Events in the last 24 months have economist and finance experts shaking their heads in shock. The spate of bank failures and deep recession have overturned textbook theories on their heads. And now the world of Finances and Economics have serious question regarding existing theories. Limited regulation was supposed to be ideal for the market as it spurred rapid growth and increased productivity. So America and the United Kingdom reduced regulation and witnessed explosive growth in the last couple of decades, as their socialist capitalism counterparts in western Europe saw only marginal growth.
Unfortunately the unbridled, unchecked capitalism has brought forth an economic catastrophe unseen since the great depression. The effect is a global collapse of banks and the real estate market. However socialist capitalist countries like France and Germany were not as harder hit as the United States and the United Kingdom.
All this have sparked a new debate about the wisdom of increased regulation of the market as seen in socialist capitalist countries. The French Banks has strict laws that guard against risky loans. As a result, the French economy has been shielded from the real estate collapse in the U.S., the UK and other countries. Whilst some experts think the time has arrived for all countries to adopt the socialist capitalist approach, others are saying, not so fast. Such pro unbridled capitalist expert belive what we are witnessing is just a temporary blip; more regulation will collapse the world economy.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
THE PARADOX OF PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION
The model citizen of any republic is the most ardently patriotic one. And more importantly, the paragon leader of a republic is supposed to be patriotic all the time, not sometimes. The selfless leader of a republic must set good example to the citizenzry but showing selfless, remarkable patriotism. However, as ideal and proper and necessary as it is for citizens, particularly leaders to be patriotic, unquestioned patriotism is difficult in practice. Given the chance, everybody pay lip service to being patriotic or pledge to be patriotic when the difficult issue comes.
According to my own Machiavellian postulation, it is easier for incumbent politicians to be patriotic that is is for members of the opposition. When you have the power, you want everything to go well for your nation for the good of all and more importantly for the good of your relection propects. And wishing your country well is a mark of patriotism. When you don't have power, you want the incumbent to fail. The only way for the opposition to gain power is for the incumbent to fail. Unfortunately, if the incumbent fails, the country goes down with him. So wishing the incumbent to fail is wishing for your country's fail, and that's unpatriotic. In effect, incumbents are patriotic, opposition leaders are not. This is a cold, calculating, machevellian rule of politics; it is an unspoken truth.
Most Democrats did not wish wish George W. Bush well; they wanted him to fail. Dems could wait for Bush to fail in Iraq, and for a good reason. If the Iraq war had gone well, Republicans could have easily ridden that euphoria to a third straight presidential election victory. And would be talking President John McCain, not President Barack Hussein Obama. So whilst it was unpatriotic for Democrats to wish their country lose a war, it was politically expedient. Patriotism means putting country first but attaining political power requires putting self first before country.
So why did Rush Limbaugh take so much heat for saying he wants Obama to fail. Limbaugh's mistake saying out loud an apostasy everybody in the opposition commits in their heart. Democrats are no different from Rush; they wanted Bush to fail.
According to my own Machiavellian postulation, it is easier for incumbent politicians to be patriotic that is is for members of the opposition. When you have the power, you want everything to go well for your nation for the good of all and more importantly for the good of your relection propects. And wishing your country well is a mark of patriotism. When you don't have power, you want the incumbent to fail. The only way for the opposition to gain power is for the incumbent to fail. Unfortunately, if the incumbent fails, the country goes down with him. So wishing the incumbent to fail is wishing for your country's fail, and that's unpatriotic. In effect, incumbents are patriotic, opposition leaders are not. This is a cold, calculating, machevellian rule of politics; it is an unspoken truth.
Most Democrats did not wish wish George W. Bush well; they wanted him to fail. Dems could wait for Bush to fail in Iraq, and for a good reason. If the Iraq war had gone well, Republicans could have easily ridden that euphoria to a third straight presidential election victory. And would be talking President John McCain, not President Barack Hussein Obama. So whilst it was unpatriotic for Democrats to wish their country lose a war, it was politically expedient. Patriotism means putting country first but attaining political power requires putting self first before country.
