It wasn’t too long ago that Geraldine Ferraro made her infamous comment theorizing that “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position.” Her sentiment that his race conferred advantages to him was reinforced by the writings of Shelby Steele. In his book on Obama, Steele suggests that Obama is a “bargainer.” Here is how Steele describes a bargainer:
Bargaining is a mask that blacks can wear in the American mainstream, one that enables them to put whites at their ease. This mask diffuses the anxiety that goes along with being white in a multiracial society. Bargainers make the subliminal promise to whites not to shame them with America’s history of racism, on the condition that they will not hold the bargainer’s race against him.
Here’s a good synopsis of Steele’s argument on NPR.
According to Steele, this perceived ability Obama has to absolve whites of past racial sins, makes him a particularly attractive candidate to many:
For many Americans — black and white — Barack Obama is simply too good (and too rare) an opportunity to pass up. For whites, here is the opportunity to document their deliverance from the shames of their forbearers. And for blacks, here is the chance to document the end of inferiority.
Steele’s book title points to a downfall in a bargainer’s campaign:
bargainers have an Achilles heel. They succeed as conduits of white innocence only as long as they are largely invisible as complex human beings. They hope to become icons that can be identified with rather than seen, and their individual complexity gets in the way of this. So bargainers are always laboring to stay invisible. (We don’t know the real politics or convictions of Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan or Oprah Winfrey, bargainers all.)
Steele’s presumption that as the public got to know Obama, he would be exposed as the complex product of his mixed-race background that he is and his public support would fall. A look at the latest Gallup tracking poll 4 weeks out has Obama with an 11 point lead over Mccain. Why hasn’t it happened? Is Steele wrong? Has Obama had to hide his complexity to win? He has displayed a plodding, yet disciplined and effective, blandness since capturing the democratic nomination.
Steele also argues in the NPR interview that he can only win if he clearly specifies “who he is.” has he done so? You notice that “change” has largely been absent from recent Obama speeches? Has he become somewhat wonkish and more specific to address criticisms that he is merely an empty vessel of change? has the financial crisis eclipsed the main thesis of Steele’s book?
Comments 46
Khoa Nguyen — October 9, 2008
In my opinion, there is so much conflict in Dr. Steele's idea. He admits that Obama is a talented politician, yet he suggests that if Obama does not show his real self, he won't go any further. That is like graduating with an "A" in every subject does not necessarily mean you will have a good job. Ok, I admit that my analogy is kind of funny, but that's how I feel about the idea. It is debatable, of course. Being a good president or not depends a lot on what is around him, not just Obama's real self. Obama has gone this far because he knows how to twist and how to see the clicks and the changes of the society. I assume that that talent of seeing the society the way it is will keep going.
Moreover, this is an era when everything is changing and you just cannot stand again the current. If there hasn't been a 9-11 attack, there won't be an Iraq war. How can Dr. Steele expect Obama to be specific about what changes he will make to the society when there is still a current of change going on? How can he be specific about tactics, strategies or goals in a jelly-like society like this. It's just like a piece of clay, you might have a vague idea what you want to make out of it, but as you go on, you will have to adjust yourself.
Finally, Claude Steele, Shelby Steele's twin. I assume that Dr. Claude Steele would have the same point of view as Shelby Steele since they are raised in the same environment, same parents and go to the same school. However, apparently, they have different points of view about that same subject, which might be the reason why Mr. Shelby Steele refused to talk about it in the npr interview.
Don Waisanen — October 10, 2008
After watching the town-hall debate this week (part of which included my throwing multiple spare pens lying around the house at the television set), I have been stumped as to why neither Obama nor McCain appeared to make much effort to “break through the clutter” in this forum. It seemed the perfect opportunity (think Clinton’s performance in ’92) to illustrate one’s emotional and intellectual intelligence, and ability to adapt to an audience. I have been struggling to make sense of Obama’s blandness in that debate. It might be an effective rhetorical strategy to ride out his current wave of support, steering a path of moderation in the coming weeks as the media thirsts for something, just anything that might fit into the dramatic structures which unthinkingly guide their coverage.
But in general, I’ve noticed that when both candidates (apparently) break off the script a bit a) McCain resorts to clichés (maverick, I’m no Ms. Congeniality etc.) that tells us nothing new (i.e. there’s no fresh language he’s inventing to surprise us, to make us sit up and want to hear more), and b) Obama has used little tonal or ideational variation in his debating—a big break from, say, his DNC speech in 2004, that captured our attention through soaring rhetorical turns and emphases.
