On Friday Christopher Caldwell published a column on FT.com, the on line version of the Financial Times, in which he offers yet another interpretation of "A More Perfect Union. In it he praises Senator Obama for bringing the actual day-to-day commentary about race relations into the light. He starts off by alluding to Obama’s story about the young woman who tried to convince her mother that she really liked mustard and relish sandwiches:
This girl had kept her faith in other people, Mr Obama said, even though "perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother’s problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work".
All Americans have heard such talk; no recent politician has ever been remotely brave enough to allude to it, even when quoting a hypothetical third party. It is not clear whether Mr Obama’s 37-minute address will help or hinder him on his road to the White House. But it is potentially a great service to his country. For one morning at least, Mr Obama left off trying to inspire and chose instead to explain.
More below the fold:
From here he goes on to talk about what was in the speech, what wasn’t, why some people might not still be satisfied, etc. Some of this will no doubt rub the sensibilities of progressives the wrong way – it certainly had that effect on me. But then he brings a whole new cultural referent into the discussion:
Under the present system of race relations, that ["blacks" understanding the aspirations of other Americans] cannot happen. A very interesting book published this week shows why. In Racial Paranoia (Basic Books, $26/£15.99), the University of Pennsylvania anthropologist John L. Jackson Jr suggests that extravagant theories of white racism – from the widespread Aids rumour to Louis Farrakhan’s allegation that the US actually blew up the levees to cause the deadly New Orleans floods during Hurricane Katrina – have their roots in the decorous language that mostly white leaders have invented for talking about race.
Caldwell goes on to argue that while racism has not been eliminated in American culture, racist talk [at least from public forums] has. This sets him up for his climactic appreciation of what Senator Obama has already accomplished:
Bringing subterranean racial narratives into the light of day, where they can be debated openly, is a risk. Although the early news coverage of his speech has been positive, polls appear show that what Americans most want from Mr Obama is a simple demonstration that he is not like Rev Wright.
That is not exactly what they got. But they did get something better: the offer of a more intimate relationship among the races, a less instrumental use of them by US politicians and a breaking of the monopoly on interracial dialogue that has until now been held by elite censors. Americans ought to take him up on it.
The best part is the line at the bottom of the column:
The writer is a senior editor at The Weekly Standard.
Now I know from long experience (I’m 60 years old) that immense emotional satisfaction can be easily had from thinking the worst of people on the other side of the political spectrum from where we sit. And there is plenty to nitpick in this column. But if we are truly to follow the example that Senator Obama so nobly sets for us, we need to be willing to believe that at least some conservatives value honesty and such at least part of the time.
We can and must still be ready to fight vigorously for what we believe in, but when one of our opponents shows signs of decent behavior (even if it’s not stated in quite the same terms that we would use), we need to acknowledge it and even applaud. Please follow the link and read Caldwell’s full argument – my paraphrase doesn’t do entire justice to the subtlety of his arguments. He's not saying he's endorsing Obama, or even that he will vote for him. But he is paying him the honor of taking his speech seriously and encouraging his readers to do the same.