I recently finished reading The Help by Kathryn Stockett. From Wikipedia:
The Help is…about African American maids working in white households in Jackson, Mississippi during the early 1960s.
It didn't impact me the way The Color of Love did (which I mentioned here and here), but I enjoyed it. It gets criticism as a white woman writing about the black experience, but Stockett addresses/acknowledges that directly in the afterward…and I'm not sure why we should only be allowed to write about ourselves (whatever category of self that might be).
I was shocked by the following passage from a recent article by Richard Hughes (Professor of Religion at Messiah College), the third article in his series on the Christian Right (link):
In 1958, four years after the Supreme Court handed down its landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision, outlawing racial segregation in America's public schools, Falwell thundered from his Thomas Road Baptist Church pulpit, "If Chief Justice Warren and his associates had known God's word and had desired to do the Lord's will, I am quite confident that the 1954 decision would never have been made. ... The facilities should be separate. When God has drawn a line of distinction, we should not attempt to cross that line."
Later, he rejected the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as "civil wrongs," distributed FBI-generated propaganda defaming the character of Martin Luther King Jr., and attacked King as a Communist in a sermon he preached from the pulpit of his Thomas Road Baptist Church in 1964.
Then, in 1966, he side-stepped Brown v. Board of Education by establishing Lynchburg Christian Academy which the Lynchburg News described as "a private school for white students."
Falwell's school was one of literally thousands of segregationist academies established by white Christians in the American South to avoid compliance with federal law regarding racial integration.
Apparently Falwell's views evolved significantly during the subsequent decades, but I was ignorant of his shameful reaction to the civil rights movement.
Contemporary commentary from Doug Hagler:
Not cynical fear-mongering, not knowingly spreading ignorance, not vapid scribblings on a chalk-board, not comparing everyone to a Nazi, not hypocrisy married to self-righteousness, not infantile partisan one-upmanship, not snarling jingoist xenophobia. Masterful rhetoric from a heart moved by love even for those who would destroy him, telling us who we are called to be.
Last week I saw a news story mentioning a neo-Nazi rally scheduled for Saturday afternoon in downtown Midland:
Randy G. Gray II...will express his views on issues such as free speech, due process and the “illegal invasion” at a rally from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. Saturday, July 31, on the steps of the Midland County Courthouse.
Gray made headlines in 2008 when he was elected a Republican precinct delegate but was barred from assuming the post after he appeared in Ku Klux Klan regalia, protesting the election of President Barack Obama, on the streets of Midland.
The rally is sponsored by a group informally known as Citizens Against Out of Control Government, Gray said.
Speakers from the Christian Identity movement ("white Western European people are the only true children of God") and the National Socialist Movement (“fighting for white civil rights") will also participate.
I'd like to think the rally would be a dud due to lack of interest, but it's being promoted on white supremacist web sites and Michigan has a long history of white supremacist activity. In fact, the National Socialist Movement is based in Detroit and has been organizing rallies across the country (with a focus on illegal immigration). You might have heard about the event they organized in downtown Los Angeles a few months back that turned violent:
There was a brief flare-up of violence when a man removed his shirt revealing tattoos that featured Nazi lightning bolts, which some in the crowd deemed offensive.
Counter-protestor James Lafferty, executive director of the National Lawyers Guild, said he saw the tattooed man punched and kicked as a plainclothes officer dragged him behind police lines. Blood could be seen at the base of his neck, Lafferty said.
As the rally ended, counter-protestors hurled rocks, branches and other items over the police line toward the neo-Nazis.
Thinking about the event coming up Saturday, I realized that I don't know the best way to respond. Ignore it and avoid downtown on Saturday? An "in-your-face" counter-demonstration like L.A.? Neither of those seems right to me.
What's the best way to respond?
The consensus of the Facebook is to ignore them:
Unfortunately it is costing the tax payers of the City of Midland and Midland County alot in preparation for what hopefully will be a non event. Hopefully he will be ignored and those in the media and in opposition to his "beliefs" won't give him the satisfaction of attending.
Encourage your newspaper not to print a story about it every day like they did here in Howell about a nazi memoribilia auction in town. If the media had ignored the auction, it would have been a non-event. There will probably be less in attendance than you think, even though it's in Michigan where we have a "history" of white supremists.
The best thing to do is not to go. They are looking for a fight. The ADL should be contacted if they have not been already. The ADL will keep an monitor the people involved.
I think the best thing is not to go. The more attention they get, the more they think they are spreading their message and becoming relevant.
