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.

RNC Recap for Thursday, September 4

This past Monday, we provided a preview of the themes we expected to see this week during the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, MN. Here is a recap of Thursday’s events.

The theme for the night was “Peace: A Safer and More Secure America,” and the discourse was raised to a more sophisticated and positive level from that of Wednesday night. While there were a few references to Obama being “not like us” (U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham said “I’m not saying Barack Obama doesn’t care; he doesn’t get it”; McCain suggested that Obama believes he is anointed by God to save the country), Theme 1 from Monday was generally not reflected, for the most part, in the language from the last night’s speakers. Overall, there were few messages that would be more successful because of racist predispositions. Theme 3 (McCain is conservative) was similarly minimal on Thursday night, though McCain had a number of lines such as “. . . the party of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Reagan is going to get back to basics.” While there were some other mentions of Ronald Reagan, low taxes and keeping government out of people’s lives, these messages gave way to stronger themes of change and reform. Theme 4 (Republicans are inclusive) more closely resembled that of Tuesday night than Wednesday night, with nearly all of the speakers being white and male (notable exceptions were U.S. Senator Mel Martinez and Cindy McCain), and the few people of color in the audience getting predictable camera time.

Theme 2: McCain and Palin are Change
The most prominent theme from those that we predicted on Monday was Theme 2. In the film designed to introduce Governor Sarah Palin (which was supposed to air last night, but was bumped due to time constraints), the word “maverick” was mentioned three times in the first 15 seconds and was used at least three more times in the brief clip.



In short, it was a very strong final night to a strong convention. McCain did exactly what he needed to do: he placated the Evangelical right with his choice of VP, but maintained his ability to appear to be “independent” with the messages that came out of the convention hall. In particular, McCain’s “ask not what your country can do for you” speech Thursday night will clearly resonate with a large number of Americans. In contrast to the fear mongering that took place earlier in the convention (there was a particularly offensive graphic film about 9/11 victims shown earlier in the evening) and the vitriol that was so much a part of most of the convention’s speakers, McCain’s call for civility, bipartisanship, and putting country above self was a breath of fresh air. After an unfortunate start due to Hurricane Gustav, the GOP put on an energetic and moving event that will clearly result in a solid bounce in support in the coming days.

Walking the High Wire
McCain and Palin are going to have a difficult time maintaining the momentum that they built this week, though. It will be tough to continue to walk the very thin line between change and appeasing the conservative base of the Party. Particularly in Thursday night’s speech, McCain did an admirable job of simultaneously running against Obama and the Bush Administration. But that was a scripted speech in front of a supportive crowd; he will have difficulty keeping aloft on the high wire when things are being thrown at him from multiple sides. Here are a few examples:

• During the Palin film, the narrator noted that “she managed to increase funding for infrastructure by cutting property taxes” when she was mayor of Wasilla. How did she manage that? Early reports suggest that she hired a lobbying firm and received nearly $27 million worth of federal earmarks, something that McCain has vowed to eliminate if elected president. Conservatives will like that she didn’t raise property taxes, but will be upset to learn that she was part of the spending that they find so “wasteful” coming out of Washington.
• McCain used an example of a Michigan couple who lost their real estate investments in the housing crash, saying that he’d “fight” for them. That will be appealing to the populist wing of the party, but fiscal conservatives will be more likely to side with the statements McCain made in March: “it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers."
• Sarah Palin said that she’d advocate for children with special needs, but what did she mean? Parents of special needs children need a lot of help, not the least of which is financial. While it is compassionate to “advocate” for children with special needs, she will have to explain to the far right how this type of governmental spending is warranted, while others is not, or she’ll have to explain to these families why securing funding for treatment and education for these kids is not what she meant by “advocate.”
• McCain mentioned that the daughter of a Latina worker is one of “God’s children” who deserves to be fought for. If the worker is undocumented, he’s right that the child is “American,” but many on the far right would like that child to be sent out of the country. Will he fight for that child or deport him or her?
• McCain promised to provide assistance to the unemployed worker (through Community College training), but was not clear if he was going to spend federal money to make the transition. The working class supporters will favor such a program, but if it costs money, McCain will run into problems with others in the Party.

