Don't Talk to Strangers: Obama as Other

It is wise advice for parents to tell their children not to talk to strangers. It was not until THIS WEEK, however, that such an admonishment was applied to listening to a speech by the president of the United States.

Barack Obama plans to give a "back to school" address on Tuesday "about the need to work hard and stay in school." In such a polarized political context, it is refreshing to have a visible leader speak about something on which folks from every political persuasion can agree. Except that with this president, in this context, conservatives are suspicious about the content, demanding to see the text of the address in advance.

One-time Republican presidential hopeful Gary Bauer called the speech an "unprecedented" use of power." He was not making a cheeky reference to President George W. Bush's surveillance of U.S. citizens, Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus or any of the invasions of sovereign nations that the U.S. has undertaken over the years. He was being completely sincere, and so was the chairman of the Florida Republican Party in a memo that accused the president of using "taxpayer dollars . . . to spread President Obama's socialist ideology." A Republican state lawmaker from Oklahoma is quoted as saying, "As far as I am concerned, this is not civics education — it gives the appearance of creating a cult of personality. This is something you'd expect to see in North Korea or in Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

Of course, such an argument is wholly without merit. There is certainly a "cult of personality" around the U.S. president for school children, and there always has been. Fred Greenstein's groundbreaking work with children in the 1960s revealed that presidents are perceived as "benevolent leaders" to children, irrespective of their parents' political beliefs. There have always been portraits of the current president hanging in schools, courthouses, post offices and other public spaces. Portraits do not invite "a critical approach" to presidents, as the Arizona state schools superintendent said should happen; indeed, they invite "worship" of our nation's top leader in the name of patriotism.

Is this paranoia racially driven? A solid case could probably be made for that, but we are not going to make it. What we will do, however, is explain how these accusations work to erode Obama's image as part of a larger push to portray him as "other." As we always do, we will take the social science approach and focus on the effects of this communication rather than the intent of the folks who are crafting and delivering the message.

Social science research reveals that racist messages in political campaign communication almost never occur as a result of a candidate using direct ("explicit") racist language. Rather, there is a combination of images and code words that are effective because they activate deeply-held racist predispositions in the minds of voters (not just White voters). Again, this work speaks to the way that such messages have the potential to affect voters; it makes no claims as to whether such appeals were intended by the candidates or their campaign teams. In some case (like the infamous Willie Horton ad from 1988), we can know intent because the architect (in that case, Lee Atwater), admitted as much (in that case, after he knew that he was dying -- far too young -- of cancer), but for the most part, we cannot, as President George W. Bush used to say, know what is in their hearts.

In our most recent work, we found that there is a tendency to use in-group/out-group language to indicate "otherness," a tactic which has the potential to be greatly exacerbated when the "other" is a member of a racial or ethnic minority group. Such language often comes by way of the choice of first person pronouns in combination with images that suggest the race of the in group. For instance, if a White candidate is running against a Black candidate in a district that is majority-White, he or she might run an ad that includes only White citizens, with language about "our values" or "our priorities," signaling that those priorities are different than those of a candidate of color. There is nothing inherently racist about candidates trying to convince voters that they are more "relatable" than their opponents; as a result of the way race has worked in America, however, the priming of group identity with images in combination with such language can work to the advantage of a candidate who employs such a strategy.

We can see this very clearly in Barack Obama's opponents over the past two and a half years. From the Democratic primaries through the election through the first six months of his presidency, detractors from all political persuasions have used language that pushes Obama into the category of "other." The specific elements on which Obama is accused of being different change (quite frequently, in fact): He has been labeled as un-American in at least these ways by political elites: communist/socialist/Marxist, elitist, corrupt, terrorist sympathizer, foreign-born, a thug, fascist and racist (ironically, this is considered to be un-American). None of these labels are racist in and of themselves (even "racist"), but when leveled against a person of color, the dynamic is inherently different.

Does that mean that any attack against a person of color is racist? Certainly not (though Obama's opponents have used that argument, as well). First, even if the messages are racist by these scholarly definitions, that does not mean that those who crafted the message did so intentionally (did we mention this already?). Second, there are all sorts of ways that a person of color can be criticized on political grounds without playing into preexisting negative stereotypes about that person's race or ethnicity. Suggesting that Barack Obama is trying to deceive people has a racist effect because African Americans are presumed to be shifty, dishonest and criminal. To argue that Barack Obama's health care proposal is bad for America because small businesses would have a difficult time with the provisions, for instance, is wholly non-racial. Some progressives have argued that all of Obama's opponents are playing on race because the overwhelming visible criticism of him has been based on fear appeals related to negative stereotypes about African Americans.

This latest criticism over the education speech is no different. The argument is that Obama is trying to play a shell game with the American people, to "get at" our children, and to be dishonest about his true intentions. Such a criticism aimed at a White president (or official or candidate) carries no racist associations, as Whites are not, as a group, commonly assumed to have such characteristics. Since such stereotypes do exist about Blacks, however, the effect of this charge is different.