There was a follow-up comment on FB that I forgot to add here. It's the kind of thing I was trying to think of...though I was thinking less about diversion and more about something harmless yet annoying to the rally attendees...a Yes-Men- or Improv-Everywhere-style prank or something...:
I have a new, improved idea. What we need to do is create a diversion. Not a counter-rally -- because that would draw more attention to them -- but a crazy, wild diversion that would draw lots of attention away. Something like a huge, naked Zoomba class outside by the Tridge........
It sounds like the crowds were small. I haven't heard any reports of naked Zoomba.
Tomorrow the House will vote on the Senate health reform bill and a set of amendments to it. They will do it with explicit votes rather than the "deem and pass" strategy that had been floated. Although the Senate will still have to pass the amendments itself via reconciliation, it is assumed that those votes are there. That means tomorrow's votes will likely be decisive.
Much of today's drama surrounded whether or not Bart Stupak could be brought back on board by addressing his concerns about the Senate bill's abortion language. Apparently that's not going to happen. On the other hand, an executive order incorporating Stupak's language is apparently being considered.
The debate over whether or not the Senate bill subsidizes abortion is quite odd. Folks like Stupak and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops say it does. Folks like Brad Ellsworth, The Catholic Health Association, and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good say it doesn't. The status quo (via the Hyde Amendment) is that the federal government doesn't pay for abortions, and President Obama has made it clear that he doesn't want the health insurance reform bill to change that status quo.
A look at the bill's abortion language makes if difficult to understand why so many people are apparently so sure that it funds abortions. While not requiring or preventing insurance plans to include abortion coverage, it prevents public money from funding them. It requires that the state-based exchanges have at least one plan available that doesn't cover abortions and allows a state to rule out abortion coverage if it chooses. Nevertheless, there seem to be two remaining threads to the pro-life opposition to the Senate bill.
First, the bill stipulates that anyone who wants to purchase a plan that includes abortion coverage in the state-based exchanges must make a separate payment for that coverage, and the insurer must keep that pool of money separate from any governmental subsidies so that they don't directly fund abortions. This is not adequate to Stupak because there will be people who would not have insurance at all without the federal subsidies who then purchase abortion coverage for their subsidy-enabled health insurance. Stupak seems to take the view that once you give someone aid you are effectively subsidizing any other way that they choose to spend money. By that logic I'm sure I have "paid for" all kinds of bad things (by giving money to a church that gives aid to people who also spend their money on bad things), but of course I haven't actually "paid for" those things. Also, many employer-sponsored insurance plans cover elective abortions. A Guttmacher Institute Study indicated 87 %, while a Kaiser Family Foundation said 46 % (LifeNews believes the KFF numbers). I checked on mine (Aetna), and it does. Famously, the Republican National Committee's plan covered elective abortion until it became a news story, and the argument could be made that even Focus on the Family indirectly pays for abortions. By Stupak's logic, isn't everyone who pays premiums to those plans indirectly funding abortions? Furthermore, the tax exclusion for employer sponsored health care is (by Stupak's logic) an enormous abortion subsidy that dwarfs the small, theoretical one that is his current focus.
Secondly, the bill includes funding for "community health centers" which some have claimed could provide abortions. This may in fact be (theoretically) true since that funding would come via a route that might not be subject to the Hyde Amendment. However, it's been argued that there are other long-standing regulations that would prevent programs administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration (programs such as the community health centers) providing abortion services and that the funds will end up in the same pot as other funds subject to the Hyde Amendment, effectively making it subject to the same restrictions.
Here is what National Association of Community Health Centers has to say about it:
Community health centers "have never performed abortions," said Dan Hawkins, senior vice president of policy and programs for the group. "They do not plan to or seek to become a provider of abortions. They don't do that."
Community health centers are focused on their mission of providing primary and preventive health care -- things like immunization and prenatal care -- to those typically underserved by the health care community, he said.
Community health centers were around for 11 years before the Hyde Amendment went into effect in 1976 and they never provided abortions, he said. And last year, they got $2 billion in federal stimulus funds. Of that, $500,000 was for operational funding. It has already been used to provide health care to more than 2 million additional people, he said. Like the Senate bill's proposal, the stimulus money came separate from the HHS appropriation funds (with its Hyde Amendment limits) and contained no specific abortion language. And again, none of it was used for abortions.
Hawkins makes one last point: the $7 billion over five years through the Senate health care bill would be combined by the secretary of HHS (currently Obama appointee Kathleen Sebelius) with the roughly $2.2 billion the centers receive through the annual appropriations bill.
