Rage: Why Obama won't and can't give you what you want

Let me ask you a question. When was the last time you saw your black male colleague, especially if you're in a white-collar profession, show anger or rage in public? My hunch is never. There's a reason for that. African American men are taught at very young ages (or learn the hard way) to keep our emotions in check, to not lose our cool, lest we be perceived as dangerous or menacing or give someone a reason to doubt our ability to handle our jobs. Think of the emotional corset women in leadership positions are expected to maintain to ensure they never cry in public or show TOO much compassion for fear of raising the same doubt and seeming weak.
I pose this question because over the last two weeks, I have watched and listened with increasing frustration to the criticism that President Obama hasn't shown enough emotion, enough rage over the ceaseless flow of BP oil choking the Gulf Coast. Sure, I, too, have asked the president to connect more with the American people over this disaster. To show a little emotion. But I have never and would never advise Obama to do what movie director Spike Lee advised last week on CNN: "One time, go off!"
We all know one of the reasons why Obama won't "go off."' He's just not wired that way. Despite the feisty interview he did with NBC News's Matt Lauer that aired this morning, overt expressions of rage (or any overheated emotion) are not in his personality. That's why Maureen Dowd has consistently dubbed him President Spock. And Obama's cool, "say what I mean and mean what I say" demeanor is exacerbated by his reliance on the TelePrompTer.
But he can't "go off." And I want to talk about why.

Doug Graham, a Facebook friend from Birmingham, Mich., sent me a note after my post on Obama's third trip to Louisiana last Friday. His words gave voice to my frustration and anticipated this piece.

What the media does not comprehend about Obama and his response on the Gulf Crisis is that he is responding in anger the best that he can!

Black men, especially educated black men, grew up with images of non-violent protests in the face of aggressive policemen, consequences of actually "displaying anger" like the Rodney King situation and are conditioned not to "act out" in crisis situations. Even in sports, you see "fits of rage" with black athletes, but even that is more controlled than, say, hockey, where if black athletes were to display that level of rage -- it would be called a riot!

If Obama were to display anger he runs the risk of Angry Black Man syndrome, becoming too scary or threatening to the public, immediately non-presidential!

Ah, the Angry Black Man. That boogeyman who haunts many African American men, particularly professionals, whether they acknowledge it or not. Who scares us into zen-like tranquility when fury is warranted, whether we are prone to it or not. "You always have to be at your best behavior, because if you're not you never know what's going to go wrong. You never know who's perceiving you differently," said Andy Shallal, the owner of Busboys and Poets, in a video for "Being a Black Man," The Post's 2007 Peabody Award-winning series.

The 2009 arrest of renowned Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates in his own home after he mouthed off to cops investigating reports of a break-in there is a prime example of what could go wrong.
Americans expect their presidents to be cool, calm and collected in a crisis. But we have to recognize that Obama already has this manner (or skill) mastered because it attaches to any black professional, especially those in positions of authority.
"Blacks at that level have to operate like that," Rev. Al Sharpton told me, "Whether you're Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas or Dick Parsons." That was an intriguing slate to ponder. Powell, Thomas and Parsons are three very different men. And yet the way they operate in their respective professions is very similar. "You grew up in the time when Sidney Poitier was the prototype of how you operate in a white world," Sharpton said, "cool and smooth."
"You and I are held to a somewhat different standard in the way we comport ourselves in professional environments," a black Democratic strategist with close ties to the business community said. "We are oftentimes held hostage to the myth of the 'angry black man' in ways that constrain us."
"As a black man, as a big black man, I know there are certain ways I can behave," an African American executive told me last week. "We don't have the luxury of making certain kinds of mistakes that would have us viewed as unintelligent.... You're carrying this burden of not having the luxury of messing up."
"You can't show anger, otherwise you are judged a certain way," said one prominent friend who would only speak about this on background. "It's already a societal thing where people find black men dangerous. So you can't be angry.... You learn early on there are certain lines you do not cross." Think about it. There's no African American version of, say, Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff with a widely known and celebrated reputation for F-bombs and confrontation.







Thomas's controlled-burn response to allegations of sexual harassment during his 1991 Supreme Court confirmation hearings -- which he called a "high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves" -- was the closest we've come to seeing rage from a black man on such a prominent stage.
Of course, there isn't universal agreement on this. One prominent African American I spoke with was having none of it. "I don't think you can define [Obama] and his presidency in terms of his being a black man. I think you have to define his presidency in terms of his being president." When I asked him about the stated similarities in the operating styles of of Powell, Thomas, Parsons and Obama, he said, "That in and of itself distorts the notion of black."
Fear of unleashing the "angry black man" stereotype or not, none of the men I spoke with want Obama to emote just to please the media or anyone else. "I like being cool, and I like seeing him being cool," said one. "And he is what he is and we have to accept that. We cannot ask him to be what he wants to be for us and be in betrayal to...who he really is." The Democratic strategist said, "I don't need my president to feel my pain. I need my president to take on problems and solve them." This is where I, the men I talked with and the American people are all in agreement.