Frank’s Case Book

At the end of last year, Shelby Steele penned what yet prove to be prophetic book, A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can’t Win anticipating the dynamics and  consequences of Senator Barak Obama’s presidential candidacy. Although it is probably true that Obama, on the precipice of earning the Democratic Party’s nomination for president, advanced has much farther then many, including Steele, anticipated, Steele’s observations seem eerily correct.

Steele’s thesis is that in contemporary American society the outward face of blacks who have achieved notoriety can be generalized into two categories: “challengers” and “bargainers.” The Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons are quintessential challengers. Challengers start with the assumption that American society is inherently racist. Whites must demonstrate and prove their racial bonafides and good will by adopting the full range of liberal policy prescriptions, particularly those that having to do with compensating for past injustices, like affirmative action. Challengers generally make whites uncomfortable, fearful of doing or saying the wrong thing and being tagged as “insensitive.” As a consequence, many whites just avoid racial issues.

Those like Oprah Winfrey, Tiger Woods, and Barack Obama, Steele labels as “bargainers.” The bargain these people strike is that they assume the good intentions of others in exchange for comity. It is not that bargainers believe that racism does not exist or that it has not  resulted in tragic historic injustices, but they given the benefit of the doubt to contemporary Americans. This allows whites to be more comfortable in the presence of bargainers. With bargainers, Whites don’t have fear making an innocent remark that will be misinterpreted as racist. Whites can, at least in day-to-day activities, pretend that we live in gentle, color-blind society.

Obama is a careful bargainer and has a consequence been a very successful presidential candidate thus far. He has been called a “transforming” black candidate who, though conspicuously black, can sails deftly through the seas of the white community. Obama is a talented speaker who has excited the public with the promise of “change”

Early in the Democratic primary season, Senator Hillary Clinton still did very well among black voters. Obama was the candidate of liberal upscale whites, the people whose nagging guilts he assuaged. Now, that he has an opportunity to actually win, Obama has also excited the black community’s pride. In primaries now, he regularly wins an overwhelming majority of the blacks voters n the primaries.

Steele argues that the dilemma for conspicuous blacks is that neither the “bargaining” nor the “challenging” can be completely authentic. They are both “masks” worn by a minority in a majority society as a way of coping.  Masks hide the more difficult tasks for blacks to understand their own minds, and to treat whites as other individuals as blacks ask to be treated. If this mask worn by Obama is shed away there is the possibility that the comfort some whites have for him will atrophy.

This is the grave danger for Obama posed by the issue of the incendiary statements made by Obama’s Paster Jeremiah Wright. It is hard for Obama to appear to be a transformative uniter who brings together blacks, whites, and other minorities when his “spiritual adviser” is a race-bating bigot who urges God to “damn America.” Obama is stuck. He can repudiate Wright’s remarks, but he refuses to “disaown” himself of Wright. They are too close. Obama chose Wright to marry him and his wife and to baptize his two girls.

There is nothing in his demeanor, statements, or past that suggests that Obama subscribes to the extreme positions of his pastor. Yet he continued to maintain an intimate association over two decades. Perhaps he just joined this church to gain some “street cred” to help future political prospects in Chicago. Perhaps, Obama felt some tender loyalty to the person led him to Christ, and when it turned out that Wright had some ugly opinions, Obama felt uncomfortable it confronting Wright directly. This is understandable, but not exactly a profile in courage. Perhaps, while not subscribing to the anti-American rants of his minister, he harbors some lingering sympathy for black liberation theology his church. It is impossible to make this assessment from a distance.

Obama faces two choices: He can distance himself even more from Wright reducing his credibility in the black community, or keep Wright modest proximity and run the danger of becoming the “black” candidate as opposed to the uniter. It is very possible that Obama will be able to rhetorically threat this needle and be spared facing the dilemma. He is nothing if not intellectually and verbally talented and agile. If he can’t manage to resolve this problem, we run the risk that either the Democratic National Convention or the general election or both will become thought of as a“black” versus “white” contest.  And if Obama looses with a racially polarized vote, the 2008 election cycle may prove culturally divisive.

“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.” — 1984 Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee, Geraldine Ferraro.”

It would be gallant to remember Democrat Geraldine Ferraro as the first woman to have a chance to become vice-president, but that would represent noble hyperbole. She was the running mate of former Vice-President Walter Mondale as he tried to prevent President Ronald Reagan and Vice-President George H. W. Bush from election to a second term in 1984.

