Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Academic Blogs -> BlackProf

Academic

: BlackProf

The Swift Boat Cometh, Patriotism, Loyalty and the Anti Americanism Attack on Obama

By Emma Coleman Jordan

 

The Swift Boat Cometh, Patriotism, Loyalty and the Anti Americanism Attack on Obama

This Presidential election will provide an important window into the vitality of an age-old American slander. Black people cannot be trusted to be loyal to America. Make no mistake, the patriotism card works. Just ask John Kerry. Unlike Kerry, however, Barack Obama will face an even deeper narrative in the American experience. In this narrative, the long history of American discrimination against blacks makes us more susceptible to subversion and disloyalty. W.E.B. Du Bois, Paul Robeson, James Baldwin , Kwame Ture (Stokely Carmichael), some of the brightest black intellectuals of their day, fled to other countries to escape the suffocating racism of the eras in which they lived. Even Martin Luther King, Jr. was dogged by the efforts of FBI director J. Edgar Hoover to prove his links to Communism.

These highly visible critiques by black intellectuals of America have been used by liberals and conservatives to support the presumption that black people just cannot be trusted with national security matters. The stereotype of genetic disloyalty seemed to recede in the late twentieth century. Ironically, it was President Bush and his father who broke this mold by appointing first, Colin Powell and then Condoleezza Rice to top national security roles.

As we saw in the run up to the Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, and Vermont primaries, Barack Obama will be taking some of the most intense incoming fire from both Republicans and Hillary Clinton. Obama?s ability to stand up to the crossfire, from Clinton, even as he fends off fire from Republicans, will be the best evidence of his suitability to be head of the Democratic Party, and then Commander-in-Chief. He must provide both defense and offense.

So far, he has shown the remarkable resilience of a political ?prodigy?. In the weeks ahead, probably running through to the Democratic Convention in Denver, in August, he will be called on to show us even more. He will have to withstand, simultaneously, two of the most practiced political opposition machines in modern American politics: the Clintons and the Republican Party.

We can see the lead Swift boat, moving full speed ahead in his direction, complete with dual logos. Hillary Clinton logo and the elephant logo of the Republican party: untraceable emails and comments by Republican surrogates make the following claims: he is a Muslim, he is a full dress Muslim, complete with a white headdress, he consorts with terrorists, he fails to conform to basic American displays of patriotism: hand over heart when singing the National Anthem, or saying the Pledge of Allegiance, refusal to wear the popular flag pin in his lapel after 9-ll, his wife is not ?proud? of her country, even his name is unpatriotic (Barack Hussein Obama is a blend of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden).

The Republican attacks are predictable. Yet, the Associated Press elevated the predictable to the status of news when it published ?Obama May Face Grilling on Patriotism?, and CNN did the same by running a poll titled: ?Does Obama Show Proper Patriotism.?

However, what is truly new is the dramatic synergy between the Clinton and Republican charges. Clinton?s charge that he is not ready to be Commander-in-Chief, reinforces the Republican charge that he is unpatriotic. The most pointed display of the unpatriotic slander from the Clinton campaign is the now-infamous “Red Phone Ad”. In addition, in a foreign policy speech on Tuesday, February 26^th, Senator Clinton charged that Obama does not have the ?wisdom to manage our foreign policy and safeguard our national security? Why is he is not ready to be Commander-in-Chief? Because he is too young and 35 years ago was in middle school? Because he has not been President before? Because, it is not his turn? Because, national security matters are simply too important and complex for a callow youth of 46?

While the Republican charge of anti-patriotism is focused mainly on superficial symbolisms: lapel pins, clothing, headdresses, his middle name or the placement of one?s hands, the Clinton charge goes to the essence of eligibility. Her charge is an existential charge. There is nothing he can do to be qualified to be Commander-in-Chief in time for the election, by her critique.

Fortunately, unlike the boomers Bill Clinton, and George Bush, Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama have to answer for failure to serve in the military. Some part of the Commander-in-Chief role requires leading and giving orders to the military. This is why Senator Clinton has sought to shore up her credentials by serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee. The idea is that legislative experience with military issues is a good substitute for direct military service. Since women could not be drafted, when she was draft age, serving on the Armed Services committee partially immunizes her from the gender based exclusion of women from roles requiring the assertion of military authority. However, Senator Clinton has yet to name a single foreign policy crisis to which she has personally responded. As First Lady, she did not have a security clearance to view classified intelligence documents. Moreover, when she voted on the Iraq War, she did not bother to read the National Intelligence Estimate that provided the collected judgment of professionals in the military and intelligence communities before she voted.

For Obama, military service is also not an issue, because the all-volunteer military was the policy when he reached the 18, both Senators Clinton and Obama are therefore equal on the military service dimension of patriotism.

One iceberg in the path of these two historic nominees is the link between military service and eligibility to serve as Commander-in-Chief. Should either become the nominee, the anti-patriotism charge will become the preferred line of attack to deflect attention from the referendum on the Iraq War. The pieces have already been lined up to fall into place against Obama, should he become the nominee.

