I have my reasons for supporting Obama--a thorough understanding of his tax policy, and the field of economics at large, isn't one of them. That's embarrassing to admit. I'm saying this because I think each candidates tax plan is one of those issues that actually matter, but a lot of us Americans don't quite grasp. I guess that's the difference between being an actual Ivy Leaguer and a guy who gets mistaken for one because he blogs here at the Atlantic.
Oh well. Knowledge is power. I'm all up for getting as much as I can. So consider this an open thread. I want to hear from folks who've really thought about the pluses and minuses of both plans and what they'd mean for the economy. Go for it.
Not that she should care, but Michelle Cottle is one of my favorite writers at TNR. I recently read a bunch of Michelle Obama profiles, and her's--which wasn't even quite a profile--was by far the best. But I don't quite get the point of this piece on Obama's cool:
The "No Drama Obama" label suits him. Long, lean, and
always perfectly turned out, the man looks as though he could withstand
a nuclear staredown without breaking a sweat.
All of which strikes me as a bit of
a problem at this point. While the cool, composed, no-drama demeanor
helps Obama appear presidential--and no doubt allays some subliminal
white racial anxieties--it also threatens to make him look a bit
detached from the many and multiplying crises around him. These are
not, to put it mildly, the most soothing of times for Americans. The
economy is shaky. Unemployment is up. Growth is down. Oil prices have
hit the roof just as home prices have crashed through the floor.
Detroit is facing a full-fledged meltdown. We are still embroiled in
two wars, neither of which offers much hope for a happy ending. Al
Qaeda is running wild in western Pakistan. And now, like some bad acid
flashback, Russia is acting like it wants to restart the Cold War.
Now admittedly, my brain shuts down whenever I read phrases like "appear presidential." It's one of those phrases which, in a world of Monica Lewinsky and missing WMDs, I simply can't comprehend. Moreover, I keep wondering when some humility will kick in for those of us in the punditry class. Remember when Obama wasn't black enough and Hillary was going to murder him in the hood? Remember when John McCain campaign was effectively dead? Remember when the primary was going to be over in New Hampshire?
Like Megan, I kind of have trouble with this church/state deal. If I believed that not accepting Christ condemned people to an eternity of torture, I'd be an unrepentant zealot. I say that having never been a church-goer, so there could be something I'm missing in the translation. Equally, I'm not so much dismayed that that the religious right is religious, as I am dismayed by what much of what they literally stand for. History has shown that, even without God, people have no problem exuding homophobia, sexism, racism, xenophobia etc.
Anyway, I want to offer a humble corrective to Megan's comparisons between abolitionists and pro-lifers today:
The question of personhood is not definitionally religious, even if the
only people interested in expanding society's definition of personhood
are religious. Blacks are people, and those of us without any
particular religious convictions are able to apprehend this, even if
150 years ago the only people much interested in prosecuting their
claim to personhood were ministers and their flocks.
The fundamental question in the abortion debate is, "When does life begin?" Slaveholders and abolitionists were quite clear that slaves were alive. What they doubted was that they were actually human and thus equals. The debate wasn't over the personhood of blacks--but, quite literally, over their humanity. This may seem like nitpicking, but here is why it's important. Moreover, if religion is to take the credit for abolishing slavery, it has to take the weight for helping enshrine it in the first place:
Indeed, though I myself am pro-choice and mostly irreligious, it seems
more likely to me that the main effect of faith is to spur people to
embrace causes that are personally and socially inconvenient.
Slaveowners didn't need religion to motivate them to defend slavery;
they had a powerful financial interest in doing so. Similarly, the
pro-choice movement, at least in my experience, gets most of its
activist energy from reproductive-aged women who have a strong interest
in being able to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Well yeah, in the name of religion, people often do take positions that are inconvenient. But at least as often, people use religion as cover for what is manifestlt in their self-interest. Thus the conquistadors weren't brutalizing the native population of the Americas, they were bringing them civilization and Christianity. Slaveholders weren't simply coldly pursuing profit, they were fulfilling The Book, which had long ago decreed that blacks--by divine order--were destined to be slaves. The whole reason abolitionists had to use religion was, A.) Because there simply was no other real tool for making a popular argument and B.) Because the slave-holders, themselves, had made the case for slavery, largely, on religious grounds.
UPDATE: Several commenters have noted that "alive" question really isn't up for scientific debate, thus giving credence to comparison. I concede the first half, not the second. The claim that undergirded slavery--and really Jim Crow--wasn't simply that blacks lacked "personhood" it was that they either weren't human, were sub-human, or were a lower order of human. This wasn't simply an ethical debate--whole reams of bad science sprung up to back up this notion. Eventually, better science prevailed. I'm arguing that that's a lot more cut and dry than abortion, and that religion was a constant on both sides, and basically dominant among those who defended slaveholding. Science, which rose above the level of alchemy, on the other hand, was not.
I think I don't want to hear what great fans the Jets have. Not for a
long time. That crowd Saturday night was a disgrace. At least half the
stadium was empty for Favre's debut in a Jets' uniform. I expressed my
amazement to a few fellow scribes Saturday night -- emphasizing that
N.Y. traded for an all-time-great quarterback, not a broken-down one --
and they gave varying reasons for the poor turnout. Like it's the
middle of vacation month for New Yorkers, and it's a preseason game.
Horsefeathers. If you really love your team, and you have season
tickets, you should have been at that game unless you were in Tibet.
Ridiculous.
Right. Because it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the last memory any football fan in New York has of Brett Favre is this:
That thread on white spokesperson has been the most entertaining thing I've ever read on this blog. You guys are what we used to call "good white folks." I just wanted to highlight a few gems of irony and high comedy:
Most of the better nominations were vetoed. Ta-Nehisi, why are you trying to keep the white man down?
I voted Jeff because he's demonstrated the qualities I'm looking for.
Folks! Don Draper is the only choice. He's bright, well dressed, clean, articulate.
In this case, our black overlords have presented us with a full
slate of candidates, all but one of which are not popular enough to win
the prize. The only one popular enough to win, is of course, a jester...
And I, for one, welcome...
Nevermind.
Of the choices presented, I'd go with Galactus because he best
symbolizes the impermeable dominance of white culture in the
post-Ghengis Khan world - along with the heavy guilt he feels and all
the shit he's detroyed feeding his lifestyle, not that he does anything
about it. However, I think Jesus would be a good choice as well. Not
only is he white - just check him out sometime - but he's got great
abdominal definition and people are always taking him out of context
and accusing him of being racist. Yeah he's a white guy, but he's a
compassionate, sensitive white guy. I'll bet he'd even vote for Obama.
I am also disappointed with Ta-N for the nominations, but then again he's black so he wouldn't understand our needs as a people.
I don't even know who Jeff is. Or Galactus. I guess that makes me a
schmuck, but I'm pretty sure if you polled 100 white people, 80%
wouldn't know them either.
I ask for a second round, so the anti-Colbert forces can unite on an
appropriate figure. Whiteness is not self-aware, and not particularly
clever either -- the point is that it doesn't have to be.
Seriously guys this is great stuff. Of course you are aware that no white man can cast a vote for White Spokesperson that any black man is bound to respect. Otherwise, how else would you know how it felt to be Al Sharptoned? Of course I will take this vote "under advisement." At the moment, I have to say, Jeff is rocking the shit. Galactus is a Streisand.
Alright the old Coates-humor seems to have gone awry in the post below. For the record, the "125th street" line wasn't a gang sign--I live six blocks from 125th. I wasn't being cryptic, seeking cred, or speaking in code. I literally was referring to my own neighborhood. Besides, anyone who knows Harlem knows that the days of using 125th street to garner cred have long passed. If they ever existed in the first place. If you're worried about me "seeking cred" and being exclusionary, you should be flaming those posts on D&D. To the uninitiated, they're indecipherable.
The term I was actually thinking of was "project bourgie" or "ghetto snob." They both generally refer to people who revile the neighborhood for its alleged close-mindedness and ignorance, evidently unaware that their very revulsion marks them as close-minded and ignorant. So, like, old girl is steady pushing this idea of Barack as un-American, and unable to connect with "ordinary Americans," while taking jaunts from New York to London and having journalists address her as "Lady." There is a lot of projecting going on--the ghetto snob is always more ghetto than the people he/she dismisses. Ditto for our friend. To the extent the term exists, who really seems un-American here?
For obvious reasons both of those terms are sort of un-PC. And by noting 125th, I meant to say it's the sort of phraseology that I might be more likely to use face to face, as opposed to on a website read by thousands of people who may now feel free to call any old upwardly mobile black person a "ghetto snob."
That's all there is to it. No terrorist fist-bump. No cry for the Maroons to descend from the hills. No secret drumming meant to convey a racial flame-war on the internets. It's just Ta-Nehisi--as always--too clever by half.
Here is billionaire Hillary Clinton jihadi, Lynn Forrester on Obama:
"We're not going to win by pretending problems with Barack Obama
don't exist. He has a huge problem connecting with ordinary Americans, who
think, 'He doesn't understand me.' He is not modest; he is arrogant. He
radiates elitism."
This was Forrester conclusion after Obama compromised on the roll-call. But there's more:
"Barack Obama can use the words 'the American dream', but they
don't resonate," she said. "He magnified the problem by going to Berlin and
calling himself a citizen of the world."
