Category Archives: Race

A cold one at the White House

Not a lot to say about the president’s beer call with Prof. Gates and Sgt. Crowley at the White House — except that when I saw that they included the veep, I wondered how anybody else got a word in. (And I mean that in a nice way. I like Joe. I enjoy listening to him talk just as much as he does. I’d enjoy a beer with him. Or two, if he was buying.)

Sgt. Crowley didn’t have much to say about it, according to the NYT:

Crowley’s News Conference | 7:30 p.m.

During his short opening remarks, Sgt. Crowley said that he had a “cordial and productive discussion” with President Obama, Mr. Biden and Mr. Gates. He also said that he and Mr. Gates planned to have a telephone conversation in the future.

Afterwards, Sgt. Crowley took several questions from reporters. He declined to go into specifics of what was discussed during the event but did say that there was “no tension” between him and Mr. Gates.

And with that, we are wrapping up this blog post. Thanks, as always, for reading and commenting.

And neither do I.

As usual, Kulturkampf gets us nowhere

The Henry Louis Gates contretemps last week was a classic case of the kind of thing I studiously ignore — the kind of thing that ideological partisans love to shout at each other about, and which make it all that much harder to constructively discuss subjects that really matter.

But I will pass on this column on the subject in the WSJ, which I thought was good. Of course, I thought it was good; its point is the same one I just made — that this was a destructive distraction. Headlined, “The Gates of Political Distraction: Obama’s mistake was falling for a culture war diversion,” it is written by the Journal‘s iconoclastic house liberal, Thomas Frank. An excerpt:

Liberals, by and large, immediately plugged the event into their unfair-racial-profiling template, and proceeded to call for blacks and whites to “listen to each other’s narratives” and other such anodyne niceties even after it started to seem that police racism was probably not what caused the incident.

Conservatives, meanwhile, were following their own “narrative,” the one in which racism is often exaggerated and the real victim is the unassuming common man scorned by the deference-demanding “liberal elite.” Commentators on the right zeroed in on the fact that Mr. Gates is an “Ivy League big shot,” a “limousine liberal,” and a star professor at Harvard, an institution they regard with special loathing. They pointed out that Mr. Gates allegedly addressed the cop with that deathless snob phrase, “you don’t know who you’re messing with”; they reminded us that Cambridge, Mass., is home to a particularly obnoxious combination of left-wing orthodoxy and upper-class entitlement; and they boiled over Mr. Gates’s demand that the officer “beg my forgiveness.”

“Don’t you just love a rich guy who summers on the Vineyard asking a working-class cop to ‘beg’? How perfectly Cambridge,” wrote the right-wing radio talker Michael Graham in the Boston Herald.

Conservatives won this round in the culture wars, not merely because most of the facts broke their way, but because their grievance is one that a certain species of liberal never seems to grasp. Whether the issue is abortion, evolution or recycling, these liberal patricians are forever astonished to discover that the professions and institutions and attitudes that they revere are seen by others as arrogance and affectation.

Frank got that right.

Indeed, the very idea that the president would waste political capital on this at a time when the country needs him to be strong on health care reform is obscene, and a tragic waste.

Hey, folks, can’t you talk about this on a BLOG?

Y’all know how dismissive I was about Facebook a few months ago. Still am, to a great extent. It just seems like a lousy way to communicate, compared to blogs. I mean, I’m ADD enough without constantly being interrupted by the face that someone I knew 30 years ago is going to the supermarket today, or some such. And Twitter is worse, in this regard.

But now I see that Facebook is capable of fostering sustained thought, and serious discussion. This is a revelation to me. But I find myself wondering: Why not just have this discussion on a blog? After all, that’s where it started, with this item by Adam Beam on The State‘s “Metro Desk” blog:

For $250, you can be Charles Austin’s friend

The Columbia Urban League is hosting a retirement tribute for former Columbia City Manager Charles Austin June 15 at the Columbia Metropolitan Convention Center.

The Urban League is sending out letters to community leaders, asking them to join the “Sponsorship” category with a $1,000 donation. The money gets you a nod in the program and eight reserved seats. Donors of at least $250 become “Friends of Charles Austin” and get two tickets.

The money, according to the letter, will support youth leadership programs at the Columbia Urban League.

Austin served as Columbia’s police chief for more than a decade before becoming Columbia’s City Manager in 2003. He retired in January after one of the worst budgeting crisis in the city’s history. He will remain on the city’s payroll as a consultant through June 30.

That fostered a Facebook discussion of admirable depth and seriousness, with none of the pointless digressions that you find too often in the blogosphere. Maybe it’s the nature of the Facebook community, being based however losely on the concept of “friends” rather than random strangers. I don’t know. In fact, I don’t even know if y’all can go read it unless you’re “friends” with these particular people. I suppose I could copy the whole discussion here, but it’s really long.

Here’s a sample, from our own Kathryn Braun Fenner, that illustrates how this discussion dealt with some pretty sensitive topics with both frankness and civility:

I have already come perilously close to being seen as racist, if not having crossed that line, when I have suggested in the past that some of the black community’s emperors have no clothes. Perhaps it would be better heard from someone with darker skin.

I believe the way to progress as a multi-racial society is to move toward colorblindness–judging on the content of character, etc., and that cuts both ways. I support some affirmative action, but only insofar as it does not “Peter Principle” unqualified people into places where they merely reinforce truly racist perceptions. [See, e.g., Charles Austin]

The mostly white power elite know what the deal is–they are paying “tribute” fees to the black power elite. Nelson Mullins wants to show off that it is a Platinum level sponsor while Parker Poe only ponied up Gold level, ergo, Nelson Mullins is the friend of the black man (!). Like I said, there are some talented African-Americans who have achieved a great deal against not insignificant odds, like some of us in this discussion, who are never feted in these events. Then there are the usual suspects.

Harrumph.

Other participants include Kevin Alexander Gray, Bob Amundson, Rhett Anders, Debbie McDaniel, Dan Cook, You, Iris W. Olulenu, Aiyetoro Laura Olulenu, Ernest Wiggins and Catherine Fleming Bruce.

