Preach it, Barack.
Barack Obama celebrated Father’s Day by calling on black fathers, who he said are “missing from too many lives and too many homes,” to become active in raising their children.
art.Black fathers are “missing from too many lives and too many homes,” Barack Obama said Sunday.
“They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it,” the Democratic presidential candidate said Sunday at a largely black church in his hometown.
Reminding the congregation of his firsthand experience growing up without a father, Obama said he was lucky to have loving grandparents who helped his mother. He got support, second chances and scholarships that helped him get an education. Obama’s father left when he was 2.
“A lot of children don’t get those chances. There is no margin for error in their lives,” said Obama, an Illinois senator.
“I resolved many years ago that it was my obligation to break the cycle — that if I could be anything in life, I would be a good father to my girls,” added Obama, whose daughters, Sasha and Malia, and his wife, Michelle, watched from the audience.
He’s already saying these things from a position of authority to people who finally need to hear them. The force will be magnified a thousand fold when he is president.
I’m as intimate as you can get with the subject matter here, and it is so refreshing.
MORE: Contrary to the way this is coming off in the press, this isn’t the first time Sen. Obama has hit this message. In fact, I would cite it as one of the elements contributing to his strength with black voters. To date many of the national black leaders have fallen down on this job.
This is sure to sit well with not only his Democratic base, but also evangelicals considering a Democrat this year. This message should be spread to not only the black community but all Americans.
This man has real stones. He’s not perfect, nobody is, and his own teeming colony of flaws will become apparent to us in due course. But I will take his worst day out of his first term over George Bush’s best in almost 8 years. May he go from strength to strength.
Did you call your dad in Jamaica?
The thing that really annoyed me was that over on Politico.com, there were a lot of people who were really upset about this speech. Not only is it pretty innocuous (”fathers should be good to their kids”) but it’s also the kind of thing that only a black candidate could plausibly say, and that’s a very GOOD thing — a real, tangible benefit that could be had from electing a black president.
I’m still torn about the need for Obama to give a “speech” on black fatherhood, especially in light that he has given these speeches before. What is to be said or gained that has not been said or gained before, who is he speaking to really?
I know my mindset is so BABPC (before a black presidential candidate) but once again, we (meaning “black folk”) have to cater to those who think we are scary-neckrolling-gun-toting-out of wedlock baby having-can only make money selling drugs or jacking folks-only got our jobs through affirmative action-boogah-boogah-boogah! so people will feel comfortable.
it’s so tiring.
“many of the national black leaders have fallen down on this job”
Who, specifically?
By “national black leader” you mean the media- or self-appointed black spokespersons.
What true leader in the black community does not harp on these issues constantly? Most of the ones that I know do, it’s just that they aren’t highlighted on the blogs and in the news. This same message can be heard weekly in the church, the mosque, and from the community activists.
It is all well and good for Obama to speak out on this issue; but let’s not mistake what he is doing here. His speech was more of a message to white america than black america.
” but it’s also the kind of thing that only a black candidate could plausibly say, and that’s a very GOOD thing — a real, tangible benefit that could be had from electing a black president.”
And why might that be? If something is true does that truth change with the color of a man’s skin? Or is a tacit admission of a certain level of hypocrisy?
Bill Cosby and Alvin Pouissant have said the same thing to Black America. The truth simply “is”, whether pretty or ugly.
Obama’s message might reach the offending population. I am certainly comforted by this overt expression of a value that applies to the total population.
His speech was more of a message to white america than black america.
Disagree. IT is a message to ALL Americans; specifically American men. More specifically deadbeat American men.
And why might that be? If something is true does that truth change with the color of a man’s skin? Or is a tacit admission of a certain level of hypocrisy?
In a perfect world, we consider and evaluate the information only, and not the source. But in this one, if we are to be criticised, we prefer it to be from one who we feel can empathize. I can tell you ‘war sucks’ but in the end it means a bit more coming from the marine off his third tour.
