Pages

Sunday, December 12, 2010

What Progressives Don’t Understand About Obama

December 11, 2010


Oakland, Calif.
NOT all of my white teachers viewed me as a discipline problem. To the annoyance of my fellow students, one teacher selected me regularly to lead assembly programs. A high school teacher insisted that I learn about the theater. She was an America-firster who supplied me with right-wing pamphlets and magazines that I’d read at breakfast and she didn’t seem bothered by my returning them with some of the pages stuck together with syrup.
But most of them did see me as an annoyance, and gave me the grades to prove it.
I’ve been thinking recently of all those D’s for deportment on my report cards. I thought of them, for instance, when I read a response to an essay I had written about Mark Twain that appeared in “A New Literary History of America.” One of the country’s leading critics, who writes for a prominent progressive blog, called the essay “rowdy,” which I interpreted to mean “lack of deportment.” Perhaps this was because I cited “Huckleberry Finn” to show that some white women managed household slaves, a departure from the revisionist theory that sees Scarlett O’Hara as some kind of feminist martyr.
I thought of them when I pointed out to a leading progressive that the Tea Party included neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers — and he called me a “bully.” He believes that the Tea Party is a grass-roots uprising against Wall Street, a curious reading since the movement gained its impetus from a rant against the president delivered by a television personality on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.
And I’ve thought about them as I’ve listened in the last week to progressives criticize President Obama for keeping his cool.
Progressives have been urging the president to “man up” in the face of the Republicans. Some want him to be like John Wayne. On horseback. Slapping people left and right.
One progressive commentator played an excerpt from a Harry Truman speech during which Truman screamed about the Republican Party to great applause. He recommended this style to Mr. Obama. If President Obama behaved that way, he’d be dismissed as an angry black militant with a deep hatred of white people. His grade would go from a B- to a D.
What the progressives forget is that black intellectuals have been called “paranoid,” “bitter,” “rowdy,” “angry,” “bullies,” and accused of tirades and diatribes for more than 100 years. Very few of them would have been given a grade above D from most of my teachers.
When these progressives refer to themselves as Mr. Obama’s base, all they see is themselves. They ignore polls showing steadfast support for the president among blacks and Latinos. And now they are whispering about a primary challenge against the president. Brilliant! The kind of suicidal gesture that destroyed Jimmy Carter — and a way to lose the black vote forever.
Unlike white progressives, blacks and Latinos are not used to getting it all. They know how it feels to be unemployed and unable to buy your children Christmas presents. They know when not to shout. The president, the coolest man in the room, who worked among the unemployed in Chicago, knows too.
Ishmael Reed is the author of the forthcoming novel “Juice.”



Comments

2.
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
Carolyn Prescott
Berlin, Germany
December 11th, 2010
10:43 pm
What a terrific essay! The expectations of many progressives exceed what any president could possibly meet, especially one who inherited two wars, a collapsed economy, a health care system out of control, to name but a few challenges. We've also had experienced decades of free market fantasy propaganda and anti-government rhetoric in the press. How could we believe that change would come easily and without our own participation every step of the way? Perhaps it is indeed that many of us have little experience with struggling against heavy odds to get something done.

We really need to get to work to counter the lies that are being told by the right; we need to get on the backs of our Congressmen and Senators; we need to understand that change will come in the long haul, but only if we work at it
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
oakland, ca
December 11th, 2010
10:59 pm
Clearly, this article needs to be revised to include the angry Barack Obama who attacked his own Democrats on Pearl Harbor Day, including a distinguished black Congressman, James Clyburn, from South Carolina, who had the courage to stand up to the President when the President is wrong, as he was here.
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
scott w
cleveland
December 12th, 2010
7:03 am
This is an interesting theory regarding Obama's predicament with progressives, but I think it only captures a fraction of the cause for that predicament. The main problem that progressives have with Obama is the dichotomy between the Obama who ran for president, and the Obama who has become president. Very few people expect Obama (or even want Obama)to become angry. What they want is for him to exhibit some of the captivating eloquence that he showed during the campaign. What they want is to see him live up some of his progressive campaign promises, promises like transparency, and ending the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250,000. What they want is a leader. Its almost as if the candidate Obama was some kind of clever fraud, and now we're left with some guy who makes secret, ugly deals with the worst kind of people (i.e. banks and republicans) and whose solution to the employment problem seems to be the creation of almost endless unemployment benefits. Progressives don't want an angrier Obama--they just want the old Obama back.
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
Ohio
December 12th, 2010
7:05 am
Mr. Reed makes some very good points about the position and value structure that keeps President Obama from blowing his top--as some would like--and keeping a steadfast eye on the effects of his actions on the most vulnerable. The left rightly sees the injustice of further giveaways to people who don't need it, won't spend it, and will complain about the deficit as they take it. The question remains, and this is the place where the President and many Democrats are at odds, is a fight worth the risk to those in most need? Would such a fight leave Americans better off in the long run or harm the very people in whose name the battle is waged? Although earning well below the $250,000 cut off point, my husband and I can live without the tax cut. But I'm not so sure many of the unemployed can live without their unemployment checks--on what I ask?
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
Cincinnati
December 12th, 2010
7:08 am
Full disclosure--I am black and would welcome a primary challenge against Mr Obama for several reasons.
While I am not advocating for useless made for TV rantings(like the one he did during the BP oil spill), I would have loved the president to at least show some spine.