"In our opinion, once this money is combined with the appropriated funds, the Hyde restrictions will apply to the whole thing," Hawkins said.
Together with repeated assurances from Sebelius that no federal funds will be used to pay for abortions, Hawkins said, "We feel confident the restriction (against abortions) will apply."
"And again," Hawkins said, "they haven't done abortions and they aren't looking to do them in the future."
To summarize, it's debatable (but very unlikely) that there is a theoretical risk that the bill could enable direct funding of abortions...but even if it is theoretically possible, it is still highly unlikely. Even so, claims like "monstrously anti-life" and "the most anti-life piece of legislation in the history of our country" are common. Such hyperbole is especially puzzling because there is good reason to think that the health insurance reforms will actually reduce the abortion rate. As T.R. Reid recently argued:
There's a direct connection between greater health coverage and lower abortion rates. To oppose expanded coverage in the name of restricting abortion gets things exactly backward. It's like saying you won't fix the broken furnace in a schoolhouse because you're against pneumonia. Nonsense! Fixing the furnace will reduce the rate of pneumonia. In the same way, expanding health-care coverage will reduce the rate of abortion.
At least, that's the lesson from every other rich democracy.
The latest United Nations comparative statistics, available at http://data.un.org, demonstrate the point clearly. The U.N. data measure the number of abortions for women ages 15 to 44. They show that Canada, for example, has 15.2 abortions per 1,000 women; Denmark, 14.3; Germany, 7.8; Japan, 12.3; Britain, 17.0; and the United States, 20.8. When it comes to abortion rates in the developed world, we're No. 1.
No one could argue that Germans, Japanese, Brits or Canadians have more respect for life or deeper religious convictions than Americans do. So why do they have fewer abortions?
One key reason seems to be that all those countries provide health care for everybody at a reasonable cost. That has a profound effect on women contemplating what to do about an unwanted pregnancy.
When I studied health-care systems overseas in research for a book, I asked health ministers, doctors, economists and others in all the rich countries why their nations decided to provide health care for everybody. The answers were medical (universal care saves lives), economic (universal care is cheaper), political (the voters like it), religious (it's what Christ commanded) and moral (it's the right thing to do). And in every country, people told me that universal health-care coverage is desirable because it reduces the rate of abortion.
It's only in the United States that opponents of abortion are fighting against expanded health-care coverage -- a policy step that has been proved around the world to limit abortions.
Michael New disputes Reid's thesis, claiming the figures Reid uses exaggerate the abortion rate in the U.S., ignores the impact of our racially-diverse population, and ignores the "experience of states that have offered more generous provision of public health benefits." However, as David Gibson points out:
A study published in the latest New England Journal of Medicine shows that abortion rates declined during the first two years that Massachusetts implemented a near-universal health coverage program much like the nationwide plan currently before Congress.
...abortions were on a longer-term downward trend in Massachusetts, so it's possible (I might even say likely) that the reform didn't matter and abortion was dropping for other reasons. But it's hard to look at this data and say that the reforms led to a large increase in abortions.
Ron Sider, President of Evangelicals for Social Action, said the following about the bill:
It is a moral outrage for the richest nation in history to leave 47 million of its people without health insurance. This legislation substantially extends coverage and also retains the long-standing stance of the Hyde Amendment against federal funding of abortion. It will save thousands of lives, cover millions of people, and prevent federal funding of abortion."
It's disappointing to me that so many pro-life groups have opposed health reform so so vehemently and with so much hyperbole. This is not the only way I've recently been disturbed by the tactics of the pro-life movement.
Across the country, the anti-abortion movement, long viewed as almost exclusively white and Republican, is turning its attention to African-Americans and encouraging black abortion opponents across the country to become more active.
A new documentary, written and directed by Mark Crutcher, a white abortion opponent in Denton, Tex., meticulously traces what it says are connections among slavery, Nazi-style eugenics, birth control and abortion, and is being regularly screened by black organizations.
Black abortion opponents, who sometimes refer to abortions as “womb lynchings,” have mounted a sustained attack on the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, spurred by a sting operation by young white conservatives who taped Planned Parenthood employees welcoming donations specifically for aborting black children.
William Saletan has questioned the consistency of the messages of some of the conspiracy theorists. Admittedly, the figures regarding abortion in the black community are certainly tragic:
Data from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that black women get almost 40 percent of the country’s abortions, even though blacks make up only 13 percent of the population. Nearly 40 percent of black pregnancies end in induced abortion, a rate far higher than for white or Hispanic women.
