Obama, Wright, and The "Race" Speech

Thirteen months into the campaign and Democratic presidential front runner Barack Obama finally discussed the one subject he has deftly avoided: race in America.  He has desperately tried to avoid it by running a deracialized campaign that has demurred on racial issues.  The speech was given after the furious response to widely reported comments made by Obama’s pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ, in which the minister spoke passionately about race in America.  The furor that has followed led Obama to give a speech he probably should have delivered months ago.

Much like Mitt Romney speaking on religion in the face of deteriorating polling, Obama had worrisome poll numbers that led him to make the speech.  A Rasmussen poll showed that 8 percent of Americans view Wright favorably, while 58 percent have an unfavorable view.  The poll also noted that 56 percent those surveyed said Wright’s comments made them less likely to vote for Obama. That figure includes 44 percent of Democrats.  Obama has to reverse this trend.

Obama could have avoided this mess.  Though seen as controversial to some, Wright is a well-known and well-regarded minister.  Obama knew Wright would be seen as incendiary and began to distance himself from Wright.  He disinvited Wright from his campaign announcement speech in which the pastor was to give the invocation.  That was 13 months ago, so it’s not like the campaign couldn’t imagine that Wright’s words would become a factor in the nomination fight.

To the extent that there is room to criticize his campaign strategy, he should have taken on this issue months ago on his own terms, rather than in response to a brewing feeding frenzy.  Now, his words will be parsed and examined in a lull in the campaign between now and Pennsylvania.  Five weeks is a long time in campaigns and analysts will conduct an autopsy on every speech given by Wright or anyone else close to Obama to find anything that could cause trouble for the campaign.

Most African Americans have gleefully accepted his deracialized run for the presidency.  The feeling among many of these voters is that – all the happy talk aside – there is substantial concern if America is ready for a Black president.  Consequently, Obama has not been pressed to address some of the issues that are unique to African Americans for fear that discussing such issues will hurt his chances for the presidency.  This line of reason implies, of course, that maybe America isn’t ready for a Black president if the mere discussion of certain issues will work against Obama.

Obama is a vessel in which many voters are placing their hopes and aspirations for the country. Unfortunately, some of them are enraptured by the audacity of naivete’ believing that race isn’t an issue as long as we ignore it.  This was, and is, a ridiculous notion; race became a factor in the campaign as soon as he jumped in the fight.  Obama certainly has done his best to comply with the implicit request from some voters that he not speak forcefully on race.  This line of thinking has helped fuel Obama’s candidacy among some White voters.  Now, some of those same voters appear to be getting cold feet waiting for the other racial shoe to drop.

So the task for Obama was to address the trouble caused his campaign from Wright’s words and allay White America’s latent concerns that maybe Obama is the stereotypical “Black candidate” fully willing to aggressively confront racism and its progeny.  His speech also had to defend Trinity United Church of Christ and Wright or risk angering Black voters who may see Obama turning his back on a friend.  He did a good job of walking this very fine line putting Wright’s words into a larger context of the history of slavery and segregation.  He rightly noted that his pastor’s words speak of an anger that exists in Black America over racism.  He also talked about how conservative “talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.”  Even better, he pointed out the roots of Black and White anger and challenged America to take a compassionate look at other perspectives.

He responded to his task very well and laid out a compelling message that I think should have been offered months ago.  Maybe now he can lead the country into a new discussion and understanding of race in America.

Michael K. Fauntroy is an assistant professor of public policy at George Mason University and author of the book Republicans and the Black Vote.  A registered Independent, he blogs at www.MichaelFauntroy.com.