In the mind of Stanley Crouch, Barack Obama is a black politician, and Louis Farrakhan is a black politician, and therefore they are an obvious pair to compare and contrast.
That's pretty ridiculous, in the sense that there are plenty of people one could compare Obama to and learn more than comparing him to Farrakhan. These include both white and black politicians of Obama's generation. And Farrakhan's illness has basically removed him from the national scene. Obama and Farrakhan really don't have much in common beyond the ability to draw a crowd. Oh, and blackness. Which seems to be the main thing Stanley Crouch sees. If a white pundit was obsessed with making this comparison, even favorably to Obama, I would pretty much call it straight-up racism, or racialist thinking at best. Maybe we shouldn't call it that from Crouch. But, maybe we should.
What I'm seeing is that Crouch is stuck on the Farrakhan bogeyman as a crutch for his arguments. Again, I don't think he's using it against Obama; actually I think he's disregarding all the other political figures who weren't Farrakhan or Jesse Jackson. He's slanting the argument by using Farrakhan as symbol of the old, when there were plenty of non-extreme black politicians 20 years ago too. Harold Washington or John Lewis didn't get crowds of hundreds of thousands of people when they ran for office, but if it wasn't for people like them, Barack would not be where he is now.
I don't disbelieve his argument about increased diversity and post-simplicity. But I don't think one can prove that the attitudes of the country toward race have changed, by comparing an extreme figure like Farrakhan to a mainstream one like Obama. Of course they have different appeals, because they're very different people.
A more interesting evolution in politicians, to me, is from the generation of big-city black pols who got elected as pioneers, often on civil rights cred (Harold Washington, Marion Barry, Tom Bradley, Andrew Young, ...) to a new generation who get elected as technocrats (Cory Booker, Michael Nutter).
There's been this weird temptation to compare Barack Obama's style of leadership with Jesse Jackson's and Al Sharpton's. I've done it myself many, many times. I think Ben gets to the heart of why that comparison is bogus, sloppy and lazy. Obama isn't an activist. He reps for the state of Illinois. Civil Rights leaders, likewise, rep for whatever cause they chose. Farrakhan isn't running for office. He isn't passing any legislation. He isn't holding any hearings. Likewise, I don't expect Obama to be leading a protest march. If you're going to compare him, it's best to juxtapose him with other actual politicians. Compare him to Edmund Edward Brooke or Doug Wilder. If you want to dis the past, at least give me a Sharpe James.
The "Obama v. Farrakhan" thing or "Obama v. Sharpton" thing or even the "Obama v. Jesse" thing appeals to two types of people. White people who despise those three. And black people, frankly like me, who get sick of those dudes being stand-ins for "what the Negroes think." But it's sloppy thinking that gives no regard to either party--it just lumps them together in a box called "Famous Black People Interest In Politics." I remember Tim Russert foolishly asking Barack Obama about something Harry Belafonte said. I remember thinking, What the fuck does Obama know about Belafonte? He's representing Illinois. That's his job. Let Harry be Harry.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Great post. But have I got it wrong, or was it Edward Brooke?
You know, I think the logical person to compare to Barack is Bobby Kennedy. (Who, had he survived, would have been my first vote for president in 1972).
I've never been as proud to vote as I was this morning.
I've thought of Bobby a few times; then I try not to for obvious reasons.
Nearest modern parallel I can think of.
Jesse Jr. reps for Illinois.
Barack sens for Illinois.
it just lumps them together in a box called "Famous Black People Interest In Politics."
Yeah. That box. Anyway, so you don't think there's any validity in comparisons of black leaders across different types of political involvement? Like take Obama and MLK - this is a comparison I think you yourself have made at points. And I think it's a perfectly valid comparison to make, to look at what Obama's inherited from someone like that, or maybe even a Bayard Rustin, and what he's explicitly made a point of not inheriting from a Farrakhan or Malcolm or Jesse or Wright. And sure, you can say, "well let's keep the comparisons to actual black politicians" (of course, Jesse ran a presidential campaign or two), but those guys, the Wilders and such, they really weren't national figures. And they weren't all that interesting either. Like I almost think there's more of a comparison to Jesse or MLK than there is to black politicians of the past.