What true leader in the black community does not harp on these issues constantly? Most of the ones that I know do, it’s just that they aren’t highlighted on the blogs and in the news. This same message can be heard weekly in the church, the mosque, and from the community activists.
Yes, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say that Sen. Obama is the most broadly appealing black leader, perhaps in history. Maybe the point is not original with him, but so what?
Disagree. IT is a message to ALL Americans; specifically American men. More specifically deadbeat American men.
Wholeheartedly agreed. I don’t recall any mention of race at all in the speech, but I only had half an ear toward it so it could have been there. In any case it’s an important message to any and all, regardless of for whom it was intended.
This was an entirely political message. This speech tells white voters that he’s not all about welfare and support for unwed mothers. It’s a message that says: I’m not going to tax away the wages of “hard-working Americans, uh, white Americans” and give the money to you-know-who.
Politically, I think it works for him. This speech will put the minds of some white voters at ease. The speech will make some black voters angry, but Mr. Obama will not lose them because of this.
Most importantly, there is nothing the McCain camp can say in reply that won’t sound stupid and upset everyone.
This was an entirely political message. This speech tells white voters that he’s not all about welfare and support for unwed mothers.
I’m going to disagree with your use of the word “entirely.” I believe Obama had some personal, emotional stake going on as well, although I will concede that the speech was probably vetted and considered in terms of political impact, as well.
To say it was “entirely” political sounds cynical. But I believe he felt it was important to deliver a speech on this matter even if it wouldn’t help his campaign.
The speech will make some black voters angry, but Mr. Obama will not lose them because of this.
Clearly, the intent would be to make SOME VOTERS ashamed of themselves and try to be better men.
To say it was “entirely” political sounds cynical.
Quaker seems to have been rocking the cynicism pretty hard the last couple o’ months. But it can’t be easy.
I heard the address, and it was solid, but The Right will pick apart nuggets and YouTube them as Black Nationalist or hypercritical of Black families. Given his recent church woes, don’t know if it was well-advised.
He is uniquely positioned to warn parents about the dangers of absent fathers. After all, if fathers are not involved in rearing their children, they could grow up to be politicians!
To say it was “entirely” political sounds cynical. But I believe he felt it was important to deliver a speech on this matter even if it wouldn’t help his campaign.
Whether it was political at all (in a season where neither he nor Sen. McCain will use the john without having the political implications analyzed) or vetted by aides (I wouldn’t be surprised if aides vet which john he uses) is for me irrespective of the fact that it was a solid message that will hopefully hit home for a few layabouts and n’er-do-wells (of any ethnicity) and get them back into their kids’ lives.
In other words, it’s all politics at this point, isn’t it? And if it is, does that render the message somehow less worthy? I say no, not at all.
Given his recent church woes, don’t know if it was well-advised.
Maybe, but who wants a candidate that consistently lets his opponents set the tone? Better to have a politican that exercises a little courage, not only critising part of his likely voting base but also not being so timid as to fear opening up his flank for a little misquoting.
In other words, it’s all politics at this point, isn’t it? And if it is, does that render the message somehow less worthy? I say no, not at all.
When you put it that way, sure, but I was taking Quaker’s comment to be that the speech was designed specifically for its political benefits–that is, it was a pander. I think Obama believes what he says in this speech.
I guess what bugs me most is the supposed “courageousness” of it. There’s no courage involved here. It’s the equivalent of beating up your little brother to show the neighborhood bully how tough you are.
There’s no courage involved here.
Why does there have to be? Didn’t Cosby already blaze that trail? Again, Barack has a more authentic perspective on this issue, so why would it have to appear to be courageous?
I see it more as the equivalent of him saying, “You know, I wish my father had been around more so I could better identify with this Father’s Day business. If you’re a father, you should be around more.”
Well, any labels of “courageousness” are the product of others’ perception, not of his actions…Obama didn’t get up to the pulpit and say “I’m about to say something courageous, here.”
I was always annoyed by people who referred to the performances in Brokeback Mountain as “brave” solely because Ledger and Gyllenhaal simulated sex with each other. (How “brave” can it be, really? Better question; how much “braver” is it than a man and a woman doing the same scene?)
