In tonight’s State Of The Union Speech President Obama is expected to talk about income inequality, recognition of violence against women and strengthening the middle class. Our president remains focused on the 3 most important issues that have required national attention throughout his 2 terms; and for that he deserves kudos from every political pundit that cares about the welfare of our nation. But what you won’t hear is problems plaguing the inner city, care for the poor, push back on a military/intelligence industry that still seizes the atmosphere of terror and in the process creating clairvoyants out of George Orwell, Dr. Strangelove and President Eisenhower. He was slow to same sex marriage and gun control until forces out of his control forced his hand, and he still drags his feet on medicinal and legalization of marijuana. Why? This is the big liberal the Republican opposition keeps hammering at? Wouldn’t you think Obama, a community organizer and constitutional law professor from the University of Chicago and the first African American President would take these issues on by his own initiative?
Back In 2005 I worked on a governor’s race and the candidate asked then Senator Barack Obama who was still, if David Axelrod is to be believed, at least a year away from deciding whether to run for President, to campaign for him. Sticking to the political playbook and wanting to energize the base the campaign scheduled the young up and coming Democratic star to appear in African American neighborhoods. But something Obama said in a candid moment before his presidential candidate phase began stuck with me. He expressed lament that the campaign limited him to minority audiences. To quote him he said “where are the white folk at?”
One could say that he was already thinking about establishing a rapport with voters in a swing state but I took it as more. He seemed to be exhibiting a racial consciousness that if you read his 2 books, “Dreams of my Father” and “The Audacity of Hope” carried the perception of race as a consistent theme. He wanted to be Senator Barack Obama not the black senator.
Obama entered the White House exclaiming that his face and name didn’t fit the profile of Mt. Rushmore, which until now with the exception of 1 catholic, consisted of members made up entirely from protestant, white man stock. Of this he was keenly aware; in fact it influenced his actions, to carefully avoid appearing to be the brother in the White House, thus the absence of an urban agenda.
Until Newtown he failed to take on the NRA which has the largest following among white men residing far from our cities. He didn’t want to tackle minority inequality, including same sex marriage until his vice president inadvertently forced his hand. If he didn’t “come out” in an upcoming reelection campaign he risked possibly alienating himself from his base. Since January of 2009 has anybody in DC uttered the 2 words “slave reparations”? When the agenda came down to military brass or risking a possible terrorist attack, despite his constitutional acumen, he weighed his decisions heavily towards his joint chiefs and CIA Director, not unlike his predecessor.
To be President Barack Obama is to craft a narrative that cleanses the atmosphere of race, excluding an appreciation of Al Green.
To flip the coin it is often written that the critics of Obama may be motivated by racism. While there is no doubt that Secret Service has been inundated with racist threats throughout Obamas presidency, history has to be our guide here.
It’s been well documented that FDR and John Kennedy were hated by huge swaths of the country to the point where some of the vitriol bordered on violent, President Jimmy Carter was called the worst president (being a Ted Kennedy Democrat they may have something there), Mike Dukakis was called the worst candidate, Bill Clinton was impeached and his government briefly shut down, Al Gore was called the most liberal candidate ever, until John Kerry was nominated and in 2007, 2008 Hillary Clinton’s possible presidency was to be avoided at all costs even if it meant electing a long shot young Illinois senator of African American descent; you get my drift here there’s an obvious pattern. So unless we are willing to condemn the critics from the right as anti-Catholic, anti-peanut farmer, anti-Greek, anti-prodigal son, anti- war hero or anti-women (well….that’s another column) I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the President’s critics on the right and just recognize it as business as usual.