Narrating History
There is a broad and not yet fully articulated difference in assumption between Sleeper on the one hand, and Lowndes, Loury, and myself on the other hand. Surely, we disagree about the centrality of racism in American history up through our present moment, but there are also different assumptions about change. Sleeper worries that confronting the past creates resentment; people must "put the past behind them" if they are to forge a progressive coalition. In a variety of ways, Loury, Lowndes, and I have argued, in contrast, that no future -on different terms than the past seems to dictate- is possible unless we loosen the grip of the past, by naming and confronting it. Fundamental -as opposed to incremental- change requires confrontation and conflict about the meaning of the past.
My worry about Obama concerns not only race, then, but his view of history, and his assumption that we can "move beyond" rancor and partisanship if we "leave behind" the sixties era to which he attributes them. In my view, he is leaving behind, indeed patholoogizing, a moment when the imperial project of the American state, and its racial underpinnings, were exposed and contested by broad constituencies in American life. Of course, since 1968 the new right and the Republican party have organized to demonize that moment, which connected social injustice to imperial war. This effort to overcome "the Vietnam syndrome" as well as social justice concerns has been extraordinarily effective.
In what terms, then, are we to address the imperial character and domestic policies of the American state now?
Rather than repudiate that sixties moment, might it be more effective, rhetorically and politically, to tell a story about its unfinished work? There is no way into the future except by coming to terms with -neither demonizing nor idealizing- this legacy. The point is not to leave it behind, nor to "return" to it -neither in fact is possible. The task, rather, is to fold both the new right, and the Clinton years into a story that reconfigures how Americans conceive the world, and the inequalities that divide them. Would telling such a story mean political suicide? Or, is it the best answer to McCain, who will reiterate every trope of imperial nationalism and neo-liberalism?
Comments (6)
I'm in favor of whatever simplistic slogans will help Obama get elected, including the "move beyond" kind. I place my trust in his obvious intellect, in his being a very quick study and his concomitant pragmatism. Once elected, he will be pitching a new ball game and will encourage confrontations on several fronts, including those with Washington lobbyists, something he discusses even now. I have faith that the onetime "recruiter" on the South Side of Chicago knows and respects the champions of the Civil Rights movement and that all will not be feel-good seamlessness in an administration that aspires to accomplish anything worthwhile.
April 4, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wanted to comment on Glenn Loury's post, but the page would not fully load. Since you and Glenn agree on much of your critique of Obama's speech I will post my comments here and hope TCM staff can also post them on Mr. Loury's comments.
From a philosophical perspective I agree with many of your points, but from a political perspective, you two are in dreamland. No one is going to be elected POTUS with the platform you offer.
I see Obama as a "quiet revolutionary". His wisdom is in understanding that direct confrontation, as justified as it may be, is a losing approach to change unless you are willing to actually take up armed revolt (as some were in the 60's.) Otherwise, one must utilize the political process to accomplish these changes and that requires getting enough VOTES to have the power. And getting political power often requires a certain amount of expediency and soft peddling of ideas. I have every confidence that if elected, Obama will have economic justice, which necessarily includes racial justice, as a top priority. But he understands he must accomplish that in the context of economic justice for all. That's why he emphasizes class more than race. Regardless of the historical reasons for their plight, all exploited people deserve justice. By creating a working majority of people from all historical backgrounds who share this goal, we can move toward it without the resentment and backlash that racially based efforts provoke.
You may find direct confrontation, forced reparations, and similar approaches more satisfying and even justified, but that will only happen in your writing, not in the real political environment we live in. If you just want to insist on "all or nothing", nothing is what we'll get.
I think Obama should have the opportunity to show us another way to the same goals. You may not believe he share your goals and maybe you're right. If so, keep on voting for Dennis Kucinich. He's got great ideas and if you guys can figure out how to get him the political power to implement them, I'll be right there with you. But for now, I'll go with the best choice we have.