Well, Obama was an activist for a while but I take your point.
Why can't we call Crouch a racist? After the Dave Douglas brouhaha I think he's earned it. He looked like a fool and lost a good gig at the same time.
Asher,
If in 2012/16 there is a Jewish candidate for President, it's ok to compare them to Lieberman, and hardly anyone else?
After all, they would have far more in common than anyone else, right?
Well to be fair to Stanley Crouch I think he is trying to track the progression of black leadership. After King, Jesse, then Farrakhan. Then who? Kweisi MFume? Julian Bond? Bill Clinton? I don't see Sharpton as a black leader in the traditional sense of leading an entire movement. Now Obama. Whether we like it or not. He's going to be it. I think Obama returns to the King legacy. After securing civil rights, King had moved on to economics and began an appeal to poor whites as well. Jesse and Farrakhan haven't really made any progress imo. In that sense, I think the comparison is a relevant one.
But, and i have to be blunt here, what he leaves out is our best examples of leaders were killed. That has a chilling effect on any movement. In addition, everyone fully expects this one to be killed too. Jesse and Farrakhan are just not the same threat to the status quo as Martin, Malcolm, and Barack.
I think Crouch makes the mistake of not framing his analysis in a larger---and particularly meaningful---context. What is the relevance of comparing Obama and Farrakhan? Crouch finds relevance at the crudest level:
In short, black Americans proved themselves what the clearest thinkers of the Civil Rights Movement had always claimed: "We can be just as good or just as bad as you. We are only human."
Okaaay. So Farrakhan was a bad guy, Obama is a good guy, and this demonstrates to the world that black people are a mixed bag, just like other people. Crouch has all of us leaping from recognizing each other as human beings to appreciating each other's individuality in a color-blind way. So Crouch sees the generation gap, but ignores its relevance. Newer generations don't need Farrakhan (or other black men) to see Obama as an individual. Maybe Crouch thinks we do...
Sharpton was extremely insightful talking about the significance of Obama to America and B's relationship to old school guys like himself on Hughley's CNN show the other night:
http://tinyurl.com/6xqljr
James... yes and no. I mean, yeah, in a sense it would be perfectly valid to compare how the 2012 candidate handles questions about his Judaism with how Lieberman did it. Yeah, I think it's perfectly valid to do a comparative study of Jewish politicians, and I'm sure some people have. On the other hand, there's a sense in which Lieberman, and really any Jewish politician, was just a guy who happened to be Jewish - we didn't really look to him for leadership any more than we looked to Gore or Clinton or, shit, John Edwards - whereas in the black community I think there's more of a sense of "that's our guy." Like John Henry above talks about "our best examples of leaders." And a kind of line of succession of black leaders. Whereas Jewish leadership, a, it's very diffuse, Jews are leaders in virtually everything, and b, we don't particularly look to Jewish leaders for leadership, we just care about what you're going to do for us. Not whether you're actually Jewish. In some ways, I think a lot of Jews would actually prefer to never see a Jewish President.
Fair enough Asher.
I think you see things with nuance, and thus resent the idea that no comparisons can be made; but the vast majority of comparisons are dumb and clunky - the Russert thing is ridiculous.
Might disagree on 'our guy' a bit, but another day perhaps. Thanks for taking the question in the spirit it was meant.
So that ancient relic of outdated conventional 60-70’s group think called Stanley Crouch other people got the memo that somehow all black people know each other, are responsible for other black persons actions and all of us think the same way. Crouch, who is black, should know better but he can’t help it. He takes the lazy route and falls back on archaic and out moded perspectives of African American life, culture and thought. I think it’s because that’s all he knows. Bless his heart. He and others who see race from the perspective of 1960’s and 1970’s see Obama as a black man within a community. Not a man who happens to come from this community. They cannot see Obama as a individual. It's just too darn hard. That kind of thought gives people think like him (this funny how most of this perspective come from the right) right to compare him to other blacks discounting education, status, occupation, perspective, life experiences and individuality.