Former Republican Speaker of the House (and likely 2012 presidential hopeful) Newt Gingrich came out in support of the president's speech on Sunday, but implied that his support was related to the fact that he believed that the text of the speech would be made available so that parents could choose whether to allow their children to be exposed to the message. This is consistent with the calls from many of those who have criticized the speech, suggesting that Obama is trying to hide the content from parents. We do not know how common it is for presidents to release the text of their speeches weeks or days ahead of time (though it is quite common for text to be released to the press hours ahead of time for publication assistance), but in the larger context of conservative attacks on Obama over the past year or so, the request is troubling, as it signals that Black folks -- even the president -- cannot be trusted to talk directly to our students without parents having the chance to censor.

Adults talk to our children everyday without our input: teachers, firefighters, police officers, other children's parents on "career days," etc. Presumably there is no opposition to such speakers because those folks are not "strangers" -- they are members of our community. In the past, presidents of the United States were very much considered to be members of our community -- even largely in communities of color.

But this president will never be accepted as "family" or even as legitimate to many Whites. Once that is understood, it is not surprising that parents would not want their children to hear what he has to say unless and until they approve the content ahead of time. If you are not "one of us," you do not get to talk to our children.

Update (9/7/09, 12:39pm CDT): The text of the president's speech to children can be found here.

Jack Kemp: A Conservative Voice for Racial Justice

It's easy to speak well of someone after he or she has passed. All of the anger and frustration from personal or political opponents seems to wane in the hours after a death; it's as if we finally realize what we ought to all along: we are all in this together.

But it's unnecessary for us to retire frustrations with respect to Jack Kemp, the longtime Republican who kept minority interests at the center of his agenda throughout his political career. When we commented on the death of Jesse Helms last summer, we asked our colleagues and friends who work for social justice to try to move on:

It has been said that the most important way to give is to forgive, and we urge our contemporaries who are similarly committed to social justice to do just that. We sincerely hope that Senator Jesse Helms find the peace that he worked so hard to deny to so many others during his professional career.

In this case, no such call is necessary. Progressives may not agree with Kemp's supply-side tax strategies, but rather than simply cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans and waiting for it to "trickle down," Kemp advocated tax breaks for middle-class folks, too, so that spending power remained in their hands.

More important, though, was his advocacy of "enterprise zones" in urban areas. In essence, these are areas of economic blight that are targeted for tax cuts for businesses who are willing to locate and operate there. It's a typical conservative strategy in the sense that it is based on tax cuts, but it was forward-thinking with respect to being attentive to the unique needs of inner-city neighborhoods and the people who live there.

When we had our exchange with Professor Voegeli last fall, we expressed concern that conservatives not only differ with progressives in terms of how to rectify racial injustice, but they tended to ignore (or give short shrift to) racial injustice altogether. This cannot be said of Jack Kemp. When it came to issues that disproportionately affect racial minorities, he may have disagreed with his progressive contemporaries, but they could never say what Kanye West said about George W. Bush.

Jack Kemp "cared." No doubt about it.

Black Tea, White Tea: Making Sense of the Outrage

Across the country, angry Americans, the overwhelming majority of whom were White, gathered THIS WEEK to protest. What they were protesting is open to some discussion, but at the very least, there was concern about the latest round of deficit spending.

It has been argued that the "parties," instigated by conservative think tanks, supported and sponsored by conservative media and pundits, and with rhetoric aimed disproportionately at the Obama administration, were exercises in hypocrisy and "faux populism." For our part, we took notice of racial message that came forward, though they were relatively few, in part because organizers asked participants to avoid such messages in their signs.

Supporters of the tea parties, pejoratively referred to as "teabaggers" in the blogosphere, have been very defensive with respect to the racist charges, arguing (validly) that one ought to be able to criticize a Black president without being called "a racist." We use this space to attempt to explain how scholarly criticisms of racism differ from playground accusations, and why the former are appropriate to consider and apply to the parties.

First, we point out that folks who study racism and racial discourse by and large do not use the word "racist" as a noun (as in "He is a racist."). This is because the term is used to refer not to individual-level prejudice, but systemic oppression that is rooted in narratives and institutions that perpetuate and reinforce such individual attitudes. Since everyone who is socialized within a system characterized by historic inequality based on race is affected deeply (and subconsciously) by those messages, everyone is racist. (Note that we did not say that everyone is a racist). Colloquially, the term is used to identify persons who are unabashedly prejudiced on the basis of skin color. For that, we use the term "bigot."

The distinction is crucial because conflation of the terms leads to an assumption that there is virtually no racism left. Since there are only a handful of bigots among us, it is comforting to believe that we are not "racist" if we don't use the "n-word" or consciously base judgments on skin color. That's convenient, but it's dangerous because it has led to our collective inability to meaningfully confront the most pressing issues of racism in America.

Second, people who are supportive of the "tea party" messages broadly have tended to try to explain how some of the signs were not "racist" because there were plausible explanations for the designers' intentions that do not involve race. That is, there are cries that Obama supporters are "using race" to discredit otherwise valid opponents of the Administration. It is important to note that we divorce "racism" from intent because, as social scientists, we are primarily concerned with effect. That does not mean that it is not worth considering the intent of those propagating the messages; it just means that it is a task better left to journalist and scholars in the humanities. For us, it is enough to acknowledge that such messages are potentially not "bigoted" in the sense that someone consciously attempted to play on negative racial predispositions. We are all driven to some extent by our racism (as defined above), so arguments about whether there was consciousness involved in the design of the message is irrelevant to our point that such messages are rooted in and subsequently prime subconscious racist sentiments.

