Taking "Dictation"

Mary Mitchell at the Chicago Sun-Times plays a recognizable game:

There is no institution in the black community more respected than the black church. And the notion that white pundits can dictate what constitutes unacceptable speech in the black church is repulsive to most black people.

This tactic is becoming old—pretending that criticism or disagreement is “dictating.” Mitchell wouldn’t know an actual dictator if Robert Mugabe walked up to her and introduced himself.

Yes, Ms. Mitchell, white pundits and any other pundit in this country can and will criticize what anyone one publicly declares, especially when the declaration is televised. (And since when did PBS studios, the Detroit chapter of the NAACP and the National Press Club or even Trinity United Church of “Christ” become the “black church?”) When any pundits start advocating that Reverend Wright be fined or confined for his words, then it’s time for you to start whining complaining. Not before. And if some black people are “repulsed,” that’s their problem. Grown folks expect criticism; children in adult bodies mistake criticism for being dictated to. "Don't tell me what to do!!! You're not my mama!!!"

As much as I want to see Obama make history by becoming the first black man to be elected president, I don't want to see a warrior like Wright denigrated to prove to white voters that Obama is not a radical.

When Obama denounced Wright's angry words but refused to disown him, it signaled that he understood the sensitive tightrope he is being forced to walk.

His "outrage" over Wright's latest remarks signals something quite different. With the gap narrowing, Obama advisers are obviously scrambling for every white vote.

But really, what more should blacks have to sacrifice? Their dignity?

Frankly, Obama and Wright risk becoming metaphors for the ongoing struggle of blacks to unite politically.

Obama shouldn't have held a press conference to deal with Wright.

He should have been able to pick up the phone.

Sigh.

My boyfriend and I concurred that Obama's nomination will split this country--even if he loses to McCain in the general election. Prior to a few months back, BF had not known about most of the senator's short-comings--my honey's a busy man--and, in spite of being a conservative, he had wanted his sons to see the example of a black man becoming POTUS in order to plant the idea that, perhaps, they could shoot for that goal as well. And he's not the only black man I've heard express this desire.

I think that too many Americans of all races--but especially black Americans--still don't know enough about Obama and, even if they do, are thinking selfishly about him and not thinking strategically.

They're not thinking about the job which Obama is applying for. Hint: not to be an example to anyone's children.

My guy and I talked a lot about the subject, but the bottom line is this: Obama isn't running just to be the president of black America or to be emblematic of black pride. (That he would be the latter is beside the point.) He's not running in order end the "ongoing struggle of blacks to unite politically." (Did you see my eyes roll just now?) He's running to be the leader of all Americans.

People like Mitchell can’t quite wrap their minds around this concept. That’s why she can speak approvingly of Wright, expect Obama to defer to him and expect whites to be silent about it all in the same op-ed.

Along with holding the subconscious notion that Obama should abide by the rules of black solidarity, many black Americans seem to be desperately clinging to Obama as if he’s the last best hope for a black American to become POTUS for the next hundred years. As if, among millions of other Americans who are black, there’s not one person who would be a likely candidate in the next few elections. No one. So “we” have to latch on to this one right now, regardless of what the rest of the country wants, regardless of the sparsity of the man’s political record and regardless of content of this man’s character and the demonstrable quality thereof.

• This man is for pulling out of Iraq and against it.
• This man is against NAFTA and for it.
• He barely knows Tony Resko but has financial dealings with him.
• He barely knows terrorists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn but has been a guest in their home and has worked with the former.
• His pastor and spiritual adviser for 20 years—the same man who baptized him, performed his marriage ceremony and baptized his children—espouses a human-centered, racial supremacy (per)version of Christianity, but he never knew anything about it. And, suddenly, the man never was his spiritual adviser.

People like Mitchell want you to stop "dictating" to Obama and Wright and want you to roll over in the manner that a dog will do to show subservience to the "tide of history" and, interestingly enough, she wants Obama to do the same for Wright.

Trust me, the phrases “first black American POTUS” and “black pride” will ring hollow in the ears of us all if this Sower of Discord is nominated and it will even more so if he is elected. And only a fool—or a racist--would expect those who love this country to be silent about it.

(Thanks to Omnibus Driver)

Comments

[Pablo]

"Well, it is likely that Sen. Barack Obama won't be going back to Trinity United Church of Christ.

Not after this."

I can't help but wonder whether Mitchell is a Trinity congregant.

Wright and his pride and his hatred have denigrated Wright. Obama has tried to defend him and only stepped away when the stench was just to odious for a POTUS candidate to walk around with.

[Phelps]

Obama advisers are obviously scrambling for every white vote.

