I've heard some folks in comments grumbling about the inference by Limbaugh, Buchanan, Will and K-Lo that Powell is supporting Obama because he's black. Meh, I don't have a dog in this fight. Demeaning Colin Powell as opposed to taking a sec to be self-reflective only makes the job of liberals easier. If they think this is the way to grow their base, then have at it.
That said, I'll just address the logic of things. I have no doubt that Colin Powell is very proud of endorsing a black man for president. But understand how different that is than, making a presidential endorsement because the candidate is black. These dudes (and dudettes) have the thing backwards. Of course they;re prone to getting it backwards because they've never understood diversity. Getting inside the heads of people is always hard. But getting inside the heads of black people--when you don't know any--is even harder.
Anyway let's return to Tony Dungy. He is the first brother to win a Super Bowl. I'm sure Jim Irsay is extremely proud that he made that win possible But Irsay didn't hire Dungy because he was black. He hired him because he's one of the best coaches of his generation. Ditto for Obama--who is running one of the best campaigns of his generation.
To say that race is major reason for Powell's endorsement is to basically ignore a serious qualitative difference between the two campaigns. But more to the point, conservative like to pride themselves on their skepticism. They're skeptical of people like me claiming Ferraro's statemement was racist. They're skeptical of racial discrimination. They're skeptical of black culture. They want direct evidence of 'racism." Fair enough. But we demand the same in return. Leave mind-reading to Cleo. Prove to me with direct evidence that Colin Powell supported Obama because he was black.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Bravo!! I am so sick and tired of these conservatives making this assumption without any evidence to substantiate this outrageous claim.
The thing that got me was the `ungratefulness` comment. After all the RNC has done for him, how dare he go against their wishes...right, like his career ascension was just because of the pure generosity of white people, and had nothing to do with his own hard work, self-discipline and intelligence.
Did they say that about any other Conservative who has supported Obama? It reminded me Oprah, when some of her audience was appalled by her ungratefulness to all the white women who were “responsible” for her success. This concept of ingratitude, that really pisses me off.
You know black coaches in the NFL aren't charity cases. They gotta be able to coach. Especially with name like Lovie and Romeo...
T,
A good comparison here is Ken Edelman; I used to have to stop myself shouting at the tv when he was on. He was the neo-con par excellence.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2008/10/not-quite-colin.html
for him to endorse Obama amazed and delighted me, frankly.
He's always looked tan though, so I guess that's the real reason.
Seriously - they jump on Powell to hide the Adelmans, Buckleys etc. So many simply cannot carry on the charade.
"like his career ascension was just because of the pure generosity of white people, and had nothing to do with his own hard work, self-discipline and intelligence."
Well, to be fair, the Clintons kind of treated Richardson like this. Not to put Richardson on Powell's level, but this stuff probably goes more to their sense of entitlement...
Powell was espousing the same sentiments as other conservatives. Shit, just read Andrew's blog and you realize just how many anti neo-cons are out there, and rallying---guys like Buckley are talking about a conference (apparantly they want Arnold to bring his cigars):
http://culture11.com/blogs/theconfabulum/2008/10/22/conference-call/
Powell has a lot of company. To reduce his endorsement to "a black thing" is pure denial, among other things.
I never got the sense that the reason the Clintons treated Richardson like they had created him was rooted in race.
Karl,
No, I don't either. I'm just saying the Clintons knew they were losing, and they also lashed out at anybody they assumed would be supporting them. I'm not sure if they used the term ungrateful, but it got pretty nasty. But hey, I should probably stop before it looks like I'm sticking up for McCain. I'm not. I just don't know if Republicans are calling Powell ungrateful because he's black. I could be wrong. I really wouldn't put anything past them at this point.
Okay, it looks like I just convinced myself that jaye was right!
It should be
All your blacks are belong to us.
Not 'belonging'.
Better yet, hold them to the same standard, prove to me they aren't voting for McCain because he's white...Black people have voted for white guys for President for 200 years, never once has a white man had to vote for a black Nominee.
That's their argument..throw it back at them..prove to me you aren't voting for McCain because he's white.
I'm not sure if they used the term ungrateful, but it got pretty nasty.
They didn't but Carville did. He used the term ungreatful and made a point, several times, of comparing Richardson to Judas Iscariot. I don't know that anyone should be held responsible for anything that Carville ever says but they also weren't in any kind of rush to disagree.
Don't forget that the other goal is to minimize the accomplishments of both Obama and Powell. If you say that someone is supporting someone just because they are black... you can ignore the fact that Obama has run a very skillful campaign with good ideas... and you can question Powell's judgement at the same time.