So why did Rush Limbaugh take so much heat for saying he wants Obama to fail. Limbaugh's mistake saying out loud an apostasy everybody in the opposition commits in their heart. Democrats are no different from Rush; they wanted Bush to fail.
SONIA SOTOMAYOR FOR SUPREME COURT
Sonia Sotomayor is an accomplished legal mind and her elevation to the supreme court of the United States is historic. From humble beginnings, she has achieved a lot: achieving high academics success at Princeton and Yale Law School, to working for some of the prestigious law firms to working as a prosecutor and judge.
As the nations first Hispanic to join the Supreme Court, Ms. Sotomayor will enhance diversity on the court on both gender and racial grounds. Her experiences growing up poor and minority brings a unique perspective that would help the court reach decisions more compassionate to the disadvantaged in American society.
In choosing Ms. Sotomayor, President Obama has killed a bird with several stones. The Presdient has solidified his outreach to Hispanics an ever-growing important voting bloc. Sonia's gender would also please women as she becomes the second woman on the court. On the whole, selection of Sonia Sotomayor is a political win-win for the president and the democrats. Sonia's elevation on the court puts republicans on the defensive in their outreach to hispanics and women. In the 2008 elections, Republicans fared poorly among Hispanics and women, and are hoping to turn this around. Unfortunately, the addition of a hispanic female with strong liberal credentials puts the GOP in a quandary. On the one hand they would want to prevent the addition of a bonafide liberal to the court. On the other hand, they would not want to offend hispanics and women.
In a nutshell, Sonia's elevation further strengthens President Obama's hand as he continues to dominate the political field to the chagrin of the GOP --which is currently leaderless and is struggling to slow down President Obama's momentum.
As the nations first Hispanic to join the Supreme Court, Ms. Sotomayor will enhance diversity on the court on both gender and racial grounds. Her experiences growing up poor and minority brings a unique perspective that would help the court reach decisions more compassionate to the disadvantaged in American society.
In choosing Ms. Sotomayor, President Obama has killed a bird with several stones. The Presdient has solidified his outreach to Hispanics an ever-growing important voting bloc. Sonia's gender would also please women as she becomes the second woman on the court. On the whole, selection of Sonia Sotomayor is a political win-win for the president and the democrats. Sonia's elevation on the court puts republicans on the defensive in their outreach to hispanics and women. In the 2008 elections, Republicans fared poorly among Hispanics and women, and are hoping to turn this around. Unfortunately, the addition of a hispanic female with strong liberal credentials puts the GOP in a quandary. On the one hand they would want to prevent the addition of a bonafide liberal to the court. On the other hand, they would not want to offend hispanics and women.
In a nutshell, Sonia's elevation further strengthens President Obama's hand as he continues to dominate the political field to the chagrin of the GOP --which is currently leaderless and is struggling to slow down President Obama's momentum.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
SPECTOCRAT!! YES SPECTER CAN!!!
Yes Senator Arlen Specter can become a democrate after serving 29 years in the senate as a Republiccan. Crossing the aile to the opposite side was a bitter sweet decision for the senator. The Pennslyvanian senator consistently has had a marverick streak about him in the mould --in the mold of John McCain -- and often votes against his party. This has tended to rub off republicans the wrong way. And frustrated rebpulicans were determined to push him out by supporting his more conservative opponent in the primary. Most polls have Arlen Specter trailing or tying his primary opponent for the 2010 senatorial campaign. Switching parties does two things for Specter. Nmber one, it relieves him of the frustration of being part of a group that he consistently fights against and they openly dislike him for his wayward voting record. Second, it helps him ward off an imminent defeat from a more conservative in the republican primary. As a Democrat in a democratic state, all he would need to do is to clinch the democratic primary--and democrats will certainly reward him for switching in this crucial time -- and the statewide contest in November 2010 will be a forgone conculsion.