Mondale and Ferraro never really had a chance. The memory of the failed presidency of Jimmy Carter was too fresh in everyone’s mind, and the conviction that because of Reagan it was “morning America” again for the Democrats to have any realistic prospect for victory in that election cycle. The Mondale-Ferraro ticket was crushed in just about everyone way possible. The pair lost the popular vote 58.8% to 40.6% and the Electoral College by an astounding 525-13. Mondale and Ferraro only carried Mondale’s home state of Minnesota. Even there, Mondale squeaked by 49.7% to 49.5% in the popular vote. A difference of 0.2% in the popular vote in Minnesota kept Reagan and Bush from earning 100% of the Electoral College vote.

Indeed, the challenge of facing so formidable a candidate as Reagan was one of the reasons that a Congress person  from New York was pulled from obscurity and put on the ticket. By boldly selecting Ferraro, Mondale hoped to secure a greater fraction of the female vote. Such an expectation was a little patronizing, but desperation was in order. In retrospect, it is hard to determine whether Ferraro helped or hurt Mondale’s prospects. Mondale was destined to loose with whatever vice-presidential candidate ran with him. Ferraro ran for office credibly despite the fact that her finances  where a source of controversy.

Now in public campaign speech, it is acceptable to say that a particular vice-presidential candidate was chosen to geographically or ideologically balance a ticket. However, it is not good form to say out loud that a candidate was picked because of gender or race. In 1984, it would have be declasse to have publicly argued that Ferraro was only selected because she was a woman. The history of gender and race discrimination make such observations uncomfortable. Though it might have been impolite to observe that she was selected for her gender two decades ago, she concedes that herself now.

Unfortunately, the Democrat Party has fallen into the habit of worrying about group rather than individual representation. This practice of identity politics accustoms people to looking at race or gender first when evaluating an individual. Republicans, in order to fight this identity politics, have been trained to never, never make racial or gender observations. Doing so brings the entire weight of the mainstream media down on the Republican. To make a racial observation for a Republican plays into the media’s perception of Republicans as harboring latent racist and misogynistic dispositions.

Geraldine Ferraro is not even close to being racist. However, when she suggested that Senator Barrack Obama is leading in the Democratic primary contest because he is black, the cauldron of identity politics stirred up in her party forced her to step down from the Hillary Clinton campaign. It is a little ironic that a political party that embraces affirmative action, where race and gender are specifically used in the selection process for school admissions or hiring, are so sensitive to Ferraro’s observation that race played a role in Obama’s recent electoral success.

Those who rise to the most prominent and conspicuous positions, like Senators Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton, do so on the basis of a complex combination of talent, work, education, family, cultural heritage, and no small measure of good fortune. Race and gender further influence the rise of different individuals. Given the history of racial and gender discrimination, it is better that the role of such factors remain publicly unexamined by politicians.

It is indeed a welcome outcome that a black man and a female can be serious contenders for the presidency, however, ugly identity politics may ultimately decide who the Democratic nominee is. Is it unbecoming to confess to a small feeling of schadenfreude at the discomfort as a consequence of identity politics of those who have exploited it so mercilessly in the past?

Even with the best of intentions, it is difficult to humans to be dispassionate in the evaluation of evidence. We all have internal narratives of how the world works. When presented with evidence that buttresses our ideas, we tend to accept such evidence. When confronted with evidence that challenges or questions our notions, we try to find reasons to dismiss or discount that evidence. This is not necessarily an inherent character flaw. If we entirely bounced between different ideas as new evidence presented itself, we would be all sail and no rudder. Our world view should be responsive to new evidence, but there should be a measure of inertia that allows us to consider new contradictory information as provisional.

One important control on ideas is to have peers, particular with diverse ideas critically examine our conclusions. It is the lack of this intellectual diversity that cost Dan Rather his job at CBS over its story about President George W. Bush’s Texas Air National Guard service. Rather’s  report was  in large measure based on documents that proved to be forgeries. These forgeries were so obvious that once the story ran on the 60 Minutes II news program, bloggers were able to quickly demonstrate that the fonts in the forgeries post-dated the time of the supposed documents, and could be easily re-created with Word and a copy machine. Rather and his compatriots at CBS did not start out to broadcast false information. However, the documents were so in keeping with their beliefs and their desires that normal journalistic skepticism was dispensed with. They just had to be true.

If the politics in the CBS newsroom were not a mono culture, the obvious flaws in the documents would have likely been discovered before CBS embarrassed itself and further diminished its already declining credibility.

One might have hoped that other organizations would have learned from this conspicuous and well-document error, but the NY Times apparently hasn’t.  On February 21, the paper published an article that  implied that Senator John McCain had a sexual relationship with a lobbyist and that this relationship resulted in special favors. A critical examination of the article reveals that no one said that they knew there was a romantic relationship and the principals deny it. Moreover, the most McCain apparently did for the telecommunications lobbyist’s company was to request that the government act on the company’s license application that had already taken twice as long as to consider as normal. Moreover, he explicitly wrote that he was not urging the government to make any particular decision only that it make whatever decision it needed to make in a timely manner. Hardly the stuff that scandals are made of.

Who knows? There may actually be a scandal somewhere in this or any candidate’s past, but if the NY Times had adult supervision it would have waited for more evidence before publishing this as a page 1 story. The story undercuts the NY Times credibility and partially immunizes McCain against similar charges in the future.

Bill Keller, the executive editor of the NY Times and the person who had to give the final OK for publication in the wake of the controversy conceded: “I was surprised by how lopsided the opinion was against our decision [to publish] with readers who described themselves as independents and Democrats joining Republicans in defending Mr. McCain from what they saw as a cheap shot.” This suggests the the NY Times newsroom does not even have sufficient population of moderate Democrats and independents to bring intellectual diversity. The “Gray Lady” is apparently not meeting enough people with a variety of ideas and growing a little senile and tone deaf in the process.

There is not doubt that many times Congress squanders time and attention on hortatory resolutions that please narrow constituencies from comic book enthusiasts to Dutch-Americans. Although we might prefer that Congress spend its finite time more constructively, at least these resolutions do not generally diminish the treasury and may actually divert Congress from more mischievous pursuits. Of all the inconveniences we endure for a representative democracy, this represents but a small added price.

Nonetheless, if one has a fine-enough tuned sense of victimhood, it alway possible to find offense. Sally Quinn is an accomplished journalist who has spent over four decades at the center of the Washington Beltway culture and should have grown a hard crust to protect her feelings. Quinn is upset at the “bulling pulpit” of Congressional resolution 847 that:

“(1) recognizes the Christian faith as one of the great religions of the world; (2) expresses continued support for Christians in he United States and worldwide; (3) acknowledges the international religious and historical importance of Christmas and the Christian faith; (4) acknowledges and supports the role played by Christians and Christianity in the founding of the United States and in the formation of the western civilization; (5) rejects bigotry and persecution directed against Christians, both in the United States and worldwide; and (6) expresses its deepest respect to American Christians and Christians throughout the world.”

Quinn finds this praise of Christianity a too exclusionary. What about non-Christians? Well there is no cost to sponsoring a resolution, so there is always a handy Congressional resolution for others who may ask. Out of respect to our Islamic brothers and sisters, Congress passed resolution 635 which proclaimed:

“…during this time of conflict, in order to demonstrate solidarity with and support for members of the community of Islam in the United States and throughout the world, the House of Representatives recognizes the Islamic faith as one of the great religions of the world; and (2) in observance of and out of respect for the commencement of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal, the House of Representatives acknowledges the onset of Ramadan and expresses its deepest respect to Muslims in the United States and throughout the world on this significant occasion.”

It is hard to argue that Congressional has not paid appropriate to respect to all manner of religious faiths, so Quinn aim her complaint to the fact that non-believers have not be singled out for special celebration. The argument is as shallow as an inside-the-Beltway conscience. It is hard to pay tribute to a negative. For example, we might pay special thanks to veterans, it somewhat silly to argue that there ought special thanks to those that didn’t serve.

One important advantage of having children is the development of a sensitive ear to whining. Quinn’s plaintive complaints sounds to these ears like the mournful sounds of child who feels that she has not been treated fairly. Someone else has received attention an she hasn’t. Given a little time to reconsider her words, Quinn will undoubted realize the temporary foolishness of her gripe about something as trivial as a toothless Congressional resolution.