...but I'm not glad to see pro-life groups encouraging conspiracy theories about racists specifically targeting blacks for elimination or to hear claims that blacks are worse off now than they were under slavery...
Saginaw, MI, was recently named the most violent city per capita in the U.S. (link), keeping alive its 6-year run at the top. Flint, Detroit, and Pontiac all made the top 11. The news about Saginaw sparked a couple of local college students to publish the following comic in Delta College’s student newspaper:
From the Saginaw News (link):
The comic in question depicts a person making visits to Midland, Bay City and Saginaw. After receiving gifts of art and alcohol in Midland and Bay City, the character travels to Saginaw and is handed a bag of drugs by a man in a black mask.
“Welcome to downtown Saginaw. We have the most violent crimes in the U.S.,” the comic strip reads. “Here’s a bag of drugs to thank you for stopping by.”
In the next frame, the masked man pulls out a knife and says: “OK, now give me all your money ... and drugs.”
Among those outraged by the illustration is Rev. Larry Camel, co-founder of the city outreach group, Parishioners on Patrol.
“It’s very negative,” Camel said. “We’re going to be talking out about it because it’s racist. It’s really a slam on Saginaw.”
Camel said the black bag slung over the cartoon criminal’s head represents black people.
Marchlewski Bachleda pointed out that, while the bag is black, there is no color in the criminal’s skin.
Camel said he and other religious leaders in Saginaw may visit Delta on Thursday to address the issue.
“We want to nip this in the bud,” he said. “We don’t want this reputation.”
Hmmm. The F.B.I. has named you America's most violent city 6 years in a row, and you're worried a comic in a college newspaper might ruin your rep? Well then, raise a ruckus. What do you know? The story ends up featured in the popular online column of The Wall Street Journal's James Taranto (link) and thousands of readers across the nation read about your dubious honor from the F.B.I. Yep, your reputation is safe now.
» I was bummed to hear that This I Believe was being dropped from NPR but then glad to hear that the project and podcast will continue.
» This guy (Major David Frakt, Air Force Reserves judge advocate and defense counsel in the Pentagon’s Office of Military Commissions, guest on "On Point" in January in an episode on Closing Guantanamo) must get a lot more jokes about his name in the post-BSG era
» Situations like this (link) give civil rights efforts a bad name. New Haven, CT, gave their firefighters a test to determine who was qualified to be promoted. Then they threw out the results because it would have meant that no blacks and few Hispanics would have been promoted this time. Either they should be ashamed for giving a test that did a lousy job of judging worthiness for firefighter promotion...or they were embarrassed by the results and would rather promote to leadership roles people who are less prepared to lead in the life-or-death job of firefighting than face the apparent reality that there happened to be no blacks and few Hispanics who are currently ready to be promoted in the New Haven fire department. It's not hard to understand why folks get upset when we discriminate in the name of eliminating discrimination. Let's get rid of racial and other pernicious forms of discrimination, but I don't think this helps.
I started this post right after the election but set it aside until now (just before the inauguration) to finish up and publish after a little more time for reflection. It has two parts. First, a bit about race and the recent election. Second, some of the stuff that I was reading and watching right after the election that highlighted its significance.
Part 1: Race and Obama's election
Race was a big issue in this past election. How could it not be? A country with slavery and ubiquitous racial discrimination lurking in it's recent (relatively speaking) past was considering electing its first black president. For the most part, Obama avoided the discussion of race because he didn't want to make white voters uncomfortable by being "the black candidate." However, he still had to find a way to appeal to blacks because they needed some convincing too. The uproar over Rev. Wright forced Obama to give a "A More Perfect Union" speech in which he encouraged Americans move beyond "racial stalemate" to address our common social problems. His tight-rope walk to woo one group while not alienating the other was described in a recent article in The Atlantic (link). Despite Obama's lack of emphasis on race, many of his supporters saw an underlying racial element in the attacks and TV ads of his opponents. On the other side, many made the accusation that Colin Powell's endorsement, for example, was all about race. On YouTube we saw evidence that some voters felt like they just couldn't trust a black man as president. After the election, in the comments sections of web sites and on Facebook you saw people questioning the legitimacy of the election because (for example) of the fact that Obama received 95 % of the black vote...
As illustrated by this graph from FactCheck.org (link), African Americans have been voting overwhelmingly Democrat in presidential elections for the last 50 years:
This trend, not coincidentally I think, also parallels the Republicans' "southern strategy," via which they are purported to have attempted to improve their electoral success by exploiting racism among whites in the south. Yes, Obama won 95 % of the black vote (link), but that's hardly a striking anomaly compared to the level of support all the white Democratic candidates have received during the last 50 years. If blacks or the electorate as a whole just wanted a black person (any black person) as president, we've had several other options in the recent past (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Alan Keyes, Shirley Chisholm, Lenora Fulani, and Carol Moseley Braun). Furthermore, black voters were famously tepid in the support for Obama until after he won the Iowa primary and showed that he was a viable candidate able to convince whites to give him their votes. It's not surprising that blacks would tend to be excited to have a president that shares their ethnicity. Whites have had that luxury since the country was founded. It's not surprising that many of us are excited that out country has elected it's first black president and will (presumably and hopefully soon) elect it's first female president. Despite the results of all of our previous elections, we know that white men are not the only good candidates for president. There are plenty of capable women and minorities, and it is exciting to see an election reflect that fact rather than continuing the legacy of discrimination. This is worth celebrating. On that note...
Here are a few excerpts from some the of the stuff that I was reading and watching in the wake of Obama's victory:
Texas in Africa
When we went to see Obama speak in Austin in January, our little group was next to this woman and her son. He was maybe three or four years old, and of course couldn't see, so people around her took turns holding him up. It was way past his bedtime when Obama finally took the stage, I'm sure.
There was a lot going on that night, and I wasn't watching him for most of it, but when Obama first came out and his mother picked him up, the little boy looked at the stage, got a confused look, and asked his mom a question:
"Is he white or brown?"
"He's brown," his mom replied. "Like you."
For me, that may have been the most powerful moment of this campaign. The thought that that little boy can grow up in a world where he will believe that anything is possible for his life has just overwhelmed me. He will grow up in a world where the formal discrimination that governed his grandparents' lives, and the implicit racism that affected his parents' will lose some of its power. All because of this election.
Shame of racial history not easily lifted, but what a start
Kathleen Parker, conservative columnist
'Fess up. You wept.
OK, I'll go first. Tears came twice.
First, when John McCain hushed his booing crowd to acknowledge the significance of this nation's electing an African-American to the presidency. Second, when Barack Obama delivered his acceptance speech
This may say more about my friends than about Obama, but I haven't spoken to anyone who didn't become emotional. (Please don't write to tell me you were unmoved. I think you've already been in touch.)
Owing to my pale pigmentation and heritage, perhaps I am not able to fully understand the impact that Obama's election has had on African-Americans.
But like many other Americans, especially Southerners, my life is inextricably intertwined with the African-American experience. It isn't just a bit of thread or texture in life's tapestry, but is central to my emotional and psychological constitution
During the next four years, we will differ with our new president on policies and appointments, but we can all agree on the momentousness of this transaction. There's something different in the air.
The day after the election, an African-American woman and I were marveling about events and trying to put our finger on what had changed. That thing. The little speck of difference that kept us imperceptibly apart had been dissolved in a lovely instant of national consensus that race no longer matters.
Of course that's an overstatement to say that race no longer matters, but it is certainly encouraging that race is no longer a disqualifier. Obama didn't win a majority of the white vote. Though none of the other Democratic candidates have done so in the last 50 years, Timothy Noah makes the argument (link) that the Democrat's deficit with white voters is related to race (the fact that Lyndon Johnson, the last Democrat to win a majority of the white vote, signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act into law).
Audacity of America uncovered
Steve Chapman, conservative columnist
The improbability of his rise should help sustain conservatives in their hour of disappointment. This election furnishes irrefutable proof that America is a special country, with possibilities that don't exist elsewhere.
It shows that our harshest critics - Jeremiah Wright Jr. comes to mind - are missing something essential. No one of good will can look at what happened Tuesday and say, "God damn America."
Anyone watching the crowds celebrating this victory could see they were not motivated by a rigid left-wing ideology but by the principles America has enshrined since its founding: liberty, equality, opportunity and respect for the individual. They want to purge the original sin of racial oppression. They want to fulfill our ideals, not abandon them
The notable aspect of John McCain's concession speech Tuesday night was how different it was from everything coming from his campaign in the months before. It was temperate, generous and noble in spirit, and it made you wonder: Where has this guy been hiding, and why?
The striking thing about Obama's speech, by contrast, was how consistent it was with how he conducted himself from the start. It retained the subtext of his campaign: We are a better, more tolerant, more civil, more unified country than our politics has suggested in recent years. We can overcome our differences, racial and other.