For Democrats, Arlen Specter gets them pretty close to the magic 60, which is the filibustor proof number. With the addition of Specter, Democrats get 60 once Franken is seated.
For Democrats, Arlen Specter gets them pretty close to the magic 60, which is the filibustor proof number. With the addition of Specter, Democrats get 60 once Franken is seated.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Concern About Obama's Programs
Not taking teachers union ;Not adopting carbon tax. There is concern that Obama is spending too much money but he has not fully taken on the more difficult obstacles that would make his progams work. His programs are the most expensive in the history of government spending. On education, he has pledge a lot of money but he is failing to take on the teachers union who stand in the way of any serios reform in education.
On energy policy, Obama is shying away from the carbon tax which is the only reasonable deterrent against excessive or inefficient use of energy but has devoted a lot of money to new spending on energy programs.
On the economy, he is over spending on health care but he has not put in place any serious reforms on healthcare and scale of his economic spending risks causing massive inflation down the road.
On energy policy, Obama is shying away from the carbon tax which is the only reasonable deterrent against excessive or inefficient use of energy but has devoted a lot of money to new spending on energy programs.
On the economy, he is over spending on health care but he has not put in place any serious reforms on healthcare and scale of his economic spending risks causing massive inflation down the road.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Why Obama Should Embrace the Hussein Name
The silence by Obama and the national media on Obama’s middle evokes images of Prince, the controversial pop music icon from the twin cities of St Paul –Minneapolis, who changed his name to a name-less sign. The U.S. President-elect whose full name is Barack Hussein Obama has been forced by circumstances to go the way of pop icon Prince –Barack’s middle name is no name. Can Barack be faulted for this move? Extreme right wingers seeking to portray Barack Obama as a Muslim extremist have been having a field day with the Hussein name. Of course, bearing the same name of one of the world’s most brutal dictators (Saddam Hussein) can be an odd coincidence that may send chills through the American populace. The issue in itself is so touchy that even by writing about it, I risk alienating some Obama fans, as my effort can be perceived as giving comfort to mischief makers and avowed enemies of Obama.
I take the position that with the election over, Obama should seize the moment and embrace his middle name and allow the media and the public to use it. This is important for the following reasons: (1) reaffirming his comfort with his roots as the son of a Muslim African (2) Extinguishing American prejudice against anything Islamic (3) neutralizing the H-name’s ridicule and phobia, (4) Living up to his inclusiveness tag and (5) you don’t let your opponent define you.
Reaffirming his comfort with his roots as the son of a Muslim African: The Hussein name is distinctively Islamic and makes Obama the bona fide hybrid of Anglo-Afro-Christo-Islamic individual that he is, a la Tiger Wood’s Cablinasian. Obama’s uniqueness is his very entity as a multiracial and multicultural son of America and Africa. Embracing all these multifaceted parts of his being projects strength and confidence, and a sense of comfort with who he is as a global citizen. On the contrary, denying a part of his distinctive multi-layered cultural identity may suggest weakness and diffidence of his background. Obama’s rejection of his name Barack for a more American-sounding Barry exposed this inner struggle. Re-embracing the name Barack signaled regaining of personal strength and a sense of comfort with himself. And, lo and behold, as the uniqueness of the name Barack alone helps make him stand out, so will the uniqueness of the name Hussein in American politics give him that aura of exceptionality.
To help extinguish American prejudice against anything Islamic: Islam is arguably the most hated religion in the United States and America’s disdain for anything Islamic knows no boundary. But having a stereotypical Muslim name like Hussein as President would help Americans confront such unfounded prejudice against Muslims. Whilst his supporters worry that embracing the name Hussein may strengthen the Muslim tag imposed on Obama, I believe it would rather help educate the larger America society that people ought not to be discriminated against on the basis of their religion. Americans getting used to a president with a Muslim name would cause us to be more accepting of Islam and Muslim. Shying away from such a potentially positive effect on the American people would be a grave mistake for President-elect Obama.
Neutralizing the H-name’s ridicule and phobia: Both his detractors and comedians alike, are mocking the H-name, for the simple fact that Obama and his advisors are uncomfortable with the name Hussein. Once people know that Big H is Obama’s name and there is nothing wrong with using it, they may cease making fun of it. The humor and fun in ridiculing it will just wear thin.
Living up to the inclusiveness tag: Barack Obama has become the embodiment of a global citizen. As the quintessential citizen of an increasingly integrated and interdependent world, it will pay for Obama to reintroduce to the world a middle name that reflects the religion of about one-quarter of the world’s population. Not only would the Hussein name make the Middle East and the rest of the Arab world feel better about America, it would almost by extension also make them feel a part of the United States and help ease Muslim and Arab hostility to America. What is in a name, the old saying goes. In this case, a lot, and Barack Obama has virtually nothing to lose from embracing his given middle name. On the contrary, Barack, America and the world have a lot to gain from Obama embracing the H name.
You don’t let your opponent define you: A fundamental rule of politics postulates that: thou shall not let thy enemies define. If you do something in reaction to your enemy’s attack or ridicule, it shows a sign of weakness rather than strength. And Barack’ dropping of his middle name ward off enemies’ attacks and ridicule may suggests he suffers from the ailment of spinelessness. It amounts to caving in to an innocuous pressure or assault on something as and fundamental as persons given name –Barack did not chose the name Hussein—a person’s name should be off-limits to any kind of political attack or mockery.
Names have, on the surface, seemed trivial but they always carry significant implications. And in this particular case, a lot of noise has been made about Barack Obama’s middle name since he started running for president. The best way to put the issue to rest once and for all is for the new U.S. president-elect to embrace “the untouchable H” and tell the whole world: I am proud to be Barack Hussein Obama.
I take the position that with the election over, Obama should seize the moment and embrace his middle name and allow the media and the public to use it. This is important for the following reasons: (1) reaffirming his comfort with his roots as the son of a Muslim African (2) Extinguishing American prejudice against anything Islamic (3) neutralizing the H-name’s ridicule and phobia, (4) Living up to his inclusiveness tag and (5) you don’t let your opponent define you.
Reaffirming his comfort with his roots as the son of a Muslim African: The Hussein name is distinctively Islamic and makes Obama the bona fide hybrid of Anglo-Afro-Christo-Islamic individual that he is, a la Tiger Wood’s Cablinasian. Obama’s uniqueness is his very entity as a multiracial and multicultural son of America and Africa. Embracing all these multifaceted parts of his being projects strength and confidence, and a sense of comfort with who he is as a global citizen. On the contrary, denying a part of his distinctive multi-layered cultural identity may suggest weakness and diffidence of his background. Obama’s rejection of his name Barack for a more American-sounding Barry exposed this inner struggle. Re-embracing the name Barack signaled regaining of personal strength and a sense of comfort with himself. And, lo and behold, as the uniqueness of the name Barack alone helps make him stand out, so will the uniqueness of the name Hussein in American politics give him that aura of exceptionality.
To help extinguish American prejudice against anything Islamic: Islam is arguably the most hated religion in the United States and America’s disdain for anything Islamic knows no boundary. But having a stereotypical Muslim name like Hussein as President would help Americans confront such unfounded prejudice against Muslims. Whilst his supporters worry that embracing the name Hussein may strengthen the Muslim tag imposed on Obama, I believe it would rather help educate the larger America society that people ought not to be discriminated against on the basis of their religion. Americans getting used to a president with a Muslim name would cause us to be more accepting of Islam and Muslim. Shying away from such a potentially positive effect on the American people would be a grave mistake for President-elect Obama.
Neutralizing the H-name’s ridicule and phobia: Both his detractors and comedians alike, are mocking the H-name, for the simple fact that Obama and his advisors are uncomfortable with the name Hussein. Once people know that Big H is Obama’s name and there is nothing wrong with using it, they may cease making fun of it. The humor and fun in ridiculing it will just wear thin.