Roger Cohen was born in 1955 in London and raised with a European perspective. He can perhaps be forgiven for his profound ignorance and condescending arrogance with regard the relationship between religion and the state in the United States. In his article, “Secular Europe’s Merits,’‘ Cohen criticized Presidential candidate’s Mitt Romney sad allusion to the fact the grand cathedrals in Europe are largely empty because Europeans are too “enlightened” to go and actually fill those cathedrals. Cohen sarcastically remarks that, “Europeans still take the Enlightenment seriously enough not to put it inside quote marks.”

Here, Cohen reveals his fundamental misunderstanding. Romney placed “Enlightenment” in quotation remarks not because he disparages the authority of reason, but because too many in Europe, unlike our American Founders, have embraced the notion that reason and faith are incompatible. There is no logical reason why Europe cannot be both enlightened and have churches brimming with people. Is Cohen arguing that those who attend Church are, by definition, unenlightened?

Like many in Europe, he enjoys the blood sport of pulling President George Bush’s comments out of context to make him appear to be a religious zealot devoted to making the US a theocracy. For example, Cohen ridicules Bush’s “allusions to divine guidance — `the hand of a just and faithful God.'” The implication is that Bush feels himself as acting implicit direction of such a God.

It is kinder to assume that Cohen pulled this quotation from some blog without the knowledge of its full context than that he deliberately misquoted Bush. The phrase Cohen cites came from an annual prayer breakfast. In a full context, Bush was arguing the exact opposite of Cohen’s assertion that Bush was claiming some special knowledge of God’s will. Bush was saying that sometimes we don’t understand how God works in this world. Nonetheless, we have faith in the notion that God’s purposes will still be served.

“We can also be confident in the ways of Providence, even when they are far from our understanding. Events aren’t moved by blind change and chance. Behind all of life and all of history, there’s a dedication and purpose, set by the hand of a just and faithful God. And that hope will never be shaken.” [Emphasis added-FMM]

This is not much different in sentiment from Abraham Lincoln’s observation in his Second Inaugural Address that the Civil War was perhaps God’s way of eliminating the scourge of slavery.

“The Almighty has His own purposes. `Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.’ If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time…”

And Bush remarks were certainly less suggestive of a theocracy than Presidential candidate Barak Obama’s request to be an “instrument of God” to create “a Kingdom right here on Earth.” In the immediately preceding column, Cohen was rather complimentary of “Obama’s American Ideals.” One suspects that if a Republican had made the exact same remarks about bringing a Kingdom here on Earth, Cohen would have led the legions defending the secular state against the agents of theocracy.

It is possible to both moral and secular. However, our forefathers made the observation that a free society cannot long exist without being a moral society and that religion has proven to be a key agent of morality. George Washington Farewell Address:

“And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

The First Amendment’s protections of religious freedom were designed as least much to protect religion from the state as the state from religion.

If one notices a bumper sticker on a car that says “Support the Troops,” the unspoken assumption is that the owner of the car not only supports the troops but the policies of the Bush Administration in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is unfortunate. The two positions are not logically connected. One could certainly think well of the troops and recognize their sacrifice on our behalf and strongly disagree with Bush’s policy. However, the Liberals and the Left have left the field open for Conservatives to associate themselves with the natural American inclination to support their sons and daughters in the military.

This began in Vietnam when the Left was so angry with the war that to discredit the war they habitually lapsed into discrediting the troops by exaggerating transgressions. Even Senator John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, who might have had strong reason to be sympathetic to troops, most of them drafted, painted a disquieting and largely inaccurate picture of American troops who,

“…personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.”

The habit was renewed in the present Iraq conflict. The story of the very real abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib early after the conclusion of initial hostilities in Iraq were played and replayed on the front pages of the NY Times and other media outlets to the point that these media outlets succeeded in making that an early symbol of the war and unfortunately the war fighters.

This attack on soldiers has now become so habitual that sometimes it is impossible for certain elements of the media to support the troops in even modest ways. The FreedomWatch organization strongly supports Bush’s policies. It has tried to run some thank-the-troops television ads during the holiday season. CNN and Fox news have run the ads without a problem, but MSNBC and CNBC have refused to run the ads.

The ads are very benign and certainly not controversial. They are certainly less controversial than ads for Sicko, Michael Moore polemic masquerading as a documentary run by these and other networks including FoxNews. Click here to see the ads and make your own judgment about how controversial the ads really are. The refusal of MSNBC and CNBC to run these ads provide additional evidence that some in the media have unfortunately convinced themselves that anything positive about and for the troops should be suppressed lest they might accidentally lend support to Bush’s policies.