I doubt Crouch(who didn’t think Obama was black enough to begin with early in 2007) and others will compare McCain to David Duke because of their skin color or abilities to draw a crowd too.. You know why because its stupid.
Sorry but I cannot wait until his kind of thinking goes the way of the Whig party.
I think there is a lot of the every white basketball player who can shoot is compared to Larry Bird going on. People see someone who is a minority in his given field and comapre him to other similar minorities. Unfortunate but it is what it is. So the next Jewish candidate will be compared to Lieberman even if they have nothing in common, which since most Jewish politicians aren't raving neocons who betray their own party and the domestic policy they have supposedly supported their entire careers, is pretty unlikely:-)
Wow - I'm looking at my sample ballot one more time, having marked it up to take to the polls and just realized that out here in California we've got six choices for President. Three of the six candidates are black folk - Barack, MicKinney on the Green line and, yes, Alan Keyes running on the American Independent line. American Independent was the party originally formed for the George Wallace campaign of '68.
I agree it makes more sense to compare Obama to other politicians who held office rather than ministers, activists, etc. If someone in 1960 had compared Kennedy to Bishop Sheen or Dorothy Day this would've been offbase or at least not very helpful.
Kudos to both you and Ben.
I live in Columbus, Ohio, where Mike Coleman is mayor. I don't think of him as a great "black mayor." He's simply a great mayor. (I'm white, by the way.) Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't get the impression that black citizens think of him as a "black mayor" or "black politician" either. He's just someone who has done an excellent job as mayor.
I used to live in Cleveland, and Mike White was mayor. Again, he was simply a good mayor.
I'm very glad that the foundations were laid for Coleman and White by people like Carl Stokes and Maynard Jackson. But perhaps it should be seen as a victory that race is almost irrelevant, by and large. There are good mayors and bad mayors, and we should be thankful that race is almost a non-issue, compared to competence.
Speaking of which, I voted for Obama today, competence over ideology. I wish him the best.
He takes the lazy route and falls back on archaic and out moded perspectives of African American life, culture and thought. I think it’s because that’s all he knows. Bless his heart. He and others who see race from the perspective of 1960’s and 1970’s see Obama as a black man within a community. Not a man who happens to come from this community. They cannot see Obama as a individual. It's just too darn hard. - Ann
It is hard to see him as just an individual especially when you've got Presidents - Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II - targeting blacks as a group by making it a policy to
-dismantle civil rights safeguards for blacks as a group
-supress the black vote,
-gut the Civil Rights department by removing civil rights lawyers with experience and replacing them with Republican ideologues
-focus on voter registration fraud instead of voter suppression
-set policies that disproportionately disadvantage black people, i.e. crack v cocaine sentencing.
-replacing Thurgood Marshall with Clarence Thomas.
The case is not closed just yet.
This society still needs to work for the average black person just as well as it works for average x person. Otherwise, why should black people invest in it? The last time I checked Obama received overwhelming support from the black community and owes them advocacy for issues that affect them specifically. He's a constitutional scholar and a former civil rights lawyer. He's uniquely qualified to tackle this American problem. No. His election is not the solution. You can't eat tokens and symbolism.
I agree that Crouch's characterization of the black community as people mistakenly following Puff Daddy to the promised land is ignorant, but I think its relevant to analyze the course of black leadership in this country. 'Black' leadership is only necessary because black people's economic interests have been attacked and stifled just because they are black. When that stops happening, maybe we can stop talking about 'Black leadership'.
