There's a lot to think about in Adam's post below. I think his invocation of Lincoln is especially powerful--Battle Cry Of Freedom caused me to back off of a lot of my rather simplistic impressions of Lincoln. Likewise, I've done my best to give Obama lee-way to be exactly what he is--a politician. The fact is that idealism and the business of politics often don't work well together. That said, for a writer like me, there is as much risk of falling into a trap of petty criticism as there is of simply excusing some of Obama's more erroneous stances as "politics."
I will stick with what I know. There's an argument that his invocation of black homophobia, is good for gay rights, and ultimately doesn't hurt black people much. There's an argument that his pose as the Host of Soul Train while wagging the moral finger, and then his pose as president of All America when asked about policy questions is, in fact, good for black America. (Please bear with me on the clumsiness of that sentence. I'm still working out my thinking.) Booker T. Washington would often go before white patrons, invoke the alleged cultural inferiority of blacks, and then proceed to make darkie jokes about the very people he claimed to be trying to help. As Adam says, Lincoln was not above peppering his speech with niggers.
But what can we say? Tuskeegee stands proud and strong, to this day. Once they were in the field, Lincoln stood for black soldiers, to the point of sacrificing the lives of Union POWs, in the name of their dignity. His assassination has haunted the country ever since. Obama is a truly, truly gifted politician. Who knows what he may ultimately do? And should the lives of black people be better when he leaves office than when he stepped in (as I suspect they will), should gay Americans enjoy more rights when he leaves office than when he stepped in (as I suspect they will) than what do the critiques of a couple minor-league bloggers really matter?
I think it's worth going back to Lincoln and the Civil War. One of my
favorite stories about the formation of the USCT is reported in A
Nation Under Our Feet. A black slave escapes his master's Virginia
plantation, flees for Union lines, and insists on being signed up to
fight. This is within the first year of the war, and so the slave is
infomed by a Union general that the War Between The States, is "a white
man's war." The slave looks at the general and says, "It will be a
black man's war before it's done." The slave leaves the camp, becomes a
sailor and goes to Cuba and England. He returns to the States a few
years later and finds that, indeed, it has become a black man's war. He
enlists in the 55th Mass. and is promptly sent down South to fulfill his
prophecy.
That slave's vision was a radical one. At the onset of the Civil War,
the notion that the war was about slavery, and the idea of fielding
black troops were radical ideas, dismissed by "serious" politicians,
and pragmatists. And not without reason--both sides really believed
that it would be a short war. The idea that it would become a remaking of the national citizenry, and that it would ultimately
require the black troops, was a notion embraced only by slaves and silly
radicals who deigned to speak on their behalf.
Politicians are essential. But they're caught up in the grinding work, if they're good politicians, of building consensus and keeping shit moving. The politician is practicing the art of the possible. People like me are trying to expand the very nature of the possible. Baraka Obama was catapulted to the U.S. presidency by his stance on the Iraq War. It's often noted that he took pains to distinguish himself from the usual anti-war crowd. But the fact is that it was that crowd which organized the rally where he made his famous speech. They expanded the possible.
I can't speak for other bloggers, but my work here is principally about coaxing people, indeed coaxing myself, toward respecting humanity. The black homophobia boogieman is anathema to that work, not simply because it is a lie, but because it is rooted in an ugly history of loading the sins of this country on to the backs of its least popular minority. Black America has historically functioned as this country's moral sewer. Indeed, there is a direct line from temperance reformers in the late 19th century blaming their failures on the ill-conceived votes of ignorant niggers, to drug reformers in the early 20th century and the notion of the "cocaine-crazed Negro brain," to Reagan's invocation of shiftless welfare queens, right up through the idea that 7 percent of California's population is the real reason we don't have gay marriage.
Progressive and conservative America has a long ugly, history of insisting that the problems of the majority, are mainly the problems of the minority. My work in "expanding the possible," is concerned with destroying the politics of black pathology. To the extent that Obama participates in that tradition, I have to speak up. It does not mean that I'm pushing a third party. It just means that I think he's wrong.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
For what it's worth, and based on the quality and depths of issues you seem to be grappling with on the blog here, I'd highly recommend John Stauffer's dual biography of Lincoln and Frederick Douglass, called "Giants". It's fantastic, exceptionally well written and thoroughly researched history with a real humanity evident throughout. Stauffer pays sensitive attention to Lincoln's personal (and political) evolution, as well as the impact that Douglass had on shaping his worldview. I know you've got quite the burgeoning reading list, TNC, but this one seems a snug fit for the issues you're so deeply considering recently.
http://www.twelvebooks.com/books/giants.asp?page=saying
Very well put Ta-Nehisi.