At many points in the last two years, there has been reason to think Obama was wrong. It doesn't look that way now.
A Path Beyond Grievance (link)
It's been said that the ascendancy of Barack Obama signals the beginning of a "post-racial" America.
I wish. What we have witnessed, I think, is something less profound but still hugely significant. Obama's election means that in America, including at the highest levels of our politics, race is no longer an automatic deal-breaker. That's a major step forward in the thinking of white America.
For black America, Obama may be the harbinger of a different transformation: the movement away from what might be called the civil rights paradigm. Since the astounding success of the civil rights movement nearly half a century ago, America's black leadership has been a civil rights leadership, focused almost exclusively on grievance -- America owes us the right to vote, to enjoy places of public accommodation, to attend nonsegregated schools, to be free of the laws that underlie American-style apartheid.
America listened, and changed.
What more recent black leaders have not acknowledged is that there are some problems that the grievance model cannot address. The schools black children attend don't work as well as they should -- but most often for reasons that have less to do with white attitudes than with our own. Many black children -- and too many of their parents -- don't value education. If they do, they see it as a debt owed rather than a prize to be earned. Their resulting undereducation renders them specially vulnerable to the vicissitudes of the job market. Black communities are beset by crime and violence but, again, less because of racism than because of lack of discipline in those communities. One key reason for this failure of discipline is the dissolution of black families -- not because of discrimination but because black Americans lead the nation in fatherlessness, having allowed marriage to fall to an all-time-low priority.
My Voting Experience -- "Thank You, Jesus"
I just finished voting. My neighborhood in Brooklyn, New York is mostly Carribean-American and strongly Obama.
A few observations.
Very few signs. On most election days, all up and down Rogers Ave, you see signs for various candidates. This time, no. You wouldn't even know there's an election. (Life in a non-battleground state!)
The lines coming out of the elementary school stretched around three city blocks. The tone was not ecstatic. It was serious. People were friendly but definitely not jubilant. It had more the feeling that they were doing important work.
Hard not to get emotional as very old, or handicapped, black voters shuffled up the front of the line.
Finally, perhaps sensing the strangely quiet nature of the line, someone jumped out of a building screaming at the top of her lungs in joy. Everyone laughed nervously. "Let it out," she said.
Another older woman walked up and down the street, declaring. "Thank you. Thank you. We've suffered too long. Thank you for being here. Praise the Lord. Thank you, Jesus." Some quiet Amens were whispered back.
About fifteen minutes ago, Barack Obama was confirmed by all the news channels to be the 44th President of the United States, and I did something that I never would have predicted...I cried.
You see, this morning, when I was driving to a nearby park to walk, I noticed a young, black male walking down my street from nearby apartments. Later, on my way to the gym, I saw him walking away from a polling place, and it dawned on me that he had gone to vote and was now returning home. I thought about what a moment that must have been for him, a boy of around eighteen to wake up early, walk a mile, and cast a vote for a President who looked like him...
So while I didn't vote for Senator Obama, and oppose many of his plans and policies, tonight, I have to acknowledge the historic significance of his victory, and celebrate the doors of new possibilities opened in the hearts and minds of the children who have been watching.
It truly was a historic day. On a couple of different occasions last night I felt my eyes filling with water. Watching the Obama family walk onto the stage in Chicago was one of those times, and it was a remarkable moment. Change has indeed come to America.
I am not an African American. I have not experienced the things that black people in this country have had to live through, and I never will. It meant a lot to me last night to see the first family walk out on that stage and have them not look like me. But I cannot comprehend how African Americans in this country felt to watch that same scene unfold when, for the first time in our country's history, the first family does look like themselves. It was moving to see closeup shots of Jesse Jackson and Oprah in the crowd, with tears streaming down their face, knowing that it means far more to them and thousands of others who have looked forward to this day for so long. I saw a number of black parents interviewed who said something to the effect of, â€œNow when I tell my son/daughter that they can be anything they want to, they can believe me without a doubt. Yes, you can.
I did not vote for Barack so that we could have an African American in the White House. Voting based on what race a candidate is (or isn't) would be foolish. I felt like he was the best choice for this country at this time. And I look forward to the next four years. But the historical significance of this moment cannot be minimized.
A Butler Well Served by This Election
For 34 Years, Eugene Allen Carried White House Trays With Pride. Now There's Even More Reason to Carry Himself That Way.
