Post-Racial Politics?

Dr. Ricky Jones, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Louisville, gave a lecture titled “The End of Race: Racial Moments and Movements in the Age of Obama” during last Friday’s common hour.

Jones shared an alma mater with Martin Luther King Jr., Morehouse College, and went on to receive his PhD in political science from the University of Kentucky.

In 2004, Jones published his first book titled Black Haze: Violence, Sacrifice, and Manhood in Black Greek-Letter Fraternities and published another book in 2008 entitled What’s Wrong with Obamamania?: Black America, Black Leadership and Political Imagination.

Jones began the common hour by discussing the way in which people tended to latch onto President Barack Obama as a political savior during his campaign and election. To illustrate, Jones described a situation in which he was promoting his book, What’s Wrong with Obamamania?, and a young woman approached his table and said in response, “There is nothing wrong with Obamamania!”

This brought up a key issue, “It’s really problematic when people feel that the question – what’s wrong with Obamamania? – shouldn’t even be asked.”

Jones moved on to discuss the three major things wrong with “Obamamania.”

The first is that people were not politically mature enough to place Obama properly in American political context.

“How does Obama fit into American political leadership?” Jones asked the audience, comparing Obama with the likes of Fannie Lou Hamer, Martin Luther King Junior, Abraham Lincoln and W.E.B. Du Bois.

The second issue with “Obamamania” was that it was accompanied by “Obamaphobia.”

After the election of Barack Obama, hate group membership skyrocketed and President Obama has the highest security surrounding him of any former American president.

Those facts are contrasted by many people’s undying love for the President.

By adopting these two extremes, the American people dichotomized Obama. “Neither of these approaches is healthy because neither of them is balanced,” Jones commented.

Students on the Connecticut College campus seem to have found a balance between these two extremes according to David Canton, Associate Professor of History and the organizer of the common hour. While he does acknowledge that “Obamamania” dominated campus in fall 2008 (emphasizing with an anecdotal story of a former student calling him at midnight on election night), Canton has noticed his students also see the Obama presidency with a very realistic eye.

“They still support him but they realize that the political process takes time. They’re not going against him – they are asking the same questions as the progressives but they are not abandoning ship.”

The third issue with “Obamamania,” and perhaps the most important to Jones, is how Barack Obama fits into the landscape of black American leadership. Again many of the revolutionary leaders mentioned above were used as examples of exceptional black American leadership.

Jones referenced a 2008 democratic debate in which Obama stated, “Our commitment to Israel must be sacrosanct.”
While not suggesting that Obama should serve only the black constituency, Jones said he would rather hear Obama saying that he recognizes the plight of black America and the commitment to solving those problems is sacrosanct.

To reinforce the problems in black America, Jones recited some facts: black men are six to seven percent more likely to be arrested than whites for the same crimes, there are more black people in prison and jail than in universities and colleges, while unemployment nationwide just recently hit the double digits. Unemployment among blacks in America has been in the double digits and over a third of black children live in poverty in America.

“There is incredible disparity…black America is living in a state of emergency…it’s easier to not face these things and to say race, in effect, is dead,” Jones said.

President Barack Obama’s campaign was run on the basis of change, but change to Jones means political revolution, and Obama’s steps thus far have not indicated a revolutionary change in politics. As an example, Jones used Obama’s most recent speech last Tuesday in which plans to increase troops in Afghanistan were announced.

Jones argued that if we substituted the word “Afghanistan” with “Iraq,” we would be hearing a speech very similar to former President Bush’s speech advocating a troop surge in Iraq.

This example is critical of the American people caught up in “Obamamania,” however, it is not an instrument to criticize the President. Jones said that the level of upset with Obama right now in regards to the troop surge in Afghanistan has no basis, “Obama has not broken some promise! People heard what they wanted to hear. The anti-war folks don’t want to accept that when war is concerned, Obama is more of a hawk than a dove.”

Jones acknowledges that as a country, the election of a president of color is a landmark achievement, however he claims we have a lot of work to do. He says we are at a dangerous time because the overwhelming emotional reaction to Obama’s election has passed and we must now face the political issues, and more importantly, the racial issues.

“The trouble doesn’t go away without us talking about what the trouble is,” Jones concluded.

The audience responded positively to the common hour as many faculty and students lingered after the lecture to speak privately with Professor Jones.

Senior Molly McRoskey commented, “I’m not a very political person – I haven’t made up my mind about a lot of things. But I’m trying to become more aware and appreciated him approaching it from both points of view.”