Obama's Strategy Proves We Haven't Come That Far

Supporters of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign have consistently underscored the belief that because he transcends race he can bring people together like no other candidate.  This argument took on particular momentum after the Iowa caucuses, as everyone seemed to marvel at the extent to which Obama won support from Whites.  Obama supporters  pointed to his cross-racial appeal as proof that the country has come a long way to overcome racism.  There is no question that America infinitely better now than it has ever been on the issue of race.  However, as I look at the campaign’s response to three biggest controversies it has faced, I can only conclude that we haven’t come as far as some think.  Indeed, it’s not a stretch to contend that his campaign is largely dedicated to not scaring White voters.

The first controversy cropped up at the victory party following Obama’s Wisconsin primary win. Michelle Obama took to the microphone and made a comment that went over like a lead balloon.  Her statement that she, for the first time in her life, felt proud of her country gained her significant enmity and put her on the road to isolation as she was portrayed as the stereotypical angry Black woman.  Once lauded as the campaign “closer” and secret weapon, other than one national television appearance a week before the Pennsylvania primary, she seems to have gone missing-in-action and you might need a GPS and a Sherpa to find her.  I guess even the wife of the candidate can be muzzled for the cause.

The second controversy was the firestorm created by the response to parts of sermons by Rev. Jeremiah Wright that were revealed on the Internet. Wright was long seen as a problem for the campaign for some time, which helps explain why he was disinvited from giving the invocation at Obama’s candidacy announcement in February 2007.  But Wright’s long relationship with the presidential candidate couldn’t easily be brushed under the rug.  He was Obama’s pastor for 20 years, conducted the Obama’s wedding ceremony, and baptized their children.  But Obama was so shocked and chagrined by some of Wright’s publicized words (and the attendant firestorm) that he had to give an address on race to allay White concerns.  The speech was universally praised not for what it said, but what it didn’t.  The speech did not make White voters afraid that he was some closet “race man” fully prepared to remind them of the history of American racism.  Even though the speech was well-received, it wasn’t enough, so he went further and said in a television interview that he would leave the church if Wright remained as pastor. 

The third controversy has two parts.  Part one was in February, when Obama declined an invitation to the 9th annual State of the Black Union symposium hosted by Tavis Smiley and held in New Orleans.  This symposium brings together some of the finest educators, practitioners, and analysts who work on uniquely Black issues from housing to education to health care and beyond.  Part two was the recently held commemoration of the death of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in Memphis.  Obama declined to attend the event choosing to campaign in Indiana.  The campaign tried to spin the absence by noting Obama was speaking in the same location in which Bobby Kennedy broke the news that Dr. King was assassinated.  Both absences speak of a candidate trying hard to avoid overtly Black events.

It seems to me if we really have made the progress the campaign and its supporters says we have, then White voters would not have felt threatened or offended by Michelle Obama, would have listened more carefully to what Wright said, not just how he said it, and would not have thought twice that the first African American presidential candidate with a real chance at winning going to such public majority-Black events as the State of the Black Union and the King memorial (Who in their right mind would object to Obama attending the King commemoration?)  The Obama campaign’s response to these events tells the story of an operation that doubts the country has come as far as it argues the country has.  Indeed, the campaign’s response to these candidates demonstrates a lack of faith in the notion that America is really ready for a Black president.

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