This from a woman who lives in New York and London. Negroes, after this election I don't want to hear anything about "acting white." This whole election has been code for "Acting French." Truly xenophobic anti-intellectualism at its highest. Props to Leon Panetta for putting the idiots in context:
"There is a sense of entitlement that almost seems to be inbred," Panetta
said. "They are convinced Hillary is the one who should be assuming the
mantle and it's tough to crack that."
The brothers have a name for an inbred "sense of entitlement." But we are in polite company. Come see me on 125th if you wanna be down.
People can go back through the archives and see I've been pretty back and forth about Obama and his whole "morals first" approach to black people. I've been thinking some about some of my commenters who've objected to Obama's rhetoric--specifically to his father's day speech. One critique that's come up frequently is that Obama is more than willing to harangue African-Americans about their moral failings, but less willing to say the same to the broader country.
I thought about that yesterday while watching this Andrew Bacevich interview. Watch it all the way through because it's shocking on a number levels. But what rang home for me was that Bacevich's critique of America mirrors the Cosby/Obama critique of black America--that the biggest problem facing these two overlapping communities isn't a threat from without, but the threat from within. And yet Bacevich was very clear that neither candidate in the race had been willing to give Americans the sort of straight talk that's needed. Bacevich doesn't fault the candidates though, he faults the people.
I've mostly been in favor of Obama's moralizing because his message is basically the same one that was pushed to me as a kid, as well as the one pushed in most black households. As I've said before about his fatherhood speech, there may be no creature on earth that I find more reprehensible than the deadbeat dad. But that said, there is something weak in the fact that Obama can't bring the same moralism to bear on the wider he country which he applies to the black community, that he can't point out to Americans that oil prices going up is a good thing. Polluting the world your children will inherit is a moral issue. A
system that allows people to buy homes with no money down is a moral
issue. Telling people that the best thing they can do after the worst
terrorist attack ever on American soil, is go out an shop is a moral
issue.
I hear all of this talk about Obama as a post-racial candidate--but that only applies when its time for white people to pat themselves on the back. A truly post-racial candidate would be free to preach morals not just to African-Americans, but to all Americans.
Alright white folks, here's your shot. You to can be portrayed as one-dimensional by the mainstream. You too can now have a go-to mouthpiece for lazy reporters and cable-news clucking heads. Your choices are indeed staggering. But there can only be one. Who will be megaphone-bearer?
Here's a fairly interesting interview with Jesse Jackson. (Peace to J&JP for the link) I think the fact that it's done by a black magazine (ESSENCE) gives it a flavor that's lacking in MSM discussions of Jackson's faith. Put more plainly, ESSENCE knows what it's talking about. Anyway, I think people interpret this Obama/Jesse rift as something new brought about by Obama's "post-racial" approach. This is just wrong. I can remember back in 1995, as the Million Man March approached, a great degree of disenchantment with Jesse, who at the time, was weighing whether to attend. The funny thing is the issue then, was the same issue now--if cast in a different light.
The most attractive thing about M3 was that it was that it offered a sense of empowerment--it said to black men, "Your life is not perfect. But you have it within you to fix it." What so many people forget about M3 is that it wasn't a protest aimed at the broader country--it was a demonstration aimed at ourselves. The theme was, literally, atonement--the idea that black men had disgraced themselves and needed to be redeemed. From a young black perspective, there was always something emasculating something weak about Jesse's protest approach. There was this implicit message in the tactics--protests, boycotts, marches--that if white people don't help you, you're fucked. So many of us came up on the words of Malcolm, and to us, that sort of talk was just another form of shuffling. I'm not saying that's right, but it's how we saw it.
Moreover, that "Appeal to white folks" approach was basically the dominant picture of black America as seen by the MSM. For a lot of us young cats, it was embarrassing and enraging to watch the murder rate shooting up in our neighborhood and then turn on the news and see the NAACP boycotting Denny's. I think the picture was always more complicated than that. But the fact is that we had about as much contact with "black leadership" as most white people. We knew Jesse the way most of the country did--through the television. Thus there was this distance between the daily struggles of being black, and what we saw Jesse focusing on.
I think a lot of the venom that's come Jesse's way has come as a shock to a lot of white people, especially as the MSM has begun to pick up on this idea that there is no singular "black opinion," (though there is a singular white opinion, more on that in a bit) and thus maybe there was never one black spokesperson. But this was never really about Obama, as much as it was about our desire to be seen in the world in more than just one way.
Mostly because he brings science to the gaggle of pundits who daily trying to play oracle. Still, Andrew is dead-on in checking him for basically saying non-pandering equals fail:
Chuck basically says that unless you pander in soundbites, you lose. If
you show respect for your opponent's views, you lose. However
defensible this is as analysis, it isn't part of the solution, is it
I understand that sentimentalism is deadly for these guys, and that they have to be realistic about the electorate. But every once in a while it's good to be existential about your craft. Moreover, it helps to have some humility and remember how many times you've been wrong. It's like Hillary won, or something.
