The phenomenon of Barak Obama has to be met by minorities of all types with optimism. Obama's success has indeed given what it advertises and that is hope. Hope in the sense that no matter what race, or as his opponent has also demonstrated, gender, anyone can aspire to become president.
But what does the Obama campaign do to the industry of the politics of racial equality? This is the curious question posed by Melanye T. Price writing for the Hartford Courant (Sunday March 16, 08). Having attended a rally to hear Obama in the Hartford XL center (civic center), at first she is please to see that the attendees "represent every demographic imaginable'" and notes that this amalgamation of people have become "unlikely allies, holding places for bathroom breaks, scouting the best entrance and seats and discussing Obama's appeal." In spite of this Price sees a "danger" of Obama's success even if he becomes president:
While racial inequality remains a central feature of American life, black candidates who directly attack that inequality are sure to repel many white voters and candidates like Obama will be more successful. Likewise, protest-oriented (read "angry") black grass-roots advocates may find it difficult to gain political traction in post-Obama America. If Obama is the new prototype for black political activity-less focused on race, less angry, more hopeful, "clean and articulate" and so on-what will this mean for focused efforts to combat racial inequality?
Shouldn't it undermine the whole premise of racial inequality altogether? Is racial equality less important then being "angry" about racial inequality. This is akin to saying that the danger of ending the Vietnam war is that it will stop the "focused efforts" to "combat" for peace.
There are other dangers that price points out. If Obama loses then if "...African American candidates cannot crash the privileged gates of political power, who will? Put simply, I am not sure that blacks can take this kind of rejection...Blacks are told 'no' in myriad ways in life, and it would be especially painful to have Super Obama rejected as well."
Instead of the inspired Hope that Obama raises the specter of his candidacy seems to be a lose-lose situation. If he wins then he neutralises anger and the fight for equality (bad), if he wins then the rejections is more then blacks can bear. Price doesn't see that these dangers are at odds with each other, put it this way, if he loses then the anger industry is alive and well. Obama is on his way to be nominated by a major political party for president, that he has done so coming from humble beginnings and with little seniority in politics ought to be looked at as a good thing but Price is demonstrating that the politics of racial inequality is more important then racial equality itself.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Time For Obama
Journalism ought to be objective in reporting the news. A task that is nearly impossible when it comes to politics. Take a liberal journalist and a conservative and have them report on an event of political importance and chances are two different stories will emerge. Now it could be that both stories will be "objective", that is to say they will disregard individual viewpoints and report what they saw. What will differ is the premise of the news story, they may not be the same. In short, since everyone has an opinion in politics total objectivity is impossible because the focus of attention in any given story will determine the political leanings of the journalist.
In looking at the Democratic primary there has been much ado about how the media favors Barak Obama over Hillary Clinton. Having a bias may not be possible however the bias can be so acute that the news outlet can cross the line from reporting the news to outright advocacy under the guise of journalistic objectivity. This has been the charge by Hillary Clinton aimed at the media on its treatment of Obama. Aside from remarks made by a reporter and commentator on MSNBC during primary coverage one has to look at subtle nuances in news reporting on many outlets to agree with the charge.
In a March 10th issue of Time magazine, Clinton may have a case. Not only does she have a case but Time magazine ought to just give up the notion that it is a news magazine altogether and come out and say it is an opinion journal. To start the charge by Clinton during the campaign is that Obama is inexperience. It's been a charge that has garnered little traction. But just in case there may be some validity to it out comes Time with a image of Obama on the cover with the headline asking "How Much Does Experience Matter?". Certainly it matters to some degree. We generally elect governors because they actually have run governments or someone who at least is a politician. Now Obama has been in the Senate less than 1 term before that a state legislature so maybe he doesn't seem to have enough experience in national politics, in short a case can be made. So before you think experience does matter thereby giving credence to the charge and effectively sink Obama, Time comes to the rescue with an article on the cover with a question and a subtitle "Why Science says it may be overrated" emphasis added. Time wants us to know that experience doesn't matter, er, that is, not Time per se but absurdly the most objective people of them all, scientist. What scientist have to say in the article is that just because a person has been at a particular field for some time doesn't mean they are actually good at what they do. The article shws various tests and studies that presumably dispel the notion. The problem is we're not electing professional presidents. All presidents are new at the job on the first day which means the article with all that it has to say about professionals and performance is meaningless. Before the scientific "proof" debunking Clinton there is an article comparing past presidents and what experience they had. Presidents with little "experience" were Washington, Taylor, Lincoln, Grant, Arthur, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson and Kennedy a mixed bag of mediocrity and greatness that proves nothing in particular one way or another.
Okay they made their point. Don't worry about Obama's lack of experience he could be another Lincoln who had less, so there. To be sure the articles were objectively written but the premise of experience, the choosing of such a topic could only help Obama. And in a more extreme example of how much Obama is on the minds of the journalist in Time in an aside article noting the passing of William F Buckley they write that "His fixed star was the idea of human freedom. A sure applause line in presidential candidate Barack Obama's speeches..." please. Now where is the objectivity in that. Was it really necessary to interject Obama in a piece where he has no relevancy what so ever?
In looking at the Democratic primary there has been much ado about how the media favors Barak Obama over Hillary Clinton. Having a bias may not be possible however the bias can be so acute that the news outlet can cross the line from reporting the news to outright advocacy under the guise of journalistic objectivity. This has been the charge by Hillary Clinton aimed at the media on its treatment of Obama. Aside from remarks made by a reporter and commentator on MSNBC during primary coverage one has to look at subtle nuances in news reporting on many outlets to agree with the charge.
In a March 10th issue of Time magazine, Clinton may have a case. Not only does she have a case but Time magazine ought to just give up the notion that it is a news magazine altogether and come out and say it is an opinion journal. To start the charge by Clinton during the campaign is that Obama is inexperience. It's been a charge that has garnered little traction. But just in case there may be some validity to it out comes Time with a image of Obama on the cover with the headline asking "How Much Does Experience Matter?". Certainly it matters to some degree. We generally elect governors because they actually have run governments or someone who at least is a politician. Now Obama has been in the Senate less than 1 term before that a state legislature so maybe he doesn't seem to have enough experience in national politics, in short a case can be made. So before you think experience does matter thereby giving credence to the charge and effectively sink Obama, Time comes to the rescue with an article on the cover with a question and a subtitle "Why Science says it may be overrated" emphasis added. Time wants us to know that experience doesn't matter, er, that is, not Time per se but absurdly the most objective people of them all, scientist. What scientist have to say in the article is that just because a person has been at a particular field for some time doesn't mean they are actually good at what they do. The article shws various tests and studies that presumably dispel the notion. The problem is we're not electing professional presidents. All presidents are new at the job on the first day which means the article with all that it has to say about professionals and performance is meaningless. Before the scientific "proof" debunking Clinton there is an article comparing past presidents and what experience they had. Presidents with little "experience" were Washington, Taylor, Lincoln, Grant, Arthur, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson and Kennedy a mixed bag of mediocrity and greatness that proves nothing in particular one way or another.
Okay they made their point. Don't worry about Obama's lack of experience he could be another Lincoln who had less, so there. To be sure the articles were objectively written but the premise of experience, the choosing of such a topic could only help Obama. And in a more extreme example of how much Obama is on the minds of the journalist in Time in an aside article noting the passing of William F Buckley they write that "His fixed star was the idea of human freedom. A sure applause line in presidential candidate Barack Obama's speeches..." please. Now where is the objectivity in that. Was it really necessary to interject Obama in a piece where he has no relevancy what so ever?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