And there were some questions that remain unanswered. Specifically, who is the “me-first, country-second crowd” to which McCain referred in his speech Thursday night? The handful of politicians who have been caught in scandals are obvious and common enemies of the people, but beyond that, is he referring to Democrats? It was a common call of previous speakers that “liberals” in Washington “want your money for themselves.” But those who favor government spending on social issues (or foreign policy, for that matter) don’t get to keep that money for themselves. Who is in this “crowd?” The call all week was for “country first,” but who were they suggesting puts themselves ahead of country? There was some implication that Obama is out for himself (a political opportunist), but the vague attack on an ambiguous target is parallel to the attacks against “the media.” During the debates, there should be some push to be specific about what is meant by such claims.




Racial Equality Through Education
Our concern, of course, is the move toward racial equality. There is very little that came out of this convention that suggests that McCain/Palin will be committed to bringing about more racial equality in America. After noting Obama’s historic nomination, McCain made a general reference to “defending the rights of the oppressed” and making sure that all Americans have opportunities. But we were quite impressed that he said that “education is the civil rights issue of this century.” There is more to racial inequality than education, but for the most part, McCain is exactly correct. The problem, though, is that his plan to fix the education system is pointed in the wrong direction.

Educational opportunities are unequal in America largely due to the way schools are funded. While some federal and state money is given to schools by way of grants, much (usually most) funding of schools is reliant on property taxes in the district. So if a neighborhood is wealthy, the schools are wealthy; if it is poor, the schools are poor. Poor districts are understaffed, do not have materials and resources necessary to educate in the 21st century, and do not attract the most talented teachers. Further, poor districts are likely to have students whose parents have to work long hours and consequently may not be home to help with schoolwork. After-school programs are not possible because of funding issues. McCain promised Thursday night to “shake up failed school bureaucracy,” a vague phrase that directs attention away from the real problem. Bureaucracy does not create discrepancies in school funding, economic inequality (which is closely tied to racial inequality) does. McCain promises to make schools compete with one another and then allow parents to have the “choice” to move their students to a better school. But what does this really mean?

Without equality in funding, the “competition” is not fair. Particularly since No Child Left Behind financially punishes schools whose students do not meet standardized benchmarks, the “competition” is not likely to become fairer without a major change in funding structure. But that change will not happen if the far right continues to dictate policy. McCain promised folks that they should be able to keep the fruits of their hard labor. That is precisely what does not need to happen.

To make schools more equal, wealthy people will have to give money to poor schools through taxes and redistribution of finances. So long as wealthy (mostly white) folks move to the suburbs and keep their wealth in their own schools, leaving poorer families behind (or, as Obama said last Thursday, “on their own”), there will be inequality in schools. A voucher that gives a family a $4,000 credit to put toward tuition at a private school will help families that are $4,000 short for private school tuition of, say, $12,000 per year, but for those who can’t get the remaining $8,000, that’s simply an additional $4,000 that will not be in the pool for the local public school.

Further, while it is popular in conservative circles to run against unions, his promise to take education out of the hands of “bureaucrats and unions” and give it to parents and children is wrongheaded. Letting students decide what should happen in schools is like having physicians permit patients to make their own medical diagnoses. Until teachers are treated like professionals and not merely government employees (i.e., better pay, greater respect and autonomy), great leaps in education will not be possible. In short, without a major redistribution of wealth for school funding, McCain’s vision of civil rights being achieved through education will not be realized.

McCain spoke of the sort of selflessness that wealthy persons like to applaud, but only occasionally advocate in practice. The truth is that there is economic inequality in this country, and those who have wealth do not usually support policies to help those who do not. So while it is probably soothing for wealthy folks to cheer calls to serve a cause greater than oneself and put service first, the policies that are advocated by the Republican Party in 2008 are not a change from those of the past forty years. Tax-deductible contributions to get one’s family into a lower bracket are welcome, but they are no substitute for the greater good that can come from working together as a national community to solve our great problems of homelessness, hunger, poverty, and inequality. The market cannot solve those problems, and when the confetti clears in St. Paul, it will be obvious that the real empty rhetoric is not coming from Obama, whose policies are designed to address inequality, but from the GOP, whose presidential candidate we believe is personally committed to making the world a fairer, better place for all (at least Americans), but whose power is still centered in the far right, which have already pulled the “maverick” from his comfort zone and into a policy world with nothing but continued and increased inequality on the horizon.