Powell's endorsement, and the ultimate turn on him, reveals one truth about the Republican (and Clinton in the primaries) campaign:
They have never, and likely will never, understand the strength of Obama, he has been som completely underestimated. He built the organization from the ground up, he had a plan for the primaries from day 0, and for the general from day 1.
I'd be willing to bet that, with the transition team, he likely has his first 100 days planned out.
Not because he is arrogant and thinks he's going to win, but because that's what planners and organizers do - they plan and they think ahead. They anticipate.
One great example of anticipation is this 30 minute block on Oct 29. Whatever comes out between now and then, Oct. 29th gives Obama a chance to answer any and all charges. Rebut any attacks, and paint a vision for the future.
I believe in Survivor parlance, it would be said that Obama, to date, has out-witted, out-played, and will out-last McCain.
Powell is a man of great integrity who tried to do the right thing with the wrong folks and finally came to see the light. The GOP outrage at him is absolutely connected to race.
As usual, there is an old country saying for this moment: lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.
lisa,
Powell got this one right, no doubt. But he is not a man of great integrity. His role in covering up the My Lai massacre alone would contradict that claim. Add to that his craven participation in selling Gulf War II, and he's only begun to dig his way out of the crap pile he's spent his career accumulating.
Everybody seems to forget that Powell was- and is- a soldier. For the majority of his adult life he rose through a system and in an organization that, for the most part, evaluates people on their merits. Not on their color. For that matter, an organization that evaluates ideas on their merits. This speaks to a fundamental disconnect between the republican party, (which prides itself on being the party of the military), and the core values of the people who are actually in the military.
As a liberal,(and 22-year Army veteran), I see military service as more in keeping with liberalism than with conservatism. Liberalism, to me, is fundamentally about a belief that each member of society is prepared to give of themselves, for the greater good of that society. What better example of this creed than military service? On the other hand, conservatism (as practised in this country, anyway) is all about the individual, "what's in it for me", and let the devil take the hindmost.
They claim that Powell's endorsement is all about race, but I think they are peeved because it deals a serious blow to the narrative they have built over the years that they are the party of "those who serve". That facade has been crumbling for some time, but the process has been largely hidden within the military, because political activism is a touchy subject in the armed forces.
The Army is a reflection of the society it serves. There are as many democrats in the Army as in society as a whole. Republicans still like to act different, but it is getting increasingly difficult, and this endorsement adds to their difficulties.
Powell was, is, and always will be a soldier. That means much more than flag waving and Toby Keith songs. It means a set of values that guide your life and your decisions, and color your perceptions (sorry) in a unique way.
Powell didn't make this decision based on racial solidarity, he made it based on his love for America, and his hopes for the future of the country he served.
One last thing- part of the culture of the Army is something called the After Action Review. After every operation, the performance of the unit and its leaders is openly dissected, good and bad. What I saw Sunday morning was an excellent AAR of the McCain campaign- I wonder if they were paying attention.
Zak I take your point. But I agree with Steel7 that Powell is first and foremost a soldier, and that whatever mistakes in judgement he made he made in that capacity. Hard to understand, outside of that life, and perhaps, in the end, not morally forgivable. But I believe he always tried to act with intregrity, and never for personal gain. Unlike his overlords.
"Better yet, hold them to the same standard, prove to me they aren't voting for McCain because he's white..."
Ummm, many, many of them are in fact voting for him for just that reason, so there is no parallel there with Powell's statement.
There is something to disgust everyone here. For me it is the spectacle of some pudgy little chicken-hawk civilian punk like Limbaugh failing to admit because he can never know that GEN Powell made a career out of correctly assessing the leadership potential of subordinates for command. Reading people is his core competence; it bears on leading his subordinates, on an intelligence picture of the enemy - it's just central. And it never involves ethnicity, because ethnicity is no indicator.
In this case you don't have to be black, you don't even ahve to be human to see that obama is the only adult in the race, the only one with an ounce of mature judgement, and the only possible choice.
AutoInternetThemeCorrector,
Very good, but may I out-nerd you? It actually should be "All your Black are belong to us."
Not "Blacks."
conservatives are skeptical ? bullshit.
conservatives are only skeptical of liberals.
"Prove to me with direct evidence that Colin Powell supported Obama because he was black. "
John McWhorter will be coming out with a piece shortly.