Such things are only “brave” to somebody who doesn’t have the spine to do it themselves.
I think it’s a great message, and I think it needs to be said repeatedly until it gets through everybody’s skull. But you won’t count me amongst those who will say it’s “courageous.”
“I see it more as the equivalent of him saying, ‘You know, I wish my father had been around more so I could better identify with this Father’s Day business. If you’re a father, you should be around more.’”
Really? In the middle of running for President, he just took time out for some off-the-cuff remarks about fatherhood and the shortcomings of black fathers in particular?
Perhaps my cynicism is running rampant, but I suspect he measured the effect of his words on the campaign before he made the speech. Given that, one may well judge his message.
I guess what bugs me most is the supposed “courageousness” of it.
But you won’t count me amongst those who will say it’s “courageous.”
Fair enough. I think it’s at least a little courageous to say something that might be perceived as an insult by a portion of your probable electoral base. It’d be like Sen. McCain going out and saying “you know, all these pro-war Iran-hawk Republicans need to stop with all this ‘defeatocrat’ and ‘appeasement’ bull. Treat your ideological opponent with the respect he deserves, or shut your piehole.”
In the middle of running for President, he just took time out for some off-the-cuff remarks about fatherhood and the shortcomings of black fathers in particular?
He was also attending a new church after leaving Trinity. He was asked to speak on Father’s Day, so he did so, and as it was Father’s Day, he spoke on fathers.
What would have been really bizarre would have been for him to speak in front of the church about his presidential campaign. I would find your cynicism warranted, in such a case.
Nevertheless, this strikes me as scoring political points by decrying the shortcomings of the weak and powerless. Don’t get me wrong–it won’t cost him a thing and it will likely work to his great advantage.
That’s exactly the problem: these people aren’t weak and powerless. That’s an excuse too many black fathers in absentia make. “The man” isn’t preventing you from doing your duty as a father, your own lazy ass is.
“The man” isn’t preventing you from doing your duty as a father, your own lazy ass is.
You’re right, of course. They should all stop dallying and go get high-paying jobs.
Roughly half of black children live in single-parent households. Are you suggesting this is a failing of personal responsibility? Or do you think there might be some institutional factors at work?
Are you suggesting this is a failing of personal responsibility? Or do you think there might be some institutional factors at work?
Are you suggesting this is an either/or proposition? Couldn’t there just as easily be both, but Obama is speaking largely to those who fall in the first category? (Many of whom might be there because they’re convinced they can’t fight the second category?)
Are you suggesting this is an either/or proposition?
No, Oliver is.
Mind you, we’re talking about millions upon millions of men here. If there’s a failure of personal responsibility driving this trend, where’s the cause? Does it ever affect men of other races too? Under what circumstances?
Here’s my guess. If you take a sample of 1,000 low-income black families and 1,000 low-income white families, you’ll see only a minor difference in the presence of fathers, and it will correlate closely with factors beyond the control of the individual. But I’ll admit here, I’m guessing.
You’re right, of course. They should all stop dallying and go get high-paying jobs.
Well, getting a job in the first place would be nice. A lot of them are quite satisfied not going into the workplace and earning a living. If you’re man enough to pop out a kid, you should be man enough to walk on over to Mickey Dees and get a job so the kid can eat.
Roughly half of black children live in single-parent households. Are you suggesting this is a failing of personal responsibility?
More than it should be, yes. I’m not saying that the sole cause of this issue is internal, but enough of it is that its a problem. A lot of men - and in this case, black men - have no social pressure to fulfill their fatherly duties. It has nothing to do with whether they have the means to do so. They simply choose not to, and within black society there still isn’t enough of a stigma (in my mind) associated with it. As you can probably tell, I’m a strong believer in the power of social shame. I don’t think we have to go back to the era where unwed mothers were taken out of society, but I believe the pendulum has swung too far to the point where an absentee black father is the norm and there’s no ostracism of said characters.
