The Roots of Obama's Rage (20 page)
Read The Roots of Obama's Rage Online
Authors: Dinesh D'Souza
The Harvard incident shows that, in private, Obama is not quite the race-neutral figure that he projects himself to be in public. Still, Obama has consistently upheld his public indifference to race both in his presidential campaign and so far in the Oval Office. Obama writes in
The Audacity of Hope
, “I reject a politics that is based solely on racial identity . . . or victimhood generally,” and he has lived up to that statement. In that book, Obama even calls for a modification of affirmative action programs so that they are based on need and benefit all races. During his presidential campaign, Obama kept what his staffers called “radioactive” blacks at a safe distance. As president, Obama has been refreshingly unwilling to blame racism for his political problems. Even as his approval ratings have fallen, Obama has consistently denied that this is due to white racism, pointing out that “I was actually black before the election.”
13
The Audacity of Hope
, “I reject a politics that is based solely on racial identity . . . or victimhood generally,” and he has lived up to that statement. In that book, Obama even calls for a modification of affirmative action programs so that they are based on need and benefit all races. During his presidential campaign, Obama kept what his staffers called “radioactive” blacks at a safe distance. As president, Obama has been refreshingly unwilling to blame racism for his political problems. Even as his approval ratings have fallen, Obama has consistently denied that this is due to white racism, pointing out that “I was actually black before the election.”
13
The second part of Obama’s lactification strategy was to present himself as part of the cultural mainstream. Not completely: Obama knew the benefit of maintaining a residue of cultural strangeness in order to confirm his credibility as an outside guy who embraces mainstream values. That’s why Obama so often campaigned by calling himself the “black man with the funny name.” Obama pretended that this was a terrible political liability that he would just have to live with. But in fact it was a considerable asset. I discovered something similar myself many years ago. When I first graduated from college and began to publish articles, I considered changing my name. I told a friend and fellow writer, “I’m thinking about writing under my middle name. I’m going to go by Joseph, not Dinesh.” He responded, “Are you crazy? Who can forget a name like Dinesh? Joseph is a boring name. Dinesh is very different, very cool. Stick with Dinesh.” And I did. Obama stuck with his name not only because of his bond with his father, but also because his name marked him as different, and this was a large part of his appeal to white America.
Of course Obama couldn’t be too different: he certainly didn’t want to show up in an African outfit or sound foreign. (I too have jettisoned the sing-song Indian accent and the characteristic Indian head-wobble.) Obama knew that he needed to sound more like Tom Brokaw than like Nelson Mandela. As he told
New York
magazine, “The fact that I conjugate my verbs and speak in a typical Midwestern newscaster voice—there’s no doubt that this helps ease communication between myself and white audiences.” At the same time, Obama understood that lactification allowed for an occasional fallback into the Ebonics mode. Obama added, “There’s no doubt that when I’m with a black audience I slip into a slightly different dialect.”
14
New York
magazine, “The fact that I conjugate my verbs and speak in a typical Midwestern newscaster voice—there’s no doubt that this helps ease communication between myself and white audiences.” At the same time, Obama understood that lactification allowed for an occasional fallback into the Ebonics mode. Obama added, “There’s no doubt that when I’m with a black audience I slip into a slightly different dialect.”
14
The right cadence, however, was not enough; there was also the matter of content. Obama recognized that he had to deliver radical and even revolutionary themes in a bland, anodyne way so that they could cross the threshold of political acceptability. Here Obama knew that he would have to become the Translator, someone who could almost mechanically convert anti-colonial politics into a rhetoric that sounds harmless and even beneficial to the people who are the targets of that politics. This was not an easy challenge, yet Obama was entirely up to it.
The approach that Obama developed is really quite simple. On a given issue, Obama begins by contrasting two extreme positions, and then he presents his view as the rational and middle-of-the-road solution, even if there is nothing rational or middle-of-the-road about it. For instance, if Obama wants to argue for confiscatory taxes, he insists that there are some in society who don’t think the rich should pay any taxes at all. There are others who say that the rich should give up all their income in taxes. Obama, ever the mediator of these differences, then declares that he will settle for the rich paying their fair share—say 40 or 50 percent. In this way Obama’s outrageously high taxation comes to seem sensible against the backdrop of two extreme positions, even though no one really holds those positions.