"Anyway, so you don't think there's any validity in comparisons of black leaders across different types of political involvement? Like take Obama and MLK - this is a comparison I think you yourself have made at points. And I think it's a perfectly valid comparison to make, to look at what Obama's inherited from someone like that, or maybe even a Bayard Rustin, and what he's explicitly made a point of not inheriting from a Farrakhan or Malcolm or Jesse or Wright. And sure, you can say, "well let's keep the comparisons to actual black politicians" (of course, Jesse ran a presidential campaign or two), but those guys, the Wilders and such, they really weren't national figures. And they weren't all that interesting either. Like I almost think there's more of a comparison to Jesse or MLK than there is to black politicians of the past."
Obviously, there is some validity. But, as I said, the job of a politician is a lot different than the job of the agitator. You can compare Lieberman to the next Jewish cat to run for president. But it'd be less valid to compare that dude to, say, Meir Kahan or even Abraham Foxman.
Martin Luther King never had to run for re-election--had he, he might have been voted out when he went to Chicago, and certainly would have been voted out when he opposed the War. Farrakhan has never run for office, and his hold over black people is tough to demonstrate or illustrate. Clearly the Million Man March showed that he was on to something. But that was almost 15 years ago. The MMM happened before Amadou Diallo was killed. Before Katrina. Before Florida 2000. Before Jena.
I don't what "our guy" means. I think a lot of black folks in New York see Sharpton as "our guy," but I'm not sure if they feel the same in South Carolina. I know a lot of older black folks think Jesse is "our guy," but younger cats don't feel the same. For the record, if we're playing that game, Crouch should compare him to Bill Cosby, who's a lot more relevant to black people today, than Louis Farrakhan.
But like I said, I'd resist the whole temptation to compare politicians to activists. Obama won't be the new Martin Luther King or Malcolm X. He's a whole 'nother animal. He's not a black leader--as in a leader of black people. He's a black guy who'll be leading a body that isn't. There are other black people who've done that before--if not on a national level. Whether they're interesting, or not, is really subjective--I don't know why Al Sharpton is more "interesting" than Doug Wilder. Either way--in terms of his actual job--Obama has much more in common with Wilder, than Sharpton.
Well, Jesse Jackson was a pretty serious contender in the Democratic primaries, so there's some comparisons there. And of course there's lots of ways that it's reasonable to compare and contrast Jackson and Farrakhan.
But in logic speak, these things aren't transitive.
Ann, fairly, Crouch does that to white people too, and famously. He dissed Dave Douglas -- at a time when Douglas was winning plaudits for being the most consistently innovative and interesting voice in American music for a few years running, and had a hundred great projects on hand -- as somehow the same old charade of white critics feeling the need to put a white man out in front while Crouch's favorite pet trumpeter, Marsalis, was past over -- that although Marsalis always seems to've gotten praise way out of proportion to his innovation, essentially because of, well, Crouch. Crouch isn't buying into some right-wing fantasy of monolithic blacks, he's buying into his own little fantasy of how race works in America, and it has bitten him, hard, in his own chosen "area of expertise."
As one who has read some of Crouch's opinion pieces over the years, it is quite obvious that rather than attempting to offer a contrast and comparison, his primary purpose here was to diss Farrakhan, Sharpton and others who irritate him in terms of their approach to various issues. Crouch has BEEF and that's okay but in my opinion it lessens his ability to provide a better analysis.
Like someone else mentioned, it is rather rediculous to compare the methods of religious leaders and local/national activists to career politicians. They operate are in totally different environments and are accountable to differing constituencies.
I personally think Obama is the best person to elect from the field of presidential candidates that stood for the 2008 election while at the same time I also respect and admire the works of Farrakhan and Sharpton.
tnc,
your argument for compartmentalization is an intellectual and semantic exercise that inevitably leads to a cognitive antagonism between thought and perception. it's not an 'X v. Y' construct at all. there is no dualism that explains the complex nexus of individuals.