Living up to the inclusiveness tag: Barack Obama has become the embodiment of a global citizen. As the quintessential citizen of an increasingly integrated and interdependent world, it will pay for Obama to reintroduce to the world a middle name that reflects the religion of about one-quarter of the world’s population. Not only would the Hussein name make the Middle East and the rest of the Arab world feel better about America, it would almost by extension also make them feel a part of the United States and help ease Muslim and Arab hostility to America. What is in a name, the old saying goes. In this case, a lot, and Barack Obama has virtually nothing to lose from embracing his given middle name. On the contrary, Barack, America and the world have a lot to gain from Obama embracing the H name.
You don’t let your opponent define you: A fundamental rule of politics postulates that: thou shall not let thy enemies define. If you do something in reaction to your enemy’s attack or ridicule, it shows a sign of weakness rather than strength. And Barack’ dropping of his middle name ward off enemies’ attacks and ridicule may suggests he suffers from the ailment of spinelessness. It amounts to caving in to an innocuous pressure or assault on something as and fundamental as persons given name –Barack did not chose the name Hussein—a person’s name should be off-limits to any kind of political attack or mockery.
Names have, on the surface, seemed trivial but they always carry significant implications. And in this particular case, a lot of noise has been made about Barack Obama’s middle name since he started running for president. The best way to put the issue to rest once and for all is for the new U.S. president-elect to embrace “the untouchable H” and tell the whole world: I am proud to be Barack Hussein Obama.
The End of Blackness: Replicating Obama's Success in America Today
On January 20, 2008, Barack Obama will be sworn in as the 44th president of the United States of America –a momentous feat of epic proportion. So magical and miraculous is this impending achievement that it was unfathomable even as late as a year ago, before the primaries actually began. Even before Obama won Iowa, most people, including most blacks thought his run for the presidency was a journey to nowhere other than to contribute to the diversity of the Democratic Party’s primary contest. The shock from Obama’s remarkable accomplishment begs the question: why has he succeeded where so many others have failed? How did Obama get to this point of being on the verge of shattering the world’s greatest glass ceiling? There are two plausible scenarios here that could be gleaned from the rise of Barack Obama. On the one hand, we can dismiss his rise as a fluke or that this is a case of one man’s personal charm and unique qualities that has caught fire on a lucky break. But the second and the more apt explanation, in my view, is that Obama’s rise signals a new textbook approach on how a black person can navigate the stormy waters of American racially-based convoluted society.
A friend from Mozambique once remarked: “I find it difficult to understand why Black Americans like to say, ‘I’m proud that I am black’.” Of course, there is nothing wrong with being black, he snapped. This question might sound preposterous to a fault to somebody who knows and understands America’s racial history, but it highlights the emotional and psychological toll of racism on African Americans. That is why such self-uplifting slogans as “black is beautiful,” and “I am proud to be black” or “I am somebody” in Jesse Jackson parlance—became necessary. Thus, as part of the civil rights struggle in the 60’s, accentuating blackness and celebrating black pride became pertinent. The bitter, unflattering and disgraceful history of America when it comes to race made it very necessary for black folks to reaffirm and celebrate their blackness. And how was blackness reaffirmed? Blackness was asserted by reciting uplifting slogans, organizing protest marches to fight injustices, promoting good legislation to fight racism and fighting unjust laws in court.
There are elements of the bi-polar ends of this debate that still hold true and are reflected in everyday black life in America. The first and most controversial view that most blacks find abhorrent is that held by Shelby Steele and other Black conservatives. Their position is that the protest era is over, do away with protections including affirmative action, and get over the victimhood mentality. And gradually, there are increasing number of blacks who live their lives like that and frown on any type of black victim-based assertiveness or exclusivity. The other extreme is the Jesse Jackson-Al Sharpton model: nothing has changed; racism is still overt; more protections are necessary; leave affirmation alone; and black folks are still victims. They are known in some circles as the Grievance Group. While both sides of this debate have a point, the correct reflection in today’s America sits somewhere in the middle –and that is Barack Obama.