I am caricaturing Obama’s approach a little, but only a little. Here is an actual example from
The Audacity of Hope
. Obama considers the stance of his Republican opponents who hold to “the absolutism of the free market, an ideology of no taxes, no regulation, no safety net.”
15
Do you know anyone who actually espouses this view? Neither do I. But this is Obama’s perfected technique: he invents outrageous positions and attributes them to his critics so that his own positions always come out sounding centrist and sensible. If you listen to him carefully, you can easily detect his bogus framework of “two extremes with me in the middle.” Now when I hear him go at it on various issues, I simply chuckle and tell myself I am listening to the lactification man.
The Audacity of Hope
. Obama considers the stance of his Republican opponents who hold to “the absolutism of the free market, an ideology of no taxes, no regulation, no safety net.”
15
Do you know anyone who actually espouses this view? Neither do I. But this is Obama’s perfected technique: he invents outrageous positions and attributes them to his critics so that his own positions always come out sounding centrist and sensible. If you listen to him carefully, you can easily detect his bogus framework of “two extremes with me in the middle.” Now when I hear him go at it on various issues, I simply chuckle and tell myself I am listening to the lactification man.
It has certainly worked for him. Not only was Obama elected senator of a major state, he won that office by decisively winning the white vote. Then he trounced Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, overcoming the Clinton political machine. He was elected president with more votes that any Democrat had received in a generation, and he also won states like Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, Florida, and Ohio that had traditionally voted Republican. Not only did Obama win close to 100 percent of black voters, he was the first Democrat to also win a majority of rich white voters. Among Americans who earn more than $200,000 a year, Obama beat out McCain by six percentage points.
16
As president, he has successfully launched a juggernaut of new legislation. In less than two years he has made remarkable progress in implementing his agenda—an agenda that prior to his election seemed completely outside the bounds of political possibility.
16
As president, he has successfully launched a juggernaut of new legislation. In less than two years he has made remarkable progress in implementing his agenda—an agenda that prior to his election seemed completely outside the bounds of political possibility.
Certainly Obama had his share of luck, even more luck than the lead character in
Slumdog Millionaire
. After he entered a crowded Democratic primary in the 2004 Senate race, the front-runner Blair Hull was accused of beating his wife. That cleared the way for Obama to win the nomination. Then, in a sort of twofer, the Republican standard-bearer Jack Ryan became embroiled in his own sex scandal when his former wife made allegations involving strip clubs. When Ryan exited the race, his party nominated an out-of-state eccentric who kept attacking Obama for being out of step with God. Obama was elected by an overwhelming margin to the Senate. Interrupting his first term to challenge Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for president, Obama discovered he could count on a huge reservoir of repressed disgust for the Clintons. Earlier, Democrats had held back their emotions, not wanting to help out the Republicans, but now they abandoned Hillary in droves and went for her unknown but uncontaminated rival. Obama, having won the Democratic nomination, then faced in John McCain a Republican who did not command the full support of his party. Moreover, the economy went into a nosedive a few weeks before the election, turning McCain’s one selling point—experience—into a liability, because it was the guys with experience who seemed to have gotten us into this mess. Few people in American politics have enjoyed what Obama himself at an earlier stage of his career termed his “almost spooky good fortune.”
17
Slumdog Millionaire
. After he entered a crowded Democratic primary in the 2004 Senate race, the front-runner Blair Hull was accused of beating his wife. That cleared the way for Obama to win the nomination. Then, in a sort of twofer, the Republican standard-bearer Jack Ryan became embroiled in his own sex scandal when his former wife made allegations involving strip clubs. When Ryan exited the race, his party nominated an out-of-state eccentric who kept attacking Obama for being out of step with God. Obama was elected by an overwhelming margin to the Senate. Interrupting his first term to challenge Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for president, Obama discovered he could count on a huge reservoir of repressed disgust for the Clintons. Earlier, Democrats had held back their emotions, not wanting to help out the Republicans, but now they abandoned Hillary in droves and went for her unknown but uncontaminated rival. Obama, having won the Democratic nomination, then faced in John McCain a Republican who did not command the full support of his party. Moreover, the economy went into a nosedive a few weeks before the election, turning McCain’s one selling point—experience—into a liability, because it was the guys with experience who seemed to have gotten us into this mess. Few people in American politics have enjoyed what Obama himself at an earlier stage of his career termed his “almost spooky good fortune.”