Mind you, I’m not endorsing all the opinions expressed in the discussion. It’s dismissively harsh toward my friends with Columbia Urban League (I was on the board for 10 years). And once or twice it’s too harsh toward Charles Austin, who is a really good guy, but a terrible city manager. But his honor is quite eloquently defended, also — without blinking at his failures running the city. On that point, here’s Kathryn again:

Whoa–what do you mean Charlie doesn’t have any honor left?!?!?

He didn’t steal. He didn’t lie. He didn’t commit any crimes or ethical violations. He just was too nice to fire incompetent people, and didn’t know what he was doing. He tried to “live” his faith, and found that you can’t run, or at least he couldn’t run, a city like a Sunday School. I think that’s plenty honorable.

…and how exactly are we going to hold “folks accountable at the ballot box”? I’m not going to vote for Joe Azar over Bob Coble. Steve Benjamin has payday lender issues and hasn’t formally announced yet. Who’s running against Sam, and is it right to kick him out? Tameika is up, too–is she responsible? Who’s running against her–someone better?

Charlie was accountable and he resigned. Pretty honorable all told. Not perfect, could have done it sooner, should have done it sooner, but he did ultimately do the right thing. He’s essentially getting severance, which is dubious under current conditions especially, but not unwarranted under the circumstances of his long, and for the most part, excellent service. He basically deserved and got an honorable discharge. Being promoted beyond your competence and doing your best, honestly, and failing, is not in any way dishonorable!

He didn’t even torture anybody!

So it’s a good discussion all around.

And what I want to know is, why didn’t this discussion happen on a blog?

Caller strikes blow for George Washington and other white folks

Just thought I'd share this voicemail from over the weekend, of a type that I get from time to time. I like to share the joy when I can.

It's from a reader who wanted to see more about George Washington's birthday in the paper. I thought at first maybe this was someone who had missed the point that this year was Lincoln's 200th, and thought Washington should have gotten as much play as Honest Abe. But no; that wasn't the caller's problem.

Here's the audio
, and here's my transcription of the money part of the message, in case you can't hear it:

…On Martin Luther King's birthday, y'all had pages and pages and pages of stuff, for weeks and weeks and weeks. I think it's a 'sgrace… your paper is not for our state; it's for the black people; it's not for the white people; you're a racist paper; that's why nobody takes you anymore. Goodbye.

Historic Isadore Lourie speech

Running into Joel Lourie today at Rotary reminds me of this historic speech of his Dad's that he shared with me back in January, saying, "I thought you might enjoy a speech given by my father in 1970 when I.S. Leevy
Johnson and Jim Felder became two of the first three African-Americans elected
to the SC House since the early 1900s. Given the upcoming inauguration in
Washington, it is a great example of how far we have come."

He said I should feel free to share it, and I meant to. Now, belatedly, I do so, in a spirit of gratitude for the leadership that Joel's late father gave this community:

Remarks

By the

Honorable Isadore E. Lourie

On the Occasion of the Installation
of the

Richland County Legislative
Delegation

November 13, 1970

House Chamber, The State House,
Columbia, South Carolina

 

For most of us … our youth was a
pleasant time when bare feet carried us through happy summers and warm
breakfasts carried us to schools where learning and friendship mixed to fill
our minds with new ideas and our characters with strength.  The world was at our feet.  Every one of our mothers and fathers held
out unlimited hope for our futures.  No
barriers stood in the way of our dreams. 
In every sense of the word … we were free … free to look forward to
tomorrow … free to be ourselves … free to be proud … free to harbor all of the
hopes of youth … free to daydream of conquering challenges. 

 

At the same time … some of our
neighbors felt the frustration of limited dreams.  History had written that theirs was a smaller world where hope
was rationed in small portions and daydreams were not visions of things to come
… but fantasies of wishful thinking that would be shattered by a world where
clouds of misunderstanding blackened the horizons of hope.  To eight generations of Black children … the
time between birth and death was an age of frustration and broken dreams.

 

The days of our youth were times of
different worlds when we saw things in different lights … one world illuminated
by unbounded future … the other illuminated by the dismal gray of limited
fortune.

 

The years since we were young have
ticked away waiting for those two separate worlds to confront each other.  In some places that confrontation has been
marked by spilled blood … by the clash of raw emotions that have turned
neighbor against neighbor.  In some
places … the shrill sounds of separatism and hate have been the chorus which
accompanied that confrontation.  In some
places … both worlds have been washed away by changing times only to be
replaced by even more intense bitterness. 

 

Last week … thousands of Richland
County citizens stood quietly in lines before polling booths pondering the
course of our history.  In orderly
processes … they marched one by one into gray metal machines which would
register their decisions.  Alone …
unwatched … unaided … they pulled the levers that bring our people together.  Silently … without a word … thousands in
company of only their own thoughts … reached and pulled and then walked away to
let collective judgment steer the dreams of the next generation of young
daydreamers. 

 

In an old warehouse … the men sworn
in today … waited for those secrets to become known.  Men who work with their hands … women who raise children …
lawyers … doctors … black men … white men … children and grandparents crowded
together in front of television sets which lit the campaign headquarters with
anticipation.  All eyes found a common
direction and calculated silently as returns flashed on the screen.  The favorable early returns began the crowd
buzzing … and discussions of hope started in each corner of the red, white and
blue bunted room.  Ten precincts …
twenty precincts … thirty … then forty … and finally all precincts reported
their judgments.  The two worlds had
come together peacefully.  In Richland
County, South Carolina, we had chosen the road to decision that allows every
man to take part. 

 

Jim Felder and I.  S. Leevy Johnson have become Representatives
in the General Assembly of all the people. 
Today … they are very special because they are the first.  But they will never be special again.  And that is what it was all about … making
it an everyday occurrence to be a lawmaker … making it normal to serve your
fellow man no matter what the color of your skin is.  Some newsmen have predicted Jim Felder and I.  S. 
Leevy Johnson will be very special Representatives.  But it is our hope that they will just be
Representatives … providing answers to the problems we all face.

 

Governments are established to solve
our common problems.  Lawmakers seek
solutions for all the people … and none of the people can be a special
case.  Perhaps now … it will be that way
in South Carolina. 