To put it more bluntly, Obama is the mid-point of these bi-polar extremes. He holds the liberal view that racism might be subtler now, but it is still real. And who can better comprehend the travails of the black underclass than a community organizer, who worked with and interfaced with poor inner city blacks in Chicago. No wonder he could sit through the protest --if not vituperative and controversial sermons-- of Reverend Wright. He supports a refined version of affirmative action because he believes some protections are still needed, but rejects blanket affirmative action especially for wealthy minorities. Simultaneously, Obama adopts a non-confrontational approach in his dealings with the white power structure in America. This was evident in his stint as the Harvard Law Review President, where he gained a reputation as a consensus builder, who could work with just about everybody, including ultra conservatives who held diametrically opposed views. He stresses work ethic and taking responsibility for one’s failures over victimhood sensibilities. Not too long ago, on his campaign trail, his speech chastising absentee black fathers won rave applause from the mainstream media, but it also ruffled some feathers within the traditional civil rights community.
Obama’s Formula The secret behind Obama’s success which ought to be the gold standard approach for blacks in navigating the complex mainstream life in America can be summed up as follows: Obama’s sunny exterior, his conscious effort to downplay the issue of race, his ability to network multi-racially, and last but not least, his sense of comfort in his cultural and racial identity.
Sunny Exterior: Obama projects confidence and positivity, and his natural geniality serves as a charmed offensive that can disarm even the most avowed or ardent racist. Undoubtedly, this has been his key weapon in his presidential campaign trail. Traditionally, years of oppression and racism have had a subliminally sullen effect on many black people. As such we tend to appear more serious and uptight in a manner that can be construed as unfriendly. A more relaxed persona opens doors and it has won Obama many friends and votes on his way to the presidency.
Down Playing Race: Another positive attribute of Obama, is his ability to play down the issue of his race. On the campaign trail, even when he has the opportunity to label his opponents as racists, he held back, opting to disagree with them whilst insisting that he sees no racism. Obama has won the support of numerous whites by downplaying the issue of race. Race is always a sensitive, touchy subject that arouses emotions one way or the other, and one never wins with it. The race issue often makes whites uneasy and blacks defensive. Consequently, it is sometimes better to shun the issue of race than to indulge it. Regardless of one’s intentions, it is a subject that can ignite an uncontrollable conflagration. And with out a doubt, Obama appears to understand this danger and purposefully tries to downplay it as much as possible.
Networking: From his very early years as a college student, Obama established a vast and varied network of friends. As a Columbia University student, he had Pakistani friends and even made a trip to Pakistan. In Chicago, his extensive network went beyond the black community to include whites, Asians, Jews and Hispanics. And as a presidential candidate, his expansive network from Harvard has been invaluable to his campaign both in giving donations and sacrificing their time to help elect Obama. The law of probability posits that more is better; the more you do something, the higher your chances of success. If networking opens doors, then networking cross-racially will open even more doors. Networking across races is imperative for African-Americans, given that we control only a tiny portion of the American economic pie. Networking exclusively within the black community which many African Americans tend to do, limits our socio-economic opportunities.
Being himself whilst not over asserting his blackness: Obama has shown that one can be comfortable in asserting his blackness, or show comfort being black, without appearing defensive or being a turn-off. Being on the receiving end of America’s racial turbulence, many African-Americans tend to struggle with the issue of cultural or racial identity. For centuries and decades, it was almost a curse or pariah to be black or to be of African origin. This had the subliminal effect of racial diffidence among many people of African origin in America. And there is no question Obama, being a product of a biracial union, and growing up without a father really struggled with his identity. No wonder he changed his foreign sounding name Barack to Barry to feel more American and mainstream. Upon rediscovery of his blackness, he dropped Barry to Barack again. Given his ambition for politics, one would think he should have done the opposite and taken on a more mainstream sounding name. Overall, he has shown that he is at ease with his identity: After Harvard Law School, he passed up lucrative opportunities on Wall Street to work as a community organizer in an underserved black neighborhood. That sense of reassurance with his identity has served him well in his ability to work with the community outside the black community. It is that aura of confidence and comfort in his blackness that obviates the need to over assert his blackness and enjoy a healthy relationship with multiracial America.
