« The revolution is ON in Iran | jcd's Blog | Sure, Buchanan's a racist fool--but mainly, he's wrong about what's good for "White" people »
Obama's tough, elegant mind, once again
Josh Marshall says Obama's press conference remarks on Henry Lewis Gates' arrest in Cambridge were "all about a black guy getting on the side of another black guy who got crosswise with the cops."
No, they weren't. I know Josh meant his remarks in a good way, but I actually can't conceive a greater misrepresentation of the sense and force of the President's words. And mind.
President Obama's stated point was exactly that no American--not no Black American, but simply no American citizen--would or should accept being arrested in their own home after showing police proper identification proving they were, in fact, standing in their own home. (OK, who wants to argue with that one?) And that Gates' arrest even after proving such was prima facie evidence the Cambridge police acted "stupidly."
The President did not say the police acted as racists--he said the arrest appeared on its face unjustified and wrong, because Gates was standing in his own home and proved it. The President went on to say that racial profiling and police over-arrests/stops of Black and Latino Americans--a simple fact, as the President noted--cast suspicion even on legitimate stops/arrests.
In short, the President very clearly was not gettin' behind a brother. He (pointedly) was making precisely the same argument that any American would make if a neighbor, or they themselves, were so treated by the police. It's a legal argument, Constitutional if you will--not a race appeal, or shout-out.
Which was of course one sly implicit point of the President: It was not he, or Professor Gates, that was involved in any special racial pleading, if anyone was: It was the Cambridge police.
And that's how this President rolls.
No, they weren't. I know Josh meant his remarks in a good way, but I actually can't conceive a greater misrepresentation of the sense and force of the President's words. And mind.
President Obama's stated point was exactly that no American--not no Black American, but simply no American citizen--would or should accept being arrested in their own home after showing police proper identification proving they were, in fact, standing in their own home. (OK, who wants to argue with that one?) And that Gates' arrest even after proving such was prima facie evidence the Cambridge police acted "stupidly."
The President did not say the police acted as racists--he said the arrest appeared on its face unjustified and wrong, because Gates was standing in his own home and proved it. The President went on to say that racial profiling and police over-arrests/stops of Black and Latino Americans--a simple fact, as the President noted--cast suspicion even on legitimate stops/arrests.
In short, the President very clearly was not gettin' behind a brother. He (pointedly) was making precisely the same argument that any American would make if a neighbor, or they themselves, were so treated by the police. It's a legal argument, Constitutional if you will--not a race appeal, or shout-out.
Which was of course one sly implicit point of the President: It was not he, or Professor Gates, that was involved in any special racial pleading, if anyone was: It was the Cambridge police.
And that's how this President rolls.
Advertisement
Cops screwed up and the arresting officer is now suffering from a case a hubris.
The claim appears to be that the good professor 'overreacted'. Hell, I used to overreact when I found a parking ticket on my car; parked in front of my own home. ha!!!!!
The department will handle this. It is a college town.
July 23, 2009 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good analysis. Totally agree. Nice writing, too! Looking forward to the next one.
July 23, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post.
July 23, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It's a legal argument, Constitutional if you will--not a race appeal, or shout-out."
But Obama's constitutional arguments have been severely lacking or ass-backwards and pro-Cheney before this.
It's hard to argue Obama was speaking from principle on this one. If Obama had a better track record of being principled in his actions before this, your argument would be more persuasive.
Some innocent brown people in Afghanistan were arrested without merit, tortured for years, and now Obama wants to reserve the right to detain them indefinitely. Where the fuck is the principle there?
Millions of Americans had the NSA come into their computers and telephones and spy on everything they said. Where is the principle in blocking all investigation into that? Is it still happening?
Obama is still letting neo-Nazis and white supremacists into the military, so that they can train themselves for a future race war.
Thousands of people remain on no-fly lists without merit.
The list goes on and on and on.
Obama was standing up for a friend. It's not like he's been promoting prison reform or anything.
July 23, 2009 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The President did not say the police acted as racists"
- no, he only implied it or alluded to it.
In fact, he spoke specifically about racial profiling by the police for the rest of the news conference, and even did not forget to plug in his own contribution to fighting it.
Here are his exact words:
"Now, I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that, but I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge Police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact.
As you know, Lynn, when I was in the state legislature in Illinois, we worked on a racial profiling bill because there was indisputable evidence that blacks and Hispanics were being stopped disproportionately. And that is a sign, an example of how, you know, race remains a factor in this society. That doesn't lessen the incredible progress that has been made. I am standing here as testimony to the progress that's been made"
And when you add to this that the President's friend was actually shouting to the onlookers about this being the experience of being black in America, then I'm sorry but it's pretty hard to agree with your point that Obama wasn't talking about racial profiling by the Cambridge police.
If his point wasn't racial profiling, he wouldn't need to dedicate two-thirds of this answer to this point.
I agree with him about being arrested in your own home being excessive. I agree that the way police treats the people is horrendous.
But you know what? Police is part of the government. And Obama runs the government, the same government that creates rules on how police should behave.
I'm pretty sure this is going to be yet another case of "words are not action", but unlike the healthcare kabuki I'd love to be wrong this time.
July 23, 2009 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did Gates show proper identification?
July 23, 2009 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gates could have been in a process of separating from his wife. She could have changed the locks. She could have call the police reporting the break-in.
According to Obama - from now on, the police, responding to a break-in report, should MOVE IN as soon as they establish that the man says who he says he is, shows the ID and refuses to answer any questions.
I want to hear from the feminists, victims of spousal rape and domestic violence what they think about the impact of Obama's words when he decided to show a little racial solidarity to a friend.
July 23, 2009 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
= MOVE ON, obviously.
July 23, 2009 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
The cop states that he called Harvard Police to verify the validity of the Harvard ID. Gates claims that he showed a drivers' license as well. The drivers license had an address in it; the Harvard ID does not.
Who was telling the truth? Who was lying?
July 23, 2009 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink