This originally appeared online on Black and Progressive Sociologists for Obama. Thank you to Sabiyha Prince for this.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Dyson Corrected: On Obama and Race
All progress is precarious, and the solution of one problem brings us face to face with another problem. ?Martin Luther King, Jr.
Barack Obama accepted the Democratic nomination for the presidency on the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr’s historic “I have a dream” speech. He was inaugurated the day after our national holiday celebrating the life and accomplishments of Dr. King. Many asked if Obama’s presidency was the realization of King’s dream. Cultural products, from t-shirts to YouTube videos, linked Obama’s election to King’s legacy.
Some observers have made far less complimentary comparisons between the men. Some self-professed keepers of King’s legacy have insisted that Barack Obama is embarrassingly anemic on issues of race. Remembering King as an uncompromising paragon of progressive politics, these “black leaders” judge Obama as a wishy-washy sell-out, unwilling to stand firm for his constituency.
This sentiment was perfectly captured last week in the outrageous comments of African American Georgetown University professor Michael Eric Dyson. Lost in the din surrounding Harry Reid’s “Negro dialect” comments and Rush Limbaugh’s scandalous tirade about Haiti, was Dyson’s assertion that “Barack Obama runs from race like a black man runs from a cop.”
Dyson’s comment is both offensive -to President Obama and to black men in general- and false- no other American presidential candidate paused in the middle of a campaign to deliver an exquisite commentary on race. Still, Dyson’s sentiment is indicative of a small, but vocal group of black public intellectuals who have regularly criticized Obama during his campaign and his presidency.
Often comparing Obama explicitly to Dr. King, they conclude the President lacks the moral courage or Leftist determination of the civil rights icon.
I disagree. Barack Obama is stunningly similar to Martin Luther King, Jr., but to see this similarity we must relinquish the false, reconstructed memories of perfection we currently project onto King.
Martin Luther King, Jr. was a political philosopher and dedicated freedom fighter, but he was also a pragmatic political strategist. Seen through the perfecting lens of martyrdom, King appears to be to be an uncompromising progressive leader, undeterred by seemingly insurmountable challenges, willing to risk all to achieve the goals of his movement.
To see King exclusively in these terms requires active, willful revision of history. In his political work, King was surprisingly like President Obama. And I don’t mean the oratory.
Consider this. Martin Luther King Jr. turned his back on Bayard Rustin. Rustin was his dear friend and trusted advisor. Rustin was the architect of the March on Washington. A fierce, lifelong pacifist, Rustin shepherded a young King through his first non-violent, direct action protests. Without Rustin there would have been no March on Washington and no national audience for the articulation of King’s great dream.
Yet when he was pressed, Martin Luther King Jr. eventually disavowed Rustin and ejected him from the movement. Rustin asked King for his support, but King turned his back on Rustin. King rejected Rustin because Rustin was gay and socialist.
Faced with the political realities of homophobia and America’s red scare, King chose to silence Rustin. King decided defending Rustin would distract the movement from its central goal of achieving an end to racial segregation.
Consider this. Martin Luther King, Jr. undercut the Mississippi Freedom Democratic party.
Black, rural laborers in Mississippi endured brutal beatings, death threats, loss of property, and exile from their homes because they wanted to vote. Despite these dangers, they formed the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party. Under the leadership of Fannie Lou Hamer they brought a delegation to the Democratic National Convention in 1964. There they demanded to be recognized and seated in protest of the racial disfranchisement in their state. Hamer’s testimony before the DNC credentials committee remains a powerful witness to the brutal conditions black Americans faced in their struggle for first class citizenship.
It was Martin Luther King, Jr. who brokered a deal with the Democratic leadership that cut Hamer and the Mississippi Freedom Democrats out of the Mississippi delegation. King knew that Johnson still needed the Southern segregationists to hold the majority. King needed Johnson to pass civil rights legislation. Johnson needed the Southerners to get elected. So King undercut Hamer. It was a strategic calculation.
Consider this. Martin Luther King, Jr. worked closely with many African American women, but staunchly refused to address gender equality as part of the larger movement for civil rights.
Women like Ella Baker, Diane Nash, Daisy Bates and Fannie Lou Hamer are dimly remembered compared to the shining beacon of King’s legacy. This invisibility of women activists is neither accidental nor inevitable. Despite his sweeping, visionary, social theorizing, King had surprisingly little imagination about how the extraordinary women in the movement could share leadership and accolades with the male leaders. He often relegated his women peers to supporting roles and backstage efforts. King refused to publicly address gender discrimination and often argued that women’s issues were distracting to the work of civil rights.
Deriding King and his legacy is not my goal in retelling these stories. We must remember that Martin Luther King was no earthbound deity, fearlessly pursuing an uncompromising agenda; he was a strategic political leader. He was a realist whose choices were often upsetting and unpalatable to those on his left.
Martin Luther King Jr’s charismatic, audacious, courageous leadership dramatically altered the trajectory of American history. His leadership lasted just over a decade. In that decade he helped bring to fruition more than a century of struggle first inaugurated when black persons became free people in the United States. No personal or political shortcoming can erase or even tarnish King’s contributions.
Remembering King’s own strategic choices is not an apologia for President Obama. Barack Obama’s legacy will ultimately rise and fall on the strength of his own accomplishments, not primarily on his comparative skill relative to other leaders. But a more clear-eyed assessment of King should make us more careful about how we judge our own imperfect President as he navigates his own complicated historical moment.
Barack Obama is not the leader of a progressive social movement; he is the president. As president he is both more powerful than Dr. King and more structurally constrained. He has more institutional power at his disposal and more crosscutting constituencies demanding his attention. He has more powerful allies and more powerful opponents.
We remember King as the beloved and revered leader of a nation-changing movement. We forget that King was widely criticized during his life. The American media derided this Nobel Peace Prize recipient for speaking out against the Vietnam War. Many argued King had overreached and had little right to weigh in on international matters. Despite braving vicious attacks, unfair incarceration, and attempts on his life, many young leaders mocked King for being insufficiently radical, overly tied to existing institutions, and inadequately brave in the face of racial attacks. One of the most gifted speakers of any age, in the final months of his life, Martin Luther King Jr. had trouble filling an auditorium for a public address.
I have criticisms of President Obama. He has not sufficiently championed the basic civil rights of LGBT Americans. He has escalated rather than ended our country’s war effort. His health care initiative is not going to include a public option. But I am grateful that extraordinary change can be achieved even through imperfect leadership.
I see King in Obama: a leader who is imperfectly, but wholeheartedly groping toward better and fairer solutions for our nation.
Comment(s)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++there are many points she makes of dr. king that we have deliberately flushed from our memories such as driving bro. rustin from the movement,ignoring issues of gender and sexism not only as they impacted black women but as they pertained to the civil rights movement itself; king directly colluded in the sexism of the movement. however, i think the sister then departs into a maze of illusion when she asserts obama’s imperfection but sees him as”wholeheartedly groping”towards the +better and fairer. imperfection is totally beside the point. criticism of obama need not encompass any standard of perfection, not at all.my beef is that he has concertedly embraced the political frameworks that are certain to hamper him if he really wants any genuine change. however, why does the sister assume obama wants any genuine change?why do people assume this?. because he said so?the escallation of the afghan war is not about an imperfect man. it is about one who has dawned the historical goals of the american empire i.e. to use military force to secure resources, and the cooperation of countries and their populations towards the empires ends.how else do we explain the us’s history of intervention in south america and its squashing of indeginous democratic insurgencies?or of our intervention in the middle east in the overthrow of regiemes, and the consistent efforts to repress arab nationalism. sister eisa, do you really believe his afghan war with the carnage it continues to bring to the afghan people is about a wholehearted attempt to forge a better world or of his imperfections? or is it the overpowerwing seduction of u.s. militarism which the king has embraced as does a true head of empire.? and sis, what of the insane anti-iranian madness that he has fully embraced? do you still honestly believe now that he really meant to establish a new thinking of diplomacy?iran has not invaded a country in 250 years , is a member of the nuclear proliferation treaty and thus has voluntarily agreed to UN inspections all of which have thus far concluded that iran has not violated the conditions of the pact.while our most strategic neighbor not only has the most developed arsenal in the mid-east but refuses to submit to any pact requiring inspections and has for 42 years occupied an indigenous population brutally and attacked countries in violation of international law.. once more, we, you, me the taxpayers have concertedly collded in this occupation including the recent masacre in gaza. except for a few family arguments obama, has wllingly, cocertedly, with all deliberation continued this country’s role as a dual partner in the barbaric ordeal.you say he may not be perfect? this is not about perfection, it is about whether one has some semblance of heart and decency to confront his own need to run an empire.he has kept in place the sordid elements of the national security state and has no desire, impulse or thought towards propose an urban policy to address the present crisis of cities which, as you know,are entailing increasing levels of poverty, decimation of the public sector- massive teacher and public safety layoffs, an eradication of traditional public schools with an aggressive effort