Yeah, that's what campaigns do. They scramble for votes. Is there something dirty about white votes to these people?

(Oh, wait, there is. Never mind.)

[Omnibus Driver]

Thanks, Juliette. I knew I couldn't do it justice, and that you'd knock it right out of the park. Between Mary Mitchell at the Sun Times and Dawn Turner Trice at the Tribune, we see a LOT of op eds like this in Chicago.

[Ruth H]

It would be great to have a black, conservative president, or even an honest one who wasn't conservative. That is what is so very, very sad about this episode, it will set race relations back for many years. But even our black conservatives have not done really well in some states.
I can sympathize with a black man or woman wanting a presidential role model for their children but what children black or white, really need is a great role model at home, school, in sports and other aspects of their lives.

[DarkStar]

I was with you until this bomb: And only a fool—or a racist--would expect those who love this country to be silent about it.

I'm sorry, but if Obama becomes a candidate, I won't vote for him because I don't like his policies. I won't vote for Clinton because I don't like her policies.

Those who decide to vote for him don't have to be in the "hate the U.S.A. camp" as the quoted statement implies.

Quite frankly, in just about every presidential election, the country is split.

BEFORE the Wright stuff hit the fan, how many people noticed The Bradley Effect had resurrected?

[DarkStar]

That is what is so very, very sad about this episode, it will set race relations back for many years.

I don't understand why people are saying this. A worst all it is doing is bringing things out in the open. If that's the case and that causes race relations to go back, that means it wasn't forward to begin with and recognizing it is best.

[Ben-David]

DarkStar:
all it is doing is bringing things out in the open. If that's the case and that causes race relations to go back, that means it wasn't forward to begin with and recognizing it is best.
- - - - - - - - -
Bingo.
The Democratic primaries have dragged the orthodoxies of identity politics off their PC pedestal and into the glaring light of reality.

Tactics like those used by Mitchell et alia no longer work to shut down dissent and keep folks in their ideological pigeonholes.

It's BBQ season - sacred cow steaks sizzling on the grill....

[S. Weasel]

Don't underestimate how many white people -- including conservatives -- were thinking, "what the heck. He seems like a nice enough young man. Give it to the black guy and maybe we can buy ourselves a little peace on the racial thing."

[karrde]

I usually look at statements like this, and feel a need to switch a few words around before testing the statement for sanity:

And the notion that whiteblack pundits can dictate what constitutes unacceptable speech in the blackwhite church is repulsive to most blackwhite people.

If this statement were made to defend a white-skinned minister who thought he ought to keep the black-skinned people from ruining the nation by being too uppity, I couldn't join in that defense.

[Nikki]

Great piece I enjoyed it very much. I agree about what will happen to race relations if Obama loses the general. Al Sharpton accused Obama of pandering to white people when he didn't blast the vertict of the police officers in the Sean Bell case. They are the ones ruining it for Obama. :)N

[josh]

If electing Obama for president is necessary to heal our racial divides, what does that say about our maturity as a country? We have to have a black president to show we're not racist? We have to have a female president to show we're not misogynists? What a shallow, childish viewpoint.

Not many liberals seem to place as much importance on the policies of Obama or Clinton as on their race and gender. This should be a warning sign for the future if everyone just votes by identity group.

[notropis]

"As if, among millions of other Americans who are black, there’s not one person who would be a likely candidate in the next few elections."

Sadly, there aren't as many as there should be, and that can be blamed to a large extent on gerrymandered districts, and to an extent, also, on the demonization of black Republicans.

One of the main reasons that, as a percentage, the Republican Party has produced so many stellar black politicians, is, simply, competition. Gerrymandered districts eliminate competition, and give us politicians like William Jefferson and Sheila Jackson-Lee. Open competition gives us politicians like Michael Steele and J.C. Watts.

Even Obama, himself, would not have been considered as anything, had he not won a state-wide election. And it is precisely the fact that he had to come up through the blacks-only local system in Chicago that is causing him the major headaches he now has with Jeremiah Wright.

Gaining ground usually requires relinquishing certainty. Perhaps black Democrats will see the need to abolish the stranglehold that the CBC and similar organizations have put on black political advancement, creating a de facto ceiling to preserve their local fiefdoms.

[vanderleun]

You have become the go-to page for insight into this issue. Congrats.

[gcotharn]

Dang. That is a good blogpost. Kudos.

[J. Peden]

All Ms.Mitchell herself is trying to do is to stereotype and dictate to "Blacks" in the very same way I'm sure she would also allege most "Whites" are still doing.

I predict that this kind of bigoted, subrational, unscientific, and dehumanizing thinking will not help anyone.

[Maggie45]

I agree with Gerard. I am learning a heck of a lot here. Thanks, Juliette.

[mezzrow]

Many thanks, Juliette. As a white southerner in his fifties, I can't say the things you say and be heard.

You know how that feels, don't you, dear?

Nothing would lift my heart like being able to vote for a black man as President of this country that would truly be the President of ALL the people. I can't however, vote for a man who will "force me to work, to deal with the meanness in my soul."

Do these people listen to what they are saying?? We need to get to a place where this mess is behind us.

Wright sure isn't helping. I suspect he may be in this to queer the deal for Barack, and make his defeat the grievance of this generation. (The Rev is a very sensitive man, you know..) This grievance will then be leveraged for whatever it may yield in power for Rev. Wright. He senses that African American may be searching for a new Big Man, and he's got the chops for the job. The niche he serves is plenty big enough for Jeremiah Wright, thank you. He's retired from Trinity, and has all the time in the world to travel the nation and deal with injustice as it is found.

I'm just saying...

[DarkStar]

One of the main reasons that, as a percentage, the Republican Party has produced so many stellar black politicians, is, simply, competition. Gerrymandered districts eliminate competition, and give us politicians like William Jefferson and Sheila Jackson-Lee. Open competition gives us politicians like Michael Steele and J.C. Watts.

OK, what I quoted is laughable on it's face, even when considering percentage.

Gerrymandered districts has caused more competition among Black Democrats and those who win, are those who play the game best, which includes patronage and supporting those who support them, for better or worse.

Michael Steele became the Maryland state GOP head because Ellen Sauerbry, who was offered the position, declined and said they need to select Steele. When he gained office as Lt. Gov., it wasn't a position where he was independently selected, he was part of the Erhlich ticket. When he lost, he lost NOT because of the lack of Black votes (he said he needed 20-25% of the Black vote and he got 30%), it was because he put his foot in his mouth 2 times when addressing Jewish groups. (There's that identity politics thing that no one calls identity politics).

J.C. Watts was mostly ineffective in office. That's why Tom Delay started doing Watts' job for him. The only writer bold enough to write about it was Bob Novak.

And then there is Lynn Swann. The man who didn't vote in 6 or 7 state elections because he was out of state and didn't care to fill out an absentee ballot. The man who didn't know about state economic matters until mid-way in the election cycle. A man who was confused about the particulars of the legality of abortion. Yep. A stellar candidate right there.

Oh, and then there is Alan Keyes...

Perhaps black Democrats will see the need to abolish the stranglehold that the CBC and similar organizations have put on black political advancement, creating a de facto ceiling to preserve their local fiefdoms.

How condescending of you. Do you state perhaps white Republicans will see the need to abolish the stranglehold that evangelicals have put on white political advancement?

Since you like Michael Steele so much, what about when Steele said the GOP is to blame for playing identity politics with the Southern Strategy or when former GOP chair Ken Melman apologized for the GOP use of the Southern Strategy?

*SNAP*

There's that dreaded identity politics thing again.

[notropis]

So you're saying Ms. Jackson-Lee is the best Houston can produce? My goodness, I hope not.

Competition between black Democrats within a district, even if it were as intense as you claim, isn't likely to produce candidates with appeal outside the district. But if gerrymandered districts do produce so much competition, why is it that we see the longest tenure among congressmen from gerrymandered districts? How many incumbents in gerrymandered districts ever lose a primary (since they can't lose the general)? Cynthia McKinney did, but when she did, it made national news, and it took some serious effort on her part to lose it. William Jefferson can have 90 G in cash in his freezer, and indictments hanging over his head, and still can't be ousted. That's some competition. And no, it's not unique to any particular party or race. I don't think I said or implied it was. It's inherent in the system. I think that was my point.

When a politician has a track record of pandering to the most extreme parts of his/her base (as usually happens in "safe" districts), it makes it almost impossible to win a statewide, much less national, election. And yes, it has the same effect on Republicans' "safe" seats.

You may not think Steele was effective, but he beat expectations in an election cycle where Republicans were getting creamed in race after race. If he actually only lost because of a gaffe or two while addressing Jewish groups, then he did even better than I thought. I don’t need some Novak gossip to form my opinion of Watts. I’ve spoken with him. I’ve seen him in action. And Novak gets some things right and at least as much completely wrong; so if he's the only source, I'd be suspicious, regardless. (It usually doesn't take a lot of “boldness” to attack a black Republican. So a more likely reason no one else reported the story is that it isn't true.)