I'd just highlight a fact you've mentioned a number of times over the past month or two: by the last stages of the war, even the Confederacy had decided to enlist black soldiers. The Civil War quickly evolved/devolved into an existential threat to the USA, and then became an existential threat to the Confederacy, the slave power, and slave society. It's remarkable what crazy ideas can suddenly become reasonable to an establishment when that establishment is facing an existential threat.
Obama, by virtue of his office, is part of the Establishment. In fact, he's in charge of it, as much as any one person is. We'll get significant/radical change to the extent that the institutions he leads and represents feel threatened. And that means not shying away from doing things that make him very, very uncomfortable.
As an aside, I've taken your advice and have started reading Battle Cry of Freedom, which is wonderful. I've been struck by the consistency of the rhetoric of outrage and threat and victimization from the right wing, all the way from the fights over New Mexico and Kansas down to politics today. Since your curiosity about Lincoln is peaked, have you ever read any of Gore Vidal's "American Chronicle" series, which includes Lincoln? I've loved the novels I've read in that series (as well as others by Vidal), and you might really enjoy his perspective on our nation's history, as well as his wonderful writing.
Obama, by virtue of his office, is part of the Establishment
I think Obama himself, by temperament and even by his positions is very Establishment-y, and very mainstream-y. Which is, why me, a rabid anticommunist, always a little bit suspicious of government Cuban exile got enthusiastically in his favor once I noticed his talent as a politician. (I was also disgusted with nepotism.) If he looks so change-y is because the ones before him were the actual radicals and because the country is pretty f_cked up and is screaming for change in so many areas. But his positions are kind of Democratic boilerplate.
I would definitely recommend Lincoln, but it's really the best in the series, which tend towards extreme repetition of themes and even characters (old dude going blind with a young, brilliant, ambitious hottie who's either his daughter or somehow close to it who ends up having to get married to some rich, handsome young blockhead who doesn't have a trace of the older man's wit). Vidal's view of history isn't always on the ball - especially on the New Deal.
But Lincoln is a work of genius, and I think captures the man better than anyone else ever has.
The politician is practicing the art of the possible. People like me are trying to expand the very nature of the possible.
And a thriving democracy needs each one. These two elements working in concert are the mechanism of social change.
I agree whole heartedly.
While one can try to understand and empathize with President Obama's position as a politician, it is up to the fourth estate and the populace itself to express its perspectives that upon reaching a critical mass will move politicians. I find myself growing increasingly restive with many of the President's positions, and fear his politician's stance which to me seems to be caving on issues such as the banking industry and our policy in Afghanistan, and to a lesser degree in my personal set of priorities on torture, government spying on our citizenry, and gay issues, but also may lead to half measures on health care and energy and the environment, which I consider to be the two most important issues facing Americans today, that while being better than nothing, may (as is turning out with the stimulus vis a vis employment) do nothing more than toss the ball down the road. Of course, this is not just the Presidency, but equally coming from our Senate and House of Representatives.
Since the so called tax revolt in California and the rise of Ronald Reagan, the country has listed so far to the right that we have come to a point that the US is looking suspiciously like the Titanic. President Obama, a moderate with some left leanings, pays an inordinate amount umbrage to conservative elements of the populace and the body politic, not unlike Clinton. Don't get me wrong, I am profoundly greateful that Obama is my President; the idea of a McCain/ Palin administration governing during the past 5 months is enough to brimg me to thanking my lucky stars for this brief while. Nonetheless, it is up to us to demand that he both understand that we too are part of the populace, and what's more we have been uncannily accurate in the past decade in our critique of governance from a moderate perspective that pays homage to more conservative perspectives.