Stepping Into the Sunshine
It's obvious that the power of this moment isn't something that only African-Americans feel. When President Bush spoke about the election Wednesday, he mentioned the important message that Americans will send to the world, and to themselves, when the Obama family moves into the White House.
For African-Americans, though, this is personal.
I can't help but experience Obama's election as a gesture of recognition and acceptance -- which is patently absurd, if you think about it. The labor of black people made this great nation possible. Black people planted and tended the tobacco, indigo and cotton on which America's first great fortunes were built. Black people fought and died in every one of the nation's wars. Black people fought and died to secure our fundamental rights under the Constitution. We don't have to ask for anything from anybody.
Yet something changed on Tuesday when Americans -- white, black, Latino, Asian -- entrusted a black man with the power and responsibility of the presidency. I always meant it when I said the Pledge of Allegiance in school. I always meant it when I sang the national anthem at ball games and shot off fireworks on the Fourth of July. But now there's more meaning in my expressions of patriotism, because there's more meaning in the stirring ideals that the pledge and the anthem and the fireworks represent.
It's not that I would have felt less love of country if voters had chosen John McCain. And this reaction I'm trying to describe isn't really about Obama's policies. I'll disagree with some of his decisions, I'll consider some of his public statements mere double talk and I'll criticize his questionable appointments. My job will be to hold him accountable, just like any president, and I intend to do my job.
For me, the emotion of this moment has less to do with Obama than with the nation. Now I know how some people must have felt when they heard Ronald Reagan say "it's morning again in America." The new sunshine feels warm on my face.
The Relay Race of Social Change
Race was not "the issue" in this election. The issue was the economy. The issue was the war. The issue was the dark conviction that America was heading on a disastrously wrong track. We chose the cool hand of a change agent.
But if race wasn't the "issue," it was the "story" in the word history. It was the narrative, the huge question mark hovering around our sense of self on magazine covers and conversations that asked: "Is America Ready for a Black President?" It ended with a resounding "Yes, we can."
Americans didn't vote for Obama to prove that this is not the same country that once sicced dogs on black schoolchildren. But it proves that.
Americans didn't pick Obama to rebrand our country and trash the cartoon images put forth by our enemies. But it does that.
We didn't choose Obama to show that scare-mongering - socialism! Muslim! Barack the Redistributor! - has failed. But it shows that.
So too, we didn't push the lever for Obama to crack the shell of cynicism that dampens the expectations of inner-city black teenage sons of single mothers. And we didn't elect Obama to grab back the word "values" from those who use it as a wedge. But these messages also lurk in the 7-million-vote margin of victory.
We arrived at a moment when change was the most conservative option. The 47-year-old president-elect came to represent the belief that Americans had to embrace change to conserve those things that mean the most to us, including our country's future.
So Tuesday we voted to reboot America. All the same problems Obama listed are on the desktop this morning: "two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century." It won't be long before excitement is edged with impatience.
But this is a day to bear witness to a victory lap in the relay race of social change.
Even some of the folks who during the campaign were making rather ridiculous charges about Obama's patriotism, for example, had positive things to say afterwards (link):
Just a few weeks ago, at the height of the campaign, Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota told Chris Matthews of MSNBC that, when it came to Mr. Obama, "I'm very concerned that he may have anti-American views."
But there she was on Thursday, after narrowly escaping defeat because of those comments, saying she was "extremely grateful that we have an African-American who has won this year." Ms. Bachmann, a Republican, called Mr. Obama's victory, which included her state, "a tremendous signal we sent."
In the next few days, Lisa and I plan to make the trip to D.C. to celebrate the inauguration of Barack Obama. Frankly, despite all the polls, I was still pleasantly surprised that in the end he won. I know many people considered an Obama election to be a disaster for this country. I don't think so, but history will tell. I have no doubt, though, that it was a major positive milestone in our country's racial history...and I celebrate it.
I'm not talking about whether or not it's Sarah Palin. I'm talking about the direction it (and the Republican party) will take in the wake of the Bush administration and the recent election results. From a recent article by Philip Klein from The American Spectator titled "The Future of the Right" (link):
About two-dozen conservative leaders met today at the Stanley, Virginia home of Media Research Center President Brent Bozell in the heart of the Blue Ridge Mountains to discuss conservatism's future in the wake of Tuesday's election results.
TAS Publisher Al Regnery and editor in chief R. Emmett Tyrrell were on hand, along with leaders from policy groups and grassroots organizations representing each pillar of the conservative coalition, from Christian conservatives to libertarians, and everybody in between.
