Obama Part I: Those Who Made It Possible

Prof. Lance,

Thanks for this, but I'm afraid that a number of the groups/individuals you list here would be more than mildly critical of an Obama presidency (that is to say, significantly more critical than you are here): I'm thinking of Frederick Douglass, Langston Hughes, MLK, Malcolm X, the SDS, and the Zapatistas, to name a few. As I imagine you of course know, given your previous columns and stated political views, I don't think they would find the election of a half-black man to the presidency of the United States particularly progressive, given how incredibly reactionary and destructive that institution is (and, I suppose, must be).

So where is the criticality you've expressed elsewhere as regards this question? Or are we to wait for 'Obama Part II' for that?

Mark Lance
Javi:
Thanks. YOu are exactly right. That's why there is a part II. In fact, almost none of these people would have seen this as the culmination of what they worked for, and all would have been critical of aspects of the new administration or, as you say, the existence of the institution at all.

THe key point I think is what I meant to convey with "know the difference between symbol and change, and the value of both". This is more symbol than change, certainly not fundamental change of any kind. But symbols are important, and celebrations are important. This is a country that built much of its wealth on the institution of owning black people as commodities. It is a country that in my lifetime outlawed black-white sexual relations, hung blacks from trees with impunity, etc. I think it is absolutely required of us to honor the feeling of accomplishment and redemption that comes when a country like that elects a black man president.

It is also absolutely important to be very clear about what an election can change, but I think that has to wait for just a bit. Though an election is not what most of the people I mention were fighting FOR, it is nonetheless their fights, their struggles, their lives, that made it possible. And I think we need to honor that.

But fear not. I'll be back in full critic mode next column.

Prof. Lance,

I have problems with your article that seems to promote Barack Obama as some extension of historical people who fought for personal rights, freedom and equality. He is not in any of their classes.

Barack Obama could give a crap less about the disenfranchised, unless its for a political end. For example, Barack Obama is AGAINST gay marriage. Does everyone hear that? He's a bigot, folks, a full-on bigot because he does not believe in equal protection under the law. This is doubly insulting given that he exists as a result of mixed-race marriage (a marriage that was once held to be illegal based on the EXACT same analysis he uses to say why gay people shouldn't be able to marry). Of course, it's possible that he only says he does not believe gay marriage should be illegal, but lies because admitting his actual feelings would likely cost him votes. Some symbol of change, eh? A bigot or a liar, choose one.

I don't have a problem with you holding out Obama to be the lesser of two evils. I also don't have a problem with holding Obama out as someone who has helped many disenfranchised folks feel like part of the system (it truly was nice to see scenes of black people rejoicing for a positive reason...the last time I saw a group display of excitement on the news that involved the black community was after OJ Simpson got away with murder). Honestly though, for you - the cognitive dissident guy - to believe the hype about Barack Obama is just tough to take. I'd expect you to jump on him for who he is, just like a few months ago when you wrote the article about how none of the candidates are addressing any controversial issues.

Plus, Obama is in favor of FISA. Some symbolic hero - he believes in the government spying on citizens. I should probably cut this e-mail short. Big brother watches while Mr. Obama approves of it.

The only reason Barack Obama is a symbol of change is because people have shut their eyes to what he's saying. Change is NOT anti-gay bigotry and it's not anti-freedom spying by the government. If America is a country that elects people BECAUSE of their skin color and feels proud of it, that's wrong. We should be proud only when we become a country that elects people REGARDLESS of their skin color. This is an important distinction that I think your article fails to make.

Sorry for the disjointed e-mail. I mean no disrespect either by my arguments or poor editing. However, I do think this is important that we don't forget that Barack Obama - but for his skin color - is just more of the same.

Mark Lance
Adnan:
Well, there is a real difference. Yes, he is fundamentally a politician, working within a corrupt system. That is true. it is also true that there are likely to be hundreds of thousands of people who don't die under an Obama administration who would under McCain's. And millions who will have a better life. Those are details that matter.