(Note – the speech is for the installation of
the Richland Delegation which included I.S. Leevy Johnson and Jim Felder.  Herbert Fielding, from Charleston, was the
third African-American elected to the House that year.  These three men were the first
African-Americans elected to the SC House of Representatives since the early
1900s)

Notice how this hasn’t helped with SC jobs

Tomorrow's op-ed page features this Trudy Rubin column about how, in tough economic times, xenophobia and scapegoating of "the other" tends to rise. She speaks of the synagogue trashed in Caracas, similar incidents in Argentina, the Vatican's recent mess with the reinstated archbishop, etc.

And just in passing, there is a mention of a type of scapegoating we have seen in this country:

    Of course, it won't just be Jews who will be scapegoated. It can be Chechens or dark-skinned people from the Caucuses in Russia, or migrant workers in Chinese cities, or illegal immigrants in the United States.

Well, yes and no, in terms of the direct correlation to the economy. We saw the rise of resentment of illegals peak BEFORE the economy's recent southward trend. And in fact, one has heard a lot less about it recently than one heard back before John McCain became the GOP nominee (except, of course, from the kind of GOP voter who said they would not vote for him, not no way, not nohow).

Of course, there are some here in SC who would attribute the quieting of the anti-illegal lobby to the terrific job they say they're doing. I just got this release today from S.C. Senate Republicans:

South Carolina’s Immigration Laws Could Be Severely Weakened

Federal Government May Not Reauthorize E-Verify Program

Columbia, SC – February 17, 2009 – South Carolina’s State Senators are taking action and asking the United States Congress to reauthorize a federal program that is presently allowing the state to crack down on illegal immigration.  State Senator Larry Martin (R-Pickens) today introduced a resolution urging Congress to reauthorize the E-Verify program.
    E-Verify is an Internet based program run by the Department of Homeland Security, which allows for the instantaneous verification of an employee’s residency status.
    After an outcry from businesses, workers, and taxpayers across the state, the South Carolina General Assembly last year passed the nation’s toughest illegal immigration laws. Using the federal government’s E-Verify program, South Carolina’s new laws give the state the ability to punish those who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.  Unfortunately, South Carolina’s laws could lose their teeth and be severely weakened if Congress does not reauthorize E-Verify.
    Senator Larry Martin says the affect on South Carolina’s economy could be devastating.  “We now have the third highest unemployment rate in the nation due to this harsh economic environment. Our new law has stopped the influx of undocumented workers in South Carolina. We need to ensure that every available job in the state is being filled by a legal United States resident.”
    Martin continued, “E-Verify is the most cost-effective, secure, and reliable tool for businesses to verify the residency status of their employees. I can not urge Congress enough to reauthorize this vital program.”
            ###

So basically, he's saying we've got to keep out the illegals to protect our jobs. To which I say, what jobs? The period during which he's saying SC's done a great job of keeping out illegals (which remains to be seen, but let's play along) is a period in which unemployment in SC has soared.

Here's a clue, folks: You know what's more likely than anything else to keep out illegals? The continued decline of our economy, that's what. When there aren't jobs to be had, they're going to stay away. But is that what we want?

Think about it: Would you rather have high unemployment and keep the illegals out, or low unemployment but with illegals here? I'm sure the choice before us is not a pure question of either-or, but a basic understanding of supply and demand would suggest that there is a high correlation…

How dumb can an unfunded mandate get?

I've never compiled an All-Time, Top Five List of Dumbest Unfunded Mandates Ever, but if I did, Robert Ford's "idea" (I'm using the word loosely, hence the quote marks) to require local gummints to take off on Confederate Memorial Day would certainly make the list. There's nothing new about it, of course — he's pushed this one before — but hey, a classic is a classic.

I find myself wondering whether Sen. Ford and Glenn McConnell are going to go back on the TV circuit with their Separate Heritages act — you know, McConnell in full Confederate dress-up; Ford in dashiki talking Black Liberation — or maybe they already have done that again in this cause, and (mercifully) I missed it.

In case you know not whereof I speak, the two Charlestonians, in a determined effort to show us all that there IS something odd in the water down there, went about in costume a few years back emphasizing that black and white South Carolinians should be encouraged in celebrating their very separate heritages — as though we have naught in common. Brilliant.

Katon comes in second



Just a moment ago I noticed that Katon Dawson didn't get that job he was gunning for. As y'all know, I really don't have much to say about the parties and whom they choose to lead them. Although there are many fine individual people in each party — and I'm sorry to hear that Katon got disappointed this way — I'd just as soon the parties both sort of dry up and blow away.

I guess it's nice that they picked the black guy instead of the "Barack the Magic Negro" guy. And it's nice for the home team, just speaking chauvinistically, that Katon came in second rather than getting totally crushed. But that's as far as my thoughts take me.

But I thought y'all might have something to say about it, so I pass this on:

BC-Republicans,14th Ld-Writethru/743
Eds: UPDATES throughout, ADDS photo links.
GOP elects first black national party chairman

By LIZ SIDOTI
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Republican Party chose the first black
national chairman in its history Friday, just shy of three months after
the nation elected a Democrat as the first African-American president.
The choice marked no less than "the dawn of a new party," declared the
new GOP chairman, former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele.

Republicans
chose Steele over four other candidates, including former President
George W. Bush's hand-picked GOP chief, who bowed out declaring,
"Obviously the winds of change are blowing."

Steele takes the
helm of a beleaguered Republican Party that is trying to recover after
crushing defeats in November's national elections that gave Democrats
control of Congress put Barack Obama in the White House.

GOP
delegates erupted in cheers and applause when his victory was
announced, but it took six ballots to get there. He'll serve a two-year
term.

Steele, an attorney, is a conservative, but he was considered the most moderate of the five candidates running.

He
was also considered an outsider because he's not a member of the
Republican National Committee. But the 168-member RNC clearly signaled
it wanted a change after eight years of Bush largely dictating its
every move as the party's standard-bearer.

Steele became the
first black candidate elected to statewide office in Maryland in 2003,
and he made an unsuccessful Senate run in 2006. Currently, he serves as
chairman of GOPAC, an organization that recruits and trains Republican
political candidates, and in that role he has been a frequent presence
on the talk show circuit.

He vowed to expand the reach of the party by competing for every group, everywhere.

"We're
going to say to friend and foe alike: 'We want you to be a part of us,
we want you to with be with us.' And for those who wish to obstruct,
get ready to get knocked over," Steele said.

