Skrentny Hemmed In Regarding Obama’s Impact

John Skrentny, a TPM Special Guest, argues that Obama’s contribution on race is “more symbolism than substance” and that the big story regarding Obama and Race is that “he generates so much controversy even though he is tightly hemmed in by the racial rules of American politics.” This is “wonkoidism,” my new word for somewhat soulless pundits who think only in terms of policies, political leverage, and other aspects of governmental and political machinery. Because Obama’s impact and intentions are, for lack of a better word, spiritual, Skrentny can’t help missing the point of Obama’s speech on race.

As so many people have implied, Obama’s empathy for large chunks of both sides of the racial divide in this country is transformative. It has power to unite. But to a wonkoid, empathy has no substance. Thus, Skrentny could reduce Obama’s speech to an equation of all racial groups, adding that he “offered nothing special or targeted to this especially disadvantaged group.” One smells the presence of the Clintonian charge that Obama is all talk, as if talk means nothing. I could side with Skrentny’s failure to point out Obama’s moving empathy for people if, like Bill Clinton, Obama had only offered an empty kind of empathy, as in, “I feel your pain.” But Obama gave us detailed positions of many people on both sides of the racial conflict, showing that he truly understood their plight from their points of view.

Of course, my attempts to focus on and elaborate the substance in Obama’s speech may still seem insubstantial. That may be because most people are not aware how influential empathy is in all relationships. It is the process that enables one to understand an opponent well enough to decisively compete or reconcile. Even some noted international relations experts are arguing for “deploying realistic empathy” in relations with all but the most crazed international opponents. The “targeted” policies Skrentny wants are the cart before the horse. They are what develop after the unity has been created by the kind of thoughtful discussion Obama is unusually capable of.

i also initially thought that obama would ignore the needs of african american people. he doesn't present himself as a racialized canditate and I never heard any platform planks aimed specifically at the black community.

...i was underwhelmed until i learned that he attended church under rev. wright and then heard his "race" speech. that's when i understood that he was interested in the "black experience," and not using his educational, or class privilege to be able to ignore those concerns like other politicians in this race.

but, the needs of black folk are the needs of americans and addressing the issues of poverty, inequality in education, financial and health care disparities, and policies that result in woefully [racially] disparate incarceration rates, will improve the functioning of our nation's institutions and benefit everyone in the long run.

While we debate the impact that Obama's race has on his campaign, we should also ask ourselves: would his election make a difference for African Americans?

First he has to earn the Democratic nomination. Subsequently he has to win the General Election. If he clears these two hurdles, let's see what steps he takes. He didn't create these realities and already his critics are placing stubborn poverty and high incarceration rates among African Americans around his back. Again if he clears the two hurdles in front of him, he by himself isn't the silver bullet to shoot down the problems which have gathered together like a furious storm in the lives of black, Latino and some White Americans.

It will take constant agitation from the outside. I have already heard from some black Americans who support him, say that they will take it upon themselves to force him to address these issues. Being black (or black and white, if you wish) will not get him a free pass in some circles.

In essence Obama' speech was a response to a political challenge that was foreseen long ago; this challenge had more to do with Obama's skin color than his friend and minister, Rev. Wright.

In sum it is sheer non sense to believe Obama's concern for justice is based on race in any conceivable way. Justice as well as redress of standing grievances of any type is a matter of equitable and consistent application of law.

In the political realm prudent factual based judgment and a firm understanding of the common good are the essential factors that must guide the inherently fractious decision making processes.

Serious discourse does not need terms as "racial justice", "first serious black presidential candidate" and so on. As Obama has stated he is running for the Office of President of the United States, not the black President of the United States. This is more than semantics or merely descriptive!

Historically, the speech was pedestrian; he said nothing new and much of it is widely understood by many Americans, remember Katrina in 2005. The fact that these issues were plainly raised by a nationally recognized relatively novice politician was the real news; yes, he did not blink as some may have hoped.

Whatever the debate on Obama's speech may have been and to the extent that it can be measured, the news is he won!

afu:
Overall the years of the Clinton presidency were not so bad for blacks. Look here for unemployment trends:
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/01/black_and_white.html

I understand your focus on bad drug enforcement policy, but there are many other issues to consider. These employment statistics and may account, in part, for Bill's popularity among black Americans.