Perhaps the possibility for parody to reconfigure (or simply re-enact) whatever any politician might say or do have never been greater than in this age (Tina Fey’s Palin sketch is now the most watched viral video ever!), so much so that the political advisors are urging Obama and McCain to drain their language of all vividness, their actions of all spontaneity, and ride the polls as much can be in the coming weeks?
Don Waisanen
Kenneth M. Kambara — October 10, 2008
Hmmmm. Compelling stuff here. This reminded me of Jacques Derrida's lectures on the impossibility of forgiveness, i.e., the impossibility of forgiving American cultural transgressions on par with mortal sins through history. Can you forgive the unforgivable? There are all sorts of ruptures with respect to who has "standing" to forgive and accept, let alone the meanings of mediated actions such as amnesty or reparations. If we use a Steele framework, there seems to be the use of guilt and liberation (the latter I haven't discussed) as central themes of the logic, although the "end of inferiority" is a blanket statement that seems like a stretch.
I guess I'm not buying it. Assuaging guilt? Maybe for white liberals, at best. I don't think American cultural consciousness works this way, due to the cult of the individual...not to mention that history and legacy are perishable. The liberatory aspects of the Obama meaning system has more traction in the current zeitgeist, across demographics, but I think that has to do with identity and aspirational attitudes.
I think Don is on to something with the campaigns erring on the sides of caution, due to fear of ridicule and (re)framing. I think Obama had the most to lose and I'd surmise that the "change" rhetoric has been bandied about by both sides that it has no meaning and fades to clutter and perhaps even drifts into being an annoyance.
I wonder who is more nervous about looking bad, given the current polls. John McCain or the the guy who wrote a book last year titled, A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win.
neelix — October 10, 2008
I think Obama and his experiences have shaped the way he thinks in terms of being more "rounded" rather than falling into this one sided, racial identity. Obamas' experiences in his church with Jeremiah Wrights' "challenger" philosophy and his "anti-American outrage" and then his experiences with his white mother, of whom cannot even attend his church due to feeling uncomfortable, have only paved the way for his understanding of two different worlds and in an attempt to join a racially separated nation, he runs for president using this understanding, not "manipulating and bargaining". Thats why he has continued to be at the top of the polls.
I think Obama has started to show, "who he is" and "what he stands for" and has given specifics as to change and hope in the recent debates with McCain. After the primaries he has stepped out shown his identity, of which is the same as before in beliefs, and which in my opinion is not of the bargaining and manipulating mind set. In my opinion, Obama is merely addressing different issues, such as the financial crisis, than focusing on using the word "change". Instead he is describing and focusing on explaining how he will make this "change", but he no longer needs to catch peoples attention. Now that he has it he needs to satisfy the peoples want to "know how".
Edward Bedigian — October 10, 2008
I strongly disagree with Steele on this matter. If Obama truly was going to be affected by not showing us who he really is, I feel it would have happened way before he was nominated the democratic candidate. But that does not mean I do not agree with what Steele is saying. Months ago Obama’s pastor was show on ever station with his strong and racial driven sermons. Obama has been going to this particularly church for 20 years, so for him to say that he does not agree with what his pastor is saying does not sit right with me. Why did he wait so long to distant himself from his church life? In a way I feel Obama is trying to connect with the black community because he truly does not know what he wants to be classified in today’s world. I feel this is related to his childhood experience being raised my a white mother but have black skin.
Erin Kim — October 10, 2008
I feel as though Dr. Steele's belief that Obama cannot win the election
because he does not know who he is and has failed to tell us who he is as well as what he means by change, is a ridiculous reason for Obama not win the election. If this were true, wouldn't Obama not be leading by 11% in the poles? Or would he have come this far if this were true?
But what does Steele exactly mean by his statement when he claims Obama hasn't told us who he is? Has McCain told the people who he is? However, I think when someone proclaims change they themselves don't have exactly specific situations that they are aware of that will be "change" until it happens. Maybe Obama does not want to specify
the changes he might bring to the table before they happen for the fear of disappointing us. I think Steele is wrong by saying that Obama cannot win until he admits who he "is."
Yeraldy — October 12, 2008
Change has not been a big word in Obama's speeches anymore. Perhaps he is moving in a direction of speaking of things that he can define more clearly. Things such as race and his use of the words "change" and "hope" have been absent not only from his speeches but from presenters of his speeches and such. For example, when he was presented at the Democratic National Convention they did not fail to mention the words "'first black candidate" and this same phrase in several words. It was used with such emphasis but I have not heard it so much. Has he been doing better in the polls now that he has changed his word choice?