"There is not one inch of ground that we're going to cede to anybody," he added.

"This is the dawn of a new party moving in a new direction with strength and conviction."

His
job is to spark a revival for the GOP as it takes on an empowered
Democratic Party under the country's first black president in midterm
elections next fall and beyond.

He replaces Mike Duncan, a former
Inez, Ky., banker who abandoned his re-election bid in the face of
dwindling support midway through Friday's voting.

Two others who
trailed farther back in the voting eventually followed suit, former
Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell and Michigan GOP chairman Saul
Anuzis.

In the sixth and final round of voting, Steele went
head-to-head with his only remaining opponent, South Carolina GOP chief
Katon Dawson. Steele clinched the election with 91 votes; a majority of
85 committee members was needed.

Just eight years after
Republicans controlled both the White House and Congress, the GOP finds
itself out of power, without a standard-bearer and trying to figure out
how to rebound while its foe seems to grow ever stronger.

The
Democratic Party boasts a broadened coalition of voters — including
Hispanics and young people — who swung behind Obama's call for change.
At the same time, the slice of voters who call themselves Republican
has narrowed. The GOP also has watched as Democrats have dominated both
coasts while making inroads into the West and South, leaving
Republicans with a shrunken base.

Despite the run of GOP losses,
Duncan had argued that he should be re-elected because of his
experience; his five challengers called for change and said they
represented it.

As he left the race, Duncan thanked Bush and said of his two-year tenure: "It truly has been the highlight of my life."

Another
candidate, former Tennessee GOP Chairman Chip Saltsman, withdrew from
the race on the eve of voting and with no explanation, saying only in a
letter to RNC members, "I have decided to withdraw my candidacy."

Saltsman,
who ran former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's failed presidential
campaign last year, saw his bid falter in December after he drew
controversy for mailing to committee members a CD that included a song
titled "Barack the Magic Negro" by conservative comedian Paul Shanklin
and sung to the music of "Puff, the Magic Dragon."

1st black AG (yawn!)? Is anyone still keeping score?

Holdereric

So we’re told Eric Holder would be another historic "first:"

WASHINGTON — Eric Holder, a former No.
2 Justice Department official, has been told that he can become the
nation’s first African-American attorney general, a person with
firsthand knowledge said Tuesday.

While Obama hasn’t formally
tapped Holder, one person with direct knowledge said "it’s his if he
wants it." This individual asked to remain anonymous because of the
sensitivity of the matter.

Beyond being a history-making
appointment, Holder would be faced with some of the nation’s most
divisive legal controversies, including the Bush administration
policies on torture, electronic eavesdropping, the extent of
presidential power and the imprisonment of terror suspects without
charges, trials or the right to challenge their detention….

Which makes me wonder: Now that everyone seems agreed that we just elected our first black president (my quibbles about the terminology aside), just how big a deal is it to have a black AG? Or whatever the job.

And at what point to we stop keeping track? When does it no longer excite comment? Or when does it get to be like baseball stats? I can hear my wife’s cousin Tim McCarver saying, "Joe, this is the first time we’ve seen a mustachioed AG nominee chosen by a left-handed president from Hawaii in the post-election season…"

What did Tuesday’s election say about race?

Now that Obama has won the election, we see a number of narratives emerging as to what it means in terms of race in America:

  • Some folks are just stunned that a "black man" could get elected president. They had always hoped, but hadn’t dared to expect it, what with white people being so wicked and all, but all is right with the world. Our long national nightmare is over.
  • Others are equally shocked and pleasantly surprised, but caution us not to think that we’ve put racism behind us, so don’t let your guard down, folks.
  • Then there are those who say, Of course we elected a black man president; we could have done it sooner given such a well-qualified choice. No one should be a bit surprised, and this proves that racism is something we don’t have to wring our hands about any more, so can we talk about something else now?
  • Finally, there’s me and a couple of other people who say, "What do you mean, ‘black man’?" This is a guy whose white American mother married a foreign student — someone who came to this country to avail himself of its great store of educational opportunity, NOT someone brought here from the OTHER side of the African continent as a slave. Yeah, he decided to self-identify as a black man, but does that make him one? So does this prove anything? Maybe it does since so many people, black and white, seem to have accepted his self-identification, and he was elected because of/in spite of that. But given his anomalous background (and since I share some points of commonality with him in terms of my own peripatetic childhood — things that make me think that just maybe there are things about him I understand that your average black or white voter does not — I feel some entitlement to speak on this point), does it REALLY mean what people say it means? This is a very, very talented young politician who, if anything, personally transcends race — so maybe THAT means something. But I don’t know.

Those are the strains I’ve identified so far. Y’all see any others?