America’s racial landscape has changed dramatically from the 60’s era when racism was more overt than subvert, when Jim Crow was alive and well, and when economic opportunities for blacks were limited. Today there are increased opportunities for blacks in almost every facet of American life, whether economical or socio-political, albeit problems remain on several fronts. For instance unemployment is still disproportionately higher for blacks, blacks are incarcerated at a higher than other groups, and the list goes on. This progress has in a way blunted non-white sensitivity to black complaints, and not surprisingly, more whites are now opposed to programs such as affirmative action, now than ever before. Thus aggressively projecting or asserting blackness –which was more accommodating in 1968-- can elicit scorn rather than sympathy in 2008. So Obama’s moderated but firm and sunny approach, works well in today’s America. And that is what blacks may have to emulate for greater success in the most competitive society on earth. You can’t argue against success.
A friend from Mozambique once remarked: “I find it difficult to understand why Black Americans like to say, ‘I’m proud that I am black’.” Of course, there is nothing wrong with being black, he snapped. This question might sound preposterous to a fault to somebody who knows and understands America’s racial history, but it highlights the emotional and psychological toll of racism on African Americans. That is why such self-uplifting slogans as “black is beautiful,” and “I am proud to be black” or “I am somebody” in Jesse Jackson parlance—became necessary. Thus, as part of the civil rights struggle in the 60’s, accentuating blackness and celebrating black pride became pertinent. The bitter, unflattering and disgraceful history of America when it comes to race made it very necessary for black folks to reaffirm and celebrate their blackness. And how was blackness reaffirmed? Blackness was asserted by reciting uplifting slogans, organizing protest marches to fight injustices, promoting good legislation to fight racism and fighting unjust laws in court.
There are elements of the bi-polar ends of this debate that still hold true and are reflected in everyday black life in America. The first and most controversial view that most blacks find abhorrent is that held by Shelby Steele and other Black conservatives. Their position is that the protest era is over, do away with protections including affirmative action, and get over the victimhood mentality. And gradually, there are increasing number of blacks who live their lives like that and frown on any type of black victim-based assertiveness or exclusivity. The other extreme is the Jesse Jackson-Al Sharpton model: nothing has changed; racism is still overt; more protections are necessary; leave affirmation alone; and black folks are still victims. They are known in some circles as the Grievance Group. While both sides of this debate have a point, the correct reflection in today’s America sits somewhere in the middle –and that is Barack Obama.
To put it more bluntly, Obama is the mid-point of these bi-polar extremes. He holds the liberal view that racism might be subtler now, but it is still real. And who can better comprehend the travails of the black underclass than a community organizer, who worked with and interfaced with poor inner city blacks in Chicago. No wonder he could sit through the protest --if not vituperative and controversial sermons-- of Reverend Wright. He supports a refined version of affirmative action because he believes some protections are still needed, but rejects blanket affirmative action especially for wealthy minorities. Simultaneously, Obama adopts a non-confrontational approach in his dealings with the white power structure in America. This was evident in his stint as the Harvard Law Review President, where he gained a reputation as a consensus builder, who could work with just about everybody, including ultra conservatives who held diametrically opposed views. He stresses work ethic and taking responsibility for one’s failures over victimhood sensibilities. Not too long ago, on his campaign trail, his speech chastising absentee black fathers won rave applause from the mainstream media, but it also ruffled some feathers within the traditional civil rights community.