I keep hearing about how it would be wrong for people to vote for Obama,in-part or in-whole, because he's black. I don't get it. It seems to me that in a country still dealing with the fallout from slavery and segregation, electing a black man to the nation's highest office is actually a pretty big deal. Maybe it shouldn't be of primary importance, but when the dude's got the right stuff and is black, what's wrong with the latter tipping the scales? And, yes, given this country's history of patriarchy and misogyny, I'd be saying the same thing about Hilary Clinton and woman's suffrage, too.
The central claim about Richardson was not that he was ungrateful, but that he was a liar. Supposedly (who knows if it's really true) he told Bill to his face, multiple times, that whether or not he endorsed Hillary he definitely wouldn't be endorsing Obama. Now, if that promise actually happened, it's legitimate to be pissed when the guy breaks it. This seems to be widely misunderstood as an issue of ungratefulness, when the issue is that he gave his word.
Who else has Colin Powell ever endorsed for office? He spoke at Bush's nomination, and so clearly endorsed him, right? But has he endorsed anyone else?
It's a different subject, but I'm wondering what Condi Rice will do when she's standing in the booth on Election Day. Is she going to vote for McCain? Really?
"What I saw Sunday morning was an excellent AAR of the McCain campaign-"
Very good observation.
"I wonder if they were paying attention."
Paying attention is not one of their strong points. Woefully shitty SA.
Those who have never done anything but seek their own agrandizement will never understand a personality like Colin Powell.
The Limbaugh's and the Rest of the neo-con pundit class that are making this acusation have never in their lives served anything higher than their own self interest.
Colin Powell endorsed Obama out of a sense of duty, and a deep seated desire to advance the welfare of this country. The pundits don't understand this and will never be able to.
This is just great, Coates. I have nothing to add, just thanks for making this obvious yet important point.
oops, meant to put that first graf in quotes
"Those who have never done anything but seek their own agrandizement will never understand a personality like Colin Powell."
Steve Whipple or someone like that right after 9/11 had a beautiful post about the difference between sheep and sheepdogs in society. The sheep are not less than the sheepdogs, their purpose is to be self-centered and to produce wealth; and the sheepdog's puropose is to protect the entire flock even at the risk of his life. The Bhagavad Gita says the same thing in harsher terms; the term it uses is "caste".
For better or worse, the reality is that the first black man or woman to achieve a particular prominent height in this country has to be not just competent but exceptionally good at what they do. Doesn't matter whether that's President, US Senator, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, NFL coach, etc. The second one can be so-so, and later ones can have the same spread of talent or lack of it as folks from any other group. But the first one -- gotta be damn good.
The flap over Powell is probably best understood by looking at how willing the conservative Inquisition is to accept any conservative supporting Obama. Bluntly, they either yell "Treason!" or "Sell out!" What they don't do is admit that it might be a matter of conviction. Same thing with Powell -- there must be a reason which does not include conviction on Obama's (perhaps relative) merits.
And response from some liberals (yell "Racism!") is actually quite similar. A better response might be to just say "Pathetic" and leave it at that. Sure, racism may be involved in some of the cases. But pathetic distance from reality is involved in all cases. And anybody who gets out of the echo-chambers (conservative or liberal) should realize that whinging about those supporting the other side is even more counterproductive than attack ads aimed at the candidate as an individual. It may play well to those who already agree with you; but it's not a bright idea if you need to convince those who do not.
Let me suggest an empirical argument for race being the primary motivation for Powell's endorsement. Powell belongs to a class of Republican - moderate, pro-choice, reality-based, etc. - that though a minority within the party, still comprises a large proportion of its current and former governing elite. I would bet my bottom dollar that in the privacy of the voting booth, a significant majority of these, especially the older cadre, will be pulling the lever for Obama.
This stipulated, the question is begged: who else of Powell's cohort, of similar or somewhat lesser stature, has gone public with his or her preferences for Obama? I can think of none.
Perhaps I am not properly appreciating the number of ex-military endorsements, and Powell's can be understood in such terms. But in civilian terms, his outspokenness, given his "rank" seems essentially singular. And the economical interpretation is that race was at the forefront of his considerations.
I never got the idea that the Clintons were going after Richardson because of his race. There was never an implication that Richardson was endorsing Obama because they were both minorities...and while the Clintons can be accused of race-baiting, and I agree with you Stacy, they are certainly not above race-based attacks...but in the case of Richardson, I thought the sense of ungratefulness or betrayal was more about the Clintons personally, and that they would have said that about anyone, of any race.
