Obama’s Multiracial Coalition and the Politics of Racial Reconciliation

by BlackAgendaReport Managing Editor Bruce Dixon.

This is an interesting point-of-view of Obama’s campaign:

As the presidential campaign heats up, the precarious nature of Obama’s “multiracial coalition” along with the nature of the “racial reconciliation” his candidacy brings becomes more. Under the Obama version of “racial reconciliation” the opinions commonly held by most of Black America are deemed “divisive” relics of the past. Black opinion, wherever it differs from that of white corporate media is off the table. A shrewd and savvy politician, Obama is entitled to make these choices for himself, and for his own reasons. But should the voices of Black America be silenced and banished from the national discourse because they do not serve the career plans or short term interests of the Obama campaign? Just what shots does Black America call in this reconciliation, and what benefits do African Americans receive in this “multiracial coalition”?

Clearly this is a look at Obama and his campaign that you aren’t going to see in most of the left blogosphere (probably not the right, either). Does BAR see Obama as being good or bad for the country?

“We took this country (from Native Americans) by terror…”

“We bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We nuked far more than the numbers killed in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye…”

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and the black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas has been brought back to our own front yards? America’s chickens are coming home to roost…”

Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright has a way with words, doesn’t he? And, yet, there’s not much we can argue with here. As for ‘blowback,’ I don’t think that there’s any question that our interference around the world has led to groups who don’t like us. BAR then points out that Rev. Wright’s thoughts may not be out of the mainstream amongst Black opinion.

The foundation of Barack Obama’s electoral strategy is reliance upon a base of voters in black America motivated by a nationalistic desire to see one of their own in the White House, no matter what his beliefs. Thus the black vote, ordinarily the most dependably left wing bloc in the US can be safely and permanently taken for granted, leaving Obama free to move rightward, doing and saying whatever it takes to win white votes and corporate favor. Barack Obama is therefore the establishment’s dream black candidate, almost entirely free of obligation to African Americans and our historic agenda, but getting our votes anyway.

Eeek! This is a different view than what’s being pushed throught the MSM and blogosphere. Obama as an establishment candidate? Who’d have thought it?

“…the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.”

The article then points out that Black opinion tends to take a different view of the Palestinian issue.  What’s more:

If Barack believes, as he says, that “the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam” are the reasons we are at war in the Middle East, what difference is there between Obama and Hillary, between Obama and McCain or even between Obama and George Bush or the neo-cons?   If Barack believes this, his promised withdrawal and “over the horizon” redeployment of “combat troops” (not of mercenaries or contractors or counterinsurgency  troops or training troops or the rest of the occupation, just the “combat brigades”) will be followed by another intervention somewhere else in hopes of squashing “the perverse and hateful ideology of radical Islam”. Maybe Somalia, which we already bomb regularly. Maybe Afghanistan. Maybe nuclear-armed Pakistan, a target Obama has already identified.

Obama’s not a peace candidate, we know that.  We know that he intends to increase the size of the military.  Perhaps we should keep that in mind as we decide if we should vote for him, HRC or McCain.  Of course, if ending the war and pulling back our imperial ambitioins is important to you, you probably aren’t planning on voting for them as it is.

Obama’s unconditional affirmations that America is “inherently good”, that white racism is not endemic, that “radical Islam” is the enemy, that apartheid Israel is a “stalwart ally”, and that his pastor and spiritual mentor, a man who accurately reflects the views of most of Black America is an angry, divisive old uncle stuck in the fifties and sixties — all these may restore his credentials among whites as the candidate of “racial reconciliation”. But what is being reconciled here? Aside from the color of the president’s face, what is being changed? And just what does Black America, its opinions and leading thinkers denounced, belittled and banned from the political discourse by the black candidate, no less, get out of this reconciliation, or this campaign?

Something to consider.  What does Obama ‘hope’ to do as President?  What ‘change’ will occur during his administration, should it come to fruition?  It’s a question we should ask before the election is over, because if we don’t, it’ll be too late to change our minds.

Originally posted here:…

Is the Pony/Pie/Hide rating system too cutsie?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...


  1. since before he was a senator, and they see him as Clinton’s political twin.  I think they make a compelling case, and raise some great questions for anyone not blinded by the light to consider and raise to those who are.

Comments have been disabled.