Of course, part of the reason the right is in such a state is that it feels the momentum has shifted away from the intellectually ridiculous territory of "color-blindness" and racist theft of a few words from Dr. King to give their racism some veneer of respectability. Obama said in public what many blacks, and not a few white and others, have said in private discussions for years. The appropriation of some of King's rhetoric by the right - from Shelby Steele's The Content of Their Character to Jerry Falwell talking about the "proud record of the Baptist Church" in fighting discrimination (thus covering up his own role in fighting integration in Virginia and fueling code-word racism) - is more than simple political trickery; it is more than intellectual theft and dishonesty. It is taking the legacy of one of our great prophets and turning it on its head, using it for the exact opposite purposes for which it was intended.
Obama cut through a quarter century of right-wing appropriation of King's words, moving the conversation forward to where we live now. King is not so much left behind, as returned to his place as a prophetic voice challenging us on the issue of race and justice. Obama has used this contrived controversy as an opportunity for us to actually talk about race, what it means to be American, and the way history has weight and power, both creating opportunities and limiting options. We have an opportunity to have a serious discussion here, and as (H)apa Theology notes in comments, Obama has done us the favor of speaking to us as adults.
None of this is conducive to the mental health of the right. Steeped in a racism that is as American as cherry pie, the right in America has managed to convince some people that black Americans don't know their own plight; that their voices are the voices of crime and social dysfunction, to be guided and taught rather than heard and heeded. For a quarter-century, we have listened to racists and demagogues tell us what we should think while all around us race relations have become more and more strained, and we no longer seem to know what to think. We celebrate the many gifts of African-Americans throughout our history - from the invention of the traffic light and blood transfusions to jazz - yet believe current social conditions cripple them as a group, limiting their ability to be full citizens. We celebrate the various ways individuals of color have managed to destroy barriers to full participation, yet bemoan the intransigence and ineradicable nature of the black underclass, seeing there the seedbed of so much social and cultural dysfunction.
We are told by many on the right that this is not a function of racism, either historical or current, but of the intransigence of certain social realities, such as poverty, or what was once called "the cycle of poverty". We were once told that all people are born with "a moral sense", but it can be truncated by poor socio-economic conditions, creating social unrest. We were even told, a little over a decade ago, that blacks were inherently inferior and intellectually limited, a situation for which there can be no cure.
All of that has been tossed aside by Obama, and the right doesn't like it. Their control of our national discourse on race, like so many other topics, is slipping away. The howling one hears, and flailing about one sees, is evidence enough they know their historic moment is passing, slipping away through their own myriad failings. It seems to be driving not a few of them over the edge.
Fine with me.
UPDATE: Glenn Greenwald, once again, is well worth reading today. He quotes Steve M. from No More Mister Nice Blog who writes:
The premises [the speech] lays out require you to be an adult, and I'm not convinced that most Americans are adults, at least when looking for a candidate to support. . . .
This isn't what Americans like to hear in political speeches. They like to hear: Good people = us (America, our party). Bad people = them (communists, terrorists, criminals, drug dealers, our ideological opposites, the other party, or some group we identify in code rather than explicitly).
That wasn't the tone of this speech. I hope I'm wrong, but Obama may pay a price for not giving people what they like to hear.
To this, Greenwald responds directly:
The entire premise of Barack Obama's candidacy is built upon the opposite assumption -- that Americans are not only able, but eager, to participate in a more elevated and reasoned political discourse, one that moves beyond the boisterous, screeching, simple-minded, ugly, vapid attack-based distractions and patronizing manipulation -- the Drudgian Freak Show -- that has dominated our political debates for the last two decades at least.
Nobody actually knows which of these views are right because there hasn't been a serious national campaign in a very long time that has attempted to elevate itself above the Drudgian muck by relying (not entirely, but mostly) upon reasoned discourse and substantive discussions -- at least not with the potency that Obama generates. Will George Bush's ranch hats and Willie Horton's scary face and Al Gore's earth tones and John Kerry's windsurfing tights inevitably overwhelm sober, substantive discussions of the fundamental political crises plaguing the country? Obama's insistence that Americans are hungry for that sort of elevated debate and are able to engage it -- and his willingness to stake his campaign on his being right about that -- has been, in my view, one of the most admirable aspects of his candidacy.
I couldn't agree more. Steve M.'s position is one I find distasteful because it is the assumption that Americans are silly, superficial, obsessed with trivia to the exclusion of serious thought, and incapable as a body of the kind of politics we need. The main reason I support Obama is he believes Americans are adults, ready for a politics not geared towards five-year-olds, but one designed to appeal to the inner adult in us. His casual dismissal of so much of the nonsense surrounding our current political scene is not just a political tactic, but the reaction of a serious person to nonsense. The reaction of his supporters is indicative of hunger many of us have for more of this kind of thing.