The financial crisis is a theme Obama needs to touch on now that it is such a phenomenon. Perhaps Steele is still right that he is not touching on race but he is addressing the problem. I know that this entire nation is not post-racial yet but Steele is not completely right in that Obama does not mention race anymore because he is a bargainer. It is best Obama not use race as such a large factor in who wins the race because people are not going to vote for him because he is black but because they see an effective leader that can take the U.S in a different direction from where it has been in the past 8 years. Perhaps for some Obama does fit the role of a bargainer but for a big part of society he is just a man that might become the next President.
Sammi — October 12, 2008
Dr. Steele argued that Obama will only win if he shows the "who he is." I agree to a certain extent, because the people support who and what they know and what similarities they share with the candidate. I think Obama has shown what he believes and what he can do to attempt to improve the country from the dumb that it is in now. I don't really know what, if any, changes Obama will bring from his presidency, but from what he has said, he wants to better the things that matter, and help the ones in need.
*I don't really understand the rest :/ *
michael azhocar — October 12, 2008
I would also have to agree with Dr. Steel. Obama is something new and fresh to our nation but in order to earn the respect of the american people they have to know what hes all about. We know that he stands for change but what kind of change? I think he has stoped useing change as a the main source of his campain because people already know that he is a change from what were use to in. The only way he is going to become the president of the United States is if he does take on that role of a "Bargainer". He needs to make the voters feel that he is the best choice and like Steele mentioned wont though is race in their faces and use it to make our nation feel gulity for the past of slavery and discrimination. If he can prove that he will bring about this "change" he claims to make without useing his race as the manye factor he will have no problem winning the election. But until he can do that he will always been see as the candidate who tired to use his race in order to get him into office.
I bet most of us dont know the real Brock Obama because all we see is his race we dont really no the real canidate Obama. So if he was a white man i cant really say he wouldnt be where he is today because i dont no no one does but i do believe his race has aloowed him to get to the postion that he is in.
Cameron Chandler — October 12, 2008
Obama, up to this point, has not revealed any of himself. Who he REALLY is, is completely hidden behind clouds of political bullshit and mudslinging. This is not to say that the other campaign has not been doing the EXACT same thing, but they do reveal more of whom the candidate is and make everyone realize that he is a clone of, only slightly worse than, the one that has been in office the past eight years. What I mean to say, I think, is that if Obama were to reveal more about himself he would be loosing support, would he still have support among the hard left? Yes, but the people on the fence whom were leaning towards voting for him because they hoped that he might be different, that he might, just might, bring change, may go back to sitting on the center of the fence, or even better, not vote at all. To answer the question why hasn't it happened, it hasn't happened because pollsters only sample a certain amount of people, and people lie, that is one thing that is almost always constant. The people whom were polled may change their vote, or they may have just said that they were voting for Obama to seem like they can support someone of another race.
Deanna — October 12, 2008
Obama having an 11 point lead over McCain obviously shows that what he is doing is working for him. I think that if he showed "who he is" this could work negatively or positively for him. People may feel more of a connection to him if he shows more of himself but they also may not like what they hear. To some extent, Obama has to be a bargainer to be accepted by some Americans. Racism still exists in our society and people will still judge Obama based on it. Obama hasn't included race in his speeches because he is trying to get past the race factor; race may have given him the nomination but other factors are needed for him to become president.
Change may be absent from his speeches but that doesn't mean he doesn't believe in it anymore. In recent speeches, Obama addresses the criticisms from the other nominates to assure voters that what is being said isn't true. Obama has to keep others believing in him and what he says. The financial crisis is a major issue right now and needs to be addressed. People want to know how he would deal with the issue and his thoughts on it. People want to be sure that when in crisis he will be able to make the right decisions.
Jessica — October 12, 2008
I believe that Steele has very intricate yet hypocritical ideas. He compliments Obama for being "too good an opportunity to pass up". Initially he says that many Americans want to vote for Obama, because they are interested in his potential. However, he then classifies him as a bargainer. Steele argues that Obama would not be liked among the American people if we had the opportunity to meet the 'real' him. He equates Obama to other black bargainers such as Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan and Oprah Winfrey. Other black bargainers can afford to remain silent on their political views. However, Obama cannot do this because his entire success is based on his political views. It has been debated that the reason Obama has gotten so far is because he has continued to keep quiet about whom he 'really is'. I do not believe that Obama has given America enough background information to make Americans feel secure. Many people in the United States are questioning whether Obama is fit for this presidential decision simply because they do not know enough about him. I do not believe that Obama has successfully said who 'he is'. In the early stages of the election Obama continuously talked about the change that needed to occur in America. However, recently he has been very vague about the concept of change making him appear to be an empty vessel. The financial crisis is a major issue right now and it is imperative that Obama addresses his views on this issue. People want to feel secure about their finances when choosing their president, and Obama does not seem to have enough concrete ideas on this subject.