But the main thing is, read the response just to the other comment. Did you think that I suddenly forgot everything I've been writing in dozens of columns before this? I chose my words here carefully. I never said that Obama was the extension of these people, that he was a radical break with the past, or anything else. I said that these people made his election possible. And that is something to celebrate. In the next column I'll put that in context.

Mark

I read the column as intending to be a list of people who made Obama's election possible. If that's the case, why congratulate those listed at the end of it?

Further, if it was just a list of people who made his election possible, shouldn't we also thank all the bigots who voted for Obama? Just like them, he supports separate and unequal treatment for gays. Without a portion of the bigot vote, Obama's election wouldn't have been possible and they had a much more direct role than any of the others you mentioned.

I read the column as intending to be more than just a list of people who made Obama's election possible. If that's the case, why congratulate those listed at the end of it?

Further, if it was just a list of people who made his election possible, shouldn't we also thank all the bigots who voted for Obama? Just like them, he supports separate and unequal treatment for gays. Without a portion of the bigot vote, Obama's election wouldn't have been possible and they had a much more direct role than any of the others you mentioned.

Mark Lance
People who fight for the right of black people to be full citizens are fighting for the possibility of someone to be president, so long as we have the institution of the presidency. They may or may not want that institution to exist in its present form -- a form that simply guarantees that no viable candidate will meet all of my (or I think your) conditions. But they make it possible, and I repeat that anyone who can't see a moment to celebrate in the US's electing a black man president is blind in a very sad way.

I don't really think you need me to explain why I'm not celebrating the fact that anti-gay bigots voted for him or why that sort of "making possible" is completely different from what I'm talking about. I also think, having written two columns in the last year on the topic and been one of the most vocal people on campus on the issue, that you know where I stand on that issue.

I'm afraid this is a time in history when one has to embrace complexity. It is a moment of celebration -- a black man has been elected, possibly the smartest man in the history of the presidency has one, someone who will make clear improvements in the direction of the country has won -- and a moment for anger. At the same time as this voters passed four vile bigoted ammendments. It is a time to celebrate progress and a time to demand more. It is a time to say that something profound has happened, and to recognize that at a more fundamental level nothing has changed.

Last weekend I was at a day-long forum offering a people's alternative to the G20 -- because Obama marks no change to global capitalism -- and my partner was at the march against hate -- because he will not be a leader on that issue (though obviously will be far better than McCain/Palin). But that is all AND, not OR.

I hear you, I honestly do. It's just that I'm surprised that in the case of Obama, you're embracing complexity, but in past columns, you've not extended the same courtesy to others. For example, I don't think Henry Kissinger was a great guy, but comparing him to a terrorist? In my mind, it's a little more complex than that.

Of course, given the unfortunate truth that 70% of black Californians are bigots (based on their vote in the gay marriage referendum), perhaps Obama does embrace the ideals of the black community.

Mark Lance
Hmmm. So you think that voting against gay marriage disqualifies people from being taken seriously, but murdering millions of civilians in order to pursue an imperial agenda is kind of ok, deserving of courtesy.

I'm really not sure what to make of that. Charitable interpretations are hard to come by.

Stop playing dumb. Henry Kissinger never murdered a single person. Not one. Or, if you want to call Kissinger a murderer, I hope you'll call Malcolm X a murderer too. I suspect you won't, but each of them are "responsible" for plenty of deaths.

Now, back to my point: as I understand it, the whole function of your column is to point out the corruptions and hypocrisies that exist in our society, particularly in politics. Agreed? And not to go along with the mainstream just because that's the tide? If so, spit out the koolaid and see if you can find your b@lls before it's too late, because you're losing credibility very, very quickly by defending this bigot.

Next thing you know, you'll be thanking Mussolini for making the trains run on time.

And to answer your question: yes, opposing equal protection for all American citizens precludes one from being taken seriously in my book. I'm just surprised that you wouldn't say the same.

You can't be half-way free, half-way slave, Professor Lance. I'd expect you to understand that, but I guess you just don't.

