Racism and the Oval Office
For the first time in our nation’s history, an African American is seeking nomination as the Democratic Party candidate for President. Senator Barack Obama seems to me to be fully qualified to occupy the Oval Office as President were he elected. Up to this past week, I foresaw no problem with either his nomination or election.
Then the issue of racism raised it’s ugly head in the heat of the campaign to become the Democratic nominee. Senator Hilary Clinton made a public statement that some in the African American community took to be a slur on the good name of Martin Luther King. As far as I can determine, Senator Clinton merely made a statement of fact. Dr. King raised the nation’s awareness of the then existing social, economic, and political inequities of African American citizens in the nation. Because of Dr. King’s efforts, President Lyndon Johnson was able to get the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed into law.
Senator Clinton merely stated the historical fact that it was the office of the President that actually got the land-mark law passed as an example of the president as an agent for change.
While reading of this dust up in the New York Times, I realized that this minor racist incident was, perhaps, indicative of what might happen if Senator Obama becomes President. It does not take a great amount of imagination to envision the reaction of the African-American community to the publishing of an attack on President Obama’s actions by columnists such as Maureen Dowd. Based on the reaction to Senator Clinton’s recent remarks, Dowd would most certainly be labeled a racist. On the other hand, the right-wing ultra conservatives would be equally quick to label the President’s actions as racist. President Obama’s term could degenerate into four years of divisive racist bickering.
My fear is that the citizens of our nation are not yet ready for an African-American President, not matter how qualified and well intended as he or she may be.
Then the issue of racism raised it’s ugly head in the heat of the campaign to become the Democratic nominee. Senator Hilary Clinton made a public statement that some in the African American community took to be a slur on the good name of Martin Luther King. As far as I can determine, Senator Clinton merely made a statement of fact. Dr. King raised the nation’s awareness of the then existing social, economic, and political inequities of African American citizens in the nation. Because of Dr. King’s efforts, President Lyndon Johnson was able to get the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed into law.
Senator Clinton merely stated the historical fact that it was the office of the President that actually got the land-mark law passed as an example of the president as an agent for change.
While reading of this dust up in the New York Times, I realized that this minor racist incident was, perhaps, indicative of what might happen if Senator Obama becomes President. It does not take a great amount of imagination to envision the reaction of the African-American community to the publishing of an attack on President Obama’s actions by columnists such as Maureen Dowd. Based on the reaction to Senator Clinton’s recent remarks, Dowd would most certainly be labeled a racist. On the other hand, the right-wing ultra conservatives would be equally quick to label the President’s actions as racist. President Obama’s term could degenerate into four years of divisive racist bickering.
My fear is that the citizens of our nation are not yet ready for an African-American President, not matter how qualified and well intended as he or she may be.
posted by Bob Baker at 6:58 AM
2 Comments:
We need the following team. John McAin as president and Condoleeza Rice as Vice president.
After the issue of race in the White House, we should also think about gender in the Oval Office. Let me come clean, as an Englishman I have a different historical perspective on this from Americans. We separate the posts of Head of State, the Monarch, (a hereditary appointment) from head of Government, Prime Minister, who is elected.
Looking back over several centuries, my opinion on our Monarchs is that the four best we have ever had are
Queen Elizabeth the First
Queen Anne
Queen Victoria and
Queen Elizabeth the Second, all female!
Some would dispute this list of course, but no one feels these are not there in the first rank. (George III is an outsider, having skillfully got rid of the troublesome American Colonies while fooling the colonials into thinking it was their doing! Never underestimate the British Secret service for downright duplicity in our national cause, but that is another story.)
As for the post of Prime Minister, many would say our best (apart from the legendary Winston Churchill) was Margaret Thatcher.
A clear characteristic of these five remarkable women was their femininity and willingness to use that to full advantage in conducting their national role, and why not. This was (and is for Queen Elizabeth the Second) an important part of their success. I did nod meet Margaret Thatcher herself but dealt with her Cabinet Ministers. They were completely at a loss on how to deal with her. She was in turn feminine, sexy and ruthless. No experience in the gentlemen’s clubs in London prepared them for this formidable and (to them) unusual creature. Certainly no one wanted to go and report failure. This was even truer of Queen Elizabeth the First as the consequences were usually even more dire.
How would Hillary measure up? I don’t know, perhaps someone can post an opinion. Somehow, I don’t feel she would do so well, irritating but not motivating.
But how would Condoleeza Measure up? Opinions please.
Americans, your future is on the line. Let me hear from you.
Post a Comment
<< Home