like the Dalai Lama). If you scan down the page you will see a post I made in ref to what is taught in Obama's church and by Rev Wright, and its origins. I think if you take a closer look, you will find that the organizing principle is hatred of America as being “white supremacist” in its “entire reality.” This is why in the church's bookstore, prominently displayed are the works of Farrakahn, Malcolm X, and former Black Panthers. The church is based on a belief system its founder (a mentor of Wright) describes as the “theological arm of Black Power.” The videos which caused the uproar, leading to Obama speech Tues, are not “snippets” taken out of context as Obama implies, they are representative of the message delivered in this church for 40 yrs.

I voted for Obama in the primary. But when I learned that he had attended a Black Power church like this for 20 yrs, that Wright was a mentor and still advisor to his campaign . . . well, I was just dumbfounded and so depressed. I cannot reconcile Obama making these choices. I cannot understand his minimizing something so egregious. I cannot understand why he is not telling us how he stood up to Wright, grappled with Wright, worked to change the poison – and failing that, why he did not leave. There are after all plenty of other choices.

Perhaps I have this viewpoint because I have seen first hand the results of this poison. When people are taught from early childhood that everything around them, that all they encounter, is part of a vicious plot to destroy them – no wonder it results in a complex of victim hood and grievance. Obama had a wonderful opportunity Tuesday to take this head on. But I guess he could not because the more he would have exposed Wright for all that he is, the more difficult the questions would have become about his sustained involvement. I guess we'll never hear the full truth about the why.

As far as my marketing comment, I'm showing my disillusionment again. The other thing I learned after voting for Obama was that his campaign is virtually a mirror image of what David Axelrod – whose consulting firm specializes in political advertising – put together for Deval Patrick's campaign in Massachusetts. He's used these themes and messages in other campaigns as well. The inspirational “yes, we can” and “you are the change” etc. was all pre-packaged. I guess that doesn't mean Obama doesn't believe it all the same, but it was discouraging to learn that it wasn't original, wasn't really his.

Take care. And thanks again for the dialog.

His long-time personal association with his pastor is something I don't feel qualified to comment on. I know too little about it; it could cut either way for me if I knew more about the church, the pastor, the nature of their relationship and numerous other factors.

Now, I have little use for religion, but there's a lot of good in Christianity, and in my opinion to cite his failure to “reject Wright totally” as “inexcusable and unacceptable” is not only to ask him to betray a basic tenet of his faith, but also to act completely contrary to what he seems to believe about effectuating constructive change.

You also wrote: “So when the world has grown so complex that we more than ever need to see leadership that can prove its mettle, can survive a cauldron on the order of a Firing Line debate, we instead get . . . fantastic marketing.”

Again, I don't disagree that there's a lot of spin inherent to the workings of any successful politician, including this one, but I support Obama's candidacy exactly because I believe his primary motive–more than any other politician in my lifetime–is to try to attack the democracy-killing cancer endemic to our “age of instant fix, instant gratification, personality and identity driven politics, and little objective intellectual rigor.” (I also think he will ask more of the American people than any of his opponents, and that is crucial to the long-term economic health and both the short- and long-term influence of the nation.)

I'm sorry you find it more attributable to fantastic marketing, but it's too bad (from my perspective) that we'll likely never know.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, in turn.

To (d), I think we are getting at the same thing, just different words. Your explanation is more expansive. I was simply referring to his urging a national discussion of the underlying causes.

Also, in the speech while he did point to lack of sufficient responsibility in the black community, I felt, like some others do, that it was not proportionate, didn't scale to other points he was making. This is not a big thing, though.

Where you and I will disagree is on (b), which is the heart of the matter; it was, after all, the catalyst for the speech. The problem is that while he definitely condemned what the public has seen from Wright, as you point out, at the same time he minimized it. (Note Slamfu's pro-Obama post below, precisely because Obama “stuck up for his pastor.”) As he has before, Obama suggested that the videos were cherry-picked “snippets”, were uncharacteristic of the total man and an unfair representation of 40 yrs of good works, asks that we “understand his roots.” And then, and has been noted by quite a few analysts, he disingenuously compares Wright to Ferraro (which isn't remotely true), and compares disowning Wright as tantamount to rejecting the entire black community and his occasionally errant grandmother – even some who've written about this speech in glowing terms saw this to be ugly and misleading. And why make such a stretch? Because he hasn't an adequate answer.