If they have to wear a scarlet letter, so be it. The children are what is important here.
What Oliver said, and I’ll point out that the slang term “baby mama,” which caused such a flap last week, originated in the black community…and it’s a shame that such circumstances had become so commonplace that a term had to coined at all.
I think Obama was talking specifically to those who have the means and ability to be a part of their child’s life, but then choose not to be.
A lot of men - and in this case, black men - have no social pressure to fulfill their fatherly duties.
Which, IMO, is central to Obama’s point, and Cosby’s before him.
If you’re man enough to pop out a kid,
…you’re a wonder of medical science!
Oliver,
I encourage you to read and discuss or debate this issue with Glenn Sacks. I find that both of you (and Obama and Cosby) are accurate and insightful on this issue. But you disagree.
As a divorced father that got terribly screwed with respect to custody (all the court psychs said I should be given 50/50, the judge allowed the mother to move away effectively giving her 100%), I find that Glenn Sacks is a true, honest, and insightful representative for divorced fathers, and actually for all fathers.
Contrary to enormous distortions of his statements and positions by Melissa McEwan and Amanda Marcotte, if you read Sacks for a month or so, you’ll find he is almost certainly a progressive liberal on almost all issues. He does however find that “us liberals” don’t listen to his messages and won’t debate them, so he normally finds airtime on conservative radio.
I find it distressing that what I see as clear bias against fathers in our courts, and a bias that hurts men and hurts their children, and a bias that works against fathers and especially low income fathers is considered by “us liberals” to be just “angry white men” upset with feminism. The truth is that most fathers were born after Title IX, were born into a two income household, and if they have two kids, 3/4ths of all fathers have at least one daughter. I suspect a lot of the real work of feminism in tearing down barriers at work is done by fathers.
Anyway, you two had different takes on this issue. I encourage you to read and debate with Sacks.
There’s an old Jewish joke that fits this situation. I’d like to play it for you. It goes a little something like this.
“In a small town in Russia, people brought their complaints to the Rabbi to settle their differences. This day, two men were before the Rabbi.
He listened to one man and said, “You are right.”
He listened to the second man and said, “You are right.”
When they left, his wife, who was listening in the next room, said to him, “You’re supposed to be some kind of judge? How can they be both right?”
He listened to her and said, “You know? You’re right, too.””
Have any of y’all seen Pat Oliphant’s take on this speech? You still think the message wasn’t directed to white voters?
Jerry,
Never heard of Glenn Sacks but I went to his website and read his comments about Obama’s Father Day speech and the speech one of his readers from Charlotte, NC heard in church on Father’s Day and as a feminist, I agree. Father’s Day speech should honor fathers as they do mothers on Mother’s Day. Jerry, I am high-jacking your old Jewish joke.
I was on the fence about Obama’s because I read Dreams From My Father and even though it was Obama’s personal story and experience, the speech was political vehicle to speak to the wider non-black audience than it was “preaching to the choir” (the African-American community). It was also directed at all women to hear their complaints and be a voice for them. Personally, I think it was designed more for all women, especially Hillary supporters.
Obama’s speech, as the son of an absentee father, was a story that should be told but not on Father’s Day. Father’s Day was not designed to bash fathers who neglect their children. Bashing fathers on Father’s Day is giving that day back to mothers for their childrearing efforts, making it a de facto second Mother’s Day in June. Maybe this is happening because most of the parishioners are women. Fathers Speak Up and Take Your Day Back!
After reading Jerry’s comments and comments on Glenn Sacks’ website I feel all fathers were done an injustice on Father’s Day from the churches. Father’s Day is designed to honor the great fathers that take care of their children and especially dads who make every effort to stay connected to their children despite separations.
Yes Quaker in a Basement, this Father’s Day message was directed at White voters. Obama in a church, every eye will be on him. Obama’s message was to make an appeal to White Republicans and Independents with the theme of “personal responsibility.” When inequities and disparities between White and non-White communities become an issue White voters love that theme, “personal responsibility minus government intervention (translation no money for you)”.