Jon-Erik — October 12, 2008
It is interesting to imagine what this presidential race would like if Obama was white. Would he be so appealing, would people still say the same things about him? I think so. Even if Obama was white, he would still be the amazing speaker that he is today. Something that does worry me a little is that if Obama does become the next President many will believe that inequalities and injustices because of race in America would now be gone because the United States has progressed enough to elect a Black man. This would not be true. Don’t get me wrong, this definitely proves that the United States is moving in the right direction but I don’t want everyone to think that now everything is racially equal now. Change will take place over time, not over night by electing a Black man.
derek martinez — October 12, 2008
Would the meaning of the word "change" be a big difference if it would be a white candiate saying instead of a black one. Obama is uses the word change because it will be a change for this nation to have a black president. but when people say his change is bad is it because he a black man running for president or it is just the views Obama has for this nation. No matter what president we have theirs going to be change involved. the question is do the people consider the way Obama uses change as a negative thing cause hes black?
Ryan Cota — October 12, 2008
The 2008 Presidential election has shown us a new politics that has left many voters in a standstill: the politics of race. Is it fair to say that "if Obama were a white man, he would not be in this position?" Is he not as much white as he is black? Geraldine Ferraro's quote is mirrored by Shelby Steele through his stance that Obama is a "bargainer." As a bargainer, Obama fosters the need for white innocence. Having Obama as President would justify that Americans have transcended the racist notions of their ancestors and are ready for "change."
Voters though, look for something real and tangible, not theoretical. Few people know much about Obama, and those who claim they do are sometimes misinformed. We know that he is the agent of "hope and change," but until recently, the average American did not know how "change" would manifest itself. We see in the recent debates that Obama is starting to bring back his mantra of change in relation to the economy. Obama knows that the majority of voters do not want another eight years of a George Bush Presidency that he feels John McCain will bring to the White House. Obama, in capturing the minds of these voters, has slightly relieved himself of unnecessary pressure. Instead of explaining who he is, he is able to focus on more important political and economic issues.
As Obama will come to answer the questions of who he is, we will find out if Steele's contention is true. Will the prediction of a 2-4% Bradley effect in battleground states like Ohio come about? Has Obama's reputation been affected by black "challengers" who have made their political stance known (Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Jeremiah Wright)? Will there be a reverse Bradley effect in states like North Carolina and Virginia, showing that much has changed in the 25 years since the California Gubernatorial?.....November 4th will hold the answer.
Irmelin Amundsen — October 12, 2008
I found it noticeable that Dr. Steele mentions Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan when listing bargainers. How can you possibly use skin color as an advantage in sports? How did they bargain their way to their success? In their cases I strongly believe that they ended up successfully due to talent. Claiming that Obama does not show his true self, why compare with people in industries (such as sports) where opinion and personality is not even a critical factor?
What is your opinion on this?
Tyler Lee — October 13, 2008
I think it would have been interesting to see Obama's approval rating if he had kept pursuing the topic of change and using race in his campaign. Obama has recently avoided using the "Change" campaign to the extent he did in the primaries. He also hasn't used race too often in his speeches. I think it was necessary for him to use "change" to get the nomination, but now people already know he wants change so they would get tired of hearing it over and over if he kept emphasizing it. He needed something to separate himself from the other democratic candidates. This separation fact was race and his "hope" for "progress". Now that he has come out on top, he doesn't need that separating factor. He does occasionally throw in his background like during the town hall debate when he said where he came from and his past but I think this is just to remind people he is different and to remind people that America should be ready to change into this multicultural society that accepts a president who is of a different color than the previous.
Noelle — October 13, 2008
I'm not quite sure that Obama would have the same attention and uproar if he were a white man. I think there is something attractive about a candidate who is of a different race.There is something appealing about change--it's something different than any previous election. I do think that Obama may be more identifiable if he were more clear in specifying the change he is referring to. However, I don't think that him not clarifying this change is going to prevent him from winning. If that were the case, he wouldn't be up in the polls or have made it this far. Obama has not been speaking of change as much lately, and I think he might be trying to take another approach or offer people a different side that they haven't seen yet. I think him winning the election is not going to absolve whites of their racial history. I think it might be a step in the right direction, but one person cannot change the minds of a multitude. Just because Obama wins, people are not going to just forget the injustices that whites have caused.