The "Obama v. Farrakhan" thing or "Obama v. Sharpton" thing or even the "Obama v. Jesse" thing appeals to two types of people. White people who despise those three. And black people, frankly like me, who get sick of those dudes being stand-ins for "what the Negroes think."
what are you talking about? 'appeals to *two* types of people'? give it a break. 'white people'? oh, right. that faceless mass who hate farrakhan, sharpton and jesse. sounding like pope george will the presumptuous, you pretend to speak for 'black people' like *you* who get sick of those dudes being spokesmen for black america. maybe you aren't as post-simplistic as you imagine yourself to be.
we all know people who seem to hate one group of people or another, and then have a close friend or relative who belongs to that group. when challenged about the disconnect, they respond, "oh, but she's not like them." that's the conundrum haters have. they create a false dualism, and can't figure out how they got it so wrong.
'post-simplistic' is complexity. any attempt to bring our perception of our world to an irreducible state leads us to the existential nature of our lives. we are all born, struggle through our lives, dream, and die. that is ultimately our inter-connectedness. so no matter what opinion we may hold for the 3 men, we are wrong, as each one is *us*, whether we like it or not.
one word today: OBAMA!
Two crucial elements are baked into the American experience: first, the fact that very few are 'natives' here, and the second that 'race' defines us all -- unlike in Europe (or Latin America) there's a myth of racial purity that shapes our identity.
Our parents (or at least the non-immigrant side of the family) grew up in an 'apartheid' society -- or rather, the society that could have served as the model for apartheid. Our identity, black and white, has been shaped in relation to that historical identity (and the varying degrees of tenderness that follow).
"and the second that 'race' defines us all -- unlike in Europe (or Latin America) there's a myth of racial purity that shapes our identity.'
Carrington, Europeans have their version of race consciousness, it's just not binary as most Americans (mistakenly) believe ours to be. This European equivalent is "the nation" which in Europe is supposed to represent a distinct ethnicity. Not so long ago there was all this talk of a "national genius" and a "national destiny". Every little patch on the map had to have its own national literature and national composers. Nowadays because of this concept's nasty history Europeans are paralyzed in their dialog about immigration, for instance - they would love to be a cosmpolitan powerhouse like the US, and they fancy themselve far more "international" (in the context of their tribal sense of national) than we are, but they are trying to do it on a framework of tribal states, and it isn't working.
Our only equivalent here for this concept is something like "Lakotha nation" or "Navajo nation."
Wow - I'm looking at my sample ballot one more time, having marked it up to take to the polls and just realized that out here in California we've got six choices for President. Three of the six candidates are black folk - Barack, MicKinney on the Green line and, yes, Alan Keyes running on the American Independent line.
Hey, you're forgetting Bob Barr: http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/bob_barrnegro.php It's FOUR out of six. It was three out of five here, I guess Alan Keyes didn't make it on my ballot.
Unfortunately, all this really tells us is that marginal parties run black candidates to get attention. This has been true ever since Lenora Fulani. Fortunately, this year, that insult doesn't matter none.
Thanks for the words, TNC.
Where is the love for A. Philip Randolph? And if we're making a list of great black leaders to whom we might compare Obama, why not Thurgood Marshall? After all,
But I agree with TC's initial post that this get's to be a sucker's game very quickly ... comparing Obama only to other black figures limits him. The universe of white figures for comparison gets limiting pretty quickly too.
When's the last time we saw a candidate this openly cerebral? ("Barack Obama ... the sexy Adlai Stevenson!") When's the last time we saw a successful politician running on his even keel instead of on his passion? ("Barack Obama ... the Coolidge of the left!")
What's most interesting Obama is what's new about him, what he shows that we haven't seen before. Obama isn't someone you compare to his forerunners. Obama is someone his successors will be compared to.
Ben - I guess I was swayed by all of those articles complaining that Barr wasn't black enough. Not willing to make a final judgement until he releases the contents of his IPod...