"As the afternoon went on, it didn't take long for attendees to become resolute in their resistance to moderates and to the opinion that the conservative movement will become the opposition to Obama," Tyrrell said.
One attendee said, "We're no longer going to support Republicans who want to 'improve' a bad bill. We're going to oppose all bad bills."
Looking back at the campaign, they felt that John McCain wasn't really a conservative, and that Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber were the two best things that happened because of the way they connected with people.
In an article in the LA Times titled "The GOP looking glass", Jonah Goldberg frames the soul searching this way (link):
In one corner, there are a large number of bright, mostly younger, self-styled reformers with a diverse -- and often contradictory -- set of proposals to win back middle-class voters and restore the GOP's status as "the party of ideas" (as the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan put it).
In another corner are self-proclaimed traditional conservatives and Reaganites, led most notably by Rush Limbaugh, who believe that the party desperately needs to get back to the basics: limited government, low taxes and strong defense.
What is fascinating is that both camps seem implicitly to agree that the real challenge lurks in how to account for the Bush years. For the young Turks and their older allies -- my National Review colleagues Ramesh Ponnuru, Yuval Levin and David Frum, the Atlantic's Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam, New York Times columnist David Brooks et al -- the problem is that Bush botched the GOP's shot at real reform. For the Limbaugh crowd, the issue seems to be that we've already tried this reform stuff -- from both Bush and McCain -- and look where it's gotten us.
The irony is that both camps agree on a lot more than they disagree. The reformers are committed to market principles and reducing the size and role of government, and so are the back-to-basics crowd. The problem is that an elephant named George in the room is blocking each side from seeing what the other is all about. But hopefully not for much longer.
It seems to me that the realities of electoral demographics will be critical for charting electoral success for conservatives in the coming decades. In another LA Times article titled "Democrats set sights on Texas" (link), Peter Wallsten writes:
As they review the results of Tuesday's election victories and begin looking toward future campaigns, some Democrats have settled on a rallying cry: Texas is next.
It sounds improbable for the Republican bastion that produced President Bush and served as an early laboratory for Karl Rove's hard-nosed tactics. But Texas is one of several reliably red states that are now in Democrats' sights as party strategists begin to analyze a victorious 2008 campaign that they believe showed the contours of a new movement that could grow and prove long-lasting.
A multiethnic bloc of Latinos, blacks, young people and suburban whites helped to broaden the party's reach Tuesday well beyond its traditional base in the Northeast and the West Coast -- carrying Barack Obama into the White House and expanding the party's majorities in Congress.
That new formula was evident in state exit polls and county-level election results showing that Democrats scored gains from a voting base that is growing progressively less white than the population that helped forge Republican advantages in past elections. In state after state, from GOP strongholds like North Carolina, Indiana and Colorado, minorities made up a larger share of the vote than in the past, and in each case they helped turn states from red to blue.
Latinos made up a greater share of the electorate than in the past in every Southwestern state, according to exit polls compiled by CNN. And in each Southwestern state, as well as Florida, the Democrat pulled a bigger percentage of the Latino vote -- a turnaround from 2004, when President Bush cut deeply into Democrats' hold on Latinos and won that bloc in Florida, where many Cuban Americans remain loyal to the GOP.
Projections from the US Census Bureau (link) indicate that by 2042 non-Hispanic whites will no longer represent a majority of the US population.
Here is a summary of the projections comparing 2008 to 2050:
If those projections turn out to be anywhere close to reality, itâ€™s obvious that the Republican party's prospects will continue to decline over the next few decades if it is fairly or unfairly stereotyped as as "anti-immigrant" or the party of white people. Those aren't fair descriptions of the Republican party or conservative political movement as a whole, but those tendencies are there and could be exacerbated depending on the direction conservatives take in response to their recent defeats. The nearly uniform whiteness seen among the party leaders and the crowds at the party convention illustrate the danger that it could be perceived as not a party for all of us. This is one of the reasons that it is important that people like Bobby Jindal and Michael Steele become significant faces of the party. Regardless, it seems that issues of changing demographics have to be given weight as the conservatives chart their course forward.
From conservative writer Ross Douthat (link):
...Obama has just been elected President of a nation in which he could have been bought and sold as a slave just seven generations ago. I don't think there are any words adequate to the occasion of America electing its first black President, so I'll just say this: This may be a bleak day for the Republican Party and for conservatism, but come what may in the years ahead, it's a great day for our country. Barack Obama deserves congratulations, tonight, but so does the nation he's about to govern: We've come a long, long way.