The following post is the second part of a two part post from Carl Pedersen. The first part was posted yesterday.
Carl Pedersen is Adjunct Professor at the Institute for Business and Culture at Copenhagen Business School. He is the author of Obama’s America (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2009). His article on Obama and race, "The Obama Dilemma: Confronting Race in the 21st Century" is forthcoming in Michael Ledwidge et al., eds., Barack Obama and the Myth of a Post-Racial America (London: Routledge, 2013)
IV
In what is perhaps his most scathing attack on Obama,
Coates accuses him of using his bully pulpit not to address racism, but instead
of employing a Booker T. Washington approach of "railing against the
perceived failings of black culture." Coates does both Obama and
Washington a disservice by castigating them as merely subservient conservative
politicians. As Robert J. Norrell points out in his new biography, Up From History, the
accommodation-protest binary (which Coates addresses by contrasting Bookerism
with "another political tradition [that] casts its skepticism not simply
upon black culture but upon the entire American project") ignores the
similarity between Washington’s challenges to white society and the protest
tradition of the NAACP. Norrell argues that "Washington made public
protests against Jim Crow on railroads, lynching, disfranchisement, disparities
in education funding, segregated housing legislation, and discrimination by
labor unions. He arranged and partly financed lawsuits challenging
disfranchisement, jury discrimination, and peonage. And he campaigned
constantly against the pernicious images of black projected in the media and
popular culture. The NAACP would do those same things after him."
Obama has taken a slightly different approach. He has
voiced opposition to racial profiling, explicitly in the case of Henry Louis
Gates, Jr. and implicitly in the Trayvon Martin case and in response to a
question at the second debate about Arizona anti-immigration laws. But his
opposition to racial injustice is primarily conducted through what Thomas
Sugrue in Not Even Past: Barack Obama and
the Burden of Race has called a "hybrid approach" that focuses on
not only African American attitudes and responsibility (as Coates would have
it), but on, as Obama put it in his NAACP speech in 2009, "structural
inequalities that our nation’s legacy of discrimination has left behind."
Obama’s seemingly race-neutral policies, such as
stimulus dollars for public sector workers, grants to underperforming schools
(without, however, mandating school desegregation), and, not least, the health
care reform that will over time provide coverage for millions of uninsured
Americans and increase health-related employment, have arguably benefited
African Americans disproportionately.
Other examples of his approach are in a sense hidden
in plain view, with policies that have received relatively little media
attention. Even Coates acknowledges that the appointment of Shirley Sherrod as
Georgia State Director of Rural Development at the USDA "represented the
kind of unnoticed but significant changes that Obama’s election brought,"
notwithstanding her rather ignominious dismissal by Obama following
misunderstood remarks that were perceived as racist.
Sugrue argues that the "White House bully pulpit
has never been sufficient, in its own right, to transform institutions. It has
taken the coercive power of the law to make appreciable changes in African
Americans’ status in American society. The record of Eric Holder’s Justice
Department is a case in point. Early on in his tenure, Holder called the US "a
nation of cowards" for failing to address the issue of race. Under George
W. Bush, the Department of Justice increasingly neglected enforcement of civil
rights, from housing and employment to voting rights. Holder has taken the
opposite tact, filing briefs supporting affirmative action, and lawsuits
requiring communities to construct affordable housing that would make it easier
for minorities to seek employment in the suburbs. Holder called the attempt of
Republican-controlled states to pass Voter ID laws that the Brennan Center for
Justice estimate could disenfranchise up to 5 million mostly minority and
younger voters a new form of poll tax. The Justice Department has brought suits
against states for violation of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act that
subjects voting changes to administrative review.
In her book on how the War on Drugs has led to mass
incarceration in the US, Michelle Alexander accuses Obama of "revving up
the drug war through the same failed policies and programs that have
systematically locked up young men of color into a permanent racial undercaste."
However, in 2010, the Obama signed into law the Fair Sentencing Act, which reduces
the disparity between mandatory minimum sentences for possession of crack and
powder cocaine. The Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that the legislation should
apply to those convicted before passage of the act but after sentencing.
V
Mitt Romney is making history in 2012. The headline of
a recent piece in The New Republic
says it all: "Romney Has Historic Lead Among White Voters." In 1944,
the Supreme Court outlawed white primaries in the case of Smith vs. Allwright.
In 2012, the GOP had had no need of judicial remedies to keep African Americans
from voting in their primaries. The African American vote in the GOP primaries
in Georgia, Mississippi, Florida, and South Carolina was negligible. A poll
released in August 2012 put Romney’s support among African Americans at 0%. A
survey conducted by Associated Press in October found that racism against
African Americans has increased since Obama was elected in 2008. With only
slight hyperbole, the British journalist Gary Younge called the election of
2012 the most racially polarized in history.
The context is clear. Obama is the first African
American president. The trajectory of demographics points in one direction—a
majority minority nation by mid-century. The US Census for 2010 revealed that 4
states—Hawaii, New Mexico, California, and Texas—have already become majority
minority. The Republicans are appealing to an ever-shrinking base. Hence the
talk of an Anglo-Saxon heritage and more civilized nations and racially-charged
rhetoric about welfare and government handouts. White rage is informed by this
larger context which makes it all the more potent.

Could the writer explain how Obama has truly addressed the "structural inequalities that our nation’s legacy of discrimination has left behind"? The imprisonment of African Americans continues to climb, as does poverty and unemployment.
ReplyDeleteThe claim that stimulus dollars, grants for underperforming schools, and the health care reform are not necessarily linked to the structural inequalities Obama points out in his speech.
Kahlil Chaar-Pérez
I explain how in the following paragraphs. For example, Kahlil Chaar-Pérez mentions the mass incarceration of African Americans. I talk about Michelle Alexander's critique of Obama, but point out that the Fair Sentencing Act addresses the root cause of the disparity between convictions for crack and powder cocaine. I agree that Obama has not addressed poverty in any meaningful way, but the stimulus and health care reform packages constitute an attempt, however feeble, to ameliorate extreme inequality in the US.
DeleteThanks for the reply. I agree, these are attempts to ameliorate extreme inequality, very limited attempts. That's fairly obvious. What is missing is the connection with African Americans Let's remember that these are, at the very least, the same measures Hillary Clinton would have approved herself. I guess I am not sure what you are trying to argue here, beyond summarizing and balancing the different takes.
Delete