Barack Like Me

Obamapunahou1
By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
One day when I was on the Radford High School track team in Hawaii, I was watching a race from the sidelines, which is where I spent my entire brief track career. A teammate was pulling away from the other schools’ runners. Two other teammates standing near me, both Hawaiians, got very excited.
“Look at that haole run!” one cried.
The other boy corrected him: “He’s not a haole.” A haole, you see, was someone who looked like me. The runner who was winning the race was of African descent.
The first speaker paused a second before happily shouting, “Look at that black Hawaiian run!” With that, his pedantic friend enthusiastically agreed.
I’ve recalled that scene many times in recent months, as Barack Obama won a hard-fought campaign for the Democratic nomination, and proceeded to the point that he is poised to become president of the United States, barring a turnaround in both the economy and the political competence of his opposition.
Whenever I hear people speak breathlessly of his becoming the first black president, I think no, that’s not quite right. I don’t think of him that way. The details I know about him and his life just don’t add up to the description of “black man,” in terms of what that means here on the mainland.
I’ve said that several times, and each time, someone will demand to know what I mean. I have two answers to that. The first is short and simple: He has no ancestors who were brought to America in chains as slaves. Not one. That separates him from the entire American narrative of race.
This very long, rather complicated column is my other answer. This is who I think Barack Obama is, to the extent that you force me to categorize him ethnically.
First, I don’t want to do that. I don’t like doing that with anybody, and I like doing it even less in this case. I can look at John McCain and agree with you that he’s a white guy — a fact to which I attach no importance, but an easy one to agree upon and then set aside. But the Barack Obama who drew my support and that of my colleagues in the South Carolina primary is a person who — at least in my mind — defies such simple categorization. I don’t think of him as a white man or a black man. I think of him as the man who inspired a transported, ecstatic crowd in Columbia, S.C., to chant “Race doesn’t matter!” on the magical night of his victory.
Hard-headed pragmatists will point out to me that this man I see as the post-racial ideal won with more than three-quarters of the black vote that day in January, and that many of those voters were very excited about voting for him as a black man. This is true. But it is also true that a month or two earlier, most of those same voters had been expected to support Hillary Clinton. And while part of it was that they thought that as a black man he had no chance, part of it was also rooted in the oft-repeated charge that Sen. Obama was not “black enough.” The first excuse vanished when he won in lily-white Iowa. The second was no longer mentioned, although it remains as accurate as ever, if you consider a certain amount of “blackness” as being necessary. Which I don’t.
The thing that has struck me over and over is that in some ways Sen. Obama has as much in common with me as with the average black American voter. Hence the headline of this column, obviously drawn from the iconic book about a white man who tried to experience life as a black man, Black Like Me. You might think me presumptuous. But presumptuousness is but one trait I believe I have in common with the candidate. Some might call it “audacity.”
Granted, the fact that both of us graduated from high school on the island of Oahu is a thin commonality, but it’s a telling one. It’s certainly more significant than the coincidence that I once lived in his grandparents’ hometown of Wichita. There are important differences in our Hawaiian narratives, of course. He went to Punahou, a posh private school; Radford was public. I only attended the 12th grade there; he grew up there.
That is, he grew up there when he wasn’t living for several years in Djakarta, Indonesia. I also lived inObamalolo
the Third World as a child. In fact, I lived in Guayaquil, Ecuador, longer than anywhere else growing up. Young “Barry” and I both spent part of the 1960s thinking in a language other than English. Both of us lived a joyous outdoor, Huck Finn sort of existence in tropical, pre-television worlds (“one long adventure, the bounty of a young boy’s life,” he would later write), and just as happily returned to what he termed “the soft, forgiving bosom of America’s consumer culture.” We both had a period of adjustment in which our soccer-trained bodies struggled to “throw a football in a spiral.”
He lived with his (white) maternal grandparents while his mother was still in Indonesia and his father was far off in Kenya. I lived with my maternal grandparents (although with my mother and brother) while my Dad was in Vietnam.
We both ended our childhoods on an island where there were “too many races, with power among them too diffuse, to impose the mainland’s rigid caste system,” which produced what he called “the legend” of Hawaii “as the one true melting pot, an experiment in racial harmony.”
To me, it was more than a legend; it was reality. It was the first place where I saw significant numbers of interracial couples, and the only place where such unions excited little comment — within my hearing, at least.
But that’s where our stories diverge. It’s where Barack Obama began a quest to define himself, both ethnically and personally, as the son of his absent and little-known African father. He decided something I never felt compelled to decide — “that I needed a race.” Because of his father, and because of his own very limited experience with people around him calling attention to his unique appearance and strange name, he began a complex quest: “I was trying to raise myself to be a black man in America.”
That quote, and the preceding ones, are from his book about that quest, Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. That memoir forced me to remember things that run against the perfection of my Hawaiian memories. As I read of his few personal encounters with racism in those years, from the real (a coach using the “n” word) to the merely suspected (why, he wondered, did a woman in the supermarket ask whether he played basketball?), I’m reminded of a girl I knew at Radford.
Her father was black, and her mother was white, which had never meant anything to me. But one day one of my best buddies told me of a terrible dilemma: He wanted to date this girl, and her mother insisted that any boy who took out her daughter had to first introduce her to his parents. This horrified both my friend and me, but for different reasons. I was pathologically shy, and had few dates in high school. If I’d had to introduce those girls first to my parents, I’d have had no dates at all — it would have raised the emotional stakes out of my range. I kept my two worlds — the one in which there were parents, and the one in which girls existed — strictly apart. So I thought it horribly cruel of the mother to raise an almost engagement-high barrier to her daughter’s social life.
But I also understood she was trying her best to protect her: My friend’s problem with taking her home was that he thought his working-class Irish parents would not approve.
It was amid such tensions between Hawaiian racelessness and Mainland prejudices that Barry Obama struggled to define himself. He listened to Marvin Gaye and mimicked the dance steps on “Soul Train.” He learned to curse like Richard Pryor. He sought out basketball games with the few young black men he could find. He turned to a friend who had lived in L.A. — the two of them were practically the only “black” students in the school — for clues. He read The Autobiography of Malcolm X (as did I; it was required at Radford).
But in Hawaii, it was a struggle. While he believed he had to be a black man, it was nevertheless an identity he had to learn.
His conviction that blackness was an unavoidable thing he had to come to terms with is something that he does seem to have in common with most black Americans. It’s the perfect complement to my own white complacency about race as something we can all forget about.
But both of us emerged from polyglot, rootless childhoods to deliberately put on identities as adults. He worked on the mean streets of Chicago, eventually defining himself more specifically as a black man from Chicago. After a childhood devoid of religious identity, he joined the church of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
For my part, I went from attending nondenominational military chapels to converting to Catholicism, and while I believe it is my true spiritual path, I also know that on some superficial level I embraced it as a welcome, sharply defined identity, a clear sense of self that I could never achieve as a white, partly Anglo-Saxon, vague Protestant.
And I quite deliberately went from being a geographically universal Navy brat without a trace of accent to define myself as a South Carolinian. I moved to the state of my birth, my mother’s home state, in 1987, and have never moved again. As Barack Obama — not Barry any more — dug relentlessly in the soil of Kenya for his heritage, I wrote scores of columns and editorials about the problematic meaning of the flag that my Confederate forefathers served under.
Very different, perhaps, but the process of deliberate self-definition unites us. That, and a certain analytical detachment of perspective that mars the perfection of our new identities.
There’s a reason why a lot of military brats become journalists. We become, as children, accustomed to trying to fit in, but at the same time being observers of the communities we try to embrace. There is a sense of outsiderness, a sense of being watchers, that we never entirely shake. So it is that I see a kindred spirit in the candidate who spoke in such professorial tones of “bitter” working-class whites — without malice, but with a detachment that alienated those he described.
And I could be dead wrong, but I think I understand how a man of such inclusive instincts could have sat in a pew for 20 years listening to the Rev. Wright’s outrageous black nationalism. There are times when, confronted with some of the more idiosyncratic aspects of Catholicism — say, devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus — I think on some level, I suppose these Catholics do these things. And since I have decided to be Catholic, I accept it. I suspect there were times, many times, when Barack Obama thought on some level, I suppose these black preachers say these things, and accepted against his own inclinations.
Do you think I’ve gotten myself into enough trouble with enough people in this long, rambling reflection? I’m sure I have. But I hope I’ve communicated that while I see why some simply call Sen. Obama a “black man,” I’m more likely to think, “Barack like me.”