Wilson Reuter — October 13, 2008
Regardless of whether Obama decides to show us "who he really is" will not have any impact on his run to presidency. I say that because Obama represents something so much bigger than just a new president. He represents progress. So many Americans are voting for him simply because he is black and brings change, not based on his political stances. Besides, everyone has different opinios about people and think they know "who they are". For example, I think I know who President Bush really is. I think he is an idiot who makes awful decisions, and is far from a competent President. However, if you ask a texas republican that same question, there response would differ greatly. So my point is that people draw there own opinions on things whether they are right or not.
Maria S. — October 13, 2008
As Geraldine Ferraro mentioned that if Obama was a white man, perhaps he won’t be in the same position he is in today. This statement isn’t a sure thing, if you see the generation we are living in, its very diverse and open to new things race becomes an advantage. Analyzing the presidency of Bush, many people don’t want our nation to follow the same foot steps and perhaps that’s why Obama is doing so well in the election. The race card doesn’t have to be thrown all the time, maybe the people just like Obama because he is very appealing and a well speaker. “Change” has become absent from his speeches, Obama may not refer to change for the fact that it is a sure thing that if he is president there is going to be a change whether it’s McCain or him. Race really doesn’t have to do with the election because based on polls from the white states Obama is doing the same or worse than McCain.
Chloe C — October 13, 2008
As the election has moved into a more serious time Obama has moved past his "Change" that was once all America heard. It seems that he is now in the area of trying to show himself and what he stands for more then just promising a new change. When Steele talks about Obama having to stay invisible I would have to disagree with this in some ways. I feel that Obama got more support when he went past his "Change" and began to become visible to individual people. It is hard for anyone to know completely who they are but it seems that Obama is now working harder to get the public to see more of who he is so if ever in office the people will know what to expect. McCain does have the benefits of experience that Obama is having to get past race to show that he will be fine without this life experience that McCain has.
Alex P. — October 13, 2008
The statement made by Geraldine Ferraro about Obama's position if he were a white man is not entirely true. I do agree that if he were white, people would not pay nearly as much attention to him. Many people tend to pay closer attention to things that are different and do not reflect that past, rather than those that are repetitive. Although I do not believe that all the attention is focused on him because of his race. I feel that many Americans want to see a democrat in office because they feel it is time for a change and they do not agree with the Bush Administration's actions over that past eight years. I think that Obama has a lot of voters already, but won over many more with his race. He represents change which is what many citizens believe America needs right now.
Kristiann Lopez — October 13, 2008
I think it is an interesting idea to think about whether people would be saying the same thing about Obama were he white. I'm confused as to why people feel that he hasn't shown us who he is. Just because he hasn't talked about race very often doesn't mean we can't see who he is. Race is such a small part of a of a person's identity. Also Obama isn't fully black, he was raised by a white mother and grandparents so that is part of his identity also, but when that is brought up black find that he is not "black enough".
Obama has shown us his point of view on many issues and we can see how he has voted in the past. Isn't that the part of who he is that matters the most. He did use the words change and hope quite frequently during the primary, but that was necessary to get peoples attention. He was relatively unknown and people needed to see that he would make a big impact if he was elected as president. Now that people know that he has big ideas he doesn't need to say those things anymore. He needs to tell us specifically what he stands for and how he will accomplish then.
The next step is to see how the country reacts as whole if he is elected or if he isn't elected. Both could have positive and negative reactions.
Eric Lee — October 13, 2008
Geraldine Ferraro claims that Obama would not be where he is today if he were a white man. While this is true to an extent, it covers the minimal reason to why he has had this road of success in front of him. People have thrown the race card too frequently that it instead of being a plausible argument, it has slowly become another ignored fact. It could be that some people want change, and Obama, regardless of his skin color, wants change to. Steele claims that athletes like Tiger Woods and Jordan are also bargainers. How do they bargain in sports? Most people enjoy sports for solely the purpose of entertainment regardless of what race is playing.
greg r. — October 13, 2008
Race has played a role in getting Obama to where he is today. It has made the media pay attention. The extra media attention that Obama received gave him a better chance in political campaigns.
Katelyn — October 13, 2008
I think that it would be different if Obama was white. I don't think that he would be getting as much attention. More people are interested in this election because so many changes are occurring. I don't think that it is that big of a deal if we find out who Obama "really is." We don't know too much about McCain either, but it should be more about who is the right candidate for the job. We don't know to know every single thing about them. I think Obama has such a good lead becasue he is the right candidate, whether he is black or not. Our country is slowly changing and becoming more diverse, and I think if Obama winning can definitely contribute to this.