Actor and activist Janeane Garofolo drew a lot of criticism for saying that the "parties" were essentially exercises in racism by "rednecks." Her language is not helpful in the sense that while it drew attention, it undermined more thoughtful and clearly articulated points about the racial nature of the discourse at work at these events.



Huffington Post covered the events and posted pictures of some of the "most offensive" signs, some of which had racial undertones. We took the liberty to lift some of these and post them below with annotations that we hope will make it easier to understand why these messages can be considered to be racially insensitive.

This image depicts a Black man (ostensibly Obama) slitting the throat of Uncle Sam from behind. While the violence is offensive, it also works to prime racist fears of Black violence. If the president was White and a similar poster were made with the White president, there would be no issue. For some, that is the rationale for why there accusations of racism here are unfounded. That relies, of course, on what we (and others) have referred to (in this space and elsewhere) as the "false reciprocity" fallacy. In other words, just because a similar message could easily be made about a White person does not mitigate the racist nature of the message. If there were no history of racism and, thus, no negative stereotypes about people of color, then reciprocal arguments would be valid. But there are no myths about "White violent criminals," so messages like these are more effective as a result of racist predispositions.

This image is racist because it wouldn't make very much sense if the president were not African American. The phrase was made popular by the character Arnold Jackson, played by the actor Gary Coleman, in the 1970s/1980s sitcom "Diff'rent Strokes." If it were a contemporary common phrase, we might not be as concerned, but given the history, it is impossible for anyone to hear (or read) the phrase without an image of little (Black) Arnold Jackson's face, screwed up in a combination of confusion and contempt, rhetorically "asking" his brother, Willis, what he was "talkin' about." The degree of "offense" is lower in this image than in the above image because Arnold was a beloved figure, but the unnecessary connection to race is troublesome because it prompts us to think about Obama's race, thus activating our racial schemata and making accessible other information about African Americans -- most of which is negative -- as we evaluate Obama.

The level of ethnic insensitivity here does not need much explanation. Analogies to Nazis or Hitler are all too common in our contemporary discourse, and this is merely another example. It is clear that a number of people are upset about governmental spending, but suggestions that paying taxes -- even more than one believes is appropriate -- is on par with the attempted systematic extermination of an entire ethnic group are not only unfounded, but profoundly offensive.






Reminiscent of the "little girl monkey" imitation we saw at a McCain/Palin rally during the campaign, this youngster displays a sign that plays on stereotypes of Black folks as "not quite human." Such messages were important during the dehumanization of Africans during slave times and the continual denial of rights to African Americans during Jim Crow. As we have seen recently with the Washington Times editorial cartoon, such imagery still evokes powerful emotions and criticism.


This message references the 1990s-era In Living Color skit that featured African American comedian Damon Wayans as a parolee who does his community service by playing a clown named "Homey." According to a Wikipedia entry, "His goal in life is to get even with 'The Man,' a personification of the white males he thinks are "holding him down." There would be concern about the sign even if it were held by a person of color because it references a character that is criminal and suggests that Obama is motivated by a desire to harm Whites (as was suggested throughout the campaign in a variety of ways). As always, it is even more unnerving to see a White person use Black cultural images to criticize an African American.



ACORN has been criticized for the corrupt practices that have been uncovered in some of their work. The organization is designed to empower poor persons, particularly those in urban settings, by advocating for housing fairness, in part through registering people to vote. The corruption was a result of the organization paying persons for registering voters on a "price-per-registration" system, which led to some folks falsifying registration forms. Republicans and conservatives alleged that Obama's supporters were trying to "steal" the elections (imagery that plays on predispositions about African Americans and crime), even though votes could never be cast by folks who did not exist. While criticism of ACORN's practices are valid, the organization had nothing to do with the ostensible purpose of the "tea parties" last week, unless one buys into the conspiracy theories about Obama's election being a result of corrupt practices.

This sign addresses the non-issue about Obama's birth certificate, where opponents have tried to argue that he is not really a natural born citizen. While the question may have been valid when it was first raised, it has been addressed a number of times, culminating with the U.S. Supreme Court weighing in on the issue. See this video of a "tea party" in Cleveland in February where protesters claim with some confidence that Obama is lying about his citizenship status, some noting that he is Kenyan. This plays into racist notions of Black folks as untrustworthy and "other" that are pervasive subconscious beliefs among Americans.




This last image speaks for itself.

In short, what we hope readers will recognize is that while there are "wingnuts" from all parts of the political spectrum, thoughful analysts who are concerned about racism at these assemblies are neither claiming that all criticisms of Obama are racist in nature nor arguing that even the folks holding these signs are themselves bigots. If we are to make progress with respect to race relations, though, we must be diligent about pointing out where these messages appear, how they work, and why they are effective.