Go to thestate.com/bradsblog/.

Obamaindo1

The opus is done; you’ll see it Sunday

Well, I just finished writing what I consider to be my most provocative column of this long presidential election. At least, it’s the most provocative to me. You have to consider that I didn’t expect the John Edwards column to cause such a fuss. So maybe this one will be a dud; I don’t know.

But I do know it’s longer than any other column that I can ever remember publishing in the paper — twice as long as usual. It will jump from the Sunday editorial page to the op-ed page. But then, I’ve thought about it a lot longer than I do most columns — months, in fact. That’s something it does have in common with the Edwards piece, although this one is much more complicated. Even at this length, it requires the reader to understand more than I have space to say. And maybe, because of that, it will be unintelligible. But a lot of my columns attempt to say more than I can denote in a limited space. This one just has more than usual to say.

Anyway, I look forward to your reactions to it. I think.

Busy reading Obama’s book

Just so you know, I’m probably going to be posting a little less often this week, until I can get done reading Obama’s book about his childhood.

I think I’ve finished the parts that I really need to have read for the column I’m doing for this weekend, but I’m trying to go ahead and finish it. What column? It’s one about an idea, or set of ideas, I’ve mentioned before:

Talk about what the election of Barack Obama as a black man means
misses the point, since — as a lot of black folks asserted last year
leading up to the primaries — Obama simply is not a "black man" in the
sense that the phrase has meaning in American history, sociology and
politics. I’ve got a column I’m planning on writing about that, after I
read his autobiography on the subject. It will be headlined "Barack Like Me,"
and it will be rooted in the experiences he and I share spending part
of our formative years in Hawaii (where race simply did not mean what
it means here) and outside the United States — both in the Third
World, in fact. None of these experiences are common to the sort of guy
we describe when we say "black American." I hope to write that one
before the summer is over.

I’m a really, really, excruciatingly slow reader (but my retention is good, once I’m done). So I’m trying to grab those moments during the day that I would normally use for blogging.

And then tonight is shot because of the debate. I’ll try to post during or after that.

Just in case you think all the shouting happens here in the Blogosphere…

My colleague who processes incoming letters regularly forwards copies of those that are specifically responding to a personal column. I’ve been copied several of those today from my Sunday column. Here are my two favorites so far. They illustrate the point that those of us who edit editorial pages had been dealing with the "blogosphere" for years before the word was coined.

By the way, I have no idea whether either of these will be among the few chosen to be published. I’m satisfied to see them (or not) when they show up (or don’t) on the page.

Anyway, first I get BAM from the left:

    In "Worrying  about what happens if Obama loses" (Sunday September 14), if Brad Warthen doesn’t consider Barack Obama to be a black man, then what does he consider him to be?   Nevermind the angst over a polarized country, Mr. Warthen has more important worries such as how he can educate himself on issues of racism.  Surely, anyone who has spent five minutes seriously considering racism on a real level would instantly know that the Rev. Joe Darby is dead on with his assessment of white middle America.  Not so?  Try imagining Sarah Palin’s life superimposed on the Obama family and see if the same sympathy and understanding resonates.
    It would seem that Mr. Warthen doesn’t consider Obama black because he obviously doesn’t see black: par for the course in South Carolina.  And like so many typical South Carolinians, if you don’t see race, then you certainly don’t have to deal with the issue in any meaningful way.

Then I get BAM-BAM from the right:

    Mr. Darby is about as racial as you can get.  I have read his diatribes promoted as Guest Columns.  In many ways he reminds me of Mr. Limbaugh, except at the opposite viewpoint.  Unfortunately to the Liberal Media, such as NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and "The State", a comment can only be considered racial if the person making it is not of the Black Community. 
    In my letter to the Editor of August 28, 2008, which was censured and intentionally not put into print, I had predicted that the Liberal Media and the Black Community want to get Mr. Obama elected, not because he is qualified but to make history as the first Black to win the Presidency.  I had also forecasted that the race card would be played by them to make people of all other races and creeds guilty if they did not vote him in.  Mr. Darby considers the Presidency for Mr. Obama, as an Entitlement.
    I also find it mind boggling that Mr. Warthen wears blinders when he harps about Ms. Palin’s lack of experience.  While I agree that Ms. Palin does not have enough experience, she at least has 1 1/2 years of it as the Governor of Alaska and she is running for Vice President.  Mr. Obama is running for the Office of the President and he has zilch "NADA" experience of  any kind.
    It has not dawned on Mr. Warthen that a larger majority of the people in this State are either Independent or Conservative in their views and The State’s Editorial Group is out of place.  Maybe this is why The State continues to and will lose readership.  I predict that "The State" will pick Mr. Obama as their choice in November.

I’m always intrigued by the letter writers who see a huge, PERSONAL slight in their letters not being among the ones chosen for the paper, as though we run ALL of them, except the few that we choose not to run, just to be mean. For the record — I just went and asked — we run about half of the letters submitted.

I also enjoyed that one because of the endorsement prediction. So THERE, those of you who accuse us of having decided already for McCain…. Also, when did I "harp on" Sarah Palin’s lack of experience?

The first letter I liked because this reader just can’t wait for that promised column about how I don’t consider Obama to be a black man. Those of you who read the blog of course have read about this upcoming column before, back on this post:

Talk about what the election of Barack Obama as a black man means misses the point, since — as a lot of black folks asserted last year leading up to the primaries — Obama simply is not a "black man" in the sense that the phrase has meaning in American history, sociology and politics. I’ve got a column I’m planning on writing about that, after I read his autobiography on the subject. It will be headlined "Barack Like Me," and it will be rooted in the experiences he and I share spending part of our formative years in Hawaii (where race simply did not mean what it means here) and outside the United States — both in the Third World, in fact. None of these experiences are common to the sort of guy we describe when we say "black American." I hope to write that one before the summer is over.