17
Even so, Obama could never have exploited these opportunities without his lactification strategy. Interestingly, a few people noticed the strategy during his various campaigns. When he ran for Senate, the
Chicago Tribune
published an article in its Sunday magazine called “The Skin Game” which asked: “Do white voters like Barack Obama because he’s not really black?” And during the presidential campaign it was the unperceptive Joe Biden, now Obama’s vice president, who put his finger on the source of Obama’s appeal. During the Democratic primaries, Biden said, “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”
18
This was a gaffe by columnist Michael Kinsley’s definition of the term: a gaffe is when a politician accidentally tells the truth. Biden was promptly chastised for his racial insensitivity and he apologized. Actually Biden was simply saying what many people believe but are afraid to say. And Biden’s point wasn’t racist: he wasn’t saying that it’s rare for a black person to be bright and articulate. Rather, he was saying that Obama’s political attractiveness derives not merely from his blackness but also from the fact that he happens to be a particular kind of black guy, a black guy who sounds—well, pretty white.
Chicago Tribune
published an article in its Sunday magazine called “The Skin Game” which asked: “Do white voters like Barack Obama because he’s not really black?” And during the presidential campaign it was the unperceptive Joe Biden, now Obama’s vice president, who put his finger on the source of Obama’s appeal. During the Democratic primaries, Biden said, “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”
18
This was a gaffe by columnist Michael Kinsley’s definition of the term: a gaffe is when a politician accidentally tells the truth. Biden was promptly chastised for his racial insensitivity and he apologized. Actually Biden was simply saying what many people believe but are afraid to say. And Biden’s point wasn’t racist: he wasn’t saying that it’s rare for a black person to be bright and articulate. Rather, he was saying that Obama’s political attractiveness derives not merely from his blackness but also from the fact that he happens to be a particular kind of black guy, a black guy who sounds—well, pretty white.
It was at the 2004 Democratic National Convention that Obama’s lactification strategy paid its first big dividend. The audience at the convention, and in the media, and around the nation, was electrified not only by what was said, but also by who was saying it. The messenger in this case was just as important as the message. Here, for the first time, we saw the emergence of the Obama Choir. One of the founders of that movement is surely columnist Anna Quindlen, who described her reaction to Obama as one of the “solitary lunatic... standing up and cheering at the TV.” Actually Quindlen had no idea that she was a dupe of Obama’s lactification strategy. He had virtually handed the woman a racial absolution certificate, and she was cheering him for making her feel good about herself. Despite her sense of solitary ecstasy, Quindlen was no isolated lunatic; she had lots of company in the mainstream media. As one of Obama’s media aides Julian Green put it, “We actually have fans among the media. I’ve never run across that for any other politician.”
19
19
Obama’s lactification technique also came to his rescue during the Jeremiah Wright controversy. This was a very dangerous scandal for Obama. It threatened to expose him as a radical masquerading as a mainstream centrist, an anti-colonial revolutionary posing as an “aw shucks” all-American. Let’s see how Obama got out of that one. Remarkably no one in the mainstream media had paid much attention to Wright; in fact, hardly anyone bothered to investigate Obama for anything. While the
New York Times
ran a long—and as it turned out false—article accusing John McCain of having an affair with an aide, Obama’s personal life was completely taboo. The mainstream media thoroughly checked out McCain’s vice presidential pick Sarah Palin, even reporting on her daughter’s sex life and her husband’s drunk driving citation from two decades earlier. It was the conservative media—notably Sean Hannity of Fox News Channel—that first began to report on Wright. Even when the Wright scandal broke, the networks and major newspapers pretended not to notice. The
New York Times
refused to report Wright’s incendiary comments for more than two months, and then bowdlerized them to make them sound tame. Here is how the
Times
portrayed Wright’s remarks about 9/11: “Mr. Wright said the attacks were a consequence of violent American policies.”
20
That’s it. Nothing about God damn America or chickens coming home to roost!
New York Times
ran a long—and as it turned out false—article accusing John McCain of having an affair with an aide, Obama’s personal life was completely taboo. The mainstream media thoroughly checked out McCain’s vice presidential pick Sarah Palin, even reporting on her daughter’s sex life and her husband’s drunk driving citation from two decades earlier. It was the conservative media—notably Sean Hannity of Fox News Channel—that first began to report on Wright. Even when the Wright scandal broke, the networks and major newspapers pretended not to notice. The
New York Times
refused to report Wright’s incendiary comments for more than two months, and then bowdlerized them to make them sound tame. Here is how the
Times
portrayed Wright’s remarks about 9/11: “Mr. Wright said the attacks were a consequence of violent American policies.”