Zach — October 13, 2008
I think that Obama doesn't have to show who he really is to win. But that all depends on how you view the race between the two candidates. If you view it from a strictly position standpoint you will vote for who you believe to be right in your own opinion. Then if you take in the factor of race there may be a struggle to win the election. I'm not sure where the country stands as a whole as to how they are voting. I'd hope that they vote for the candidate that they agree with. it seems so far that Obama won't have to show his "true" self to the public, but if it does come to that i hope people try to look at it in a good light and that his background wont affect the outcome too much.
Forrest Hunt — October 13, 2008
Looking at the evidence, I think Steele's argument has some validity. Historically, we have never seen an African-American candidate be so successful this late in the campaign process and this close to election (remeber Jesse Jackson). I do indeed agree that Obama has changed his appearance (not actual, but what he presents with his words at debates especially) and changed his message from "change" to more specifics. However, I'm not naive to the fact that we have experienced a significant financial crisis, the biggest single-day loss in the stock market since the collapse in 1929. I believe this insecurity regarding the financial market has really been attributed to the Bush administration and their bailout plan has many people seeking other alternatives. I think that people are worried about where we are economically and people have more faith that Obama can fix it over McCain. It could be resentment over Bush and the bad "name" he has given to Conservative Republicans or that Obama has seemed more relaxed, more clear and overall more "trustworthy" in his appearances at the debate over McCain.
Briana Aleman — October 13, 2008
Not only are some blacks voting for Obama because of their shared skin color, but whites too are taking advantage of 'bargaining' by accepting the socially constructed promise that their transgressions against african-americans in the past will be forgiven. Obama takes the anxiety of being labeled a racist from whites, almost making them feel superior to whites who do not support him. Obama's campaign is based on empty promises of change and deviation from the last eight years. To try to appeal to both races, Obama repeatedly makes it known that his mother is white and his father black, again he is trying to use racial bargaining in his campaign as an advantage over the other candidate, McCain.
Teresa Salazar — October 13, 2008
I believe race is playing and is going to place a big factor, even if Obama didnt want it to just because its there, never before we had someone like him so close to actually winning for president. I believe steele is in a big conflic with her examples about his bargainers, Oprah has clearly shown her support for Obama, that has to account for showing politics and convictions. I also think that there is always a feature of any particular candidate that is magnified, n which the popularity revolves around, and leads to oversee the important characters of the candidate that actually qualify them for the job. Lets just look at our governator, if he hadnt been terminator he wouldnt be where he is. Steele is also taking away merits that Obama also might have and that people that are actually are into politics may have seen in him as a candidate, he might not have years of "experience" that Mckain might have but it shouldnt take away from knowlege. To have been in politics for a long period doesnt make be qualify for it, it might just mean that they might have been good are persuading people to keep them in. I personally believe that Obama has brought to the table good points, for instance that the party in power, which is the same as his oponent, clearly has no our best option just look at our situation, why would we wanna keep them in power, they share the same ideals, and positions they are from the same party, so OBama would be a new take, a new perspective because he comes from a another set of perspectives and ideals. If we have tried with what we have for eight years and clearly hasnt been working why not go with something different, who might along look also look different, but to me thats just an added bonus.
Paul D — October 13, 2008
It would be very interesting to be able to see what this presidential election would entail if Obama was Caucasian. Although it may decrease the tension of the election I do not believe that it would change the outcome. Obama relies heavily on his ability to persuade people through his words. This ability is not race related but more of an attribute to his persona. Obama's lack of experience is what is driving a majority of skeptics. This fact is not subject to race but of his employment career. Although Steele makes a compelling argument that may hint at some truth I do not believe that Obama being white would alter the results.
Kendra Carter — October 13, 2008
I think Obama has specified who he is. However, he seems to be more focused on himself rather than the issues. He expands more on difficulties faced as a result of having a white mother and black father than what he expects to do as president. It seems as if there's more concern about his family and what magazine cover they're on than his politics While there is more emphasis on his past, where is his explanation about the present and future? His level of experience can be factored into the equation, but the bottom line is that there's a greater focus on his personality than platform.
Obama is less inclined to incorporate change in his speech becauser there are more detrimental issues at hand. The financial crisis is a major factor that needs immediate attention. It surpases any other concern and whether he ignores it or not, he will be criticized.
Kjrstin — October 13, 2008
I agree with Steele in the idea that Obama began as a bargainer, but as the election presses on I feel he is letting the public get to know him, and I think that it is helping him, not harming him.
As for Geraldine Ferraro's comment that he would not be in this position if he were white... well of course he wouldnt! I whole heartedly agree with that.
But I think in a lot of ways race is playing a positive part in Obama's campaign. People are excited about him because he is different, young, something new. People are excited too because it would be a first in our history, and a chance to absolve our shameful past in some ways, as Steele said. Obama represents so much more then just his own personal views. For many people, he is a symbol of the "change" our country needs to make.
Juan — October 13, 2008
I agree to an extend that many whites feel attracted to Obama because of the idea of electing a black president. but i do not necessarily think that this is because he presents himself as a bargainer or because some whites might see him as this, what i don't like about the idea is that it sounds as if he was managing a business instead of running a campaign and he is exchanging votes for "redemption" from the idea that this nation has a racist heritage and must do something prove that those days of racism are a thing of the past. in reality i think he is more concerned with expanding his campaign to a wider audience of voters and presenting himself better to put to silence those who say that they do not really know who he is or what he stands for.
Danika Briggs — October 13, 2008
According to the latest Gallup tracking poll 4 weeks out has Obama with an 11 point lead over Mccain. Steele believes that Obama's public support would fall after exposing his mixed race, but that obviously has not happened. Maybe it has something to do with the contradicting statement that Steele himself made, "For many Americans — black and white — Barack Obama is simply too good (and too rare) an opportunity to pass up. For whites, here is the opportunity to document their deliverance from the shames of their forbearers. And for blacks, here is the chance to document the end of inferiority." Doesn't that make sense to why Obama's public support has not fallen?
I do not believe that Obama is hiding anything as far as his race is concerned, everyone knows he has a black father and a white mother and that is just part of "who he is." What else is needed to be known about "who he is" in order for him to win? I'm not sure if I exactly understand. Has McCain answered the "who are you?" question in order to win the election? I'm not sure if people can even have an exact understanding of anyone else, let alone someone such as a presidential candidate whom they have most likely never even talked to. If voters are worried about who Obama is rather than what he is planning to do for our country like Steele assumes, maybe we should just have him tell us his whole life story and see where that gets us.
Tadd Ekstrand — October 13, 2008
I don't think that obama has not clearly specified who he really is. There is still a lot of questions out there regarding what he stands for and what "change" really means. I don't think he is using the word "change" as much is because people have realized that he is saying that but has nothing to back it up because when asked what he means about it he trys to answer the question by avoiding it.
Richard Muclahey — October 13, 2008
I disagree in the fact with Steele's first statement in that Obama is just hiding behind a mask it is really hard for someone to run for president but to be black and run for president is a whole other thing because now there is more on his shoulders then any others before him. For Steele's second statement Obama is really good I agree he is and if he was white i think i would be a land slide with him wining the whole thing but he is not so everyone that is racist is so against him even though they are democrat to just like the one youtube video we saw in class and how the lady said she has voted democrat all her life but wont vote for Obama.
trouble — October 14, 2008
I'm amazed to see Steele cited without caveat. Or in fact still paid attention to. The man's a shill. Why is his take on Obama worth a dime?
this from a man who blamed the US' failures in Iraq on whites feeling undeservedly guilty about war because of the collapsed of white imperialism and its subsequent reinterpretation as imperialism (rather than civiliation). From a man who said:
""Racism in the United States today is not significant at all. It is no longer a barrier to advancement of blacks and other minorities in American life at all. It is simply not there. Many, many other things are barriers, but racism is no longer one of them."
he's a tool! and the idea that any politician shows us who they "really are" is laughable too.
Emily — October 14, 2008
I sort of take issue with Steele's claim that Obama's numbers will fall when his complexities show up from his mixed-race background. First of all, Steele assumes that his mixed-race background has automatically caused him to be a complex individual in what Steele indicates is a bad way.
Secondly, I feel that it is too late for anything but a complete train wreck to destroy all of his effective campaigning so far. I mean the election is in about 3 weeks. He would have to completely blow it if he were to lose the vote of his numerous supporters.
I also think that he has definitely decided to back off of the "change" speeches. Since he has been receiving a lot of criticism regarding that it seemed wise to back off. No one likes an empty promise. It is better now for him to start talking specifics regarding what he wants to to if/when he is in office. He needs to talk in absolutes instead of vague promises of better "changes" The country wants to know exactly what the plan is going to be, especially with the economic issues currently plaguing our system.
kelly how — October 14, 2008
I think that Steele's arguments make sense to some extent. it is true that no African American so far in history has made it that far and at the same be so successful and highly regarded in the campaign. I do agree with Steele when he says that if we got to know the real Obama, things might change. Does that make him a bargainer ? maybe it does, but that doesnt have to be the optimal answer. If he is a bargainer, then we might as well say that we all are. We dont always want people to know the real us, to publicly claim our politics of fear that people will judge us. No one is perfect , including Obama. He knows that he reveals his true self, that is completely, people will find flaws. People are judgmental and are finding flaws about him , they are making them up to some extent. I do not beliebve that Obama is hiding anything , he is just being smart. It would have been interesting to watch the election if Obama was white , but that is up to us to let our imagination take the lead.
