Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> Discriminations

Legal Commentary

: Discriminations

Shelby Steele Gets Obama Exactly Right, Almost...

In the Wall Street Journal today Shelby Steele explains why and how Obama ?is the nullification of Jesse Jackson ? the anti-Jackson.?

Mr. Jackson was always a challenger. He confronted American institutions (especially wealthy corporations) with the shame of America?s racist past and demanded redress. He could have taken up the mantle of the early Martin Luther King (he famously smeared himself with the great man?s blood after King was shot), and argued for equality out of a faith in the imagination and drive of his own people. Instead ? and tragically ? he and the entire civil rights establishment pursued equality through the manipulation of white guilt.

Their faith was in the easy moral leverage over white America that the civil rights victories of the 1960s had suddenly bestowed on them. So Mr. Jackson and his generation of black leaders made keeping whites ?on the hook? the most sacred article of the post-?60s black identity.

They ushered in an extortionist era of civil rights, in which they said to American institutions: Your shame must now become our advantage. To argue differently ? that black development, for example, might be a more enduring road to black equality ? took whites ?off the hook? and was therefore an unpardonable heresy. For this generation, an Uncle Tom was not a black who betrayed his race; it was a black who betrayed the group?s bounty of moral leverage over whites. And now comes Mr. Obama, who became the first viable black presidential candidate precisely by giving up his moral leverage over whites.

And then came Obama.

Mr. Obama?s great political ingenuity was very simple: to trade moral leverage for gratitude. Give up moral leverage over whites, refuse to shame them with America?s racist past, and the gratitude they show you will constitute a new form of black power. They will love you for the faith you show in them.

The problem, according to Steele, is that candidate Obama ?is more cultural than political.?

He sells himself more as a cultural breakthrough than as a candidate for office. To be a projection screen for the cultural aspirations of both blacks and whites one must be an invisible man politically. Real world politics, in their mundanity, interrupt cultural projections. And so Mr. Obama?s political invisibility ? a charm that can only derive from a lack of deep political convictions ? may well serve his cultural appeal, but it also makes him something of a political mess.

Already he has flip-flopped on campaign financing, wire-tapping, gun control, faith-based initiatives, and the terms of withdrawal from Iraq. Those enamored of his cultural potential may say these reversals are an indication of thoughtfulness, or even open-mindedness. But could it be that this is a man who trusted so much in his cultural appeal that the struggles of principle and conscience never seemed quite real to him? His flip-flops belie an almost existential callowness toward principle, as if the very idea of permanent truth is passé, a form of bad taste.

I have only one qualification to offer to Steele?s analysis, and it?s a question: Will whites continue to shower Obama with ?gratitude? for taking them ?off the hook? if he continues to argue that they, and Asians, should continue to subordinate their desire for equal treatment to the desire of blacks and Hispanics to continue receiving preferential treatment?

Full post as published by Discriminations on July 22, 2008 (boomark / email).