Occasionally he may be wrong but he's still the one
If I thought Obama actually wanted you not to critique his policies I would tell you to stop - more than that I think if you actually thought he didn't want you to critique him - I don't think you would
Good thoughts, but somehow it feels to me you're making it a little too complicated. Free criticism of the president is a lovely part of the American tradition - we are better off when it's going strong. (I'm talking about things like the people voicing their opinion - not whorish Senators siding with health insurance companies over the president's agenda). Obama's a good guy with a lot of potential, but it just doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me for you to criticize him. Maybe I'm missing the backstory.
It doesn't seem to be your main point, but I also think you draw too much of a dichotomy between the politicians as boxed in by the possible and the activists changing the possible. Sure, you will always have the need to work within the possible, and the need to change it. But I don't think it's so clear that the various parties are so rigidly assigned their roles. In particular, the president operates very much in both arenas, and is very much in the role of expanding the nature of the possible - it's why we talk about the bully pulpit, and the ability to use it is probably one of the key elements that distinguishes great presidents.
How well will Obama use the pulpit to enact policy? To me it remains to be seen. But as you've recognized before, the moment in history provides opportunity for greatness. If all we get is minimal change, that's going to be partly on Obama. He can't turn around and hang it on activists for failing to pave the way. Despite any popular slogans or chants concerning who has the power, he has a lot more than the activists. (Of course, my view here is informed by the fact that I'm gay, and it is really irritating to help elect him as he promises forward motion then have him turn around from the White House and tell us to get busy making change. In other words, the theories of how to bring about social change are all well and good, but I'm not blind to when they are being used as a shield or an excuse).
To return to the point, though, I just don't think you should feel so much angst about criticizing the President. From the outside looking in, the story you are telling of what you are working out doesn't entirely fit together, and it's truly confusing to me why you feel so worried about your criticism -- whether you are feeling guilt that you are being to hard on a good president, or more the hopelessness/pointlessness advocates deal with, or what.
I don't feel much angst, worry or guilt. A quote that gave you that impression would help. It's worth looking through the last week's post and the comments. You'll see an ongoing conversation. Again, as for actual angst, it's tough to respond to the charge without a specific example.
It is my on-going hope that, in fact, Obama is leading from behind, much as Lincoln did -- pushing us along until the point that enough of us are saying "Hey! This needs to happen!", that he can move and it'll stick. I find myself hoping this on what has become a worrying list of issues (from gay rights, to prosecution of those behind the torture program, to "preventative detention" - WTF?) but I still hope. I don't want to come to the point where I'm saying "Well, he's better than most" -- because my heart is all wrapped up in him being truly different. So. I hope. (It's about meeeeee!)
But, that aside, he is in fact a politician - his job is to build consensus. It is the job of activists and concerned citizens to, as you say, "expand the very nature of the possible" - so that the consensus he builds can go there.
In other words (in Auden's words):
"All I have is a voice
To undo the folded lie
The romantic lie in the brain
Of the sensual man-in-the-street
And the lie of Authority
Whose buildings grope the sky:
There is no such thing as the State
And no on exists alone;
Hunger allows no choice
To the citizen or the police;
We must love one another or die."
All we have is a voice, but that voice is what has always changed the world.
"And no one exists alone"! Oy, to fuck up Auden.... My apologies, W.H.!
I wonder whether there is an alternative explanation for Obama's behavior at the Stonewall gathering? I don't think it necessarily excludes TNC's explanation, maybe they co-exist. But it's dangerous territory I'm entering--psychoanalyzing someone you don't know.
Obama, as we know, has a complicated identity. He was raised in part in a foreign country, in a white/asian family. As a teenager, he chose to identify as a black American, at least as much as he had a choice in a society which would automatically place him in that box. But unlike, say, Tiger Woods, he threw himself into that community. This is completely different, I assume, from most black Americans' experience. It has a lot more in common with the experience of immigrants and gays and lesbians, people who are not raised within a community but become a part of it as adults, and then have to figure out how their own identity is altered by becoming part of that community.
I'm both gay and an immigrant--my father was American, but I did not live in the United States until I was twelve. Like Obama, I spent a number of years living in a muslim country when I was growing up. There's a difficult negotiation that happens when you enter a group as a teenager/adult. You want to be part of that community, to be accepted, but you also test out the parameters of what part of the community's identity you wish to make your own. I think this creates an almost permanent tension--there are days you feel like you don't belong, because you didn't grow up here. Your own mind almost constantly reminds you that there are things you must wrestle with to fit in.