"But like I said, I'd resist the whole temptation to compare politicians to activists. Obama won't be the new Martin Luther King or Malcolm X. He's a whole 'nother animal. He's not a black leader--as in a leader of black people"
Well, yeah, activists can be pure advocates. Politicians need to compromise. But, if Obama is the POTUS, he sets the agenda. He won't make June 1st Malcom X day. He wants two terms. But, he can reverse the adversarial stance of government towards african-american interests: he can set budgeting priorities that address poverty, change the agenda at the Justice Department to be tough on discrimination, nominate civil rights-friendly Supreme Court judges, etc. If his agenda is to fulfill the promise of the American dream, he's got an extraordinary task ahead of him to keep that promise for blacks.
"Harold Washington or John Lewis didn't get crowds of hundreds of thousands of people when they ran for office, but if it wasn't for people like them, Barack would not be where he is now."
People outside of Chicago don't realize what an amazing, coalition-building politician Harold Washington was. Obama has modeled his career on Washington's in many ways. He originally moved to Chicago hoping to get a job with Washington's administration. David Axelrod cut his teeth working for Washington's re-election campaign.
But Washington unfortunately died in office (of a massive heart attack) and he's rarely remembered outside of Chicago today now that Richie Daley has been office in so long.
I don't know why Al Sharpton is more "interesting" than Doug Wilder. Either way--in terms of his actual job--Obama has much more in common with Wilder, than Sharpton.
I don't think I said anything about Sharpton, though I know you like to bring him up, and surely Obama doesn't have much in common with him. I'm just saying this, really; Obama's a lot of things to a lot of people, and one thing he is is, if not a leader of black people specifically, a sort of black role model. (As is Oprah, for instance.) In particular, a politically engaged, charismatic male black role model. A guy who, like all black political figures, has to worry about how he's perceived by whites, a guy who's had occasion to speak about race (race speech) and to speak to the black community specifically (Father's Day speech), and I do think it's instructive to look at the race speech as part of a tradition of black rhetoric about race, or look at the Father's Day speech as part of a tradition of black rhetoric about self-reliance, to look at how Obama's cultivated his image vis-a-vis how other prominent black political figures, whether or not they were politicians, cultivated their images. And I don't see the problem at all with saying that Obama's stress on commonality is part of the same conversation, and a sort of response to, Farrakhan's message of black nationalism. The fact that he's not relevant today is irrelevant; these are deep historical trends we're talking about. There are going to be people comparing Obama to Frederick Douglass before the week's out.
As for the "one of us," I'm sure that a great many black people don't identify with Sharpton or whatever black leader you care to name; I don't think I implied otherwise. However, I do think, and I don't want to offend here, that there's a sense in which the simple fact of being black counts for something to black people. Not everything or necessarily a whole lot, but something. So that, for instance, given the choice between two qualified people in Hillary and Obama, blacks did go for Obama in huge numbers once they saw he was a very viable candidate. Whereas, if I had voted in the 2004 primaries as a Democrat, it wouldn't have meant a thing to me that Lieberman was Jewish - if anything it's kind of a minus, for complicated reasons I could go into another day - and I tend to think most Jews feel the same way.
Oh, and I was in a waiting room today and there was nothing to read but Essence, saw your book reviewed in there.
Hmm. If one has to compare Obama to a black politician, my first choice would be Booker T. Washington. Though this time, the W.E.B. Du Boises of America have been pretty quiet.
If I had my choice, I'd compare Obama with Pericles, both for his attempts to enfranchise the poor and for his calm but forceful oratory. And because, deep in my bleeding heart, I hope America is getting a leader worthy of being remembered in 2400 years.
--Devin Carless
Sorry, but the compare and contrast thing just does not work for Obama with any pol I can think of, period. He is not just capable of an inspirational message. He is also a highly organized, very smart guy with a moral core.
I think this country just got very lucky.
I remember in '92 when Wilder ran for president for about 10 minutes. I think it was John McLaughlin who was interviewing him, and asking Wilder to compare and contrast himself with Jesse Jackson. Wilder just looked incredibly annoyed, like why do I have to deal with this idiot. Crouch seems to have the same type of attitude as McLaughlin.