I didn’t bring up "identity" politics. I was responding to Juliette's comment about the potential for future black presidential candidates. I suppose that it’s true by definition that a district designed to insure a particular "identity" wins would be identity politics. Steele said the GOP is to blame for playing identity politics with the Southern Strategy? I admire his honesty, and, depending on the context, which is hard to figure out from your paraphrase (what is meant by "blame," and which bad effects was he talking about?), I probably agree with him.

I sure didn't mention Lynn Swann. "Higher percentage" doesn't usually imply 100%, so I don’t feel compelled to defend him. Swann was a dud. The Republicans had more than their share of duds in 2006, since everyone believed (rightly) that they were going to get beat soundly, and the party was grasping for anything -- hoping name recognition would carry the day, I guess, since it worked for Arnold in California.

Keyes? Didn't mention him either, mostly because he's never won any election of any sort that I'm aware of, to any district, gerrymandered or not, and has never been a candidate selected by any process other than sheer desperation or self-promotion. And he’s only sporadically a Republican. I hear he just lost the Constitution Party nomination, so he’s probably searching again.

"Condescending?" I'm not sure where you get that from, unless any comment about what anyone else “ought to do” is by definition condescending. In any event, the suggestion that the Congressional Black Caucus is not helpful to anyone but the CBC is hardly original with me.

"Do you state perhaps white Republicans will see the need to abolish the stranglehold that evangelicals have put on white political advancement?"

I’m totally missing the point of this comparison, I guess. I don't see much stranglehold. There are quite a few white office holders who spend their time slamming and condemning evangelicals, and still getting elected. Mostly because whites are not 90% Republican. I also don’t see a need for white political advancement. There doesn’t seem to be any shortage of white presidential candidates. But if you’re trying to show a similar “condescension,” I don’t see that either. People who are not white Republicans are forever telling the Republican Party they need to break free of evangelicals if they want to win. Whether I agree with that or not, I don’t see it as condescending.

In any event, it seems only logical that, in order to get candidates who can win in an election where they need a wider base, you need candidates who have experience getting the votes from a wider base. And I agree with Juliette that a lot of Obama’s appeal comes from the feeling that it took a series of fortuitous circumstances to get him where he is, and a chance like him doesn't come around very often.

Where I disagreed, was with the thought that there were very many likely presidential candidates in the near future, among the millions of Americans who are black, or at least, not as many as there ought to be. I'm just not seeing these likely candidates where it would be logical to find them, which is among the Democrats, since the vast majority of black Americans with political experience are Democrats. And I think that one of the big reasons for this is the power of the CBC and the many similar state and local groups in the Democratic Party, and their selfish strategy of maximizing their own security at the expense of anyone else's future gains. It shuts out a lot of potential candidates early, who might be able to generate broad enough appeal to win higher office further down the road, and leaves a pool of congressmen and women who have not the slightest chance (nor desire) of ever moving up to a statewide or national office.

(Sorry for the lengthy post.)

[DarkStar]

But if gerrymandered districts do produce so much competition, why is it that we see the longest tenure among congressmen from gerrymandered districts?

ALL districts are gerrymandered, it's just the matter of degree. And most congressmen are re-elected. If I remember correctly the re-election rate is about 91%.

It usually doesn't take a lot of “boldness” to attack a black Republican. So a more likely reason no one else reported the story is that it isn't true.

I spoke with Black Republican staffers, some of who were associated with Project 21, who backed up the claim.

William Jefferson can have 90 G in cash in his freezer, and indictments hanging over his head, and still can't be ousted. That's some competition.

Yeah, like the Republican facing indictment who was re-elected only to be indicted about a month after re-election.

You may not think Steele was effective, but he beat expectations in an election cycle where Republicans were getting creamed in race after race.

The expectation that he beat was for getting Black votes. He fell short otherwise.

And I think that one of the big reasons for this is the power of the CBC and the many similar state and local groups in the Democratic Party, and their selfish strategy of maximizing their own security at the expense of anyone else's future gains.

The CBC is powerless. That was proved when the CBC couldn't get most of what it wanted while Bill Clinton was in office. The CBC isn't capable of getting people elected. Ford, Jr. was a CBC member and not well liked by many in the CBC.

[Don]

What I'd like to see is a good, conservative black Republican president.

Condi Rice was mentioned previously. I kinda hope McCain picks her for VP.

[brotherbrown]

Condi has done nothing to show she's a capable campaigner, fundraiser, legislator--choosing her for the ticket would be a cynical choice ("she black AND a woman").

Speaking of mediocre, why is it folks are pretending like there is no one currently presiding at the White House? I'd like someone to explain and defend their thinking in voting for George Bush in 2000 over McCain in the republican primary if McCain is such a good choice this time around.

[DarkStar]

Condi isn't conservative. It would be a "W" Bush replay only Rice seems to be pro-choice.