The attacks from Senators Clinton and McCain operate in tandem to degrade the confidence of voters in the remaining states in Obama’s suitability to be a military leader. One part of the suitability of the Commander-in-Chief, is undivided allegiance to the United States of America. So, the attacks on his name, his religion, his international family connections, his sometime nonconformity with American norms of public displays of patriotism, his wife’s qualified statement of pride in America, all combine to advance the most devastating charge of the entire campaign: Obama is un-American.

How should this combined charge be answered? Here are four lines of response.

Active Liberty

Obama?s first response is that true patriotism consists of active civic engagement to bring about change in a misdirected foreign policy. Obama refused to hide until the charge blew over. He immediately responded directly, flipping the patriotism charge back at the accusers by turning the question into a contrast between superficial deference to symbols and faithfulness to the deeper meaning of patriotic engagement.

Obama gave this response to a reporter?s question about why he had stopped wearing the flag pin adopted by most politicians, “[y]ou know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest.?Instead I’m going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism.”

The active liberty response to conservative questions about black patriotism is familiar. James Baldwin said, ?I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually?. In Jefferson?s Pillow by Roger Wilkins, a George Mason University historian, argued that: ?If we go back to our Founding Fathers we learn that the best way to preserve our democracy is to use it by being active citizens.? Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, made similar arguments in Active Liberty, his meditation on the core values underlying the Constitution. He argues that citizens ?share the government?s authority? and are duty bound to ?participat[e] in the creation of public policy.? Senator Obama?s responses to the anti- American, disloyalty insinuations draw heavily on the Baldwin, Breyer and Wilkins active liberty argument.

Reconciliation, Unification and Transformation are the Ultimate Acts of Patriotism

In 1993, F.W. de Klerk and Nelson Mandela shared the Nobel Peace Prize for “for their work for the peaceful termination of the apartheid regime, and for laying the foundations for a new democratic South Africa”. This transformation of a white racist society to a multiracial democracy required personal courage and forgiveness by Nelson Mandela and the ANC. In addition, F.W. De Klerk was required to imagine, a radical, yet non-violent, social and political transformation to launch a Constitutional process leading to the adoption of one person-one vote.

The dark history of Apartheid in South Africa led many white South African?s to flee the country in anticipation of majority rule. They reasoned that there would be bloody retribution against all whites by the newly empowered Constitutional majority. Only when Nelson Mandela was released from Robben Island prison by his former adversary, President F.W. De Klerk, did the possibility of taking a more magnanimous path for the entire country emerge, without additional violence.

Barack Obama taps into this international example of conciliatory patriotism only subliminally. Martin Luther King?s phrase, the ?fierce urgency of now? is an established piece of Obama?s acclaimed rhetoric. Beyond the rhetoric, Obama has actually modeled the transformative potential of reconciliation in his calls for multi-racial, intergenerational, and a future oriented vision of the country. In a thoughtful article on Politico.com, Ben Smith catalogues the many racially insensitive blunders that have been directed at Obama. Smith argues, correctly, that these blunders are an important part of Obama?s meteoric rise. ?But most of the flaps ended the same way: With Obama forgiving the alleged offender. Sometimes he?s accepted the apologies graciously, sometimes sternly, but always in line with his message. And that message of reconciliation ? often explicitly racial reconciliation ? is a central part of his campaign?s appeal.?

Like Nelson Mandela, Barack Obama, offers America the potential for a transformative example of patriotism based on reconciliation, not exclusion, on hope, not partisan manipulation of the fear of threats to national security. His vision of the commander-in-chief role has been ridiculed as based on singing the African-based Christian song ?Kuumbayah?, instead of bellicosity. One need go no further than the peaceful transition in South Africa and the joint Nobel Peace Prize for Mandela and de Klerk to see the enormous power of this vision of patriotism.

As the Clinton campaign cites Saturday Night Live, and looks about for an explanation for the secret ingredient to Obama?s success, I suggest they look at the Nobel Lectures of Mandela and de Klerk for guidance. Perhaps America is finally ready to take the next bold step on its long journey toward racial transformation. This will require the personal leadership of a uniter, not a fighter.

Military Valor

Every Black History Month the stories of the Buffalo Soldiers and the Tuskegee Airmen are prominently featured. These stories of American history are designed to show the patriotism of soldiers who were despised, mistreated and segregated, even as they fought and died in War. These super-patriots, now stand as important historical refutation of the age old slander that black people, don?t love America.

Silly Season

Matt Drudge, of the conservative Drudge Report, published a photo of Obama in traditional Somali dress, including a white headdress. Across the political spectrum, politicians who travel abroad sometimes don local dress that they would not be caught dead in at home. This is viewed, as it should be, as an act of respect for other cultural traditions. The Clinton campaign has not denied sending the photo of Obama to Drudge, although Senator Clinton has said that she has no personal knowledge of the distribution of this picture. The non-denial came from Clinton?s recently elevated campaign manager, Maggie Williams, a well-respected black woman, who was chief of staff for Clinton when she was First Lady. :

Obama dismissed the matter with this: “[t]hese are the kinds of political tricks and silliness you start seeing at the end of campaigns,”

The anti-patriotism slander against black citizens is not mere silliness, it is one of the most pernicious assaults on black citizenship, and on the willingness of Americans to select the first black President.

ShareThis

Full post as published by BlackProf on March 06, 2008 (boomark / email).