Jordan Cox — October 15, 2008
After reading Steele's argument, I don't agree with what he was saying. He argues that Obama can't win without clearly specifying "who he is." I believe that Barack Obama has defined who he is as a person. He displays his political ideas and explains his plans with plenty of detail. He has also specified who he is as a person and his background. Change hasn't been absent from his speeches. It has been his motto from the very beginning. It is apart of who he is and has based the ideas off of change. Steele also stated that the reason that Obama is in the position that he is in is because of his race. I think that his race helps the fact that he would be the first African American president. This creates a lot of excitement among the people. I think that race is not only reason why he is in the position that he is in. He is a very strong and powerful public speaker creating the image of a leader. This along with his very influential words spark the interest. I don't agree with the opinions that Steele talks about in his argument.
Grant Berg — October 15, 2008
I think it's interesting to note how much the validity of Steele's argument has changed since the publication of his book (unsurprisingly). Obama's purported blandness has gone from being a point of contention in the earlier stages of his campaign to a somewhat accepted characteristic. This question of "Who is Barack Obama?" has gone unanswered for at least two reasons: firstly, the natural progression of what campaigns discuss changes as the election draws nearer and at three weeks away from the election, the Obama camp has been able to move on to other issues without pulling a non-sequitir; secondly, the economic crisis in America is hounding the attention of the public to the point where trying to answer who a candidate really is seems inappropriate to those who are desperate just to hear a candidate, no matter their background or history, provide a solution to the economics issue. The current situation doesn't vouch for the fruition of Steele's theory.
When it comes to theory itself, there are a few structural problems at hand within it. The assumption that whites are just leaping at the prospect of having their white guilt absolved is not a representative interpretation of the American public. Do the majority of Americans want to sit down and watch a football game with Obama just because they'll feel guilty if they say no? Probably not. Another problem with Steele's theory is that is says that in order for Obama to win, he needs to show the American public "who he is". Yet Steele also claims that once the people of America know who he is they will see his undeniable complexity and be pushed away. This logical progression is a bit ironic. There's some other faults with the perspective of Steele, like the whole idea that Obama has raised his children under the influence of black nationalism. Steele's argument does point out the importance of Obama as a cross-racial unifier but the rest of it just doesn't hold up that well. I think he's really just trying to say that Obama's opinions/identity aren't polarizing enough and in doing so he's denying his supposedly complex self. But really, is Obama as pyscho-analytically garbled as Steele states? It's a question that only Obama will be able to tell, but considering the America public's lack of interest in that question at this point, at the least I don't think he's going to be forced to answer before the election. So long to future profits on Steele's book!
Seth — October 16, 2008
Short but sweet: what an insult. I understand the argument that in order to succeed in a world of white privilege, black people may need to acquire certain skills, but to say that anyone who succeeds (Oprah, Obama) is only able to do so as a bargainer is really undercutting their accomplishments and attributing them to something less praiseworthy.
McKenzie — October 20, 2008
I agree with Steele and his argument. I think that people like Oprah and Obama have acquired such fame because they have been driven by other emotions. They look at their success as a way of proving people wrong and proving themselves to be just as capable as anyone else. To me, it does not matter if Obama is black blue red white green purple.. I could care less. It is a matter of what he stands for and what he believes. He never seems to have an opinion in the first place on anything, he just says the opposite of what McCain says half the time. There may be people who would vote differently is Obama were white, but those kind of people shouldn't be voting in the first place if that's the case.
Thick Culture » Inaugural Thick Culture Podcast — November 12, 2008
[...] Where did Race Go by Jose Marichal (unfortunately the recording cuts out in this middle of our discu... [...]
mwerring — December 2, 2008
People are allowed to make judgements about others,vocally or written - But truly it comes down to your own perceptions and ideas about race, class, ethnicity, and how you were raised. In our generation now color isn't a big deal. I believe there are bigger issues people worry about now, including themselves. I can honestly say that a white woman may stay on the same side of the street if there is a black man walking past her. I guess that's just how I see the world, judge me if you want. =)