to marginalize further the teachers’ unions. the widely heralded HEATH CARE BILl leaves the for-profit infrastructure intact. as you know, this is crucial because, in time, the insurance companies will undermind the so-called reformist elements of the bill. without, a public option which obama deliberately surrendered to the industry last august there is nothing to keep it honest. they will not stand to lose any money.remember, obama did not so much as fake an intent to fight, he simply wanted to know what they wanted to facilitate a deal and our man offered it right up.he talks about the two ongoing wars as if they had nothing to do with the deficits which gives the feds a reason not to help the cities(read joe stiglitz’s book). i am not a particular fan of mr. dyson although i do give him 10 stars for confronting homo-phobia even on black campuses. i am not sure what he means by ‘BLACKNESS” which he accuses our man of running from. but,i do believe obama is radically more cautious addressing race than even realistic conventional politics require.at a recent naacp meeting he dawns the affect of a baptist minister and tells inner- city black children by way of an naacp audience that poverty, and the accompanying economic segregation does not negate that their destiny is in their hands. of course, the audience went wild which partly explains why the naacp is as impotent as it is. just like slick willie, all obama has to do is throw black people some self-help babble abd tidbits about the strengths of black families and we are estatic. nothing he offers them in the way of a substantive urban policy dealing with housing, jobs, violence.he does not want to appear as favoring blacks after all he could not have won without our record turnout( no democratic nominee can. obama got only 47& of the white vote), and we are american citizens.these factors appear not to meet the qualifying criterion.of course, with the exception of the lbj presidency,these factors have never pushed either party towards prioritizing the issues of black people. so why does he feel he has to be defensive? he has precedence to stand on. alas!!! the brother is not alone . the black caucas just had 18 of 36 reporting for roll call to vote to continue funding the war. further, the distinguished james clyburn of south carolina accompanied the distinguished nancy pelosi of california in greeing the hon.israeli prime minister mr. natanyahu. as sister pelosi made sure to grab the hand of the pm, letting him know that the democratic party supported israel in its ongoing occupation, masacre of gazans and confiscation of occupied east jerusalem, brother jimmy was all smiles and smiles. i am certain the president was pleased.
Comment(s)
Thank you, Mark and James, for your thoughtful comments. It is important that we continue to remain vigilant in this participatory democracy – and that means holding Obama to as much scrutiny as any other American president. Public discourse is key; your thoughts are valued here. I appreciate your time and energy in moving the conversation forward and look forward to reading what others think.
Eisa
Comment(s)
Wonderful discussion. Still, though is was a great fight, the post by Ms. Harris-Lacewell, and the response by Mr. Watts, I have to say Mr. Watts scored a knockout. The post is more about the reality of Dr. King and the peception of Pres. Obama. Although the Prs has been in office only a bit over a year, treatises have already been written on his work as President; thus there are volumes of material and such for evaluationand comparison of Dr. King and Pres Obama. I think context is crucial. Mr. Watts hit the nail on the head by noting that Pres Obama is wokingout of a box. He has to work withthe Congress in mind at every step. Still, as President one expects him to articulate positions and work for those articulations. I agreewith Mr. Watts that the Pres.’s rhetoric on the campaign trail and his actions in his first year in office have been at odds with each other. Ms. Harris-Lacewell’s position is that one has to account forthe fact the Pres works out of circumstances such that he cannot do things the way the constituents who put him in office expects-because he has to work everything throughand with the Congress. Still, I believe one issue shows the chasms between Dr. King and Pres. Obama-the current warss the Country is in and the one it appears Pres. Obama is about to take the Country into. Icannot perceive Dr. King compromising on his war positions. His strident rhetoric and opposition to the war in Vietnam vis-a-vis the Prsident’s position on the current wars set the men light yeas apart. Greaat blog which I will continue to “check out.”
Comment(s)
You might have a point regarding King and his strident opposition to the Vietnam War, Winston. I do wonder, however, what his stance might have been had King lived to become Commander-in-Chief, as Obama now is. It’s much harder to remain steadfast in one’s pacifism when one must act as Leader of the Free World.
Thanks so much for your great comment! I’m glad you will continue to check out this blog, Winston. I hope to read more comments from you.
Eisa
Comment(s)
sis… i think you may be on to something here. to place your most recent comment into a question: what does it say about anyone who decides to dawn the head of an empire? still sis, all statesmen and women were resisted by the status quo and constraints of office. where does creativity, new ideas from new people , some notion of a progressive future and guts come into play?
Comment(s)
Have you ever considered about including a little bit more than just your articles? I mean, what you say is important and everything. However just imagine if you added some great pictures or videos to give your posts more, “pop”! Your content is excellent but with pics and clips, this blog could undeniably be one of the greatest in its niche. Terrific blog!