Let me start by laying my cards on the table. I am a strong, vocal supporter of President Obama, on and off this site. Although I’m not the most prolific poster, my position is clear. I’ve written a book that will come out in about 12 months which, although it offers a serious analysis of his vision of Americanness, makes clear my ultimate assessment of the man.
I think we can all agree that there has been a devolution of the quality of the comments in many of the so-called "pro-Obama" and "anti-Obama" diaries. One of the most serious problematic areas revolves around how the commenters view the question of racism and/or racial politics and how these are reflected (or not) in those who take a position in these diaries.
Please follow me after the jump.
Yesterday, I read Armando's diary about Obama and political positioning: left, center-left, center, etc. Armando has been critical of Obama but always based on substance and with thoughtfulness. I looked forward to his diary and a lively debate in the comments (which numbered well over 1000 when I clicked) about these matters. Almost immediately, the thread shifted into a long discussion about race. Discussing race in a diary about Obama is neither always wrong (as some claim) or always appropriate (as others claim). This dichotomy of absolutes is what I want to address in my diary.
It seems impossible to have a discussion that criticizes Obama without talking about not just race, but the possible racist nature of those criticizing him, either the diarist, or simply "white progressives" in general. There are two possible responses to that fact: 1) Yeah, that’s not fair or, 2) Of course, every discussion about anything involving a black leader--or even anything relating to American politics and society--is always going to be about race.
Let me address number 2. I understand the sentiment. Race is, in some sense, always present. Let's accept that as a given. But it is also true that stating that “every discussion about x is always about y” is not a way to have a dialogue in which both sides truly hear the other. Such a statement is about shutting down opposition, about declaring that one’s position is right “every” time. Even though racial attitudes and prejudices are always relevant, we need another, less totalistic way to approach criticism of Obama.
How then should we discuss criticism of Obama and the racism, possible, potential, partial, whatever, of the critic(s)? Here’s one question to start with: is it possible to be a progressive, non-black (let’s focus there for now) critic of Obama, i.e., someone who thinks his policies aren’t liberal enough (in whatever sense), without having that criticism be motivated by racial prejudice?
If you think the answer is no, that such a person does not exist, then you probably aren't going to find people willing to dialogue on the matter other than those who already agree with you. If you’re ok with that, then fine, but I’d suggest one important purpose of this site is to have a community where people learn from one another and hear each other. If you think you have nothing to learn from those who disagree with you in a respectful way, then that’s where you’re at.
To me, the question to regarding a progressive critic of Obama is a simple one: in reading the criticism, does it appear that the critic would make the exact same criticism of another, non-black politician who was acting exactly the same as Obama has. It’s a simple standard, but I think one that gets to the point.
We don’t have to, and arguably can’t “prove” that any person posting here is “not racist” (whatever that means). But we can ask that any criticism of Obama be about the policies and rhetoric of the President, and only those things. Armando’s diary devolved quickly and unnecessarily (to me), and left the realm of a debate about politics. To be clear, the shift in discussion was not based on any commenter accusing Armando of racism. Check out the thread yourself.
Personally, I think Obama has done a very good job politically and legislatively despite being dealt a bad hand, although he hasn't been perfect (who has?). But, I can also understand the criticisms leveled at him from the left, here and elsewhere, when they are presented in a rational, substantive manner (such as Armando did).
For the sake of preserving the quality of discussion, I would humbly suggest that it is ultimately unhelpful in the cases where a critic makes a substantive argument to bring up the racism of other people (i.e., other than those participating in the diary/comments. And when alleging racism on the part of a participant, I'd strongly suggest doing so always with evidence so that the unfamiliar will see why the matter is being brought up).
The flip side, something that is equally important (and I apologize for not giving it as much attention--but that is because it is so absurd as to not require much to demolish the idea) is that it is also out of bounds to suggest that some kind of racial solidarity is always behind those (who may be perceived as black by other Kossacks) who vociferously support Obama without serious evidence. (UPDATED in response to comments): This happens much more rarely than the alternative that is the focus of most of the diary, to be sure.
We need to stop automatically assuming attitudes exist before we have evidence that they do. We need to give each other the benefit of the doubt. And we need to hear each other--at least those of us who speak respectfully to one another--in dialogues, something we cannot do once we've injected what amounts to fighting words in cases where it isn't called for (and sometimes, fighting words are called for). We are, after all, presumably working toward the same goal, namely moving this country in the right direction, toward more progressive policies. I hope you found this diary productive.