Obama has also been defeated by racism (again). He can't connect and
"close the deal" with ordinary Americans too doltish to comprehend a
multicultural biography that includes what Cokie Roberts of ABC News
has damned as the "foreign, exotic place" of Hawaii. As The Economist sums up
the received wisdom, "lunch-pail Ohio Democrats" find Obama's ideas of
change "airy-fairy" and are all asking, "Who on earth is this guy?"
It
seems almost churlish to look at some actual facts. No presidential
candidate was breaking the 50 percent mark in mid-August polls in 2004
or 2000. Obama's average lead of three to four points is marginally
larger than both John Kerry's and Al Gore's leads then (each was
winning by one point in Gallupsurveys). Obama is also ahead of Ronald Reagan in mid-August 1980 (40 percent to Jimmy Carter's 46). At Pollster.com,
which aggregates polls and gauges the electoral count, Obama as of
Friday stood at 284 electoral votes, McCain at 169. That means McCain
could win all 85 electoral votes in current toss-up states and still
lose the election.
I have no idea who's going to win this November. But I'm hearing too many people tell me Obama's in trouble on too much flimsy evidence. Among my favorites--the claim that the McCain campaign thinks that "the celeb ads are working." So what? What are they supposed to say--Yeah our latest ad really flopped. If you can't tell me that it is working, and what the long-term impact will be, I'm not interested. Really man. To paraphrase Ghostface, cats need to lay back and enjoy the moment, instead pushing for the end of the story.
You'd like to think this particular myth ended last night with the following emphatic declaration:
"I have a 25-year pro-life record in the Congress, in the Senate," McCain said. "This presidency will have pro-life policies."
And then maybe not. Check out this TNR piece about how successfully McCain has masked his pro-life zealotry. I have to say, even I was shocked by the reporting. I always thought of McCain as a guy who merely tolerated hard-right social conservatives. I was mistaken.
UPDATE: Also, check out this bit of reporting, also from TNR, on the changes made to the Democratic platform regarding abortion. I found this encouraging:
An interesting aspect of the platform
decision is that pro-choice leaders, I'm told, were genuinely
interested in making the party more
palatable to evangelical leaders. That this compromise would get public
support
from religious Democrats almost certainly factored into the
pro-choicers'
willingness to bargain. The language is not officially final until it
is
ratified at the national convention, and pro-lifers will probably make
some
nominal efforts to address their lingering doubts, especially in regard
to the
"conscience" language. But for the most part, this has been a success
for the
platform committee and the Obama campaign. "It's a big difference from
2004,"
Kristen Day, Executive Director of Democrats for Life, told me. "And
it's a big
difference that the committee reached out to us. It shows that we're
accepted
into the party."
Hey guys. Got some other writing to deal with, so I'll be checking in lightly (monitoring comments) but likely not posting much. I wanted to leave you with a wonderful piece by Barbara Ehrenreich. What I love most about her is, despite digging into weighty issues, she never ever loses a sense of humor. Here is she is on "prosperity gospel," the Osteens, and the flight attendant that's suing them:
I would be more sympathetic to the flight attendant, Sharon Brown, if
she weren't demanding 10 percent of Osteen's fortune to compensate for
injuries including a "loss of faith" and hemorrhoids somehow incurred
from a frontal assault. But it isn't easy being a flight attendant in
this era of layoffs, pay cuts and packed planes--certainly not compared
to being a millionaire on her way to Vail. Whatever dubious substance
Victoria Osteen faced on that first-class armrest, she should have been
able to derive some serenity from the fact that the church she
co-pastors draws 40,000 worshippers a week and that her husband has been
dubbed "America's Most Influential Christian."
Here's a piece no one cared about. Meh, whatever, probably the most enjoyable article I did during my stint at TIME. Premiered a month before I got laid-off. The nail in the coffin? Ya think?
Here's me going after Al. I didn't so much have a problem with him, as I had a problem with media acting like this dude was the go-to guy for everything black.
This was my first real story at time. I was writing for the Business section, a real change of direction for me. At any rate, it's about Wal-Mart's attempts to colonize the inner-city. As much as I enjoyed this piece, I mostly enjoyed going out to Chicago, which is a beautiful, beautiful city.
This a piece I did about the cops just outside our nation capitol, in Prince George's County, a few years back. I wanted to offer a counter to the dumb, conventional wisdom that if you paint your police force black, you could eradicate police brutality. In fact, Prince George's--one of the richest, blackest counties in the country--also had one of the most brutal police force's in the country.
| 
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