We can agree that there has been a campaign of misinformation to try as much to discredit the president,his place of birth, his religion and his loyalty to America.-I am not one of those.

America is a real complicated nation,with a complicated history,diverse and composite of different people and the calm demeanor of the president is undoubtedly necessary where the black male stereotype persists,however,there is a time and place for everything and you can disagree and be firm without being angry.

I am sorry Obama is not projecting an "angry black man's image", he is being seen as a weak president who capitulates before negotiations. Republicans are better politicians,though you might not like them, they tell you what they will do, then go ahead and "do it". What progressives want is for Mr Obama to at least stand up for something.

Another reason I would want a primary challenge is we deserve a president that can explain situation and thought process behind them without equivocation. Mr Obama got elected by telling his life's story,I wish he could do the same in the white house. If only he could make that case again on why single payer wouldn't work now and why the tax deal is not giving up all your positions for your opponent.
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
Roger Algase
New York , NY
December 12th, 2010
7:11 am
This column has it all wrong. Progressives are not criticizing President Obama for being too angry, but for not being angry enough - against the plutocrats who did so much to cause the current economic crisis and whose taxes are being lowered even as middle class Americans, black and white, lose their jobs, their homes and their hope; against the bigots who call for the deportation of 12 million Latino and Asian immigrants and for taking away the cherished Constitutional right to birthright citizenship from their American born children; against the Wall Street bankers who nearly wrecked our financial system and who are still preying on ordinary Americans with outrageously low interest rates on savings and outrageously high credit card charges, and against the homophobic, Islamophobic purveyors of prejudice who seek to use intolerance and divisiveness as a way of gaining power.

Yes, the president is the coolest man in the room. But America does not need someone in the White House who remains cool in the face of oppression and injustice. We need someone with passion, with real convictions and the courage to fight for them.
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
Chris
South Carolina
December 12th, 2010
7:29 am
As a white liberal and a white academic - indeed, a white literary critic of Mr. Reed - I have to say Mr. Reed is bang-on with this analysis. Obama has to be the anti-stereotype every step of the way; he's known this since college no doubt. His white supporters might wish for more drama and passion but Obama knows and Reed is right that this would end up costing him more support overall than he'd gain.
On the other hand, I think most white liberal supporters of Obama don't wish that he'd show more passion as think that he's either made a tactical / strategic mistake or he's naive in thinking that he can work with these Republicans. This crowd doesn't accept 2008 as a rebuke to their policies. They would rather see the country continue its decline than cooperate with a Democratic president to try to solve its really serious problems. That's why the "compromises" are always concessions to the crowd that are like hostage takers. Their primary mission is to see this president fail. Obama's only rational and good-faith opposition is within the Democratic party among its moderates.
So go ahead and keep your cool, Mr. President. We're relieved that you're not apt to start a war or two. But please stop helping the Republican propaganda machine by pretending they're serious and have the country's interests at heart.
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
jpawlik
Chicago
December 12th, 2010
7:48 am
I voted for Barack Obama because of the way he is. I met him in person when he was running for the the Illinois Senate seat. He was at our office for a fund raiser. I donated $10, my last $10 at the time and the first time I ever donated to a political candidate. He's not like me at all. He's smarter, he's more even tempered and more thoughtful. I wouldn't make a good president or senator for that fact. He is what he is and I like what he is. Why are so many progressives surprised that he's not Harry Truman? He's not me and he's not you. Let him be himself. I voted for him and I trust him. I have my own life and I'm too busy to micromanage the guy who I voted into office.
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
East Jordan, Michigan
December 12th, 2010
7:51 am
What Progressives don't seem to understand is that it's time to get their head out of the clouds, stop the idealism and face the fact that we elected a pragmatist who puts the people first. One day we'll acknowledge what a fine leader we have in this man. For now, I suggest we begin to show the strength we ask of him.
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
New York
December 12th, 2010
8:27 am
He doesn't mind losing his temper with progressives.

HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
James
Los Angeles
December 12th, 2010
8:29 am
Sorry, Ishmael Reed. (Almost) nobody has a problem with Obama's style: the way he speaks and his calm demeanor. I don't want him to stamp his feet or whine.

I want him to be an effective leader! That means fighting for what you believe in, not caving to your opponents. It means not telegraph your punch. His team admitted that they would have to yield to Republicans before they even began negotiations. It means not starting your negotiation from an already compromised position. It means negotiating from strength. That's what I want. I want leadership. That means presenting your vision of health care. Not leaving it to Congress to hash out and then putting your signature on it.

His style is excellent. He speaks brilliantly. This is what got him elected.

His leadership, projecting of strength, negotiation tactics, and many of his appointments are all horrible. And this is why he has lost my support. He has caved. On Afghanistan. On health care. On the Bush tax cut extension. Cave. Cave. Cave
.

HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
portland, maine
December 12th, 2010
10:24 am
thank you, Ishmael Reed. You are telling the truth. If Obama were white, he would be seen as conducting a bold and fearless strategy. Because he has shown he is a capable and graceful leader with many first-term accomplishments but not a demi-god, and after all, *not like us*, people want to take their marbles and go home.

No comments:

Post a Comment