20
That’s it. Nothing about God damn America or chickens coming home to roost!
On March 18, 2008, Obama delivered his now-famous speech addressing the race question at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. The speech was, from start to finish, a masterpiece of obfuscation. “I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope it fades into the woodwork,” Obama said. This is just what the
New York Times
and other Obama Choir outlets had been trying to accomplish for their man, but by this point the attempt had failed. Obama had to face the issue. So he was not doing the brave thing, only the politically necessary thing. Obama continued, “The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced . . . reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through—a part of our union that we have yet to perfect.” Pure diversion. The comments of Obama’s preacher were about American foreign policy and how America was the primary force for evil in the world. Obama sought to deflect attention from the content of Wright’s explosive words by pretending that they were part of some kind of ongoing national seminar on race relations.
New York Times
and other Obama Choir outlets had been trying to accomplish for their man, but by this point the attempt had failed. Obama had to face the issue. So he was not doing the brave thing, only the politically necessary thing. Obama continued, “The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced . . . reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through—a part of our union that we have yet to perfect.” Pure diversion. The comments of Obama’s preacher were about American foreign policy and how America was the primary force for evil in the world. Obama sought to deflect attention from the content of Wright’s explosive words by pretending that they were part of some kind of ongoing national seminar on race relations.
Finally Obama pretended that Wright’s denunciations of America were news to him, and that Wright was just not the fellow that he’d known for twenty years. These whoppers were topped off with Obama’s high-minded excuse for not disowning Wright. “I can no more disown him that I can my white grandmother—a woman who helped raise me . . . but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.”
21
Now stereotypes are basically generalizations, and generalizations can be false or true; which cringe-inducing stereotypes his grandmother held, Obama did not say. Somehow, in Obama’s mind, Madelyn Dunham’s occasional use of these stereotypes and her understandable desire not to be hassled by a black panhandler put her in the same category as the hate-filled, paranoid Jeremiah Wright. Once again making himself equidistant from two unacceptable extremes, Obama even-handedly said he could no more throw Jeremiah Wright overboard than he could throw grandma overboard (although later the irrepressible Wright was indeed given the heave-ho).
21
Now stereotypes are basically generalizations, and generalizations can be false or true; which cringe-inducing stereotypes his grandmother held, Obama did not say. Somehow, in Obama’s mind, Madelyn Dunham’s occasional use of these stereotypes and her understandable desire not to be hassled by a black panhandler put her in the same category as the hate-filled, paranoid Jeremiah Wright. Once again making himself equidistant from two unacceptable extremes, Obama even-handedly said he could no more throw Jeremiah Wright overboard than he could throw grandma overboard (although later the irrepressible Wright was indeed given the heave-ho).
Far from calling Obama on these shameful evasions and bogus equivalences, the mainstream media went into an orgy of congratulation. Typical was the
New York Times
, which compared our Artful Dodger’s speech to the orations of John F. Kennedy. An accompanying
Times
editorial made the message even more explicit. It was titled, “Obama’s Profile in Courage.” On television, the sycophantic Chris Matthews claimed Obama’s remarks constituted the “best speech ever given on race relations in this country,” one that was “worthy of Abraham Lincoln” and should be required reading in classrooms around the country.
22
With media obeisance like this, you know that you are virtually unstoppable.
New York Times
, which compared our Artful Dodger’s speech to the orations of John F. Kennedy. An accompanying
Times
editorial made the message even more explicit. It was titled, “Obama’s Profile in Courage.” On television, the sycophantic Chris Matthews claimed Obama’s remarks constituted the “best speech ever given on race relations in this country,” one that was “worthy of Abraham Lincoln” and should be required reading in classrooms around the country.
22
With media obeisance like this, you know that you are virtually unstoppable.
Other books
Husk: A Maresman Tale by Prior, D.P.
French Kids Eat Everything by Karen Le Billon
The Redbreast by Jo Nesbø
A Vintage Murder by Michele Scott
Boot Camp by Todd Strasser
Shattered Skies - Night Waves by Heather Linn
Camp Ghost-Away by Judy Delton
Smoke from This Altar (1990) by L'amour, Louis
Go Your Own Way by Zane Riley
Fourth Hope by Clare Atling