Obviously, I didn’t get it done before the summer is over. There have been two holdups:

  1. I haven’t had time to read that book yet, and I expect reading it will make the column better.
  2. I have thought about the blasted column so much, and have so many points I want to make in it, that I dread the hard work of having to cram it all into 25 inches. That happens some times with columns that I keep MEANING to write — they get delayed further by my having thought too much about them. (Although the two columns are not at all alike, I had the same problem with the John Edwards column that caused such a stir — I had promised it for months, and just kept putting it off.)

Maybe I should just skip reading the book (which may complicate the writing further) and write it this week or next.

Oh, one other thing about that first letter: Someone else — I think it was in another letter we ran, or maybe somebody else — raised that "imagine if Sarah Palin were black" thing, with the assumption that she’d be perceived differently. (At least, I THINK that’s what was meant by "superimposed on the Obama family;" maybe it meant something else.) I thought the same thing then that I think reading this now: How do you figure?

Philly columnist sees same problem I do

Well, this is eerie. I’m going through the lastest columns to move on the wire, looking for something acceptable for the Tuesday op-ed page, and I run across this one from Kevin Ferris of The Philadelphia Inquirer, headlined "Don’t cry racism if Obama loses," which is weirdly like my Sunday column. An excerpt:

Last month, one of our two major political parties nominated an African American as its candidate for president of the United States.

Historic progress to be celebrated?

Apparently not. A few weeks and polls later, and some are already bemoaning the rampant racism that might keep a black man from ascending to the presidency.

Hey, Barack Obama could not have clinched the nomination without votes from white Americans. The other party isn’t supposed to just concede the election based on skin color. Voters shouldn’t have to choose based on race when they disagree on issues or believe a candidate isn’t up to the job.

But expect to see the bemoaners looking to the heavens and saying, "We’re not ready."

Baloney. Maybe it’s Obama who’s not ready and the people who recognize that – men and women, whites and blacks, Hispanics and Asians – are just fine.

So maybe I’m not totally crazy, huh? Or maybe this Ferris guy is.

In any case, I have never met or previously worked with Mr. Ferris, near as I can recall.

Worrying about what happens if Obama loses

By BRAD WARTHEN
Editorial Page Editor
THIS PAST week, I’ve been worrying a good deal over the very thing that
has had Republicans so giddy and Democrats in such dudgeon: the
distinct possibility that Barack Obama may lose this election.

At
this point, you reflexive Republicans need to remove your feet from the
stirrups of your high horses. I didn’t say I was worried that John
McCain might win. I like McCain. My worry arises from the fact that the
other guy I like might lose, which is a different consideration
altogether.

Back during the conventions, I was bewildered by
something Bill Moyers kept saying in a promo during station breaks on
PBS, something to the effect of the stakes never having been higher
than in this election. Really? I said on my blog. How about 1932? Or
1800…? Or how, pray tell, about 1860? Pretty doggoned high stakes
there, I’d venture to say.

Mike Cakora responded that Mr. Moyers
was “simply conveying the left’s notion that over the past eight years
the US has been governed, no, ruled by a war-mongering,
liberty-restricting criminal enterprise and now is the time to end
that… .”

For me, that brought to the fore a thing that had
until then dwelt at the back of my mind: that if Barack Obama loses
this election, Democrats — who have been very charged up about their
expectation of winning, and whose hatred of Republicans has reached new
depths in the past eight years, will be so bitter that — and I dread
even to form this thought — the political polarization will be even
worse in this country. MoveOn.org, to name but one segment of the
alliance, will probably implode to the point of nuclear fusion.

(Republicans,
by contrast, have been expecting to lose all year. This had calmed
them. As recently as 10 days ago, when I wrote that Moyers post, I
would have expected the GOP to accept defeat in November relatively
fatalistically. Of course, that was before Sarah Palin got them
excited
. Now, if they lose, I expect the usual level of bitterness,
just not as severe as what I think is in store if Democrats lose.)

That’s
without taking race into consideration. But my attention was yanked in
that direction by a guest column by my old friend Joe Darby on Friday’s
op-ed page. An excerpt:

Those who criticized Sen. Obama for his
lack of experience, labeled him as long on rhetoric and charisma and
short on substance and said they can’t vote for him because they don’t
“know” him have gleefully embraced a governor who hasn’t completed her
first term…

When you strip away the hyperbole and the political
strategy, Sarah Palin has been hailed as an exemplary choice… simply
because she’s white and because white, middle America identifies with
her…

Somehow, Rev. Darby looked at the fact that Republicans
like an inexperienced conservative Republican, but don’t like an
inexperienced liberal Democrat, and saw it as racism. After more than
half a century living in this country, I should not be shocked at yet
another excruciating instance of the apparently unbridgeable cognitive
divide between black and white Americans. But I was shocked, and even
more worried.

I had already sensed a potent paradox flowing
through the black electorate: disbelief that a black man (if you
consider Obama to be a black man, which I don’t — another subject for
another day) has won a major party nomination, combined with an
expectation that he will now go all the way.

But that had not
prepared me for Rev. Darby seeing racism in the fact that Republicans
like Sarah Palin and not Barack Obama. To my white brain (and I don’t
think of myself as having a “white brain,” but my inability to follow
such logic as this suggests that I do), this made no kind of sense. I
invite you to go read the piece — the link, as usual, is on my blog —
and see if it makes sense to you.

I was still reeling from the implication of that piece when I read this in The Wall Street Journal Friday morning:

An
anxious murmur is rising among black voters as the presidential race
tightens: What if Barack Obama loses?… If Sen. Obama loses,
“African-Americans could be disappointed to the point of not engaging
in the process anymore,” or consider forming a third political party,
said Richard McIntire, communications director for the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

This is not a good place to be.

I
first met Joe Darby 15 years ago. The newspaper sponsored a black-white
dialogue group that was coordinated by a reporter I supervised. Joe was
one of the panelists, and I was struck by his patience and mildness of
manner in explaining his perspective to whites flustered over black
citizens’ sense of aggrievement.