I suspect these sort of issues with identity occur for most people as they grow up. But if you grow up there you don't think you leave the community when they disagree with it; instead, you think you are just changing what the community is. I think this happens with adult joiners too (I now feel like I define what it means to be gay or an American), but when you are entering a community with as well defined a culture as the black American community, isn't possible that sometimes Obama still feels, at least in his own head, like an outsider?
Which is all a long way of getting to my point about what Obama said the other night. There is no doubt that Obama either felt like he did something personally risky when he spoke at Ebeneezer, or that he wanted his audience to feel that he had done something risky. If you doubt that, look at the video. It's obvious because he makes it obvious. But I wonder whether the explanation is not that he wishes to blame the African-American community, so much as he still fears a loss of credibility, a loss of belonging in that community? That he himself is not sure how far he can go and still stay within the community's good graces? Or that he himself does not know what step will be a step too far?
Although he doesn't show it, there must be some anxiety driving Obama; you don't get to be President, especially at his age, without fleeing demons.
I've been thinking about this ever since Obama said he was a "fierce advocate" for gay rights, when his history shows that it can't be because of any political stance he has taken. One thing that marks Obama as different from significant swaths of the African American community is his social liberalism on issues like gay rights. Maybe his sense that he did something difficult at Ebeneezer reflects a personal difficulty rather than a political difficulty.
To me the most striking similarity between Obama and Lincoln is not their policies or political philosophies. It is that they are both empathetic people.
After reading "Lincoln's Melancholy," which delves deeply into Lincoln's emotional life, I realized that Lincoln was not only politically brilliant, he was a very sensitive and compassionate man. I believe the same is true for Obama.
I honestly believe Obama wants to help the gays, but as I've said before, every president must budget their political capital.
Besides, there are other civil rights issues on the agenda that must be attended to. For instance, unemployment and lack of health insurance has hit blacks and hispanics the hardest. This, to me, is just as important as LGBT rights.
TNC, yes there is no Black homophobia, but there certainly are plenty of Black people who are homophobic, (many of whom are regular church goers.) I've been married to one for 30 years and like him, his brothers and sisters and many of his friends are also against equal marriage rights for gay people and would ban adoption rights for gay couples for fear that this "unnatural" condition would somehow spread to the children. My husband does not believe in god, (tho' many of his brothers and sisters are deeply religious) so I cannot devine a reason for his phobia, but it is real and deeply held.
I think part of it may be generational, my husband is almost 70, but my sister's Black male life partner is also homophobic and is 20 years younger. My niece and both of my children support equal marriage rights, but only about half my nephews (none of them are even slightly religous.) Perhaps some of it is gender based, as both my sisters and I support equal rights as well.
Percentaqe wise, are more Black people homophobic than White people or Asians or Hispanics or Native Americans? I don't know, but I doubt it. I also think folks lie to pollsters about these issues almost as much as they do on race. I do know, however, that we no more caused the Prop. 8 debacle than we did the housing melt down.
As for President Obama--all of us, citizens, politicians, activists, commenters, bloggers who want real change in this country should keep trying to "expand the possible" and hold him accountable. But its important to remember he's only been in office 6 months and he was left some hella' stables to clean out. Perhaps its because I worked in the last administration and the aftermath for me, personally, has been so paralyzing, I have to trust Obama. To paraphrase the great song "The difficult he'll do right now, the impossible will take a little while."
Yeah, I don't really disagree with this. Did you get the impression that I was claiming that there are no, or very few, homophobic black people? I actually think the percentage is higher among blacks. But one has to consider demographics beyond race--religion, region etc. What's happening D.C., for instance, is a great example of what I mean. Local Washington has a particular political history, that includes gay rights. You can't really say that of, say, Inglewood.
TNC, not really, because if you have Black friends who are homosexual, you almost certainly have Black friends that are homophobic. More's to the point, as much as you write about racism (and when one writes about race in America, one is more often than not are writing about racism) you are usually focused on (or your default position is) the individual, and that is a good thing.
Anna
I feel the same way as you in a lot of ways. I have no idea what race is more homophobic and frankly I don't really care. I have dealt with A LOT of homophobia in my life, but I'm a big boy. I can handle it :)