Mark Lance
so argument fails and you resort to childish abuse. Great.
I'm not playing dumb. When you order planes to drop napalm on villages, you are killing people. When you devise policies that kill people you are killing them. This is straight-forward and Kissinger is a murderer. You apply the exact same principle in a case of someone less powerful, so don't call me names to justify your inconsistency. (Who did Malcolm kill? Who did he order killed? What policies did he enact that killed people? If there are answers, then he killed people.)

As for your childish machismo, I have made absolutely clear my stance on gay rights, and I bet I've put my balls on the line quite a bit more often than you have. How many organizations have you started that created safe spaces for sexual minorities? How many times have you been assaulted by homophobes? I don't know who you are, so it is possible that the answer is more than me, but I'll stand by my record on the issue.

what is perfectly clear here is that you are someone who is committed to single-issue justice. You want to denounce Obama for not being sufficiently supportive of justice on this issue -- as you should -- and think that this precludes seeing a legitimate reason for celebration of an incredible moment in racial justice -- which is silly.

I really thought that we were going to be able to have a serious discussion. It is sad that you've gone over to the side of those who think this is a forum for ridiculous name-calling.

In answer to your questions:

How many organizations have you started that created safe spaces for sexual minorities? 4.

How many times have you been assaulted by homophobes? 19.

Now it's your turn to answer my question:

How many President-elects who are anti-gay and anti-equal rights do you support?

Mark Lance
So in my case 5 and at least 40. Does that make my balls bigger than yours? Is this whole line of dispute childish and silly? Do you really think that this is a way to respond to arguments? (Please note that you were the one who challenged my commitment on the issue. You were the one who issued the silly macho challenges.)

To answer your question - for at least the 4th time in this discussion -- zero. I don't support any president, the institution of the presidency, or anyone denying equal rights. I celebrate the fact that the country of slavery, Jim Crow, and lynchings can elect a black man, but that does not mean that I support elections, him, or even more obviously specific positions of his.

The fact that you steadfastly refuse to respond to what I'm actually writing, to allow more than one thought at a time into your head, or to consider the complexity of this election is no excuse to repeatedly and transparently misrepresent what I'm saying. It is perfectly obvious that I do not support anti-gay policies. You know this. And at this point you are simply lying when you pretend otherwise.

Despite the turn that you've taken in this discussion, I welcome your commitment to this issue of justice and maintain hope that at some point you will consider placing it in a larger context. Until then, this is my last comment. Please see my final Hoya column, which completes this one. It is unclear when the Hoya will print it. I hope in the Dec 2 edition.

You celebrate that the country of Jim Crow can elect a black man? How about the fact that the child of Jim Crow victims now imposes anti-gay Jim Crow on others? Actually, it's worse than Jim Crow: at least for blacks it was separate but equal. Here, gays are treated with anything but equality.

Oh, and I made a mistake: I started 6 organizations and have been attacked at least 50 times. So, I guess that resolves that issue too.

Mark Lance
So you start the issue by claiming that I don't do anything about gay rights along with a bunch of macho posturing, and then it turns out that you are as dishonest about your involvement as you have been about what I said in this discussion. Have you actually done anything? Or do you figure that activism is hiding behind pseudonyms and posting insults on internet boards while ignoring what others are saying? If this is the nature of your contribution on the gay rights issue, I take back what I said earlier. You aren't even working for justice on one issue. You are just ranting and self-indulgent. And you are doing it in a way that is certainly counterproductive to any serious attempt to build a movement. You certainly don't bother me. I've been at this long enough to not be upset by self-involved jerks. But if you talk this way to people in general, you are certainly driving people away from the movement, and alienating potential allies. In any event, this conversation is a waste of time and I'm finished with it.

Prof. Lance,

Your attacks avoid the issue: you cannot morally celebrate the election of an unjust candidate, even if you think it represents a victory for a racial group that has historically been underrepresented or treated pouorly. Indeed, if that was morally permissible, we should be celebrating the election of Hitler who, after all, gave pride to the downtrodden German people.

You should also apologize for your inappropriate, ad hominem, attacks. They demean the readership of this board. You should recognize that your behavior and bombast and make you a justifiably easy target. You should be careful about the stones you throw from your china-glass house.