I don't know if it was just Limbaugh or if it was the RNC that said it, but to say Powell's only doing that because they're both black, and then talk about 'ungratefulness'...I thought Oprah responded well when she said, "But the truth is I'm a free woman...and being free means you get to think for yourself and you get to decide for yourself what to do." There is a feeling of entitlement on the part of the RNC or some of the women that called Oprah a traitor, and I think that can be traced back to racial dynamics, though I can't quite articulate exactly how that is.
Now, obviously the claim that the Powell endorsement was purely about race is bogus, and ignores the numerous white Republicans and conservatives who have been endorsing Obama for many of the same reasons Powell mentioned. But it's not unreasonable to suggest that Powell's decision was influenced by race. There's little doubt that Powell is energized by the prospect of a black president (just as I, a Jew, was energized by the prospect of Joe Lieberman becoming vice president). And I'm sure he is affected by the bigotry underlying many of the attacks on Obama (which reflect xenophobia and anti-Islamism as well as racism). What I find most insidious about the knee-jerk criticism by Limbaugh et al is the assumption that Powell is not permitted to bring his perspective as a black American to bear, that he must look at the question through exactly the same lens as a white American would.
Can we go to the transcript? Powell was asked directly if his decision was about race. His answer began:
"If I had only had that in mind, I could have done this six, eight, 10 months ago."
I heard that as saying that race was part of what he had in mind, something he didn't utterly set aside. Only race wasn't the only thing in he had in mind, and I'd say the rest of the interview makes it clear that other factors mattered more.
Later in the same answer (the man clearly thinks in paragraphs), he adeed
"I can't deny that it will be a historic event for an African-American to become president. And should that happen, all Americans should be proud--not just African-Americans, but all Americans--that we have reached this point in our national history where such a thing could happen. It will also not only electrify our country, I think it'll electrify the world."
That makes perfect sense to me.
First, vote for the candidate with the best judgment, best temperment, best vision for the country.
Second, enjoy doing it more because you're glad a candidate that good hasn't been stopped by racial nonsense.
Finally, let your enjoyment be shaped by your background and experience, through your own lens.
"What I find most insidious about the knee-jerk criticism by Limbaugh et al is the assumption that Powell is not permitted to bring his perspective as a black American to bear, that he must look at the question through exactly the same lens as a white American would.
Posted by Kylopod | October 23, 2008 10:34 PM"
Good point. White male straight Christian conservatives for years have acted like the only way to be a real American and to be integrated is to think exactly like them, as if America was a video game and the default avatar had to be the only good choice. They are only starting to realize not only is that narrative dying with demographic changes, feminism, the gay rights movement, a growing number of young people being non-religious, the integration of American Jews, Muslims and Hindus into American society and greater acceptance of interracial dating, but they are being forced against their will to face that that narrative was always bullshit.
I should preface this by saying that I'm a young white guy who just in last four years has made the move from conservative to moderate. I therefore could very well be completely out to lunch, a fact I would of course appreciate being pointed out. I actually went back and forth on whether to post this, since I may unwittingly say something stupid. That being said, I have to agree with the commentators who have made the point that Obama's race likely did have an impact on Powell's endorsement decision (though not a huge one). And the important thing, it seems to me, is to see that isn't a big deal.
There is a fundamental difference, given the nature of the history of our world, between voting for a candidate because he or she is white (as many will inevitably do for McCain this election) and voting for a candidate because he or she is a minority. The former means to side with the powerful and aid them in consolidating and preserving their power. It is part of a systemic (though perhaps not conscious) attempt to prevent any true and complete meritocracy from forming in this country because race is more important than anything else. It is therefore racist.
To vote for a minority candidate because of his or her race, on the other hand (especially when they are clearly qualified for the office to which they aspire) is to take a position against the systemic oppression that I just described. In this sense a vote for Obama is a symbolic vote for a true meritocracy and for the sort of equality that we ought to stand for in this country. It is also a vote against the oppression that has prevented that from taking shape. It is therefore not racist. This is why caricatures like Limbaugh could never hope to understand the emotion described by TNC in his post about the grandmother who broke down after voting for Obama. Barack Obama is about more than just a candidate.
I do think Colin Powell (to be fair to Limbaugh) voted for a candidate that, if one were to look purely at agreement on policy, he might not have voted for. However, limiting the discussion of whether you ought to vote for a candidate purely to policy is a bit like a baseball team selecting their first round draft pick based purely on the speed of their fastball - a lot of people do it, but it probably isn't the smartest of moves because it ignores if the person has other qualities that might make them a good pitcher. I think Powell understands the broader implications of an Obama vote, and took those into consideration in his endorsement.