I’m sure Joe would have been
just as patient with the white acquaintance — someone I’ve known for
many years, and who is no kind of racist — who approached me Friday
morning to say, “That Joe Darby is a racist.” I insisted that I knew
Joe Darby well, and he was not, but this reaction was just what I had
predicted to a colleague when I saw the proof the day before: The guest
column was the kind of thing that alienates white conservatives,
driving the wedge of race deeper into the nation’s heart. (So why run
it? Because I knew Rev. Darby and others sincerely believed what he was
saying, and a newspaper’s role is to put everyone’s political cards on
the table.)

Fifteen years after that black-white dialogue
experience — and many, many less formal such dialogues later — I find
myself close to despair that mutual understanding can be achieved.

Particularly if Barack Obama loses the election.

The cognitive divide between black and white, 2008 election edition

For me, reading the piece by my old friend Joe Darby on today’s op-ed page was another excruciating instance of the apparently unbridgeable cognitive divide between black and white Americans. I always find it very troubling — in fact, I lack words for just how much it troubles me.

Somehow, Joe looked at the fact that Republicans LIKE an inexperienced conservative Republican, but DON’T like an inexperienced liberal Democrat, and saw it as racism. I realize that after my more than half a century of living in this country, I should not be shocked at such things, but I was. Shocked, and very worried.

Remember this post about Bill Moyers’ hyperbole about the stakes in this election. Something one of y’all said caused me to express my worry about what will happen if Barack Obama loses this election: Democrats, who have been VERY charged up about their expectation of winning, and whose hatred of Republicans has reached new depths in the past eight years, will be so bitter that — and I hate even to think this thought aloud — the political polarization will be even WORSE in this country. MoveOn.org, to name but one segment of that alliance, will probably implode to the point of nuclear fusion.

(Republicans, by contrast, have been expecting to lose all year. As recently as last week, when I wrote that earlier post, I would have expected the GOP to accept defeat in November relatively fatalistically. Of course, that was before Sarah Palin got them excited. Now, if they lose, I expect the usual level of bitterness, just not as severe as what I think we’re in store for if Democrats lose.)

And that was without considering race. If you add in the expectations of so many black voters this year, the potential for bitter disappointment is incalculable. This year I’ve noted a potent paradox in the attitude of many black voters: A disbelief that a black man (if you consider Obama to be a black man, which I don’t — another subject for another day) has won a major party nomination, combined incongruously with the notion that if he doesn’t also win the general election, it’s because of racism.

Even though I was aware of that, Joe’s piece was a shock, because it wasn’t just generalized excitement about Obama combined with being prepared to resent it if he loses. It was the logic, or lack thereof, that Joe employed in seeing racism specifically in the fact that Republicans like Sarah Palin and not Barack Obama.

No sooner had I read that on proofs yesterday and taken my worrying to a new level than The Wall Street Journal reported this morning:

    An anxious murmur is rising among black voters as the presidential race tightens: What if Barack Obama loses?
    Black talk-show hosts and black-themed Web sites are being flooded with callers and bloggers reflecting a nervousness — and anger — over the campaign. Bev Smith, a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host, devoted her entire three-hour show Monday night to the question: "If Obama doesn’t win, what will you think?"…
    If Sen. Obama loses, "African-Americans could be disappointed to the point of not engaging in the process anymore," or consider forming a third political party, said Richard McIntire, communications director for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

This is not a good place to be.

I first met Joe Darby about 15 years ago. The newspaper sponsored a black-white dialogue group that was coordinated by a reporter I supervised. Joe was one of the panelists, and I was struck by his patience and mildness of manner in explaining his perspective to whites flustered over black citizens’ sense of aggrievement.

I’m sure Joe would have been just as patient with the middle-aged white acquaintance — someone I’ve known for many years, and who I am quite sure is not a racist — who came up to me this morning and said, based on the op-ed piece, "That Joe Darby is a racist." I insisted that I knew Joe Darby well, and he was not, but this was exactly the reaction I had predicted to a colleague when I saw the proof the day before. I had said that what Joe had written was precisely the kind of thing that caused white conservatives to be profoundly alienated by the way many blacks express themselves politically.

Fifteen years after that black-white dialogue experience — and many, many less formal such dialogues later — I find myself close to despair that mutual understanding can be achieved.

Particularly if Barack Obama loses the election.

The ‘Clean’ Team

Of course, the very best reason for Obama to have made the veep selection he did is that in Joe Biden, he has someone "who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."

No, wait — that’s what Biden said about Obama.

It speaks well of Obama that he didn’t let that remark, which cast a shadow on Biden’s candidacy from the day he announced, get in his way. Evidently, Obama understood perfectly well what Joe meant — rather than more nefarious, paranoid interpretations that some may have chosen to apply — and agreed with me that Joe was absolutely right. From my column of July 29, 2007:

    Poor Joe Biden, who’s even older than I am, got into all sorts of trouble for calling Obama “clean,” but that’s just what he is. And for those who are focusing on details of the latest 24/7 news cycle’s scandal or whatever, it’s easy to forget how appealing “clean” can be to the fresh-faced.

Private clubs in Columbia TODAY

Remember that I told you last week that Clif LeBlanc was going to have a follow-up story on the Cap City Club anniversary, a piece that would tell us to what extent local private clubs have become less "exclusive" in the bad old sense over the past 20 years?

Well, he did, and I meant to ask y’all for your thoughts on it. Here’s a link to his story. Short version — most clubs are more open. At least one still has no black members.

If you go read Clif’s piece, and you’re so inclined, please come back here to discuss it.

What the Capital City Club did for Columbia (column version)

Yep, once again, my column today was something you’ve read before here. In fact, the earlier blog version was more complete — I couldn’t fit all that into the paper today.

But there is something new to mention on the subject, which is to urge you to watch for Clif LeBlanc’s follow-up story to the one he wrote that appeared on our front page Wednesday. The folo will be in the paper Sunday (or so I’m told), and it will address the question that  has occurred to me a number of times in the years since the Capital City Club opened Columbia’s private club world to minorities and women:

Just how open ARE the rest of the Midlands’ clubs today?

I look forward to reading it.