April 4, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're missing the import of Obama's view. He's tired of fighting the same fights every year. It's not about rejecting a view of history where "imperial project of the American state, and its racial underpinnings, were exposed and contested by broad constituencies in American life." The fact that you think this shows that you are part of the problem. Obama's rhetoric on the 1960s is essentially post-Boomer. He's saying that the politics of the Baby Boom generation have dominated our national discourse for too long and it is time to start talking about other things.
The "imperial project of the American state and it's racial underpinnings" weren't exposed by the 1960s. You only think they were. You talk about these things as if they were objective facts determinable through empirical inquiry. They're not. They are perceptions and beliefs, culturally dependent, ephemeral, and passing.
The legacy of the 1960s won't be achieved or overcome through Hegelian synthesis. It will be achieved or overcome when the wealthy and entrenched interests sustaining it are removed from power. So long as the majority of societies resources are in the hands of Baby Boomers, we will continue to have your fights. When you pass on, our concerns will change.
This is the reason I support Obama. I don't want to suffer another 8 years fighting the fights of Boomers. It's time to move forward.
April 4, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would telling such a story mean political suicide?
Who knows. But until you mumbling academics stop gumming the story to death with meta-analysis, we never will know.
April 4, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Moving beyond "the rhetoric of the 1960s" is not an indictment of all of the efforts, successful and otherwise, that brought about change. It is not an indictment of the tactics of the time in that time.
But surely we both know that by the 1980s a lot of our successes, our new ideas, our tactics and strategies had begun to be blunted by the rise of the right. We became less succesful on a number of fronts, and saw ourselves often on the losing end of trench warfare. I, for one, am tired of fighting over small slivers, and look for a radical realignment of the idea of pie. This, I think, is the allure of the Obama Presidency. He has a remarkable ability to reframe the fight over the pie, and set us all to baking. (Sorry for the metaphor.)
If we require our leaders to spend their time countering the pathologizing of the 1960s by the revisionist right, we give too much weight to the right and allow ourselves to be diverted from the real prize which is not oratorically proving the right is wrong (the rest of us can do that), but showing the right that they are fundamentally wrong by leading our country to a new era of change, equity, justice, and fairness.
I have always believed that there are different leader attributes that are needed in different times if our struggle is to move to the next level. One of our strengths is our flexibility.
I do appreciate your thoughts on this.
April 5, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to me there's a lot of either-or/black-and-white kind of thinking going on here.
We're told must either repudiate the 60s moment or embrace everthing about it. We must accept the narrative of America as essentially a negative, imperialistic, racist force in the world or it means we're naively arguing for a narrative of America as endlessly benevolent. We must either put the past behind us or confront it.
None of this is, in my view, that simple. At a time when America refused to look at the flaws in its national narrative or take responsibility for past sins -- and I agree there's still work to be done there -- it was right of the 60s moment to demand self-examination. But when you go from saying that America has engaged in imperial acts to saying that America has an "imperial character," you've gone too far. You're no longer condemning the country's actions, you're condemning the country.
And you are doing so unfairly, comparing America to a utopian standard that has never been met by any nation. Compared to what nation do we have "an imperial character"?
-- the British who created an empire that spanned the world?
-- the Spanish who first conquered the new world and who enslaved many more Africans than America ever thought about enslaving?
-- the Chinese when they were the all-powerful Middle Kingdom?
-- the Zulu under Shaka Zulu or the great Mali kingdom in Africa?
-- the Ottoman empire?
The sins of America -- such as they are -- have been and continue to be the common sins of all human societies that gain power.
And if fairly compared to other nations who have had the power we now possess, I think America compares pretty favorably.
Even where we have erred there have ALWAYS also been large segments of our society actively fighting against such injustices from the very beginning of the Republic. So why doesn't that also count as part of the American character?
Long term, I think Sleeper is right. We must leave the past in the past. One of the reasons America has been a stable country is our ability to do this. We do not have generational fights over the Civil War for instance where families maintain grievances from hundreds of years ago indefinitely. And we should never want that.
On the other hand, where grievances have never been fully addressed they aren't really part of the past. They are still of the present and only by facing them can we put them, finally, in the past.
April 7, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink