You may not know but the rave I had for Sen. Obama’s speech about black fatherhood is not universal. There are some, like Earl here who sees things very differently. To crudely paraphrase his view, he thinks Obama and other pols (and folks like Bill Cosby) don’t emphasize the black families that are working and instead beat up on the ones that aren’t which ends up reinforcing a negative view of things.
I clearly disagree with this, and believe that too much of black America is not sufficiently angered at these things and too ready to blame external factors for them.
But what you shouldn’t do is assume that there aren’t other points of view on this speech and others like it – because there are and you should read them.
It’s interesting to see the different lenses this is viewed with. As I noted in the prior thread, Glenn Sacks sees this similarly, but differently from Prometheus 6. I think he would agree with Earl that this is a problem of America and not Black America, but that the dog whistle being blown is the generalized “bash on fathers”, “bash on deadbeat fathers”
I think it’s a bit of both. I would have preferred to hear Obama call for stronger families in general and a respect for education all around than to hear him just bash deadbeat fathers.
It’s not that there aren’t deadbeat fathers, but there are an awful lot of good fathers of all races that are getting ignored and getting very little support in society.
I’m pretty darn tired and can’t think, but read Sacks on this. As a commenter said in Earl’s comments, it’s not clear that either of you two or Sacks or Qusan is wrong. It’s just different aspects of the coin.
I see Quaker broke your other thread with that Oliphant link.
That is a fair summary of where I got pulled to by the discussion, but my personal issue with the speech is as a political gesture…which is was. This speech was a response to McCain and media challenges to prove he is capable of going against his party, maverick-style.
He adapted Bill Clinton’s Soulja tactic, which was the first successful Democratic response to the Southern Strategy. Politically shrewd…he spoke Democratic orthodoxy, but because Republican rhetoric is exactly the opposite of Democratic orthodoxy on this matter McCain’s people can’t claim he hadn’t bucked the party without upending his own apple cart. And he spoke it to Black folks, which Republicans will cliam is his only constituency…another move McCain can’t touch.
Unfortunately the Soulja Strategy validates rather than eliminates, the Southern Strategy.
It’s the personal, rather than political, tip to which your summary applies. And though my ego is sufficiently shielded that I personally take no damage from it, I don’t want to be like the girls in the club when you ask why are they dancing to that mysogyny…”He ain’t talking about me, it’s them other hoes he’s talking about!”
I honestly don’t think Sen. Obama sought to Sista Soulja anyone. But it’s practically impossible to disprove that. As I pointed out before it’s not a position he pulled out of the blue, and to me the time and place and his newfound weight on such issues sort of dictate – to me – that he would give such a speech.
Obama’s speech was all about calculation and triangulation. And many of us who objected to the speech did not do so because we believe that accentuating the positive will somehow miraculously make the negative vanish. My specific objections to Obama’s speech are as follows: (1) African Americans were not the intended audience; (2) Obama is not running for the presidency of Black America so his public admonitions to black folk should be viewed with a great deal of skepticism by free thinking citizens in a democratic republic because he is, after all, a politician; (3) It is undeniable that many of the problems that black face in this country are structural in nature and he offered no policy prescriptions to address those issues; (4) the type of speech that Obama should have given is not possible because it would jeopardize his candidacy for the presidency; and, (5) since his own ambition constrains his ability to comprehensively address all of the issues on the table he cannot lead or jump start the discussion.
BTW, Oliver, why haven’t you linked the Oliphant cartoon?
Good to hear you’re open to other points of view on this issue. I thought the speech was just part of Obama’s move to the right since he won the nomination, a way of distracting attention away from the massive harm that the Democrats’ long support of the War on Drugs has done to the black community. But he doesn’t even mention this, the million or so black men in prison, plus the millions on parole or with criminal records that keep them from getting decent jobs. Personally, I don’t see how someone can support their family if they’re in prison. And every time they put another person of color in prison, that breaks up their family, forces their spouse to work more jobs to support the family, and destroys whatever opportunities their kids might have had. And then the kids end up unsupervised, out on the street, and inevitably end up in gangs, doing drugs and getting into trouble, which puts them in prison and perpetuates the cycle. But I guess it’s easier to criticize poor black people than it is to confront the Democrats about the total failure of the War on Drugs, which they’ve have vigorously supported for decades. That would take courage and integrity.
