Just read an interesting article on the Griot, a website linked to by msnbc.com, and one which takes its name from a word for a storyteller in West Africa who maintains the oral tradition and history of a family or village. (For those in the early and mid 19th century who claimed that Africa had no "history," they willfilly blinded themselves to both written records and to oral histories, but that's an issue for another day. Griots are quite important.)
Anyway, I though what was said there might be useful to people on Daily Kos. Many people here have struggled for the entirety of President Obama's term to criticize policy choices with which they disagreed, and we all have at least one or more (How could we not? No one agrees with each of us all the time and I don't even always agree with myself), and yet to support his re-election.
It's the million dollar question. How do you properly critique the first African-American president as a member of his party, as a member of the black community, or both?
First, how not to do it. Call President Obama "a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats." That was Professor Cornel West, an outspoken critic of the president, who consistently fails to keep his verbal jabs based in policy and fails to offer any viable solutions. The personal flavor of his attacks and the sense that it's clouding his judgment is not something that's easily overlooked.
A second way not to do it is to overstate Obama's so-called mistakes and mislead the public. During the debt ceiling negotiations, progressive groups fundraised off of the claim that President Obama said he is "pushing for benefit cuts in important programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid."
Griot
I understand the last sentence is debateable, but for the most part, President Obama supports those programs. His compromise offers were just that, not preferred policies. It's cool with me to criticize those compromise offers, but I do not believe that Barack Obama seeks to gut any of those programs.
As for Cornel West, he has a place in the conversation, but I do not think he is particularly effective.
Now, the question presented is directed to how African Americans can criticize the first African American president, but I think everyone can learn from the discussion.
The CBC's critiques stand apart. They seem to be the only group or individual thus far to figure out that it is possible to both hold President Obama accountable and give him full throated support. Whether they can turn their efforts into legislative success is dependent upon their colleagues in the House of Representatives.
snip
Their critique is coupled with substance and a piece of legislation on the most important issue of the day: jobs. Instead of slamming Obama for not yet proposing a robust jobs plan, the CBC has proposed their own plan. Instead of proclaiming that Obama isn't doing enough for the unemployed their job fairs are literally finding work for struggling Americans.
snip
For the moment, the CBC appears to understand that the re-election of President Obama is essential to improving the lives of Americans and criticism that damages the office of the president will make him vulnerable next year. A President Obama who limps towards next fall is a scary prospect for all Americans except for the super rich.
Whether they meant to or not, the CBC has created a model for how to critique President Obama as an ally without coming across as a hater and the American people will be better for it.
Griot
There is more, but I can't copy the entire article. It's worth reading and thinking about.
I don't know about you, but I am so tired of the flame wars over Barack Obama here. I'm all for policy discussions and am not afraid to criticize policy choices with which I disagree.
But there must be a better way then we have been going for the last couple years.
Most of us, but not all, are in this boat:
How do you disagree with policy choices, like for example the extension of Bush tax cuts or the focus on deficts over jobs so far this year, but support Barack Obama's re-election?
We've never found a way on Daily Kos that did not devolve into flame wars.
Some will say that any criticism undermines the President. Others may say that the President undermines progressive change. Some flirt with a third party; some would prevent virtually any criticism.
And even the CBC's critcisms were used in the flame wars here, both pro and con, with some attacking the CBC.
But the vast majority of folks who hang out on Daily Kos have none of those positions. They are at various points in between those positions.
Daily Kos is left of center within the Democratic Party. There probably are many here critical of what they see as a more centrist presidency. So the criticism is going to be here. But we don't need personal attacks on the President. I go back to when I was supporting John Edwards in 2007 and I often said that Barack Obama is a decent man. He really is. Decent, good people can make errors. I know, cause I certainly have in my life at times.
Part of it also touches on race. Some view white progressives as creatures of white privilege, if not subtle racism, while others imply (or say) that African Americans can see no wrong in Obama. In my view, neither view accurately portrays the reality of many different people united by wanting progressive outcomes and who identify mostly as Democrats.
The racial issues are difficult. As a white progressive, I know I've been hurt when a few people over the years have implied I was racist or acting out of a white privileged viewpoint. I don't see myself as a racist, although no doubt I have had some white privilege. And I'm sure African Americans are hurt when their views are reduced to skin color or ethnicity. So are stalwart Obama supporters hurt when their beliefs are reduced to a claim they are cultists or Obamabots. (And I certainly used that at least once back in spring 2008, "cultist.")
But I'm actually glad we do have racial discussions here, even if they can be painful to many. Much of America is segregated and many people do not have the discussions we have here. We can grow if we try, if we act with a good heart.
Anyway, I bring the Griot article here for discussion. Some may not like this part, but it's worth discussing:
For the moment, the CBC appears to understand that the re-election of President Obama is essential to improving the lives of Americans and criticism that damages the office of the president will make him vulnerable next year. A President Obama who limps towards next fall is a scary prospect for all Americans except for the super rich.
When we get to 2012, we need to be beyond flame wars. It would be nice to start now.
I have no doubt which side I am on in an Obama v. Perry election.