Barack Obama's speech in Philadelphia yesterday was designed to quell the "firestorm," as he put it, over Reverend Wright's "divisive comments ... in a racially-charged time." Did this bold move doom or revive his candidacy? And what does it say about race relations in America that this speech is, in fact, historic, if only because of the concept of the speech and not necessarily because of its ideals?
Obama's speech was met with an uncomfortable media reaction this morning. Most headlines and stories avoided direct comment on what the speech means for the campaign and, more importantly, for race in this country. “The racial wounds that remain,” boldly trumpeted Metro (New York), a headline accompanied by a picture of a crying black Obama supporter. Other than that, the general feeling among the press is that “It's 1964 all over again,” with Obama as a Martin Luther King figure, clashing against a stubborn past, marching toward a greater understanding that might be merely one landmark speech away.
“This was one of the tasks we set forth,” Obama said, echoing the civil rights era, “To continue the long march of those who came before us.”
Speaking solely for myself, I tend to believe this country has already begun the healing process. Surveys show 98% of the electorate would consider voting for a black Presidential candidate, although many still believe in that whole “but when they get in the voting booth and no one's looking, people are gonna get all racist” theory, which is based on no available evidence. (With that argument in mind, would racist Southern Republicans vote for Hillary Clinton if they entered the booth and saw Condolezza Rice as the VP on the conservative line? Just curious.)
This is not to say there isn't a large degree of racism and bigotry still prevalent today. The point is that perhaps our strongest tactic for quelling racism, for moving on, is to continue to lead by example. If Obama proves to be a great President, that would of course significantly help bring our nation together. However, having thirty minute speeches in Philadelphia about race is not only a bold yet risky political move (since it could be seen as Obama on the defensive, weakening in the eyes of the electorate), it may also be counterproductive: to bring back old dramas.
In other words, maybe the best thing for Obama to do to quash the concerns of undecideds and Hillary supporters who fear racism will doom an Obama For President Democratic ticket is to temporarily act like racism is not an issue in this electoral cycle-- sure, a tough thing to call when that is partly what inspires so many people: the possibility of the First Black President. In any case, he should laugh when the press raises their ignorant questions about an "uncertain electorate." He could take a page from one Governor Eliot Spitzer: "Screw the racists. I'm steamroller and I'm gonna roll all over you!"
That being said, should the speech give Obama momentum again, most of this post's uncertainty about its contents is null and void. After all, it's all about the momentum. That is the true motive, however it appears on the surface, for his remarks yesterday: political maneuvering. No Presidential candidate has any other real motivation, when it gets down to it.
A coda: soon after Obama spoke yesterday, I listened to a Richard Price story from a recent Moth StorySlam. Richard Price, author of “Clockers” and several classic episodes of “The Wire,” is arguably one of the most formidable white writers on race relations in this country. His story, while comic in nature, also sheds some light on how far we've come and how ignorant we still are.
Thanks to Brian Lehrer at WNYC for the Obama speech link.
Thanks to Meg McIntyre at The Moth for the Richard Price link.