For reasons I describe in my reply below, I find his failure to reject Wright totally, his decision to have had a continued close association with such an individual, to have included him in his campaign, to be entirely inexcusable and unacceptable. Were it another candidate, this would not be tolerated – including by Obama.

Unless I misread you, seems you take the same 'not that big a deal' approach. “Made me think about where they come from and also reminded us that we all have folks in our lives we may not agree with.” Meaning exactly what? They had tough breaks, a really tough time? Made some mistakes in judgment? Had some indiscretions? We're all imperfect?

Let me share something. I was an anti-war activist in SF/Oakland in '69. I saw Black Power born, along with – in Cone's words, it's “theological arm” – Black Liberation Theology, the “basis” for Wright's teachings and the TUCC. I've sat in the pews. I've not only heard the message, but seen its effects first hand. This cannot be scaled down to the “we're all imperfect, we all make mistakes level.” Contrary to Obama's statement that these clips were “cherry-picked” snippets not representative of Wright, and the insinuation that we are not properly factoring in his yrs of good works, etc. – these are snapshots of a continuum of hate that has continued for 40 yrs right up to the present.

Consider that children in that congregation have been taught from early age to view everything about America – in Wright's words, its “entire reality” – through the prism of a conspiracy of white supremacy. Accusations of America that put it on a par with the Nazis. Does this church teach pride of self and one's heritage? Yes. Do good social works? Yes. Exhort personal responsibility? Yes. Promote devotion to family? Yes. But is it also a virulent form of anti-Americanism, does it promote separatism, is it anti-Semitic, does it judge whites as hopelessly unable to see their pervasive racism, does it drive a divisive wedge between its member and their neighbors? Yes to all.

If this isn't enough to unequivocally condemn and disassociate from, then what is? Is this what we really want to hear Obama “stick up for”?

And if another candidate had spent the past 20 years in close association with such a church, consulting with someone like Wright before making any “bold political moves”, bringing an individual like Wright into his campaign, what would Obama say? We know the answer to that. There would be no excuses allowed.

The first response would be, what would you expect? for after all, this is a Dem speaking to Dems and likely Dem-voting leaners.

But what you can really say is that it's hardly imaginative — it is aping Bush.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-20...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9125….

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/l...

http://www.ourfuture.org/

To clean up on the message points: to me, (b) rankled because I don't think Obama would consider the reaction to Wright's extreme comments as being “unfairly overstated”–quite the contrary, he condemned these statements as “unacceptable,” which is a pretty high level for a speech act, if you think about it. (d) I will give you only if it's placed in context, and even then not wholly. First, by placing in context I mean the context of a discussion of the race issue. I think that misrepresents his viewpoint because it emphasizes race as the focal point, and that's how his brand of political action differs, it appears, from Wrights–Obama's focus, as stated in the speech (and as demonstrated in his career), is on ensuring that ALL Americans have ample opportunity to succeed. Further, in this speech (and repeatedly on the campaign trail), he DID point to both legacy and irresponsibility, as you also suggest, as contributing to problems in the black community.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, as to (e), he never claimed that HE will be able to bring us all together to fix whatever. His constant message is that this is his approach, but it is not top-down; it is not something he can do for us. Rather, it is up to us to do for us.

You know, I've disputed Superdestroyer's contention that the USA will become a one-party Democratic nation someday but the facts you list above are fuel for his contention.

Exactly, he had to do something. But unlike every other candidate telling me how much different things are going to be, he did something different. Instead of throwing him under a bus and spouting talking points we've heard a million times before he stuck up for both his and his pastor's points of view, made me think about where they come from and also reminded us that we all have folks in our lives we may not agree with. Many of them a lot closer to us than our spiritual advisors.

Someone else was commenting here saying they were sick of candidates apologizing for what other people say. I think we all are, and I am also sick of them doing it with canned phrases and platitudes. The man just gets it. He's got brains, balls, and a spine connecting them which is way more than I can say for pretty much any other politician.

Great name! Is that Joe Bob language?

Anyway . . . you make a fair point, but so is the other one. A whole lot of people have observed this. Let's keep in mind that this speech was not in the game plan until the Wright flap. Obviously, he saw that he couldn't any longer dismiss Wright, he had to do something. This was not like an inaugural speech laying out a vision, this was a defensive move he had to make. And remember that he started his campaign with an inclusive message that transcends race; when radical racism gets associated with him over a long duration, it's not unreasonable that people ask for that to be reconciled.