"Is she going to vote for McCain? Really?" ML&J
Why not? If we're saying Powell's endorsement of Obama is not because of race, and I think that's the right thing to say, why can't Rice also vote regardless of race? Do you think Obama is more like her politically? Really?
I don't know Rice's politics in detail, but I don't think she's a bit to the Right of Powell. Perhaps more important she is unlike Powell in that her experience with the Bush administration has mostly been of benefit to her. She had been mostly noted as an expert on Russia before working with Bush and I don't think she was all that well-known to the public even then. Bush never wanted her to leave and the Right-wing of the Republican Party never acted dissatisfied with her. Her approval rating remains somewhat high for a Bush appointee. Powell was well-known, and perhaps better liked, before his association to the Bush administration. Due to the Iraq war he lost a bit of support from the center and, perhaps oddly, from the Right as well. (At that point many Right-wingers felt we never should have done presentations at the UN, because you can't trust the UN to do anything, and that going to the UN was Powell's bad idea)
So Powell would have better reason to distance himself from Bush, be unnerved by Palin, and dislike conservative judges. I don't think Rice would have these same motivations even if she is socially liberal, which I believe she is.
"but I don't think she's a bit to the Right of Powell."
That should be "I do think." The "don't" was for an earlier version of the sentence and I forgot to drop it.
Colin Powell is a very honorable person, and I have no doubt that he is endorsing Obama based on his perceived merits, rather than his race.
That being said, a lot of people are voting for or against Obama based his race, and I think the whole thing, on both sides, is kind of shameful.
I don't know how many black people limbaugh et al know. Neither do you. It's a bit much to offer a line of reasoning that treats a groundless assumption as plain fact and then ask others that they cite evidence for their inferences.
It would've been better to have simply noted that powell's 'true' motives are knowable only to powell and don't matter much in the long run anyway. Instead you go into a speculative ramble about how 'these dudes' supposedly think which is arguably worse than what it is you're criticising.
I'm an African-American woman who's asked almost daily, either explicitly or implicitly, if I am voting for Obama because he's black. My standard answer has become: "I'd never vote for Condoleesa Rice." The stunned silence after this makes me think they get the point.
And, it's a much nicer answer than "KMY".
There is a fundamental difference, given the nature of the history of our world, between voting for a candidate because he or she is white (as many will inevitably do for McCain this election) and voting for a candidate because he or she is a minority. The former means to side with the powerful and aid them in consolidating and preserving their power.
...
Posted by Curtis | October 24, 2008 1:53 AM
I agree. Though a liberal Democrat, I've always had strong reservations about affirmative action. And I think there's a parallel here, even if inexact (since voters, unlike hiring consultants or college admissions boards, have the right to be as prejudicial in their choices as they want). I do not personally use race as a criteria in choosing the candidate I will vote for. At the same time, I want to see more minorities become candidates, and I think it's ridiculous that we live in the twenty-first century and almost all our presidents have been white Protestants of Northern European stock. (I explain my views on this matter in this post.)
I doubt any liberal would argue that race should overshadow everything in our choices. Who, for example, would support Alan Keyes simply because he's black? It's not a matter of thinking "Black liberals good; black conservatives bad." I think most liberals have great respect for Powell and Rice, despite their involvement in the Bush Administration. That's because their blackness is seen as a positive component of who they are and what they have accomplished.
From Limbaugh's point of view, there is absolutely no reason to support Obama to begin with. Limbaugh's judgment of Obama is really no harsher than it was for John Kerry, who was also painted by the right as anti-American and ultra-liberal. From the perspective of Obama's supporters, however, Obama is a statesmen, a consensus-builder, and a cool hand--all qualities that seem a ready antidote to the last eight years. The fact that this man is also black is significant, because it has an important symbolic resonance. (See this column for an elaboration of this point of view.) In short, you can't escape Obama's race; it is inextricably rolled up in what his candidacy represents to his supporters.
Iron,
Change your name. The next comment under that handle will be deleted. Yes, there are words that even offend me.
Sure. I'm voting for Obama in part because he's black. But here's the key point: I'm voting for the right black guy instead of the wrong white guy. I expect that Powell is doing the same.
What's more: the is the first time I've ever had such a choice. In every previous election, other voters have deprived me of the choice to vote for anyone but a white guy. Give me a choice this good and damned right I'm going to take it.
Limbaugh said he was going to find the white liberals that Powell has supported -- suggesting that it had to be race otherwise.
Meanwhile, then, Limbaugh might want to find the white liberals endorsed by Charles Fried, Ken Adelman, Larry Hunter, Lawrence Korb, William Weld, Scott McClellan, etc.