Obama’s Formula The secret behind Obama’s success which ought to be the gold standard approach for blacks in navigating the complex mainstream life in America can be summed up as follows: Obama’s sunny exterior, his conscious effort to downplay the issue of race, his ability to network multi-racially, and last but not least, his sense of comfort in his cultural and racial identity.
Sunny Exterior: Obama projects confidence and positivity, and his natural geniality serves as a charmed offensive that can disarm even the most avowed or ardent racist. Undoubtedly, this has been his key weapon in his presidential campaign trail. Traditionally, years of oppression and racism have had a subliminally sullen effect on many black people. As such we tend to appear more serious and uptight in a manner that can be construed as unfriendly. A more relaxed persona opens doors and it has won Obama many friends and votes on his way to the presidency.
Down Playing Race: Another positive attribute of Obama, is his ability to play down the issue of his race. On the campaign trail, even when he has the opportunity to label his opponents as racists, he held back, opting to disagree with them whilst insisting that he sees no racism. Obama has won the support of numerous whites by downplaying the issue of race. Race is always a sensitive, touchy subject that arouses emotions one way or the other, and one never wins with it. The race issue often makes whites uneasy and blacks defensive. Consequently, it is sometimes better to shun the issue of race than to indulge it. Regardless of one’s intentions, it is a subject that can ignite an uncontrollable conflagration. And with out a doubt, Obama appears to understand this danger and purposefully tries to downplay it as much as possible.
Networking: From his very early years as a college student, Obama established a vast and varied network of friends. As a Columbia University student, he had Pakistani friends and even made a trip to Pakistan. In Chicago, his extensive network went beyond the black community to include whites, Asians, Jews and Hispanics. And as a presidential candidate, his expansive network from Harvard has been invaluable to his campaign both in giving donations and sacrificing their time to help elect Obama. The law of probability posits that more is better; the more you do something, the higher your chances of success. If networking opens doors, then networking cross-racially will open even more doors. Networking across races is imperative for African-Americans, given that we control only a tiny portion of the American economic pie. Networking exclusively within the black community which many African Americans tend to do, limits our socio-economic opportunities.
Being himself whilst not over asserting his blackness: Obama has shown that one can be comfortable in asserting his blackness, or show comfort being black, without appearing defensive or being a turn-off. Being on the receiving end of America’s racial turbulence, many African-Americans tend to struggle with the issue of cultural or racial identity. For centuries and decades, it was almost a curse or pariah to be black or to be of African origin. This had the subliminal effect of racial diffidence among many people of African origin in America. And there is no question Obama, being a product of a biracial union, and growing up without a father really struggled with his identity. No wonder he changed his foreign sounding name Barack to Barry to feel more American and mainstream. Upon rediscovery of his blackness, he dropped Barry to Barack again. Given his ambition for politics, one would think he should have done the opposite and taken on a more mainstream sounding name. Overall, he has shown that he is at ease with his identity: After Harvard Law School, he passed up lucrative opportunities on Wall Street to work as a community organizer in an underserved black neighborhood. That sense of reassurance with his identity has served him well in his ability to work with the community outside the black community. It is that aura of confidence and comfort in his blackness that obviates the need to over assert his blackness and enjoy a healthy relationship with multiracial America.
America’s racial landscape has changed dramatically from the 60’s era when racism was more overt than subvert, when Jim Crow was alive and well, and when economic opportunities for blacks were limited. Today there are increased opportunities for blacks in almost every facet of American life, whether economical or socio-political, albeit problems remain on several fronts. For instance unemployment is still disproportionately higher for blacks, blacks are incarcerated at a higher than other groups, and the list goes on. This progress has in a way blunted non-white sensitivity to black complaints, and not surprisingly, more whites are now opposed to programs such as affirmative action, now than ever before. Thus aggressively projecting or asserting blackness –which was more accommodating in 1968-- can elicit scorn rather than sympathy in 2008. So Obama’s moderated but firm and sunny approach, works well in today’s America. And that is what blacks may have to emulate for greater success in the most competitive society on earth. You can’t argue against success.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)