So, if Democrats did call for recgonizing the failures of the War on Drugs and the harms caused Blacks (and others), Republicans would be right there with them? Not that you don’t make some valid points.
It is undeniable that many of the problems that black[s] face in this country are structural in nature and he offered no policy prescriptions to address those issues;
I don’t think it was the time or place for such a discussion. It would have been inappropriate to address such issues.
a way of distracting attention away from the massive harm that the Democrats’ long support of the War on Drugs
Ronald Reagan was a democrat?
“I don’t think it was the time or place for such a discussion. It would have been inappropriate to address such issues.”
It was precisely the time and place. While he admonished personal responsibility, he should have addressed the structural factors and how his platform can alleviate this problem.
“I don’t think it was the time or place for such a discussion. It would have been inappropriate to address such issues.”
Senator Obama is a candidate for the presidency of the United States. I intend to vote for him and I have contributed real money to his campaign and worked as a volunteer on his behalf. If the Fathers’ Day celebration at Apostolic Church was not the appropriate setting for Senator Obama to address policy issues, then it was also the wrong place to chastise and scold black people in general and black men in particular for shirking their parental duties.
The Senator cannot have it both ways. He is not a member of Apostolic Church and I seriously doubt that he would have been given an opportunity to stand in the pulpit and deliver a peroration if he was not running for the presidency. In addition, the folks sitting in the pews that Sunday are presumably handling their affairs as parents. As a guest who was given an opportunity to address the congregation, it is highly unlikely that Senator Obama would have rebuked the congregation in their own church. He was preaching, so to speak, to the choir. So we can plausibly assume that his address was not directly intended for their consumption or enlightenment.
Senator Obama’s speech was intended for an audience that was not at Apostolic and would only be at that church under the most extraordinary circumstances. In short, he was making a political speech. Political speeches that are shorn of any attendant policy prescriptions are so much hot and empty air.
“Ronald Reagan was a democrat?”
This is the same question that many of us have asked again and again about Bill Clinton?
If the Fathers’ Day celebration at Apostolic Church was not the appropriate setting for Senator Obama to address policy issues, then it was also the wrong place to chastise and scold black people in general and black men in particular for shirking their parental duties.
Who says he was singling out black people and black men in particular? I was under the impression that political speeches were verboten in churches, thus jeopardizing their tax-exempt status. That would make it inappropriate to speak about specific policy issues in that setting.
This is the same question that many of us have asked again and again about Bill Clinton?
I don’t know what that means.
“Who says he was singling out black people and black men in particular? I was under the impression that political speeches were verboten in churches, thus jeopardizing their tax-exempt status. That would make it inappropriate to speak about specific policy issues in that setting.”
Political speeches are not forbidden in churches. The church’s minister, for example, can talk about politics until the congregation grows weary or bored, which ever comes first. The minister cannot, at least in theory, urge the congregation to support or oppose a particular candidate or ballot measure. Anytime a candidate for public office speaks in a church that person is making a political speech even if the candidate does not specifically ask for those assembled to cast a vote for her.
“This is the same question that many of us have asked again and again about Bill Clinton?
“I don’t know what that means.”
Bill Clinton signed the legislation that created the false dichotomy between crack and powdered cocaine and the draconian difference in sentencing for the sale and/or possession crack versus powdered forms of the drug.
Ah, I see, on both points.
Indeed, there were times during the big ’90’s when I wasn’t sure which team Bill was playing for.
BTW, apropos something I wrote upthread: I don’t think that Senator Obama had to lay out a program. Equating policy with program is one of the unintended ban consequences of the Clinton years that too many younger Democrats have adopted as if it were holy writ. Policy also entails the articulation of a political line or position, too. This is what many, many of Obama’s critics in the DLC and moderate and conservative wings of the Democratic Party have forgotten. They want to pretend that words are not both a form of action and a call to action.
Duros, my wife often refers to Mr. Clinton as the “Best Republican President ever.”
This especially galls her relatives who think of Mr. Clinton as a far-left liberal.
Well put, Quake.