Barack Obama, Lincoln Chafee, and Sister Souljah

I've avoided most of the Obama fracas today, and I'm going to continue to do so, so this diary is written from a vantage of blissful ignorance about most of the ins and outs of the attacks contained therein.  We did have a nice discussion in a diary I will not name (hint: "pie"), and I made one comment -- part 1 of what you'll find below -- there that some people seemed to appreciate.  So, I've decided to go ahead and build it into a diary.

The thesis of Part 1 is that Barack Obama is a lot like Lincoln -- Lincoln Chafee that is.  The reason is that sometimes politics dictates our role.  But in playing out his role, as he's started to do, Obama also invites some serious dangers.  The thesis of Part 2 is that the most obvious way of playing out that role may be a very bad choice.  So if you can stand a little sociological theory, in two parts, stroll on.

Part 1 -- Barack Obama and Lincoln Chafee:

Lincoln Chafee is a man with, I think we can say, Democratic principles in his heart.  Yet he was born the son of a longstanding Republican Senator, John Chafee.  For him to succeed in Rhode Island politics, therefore, an obvious path was available to him: do so as a liberal (or at least "liberal") Republican like his father.  It worked once and, if his reelection had been in 2004 rather than 2006, it likely would have worked again.  If George Bush and Karl Rove had not decided to see how far right they could take the GOP before the wheels came off, it might have worked indefinitely.

There was another path available to Lincoln Chafee, of course.  He could have switched to become a Democrat.  (He might still, now that the burden of holding office has been removed from him.)  But that path was more dangerous and unknown.  Would Democrats accept his "cutting in line" before those who had been waiting in turn for larger roles in this Democratic state?  Who knows?  It's no surprise that he didn't take that risk.

Now, what does that have to do with Obama?

Obama is the first Black Democratic politician who has a real shot at becoming President.  Shirley Chisholm didn't.  Jesse Jackson didn't -- what happened to Howard Dean would have been a light breeze compared to the gale wind that would have gathered to knock off Jesse Jackson if he had looked like he really had a chance of winning the nomination in 1988.  Neither Jordan, Vernon or Barbara, did; nor did either Young, Andrew or Coleman.  But, sooner or later, Obama does.

What is the obvious path available to him?

He may be as liberal as hell, but that's not going to do it.  He needs to look moderate.  (And it's working; based on the thermometer ratings, if you respect them, he's the most beloved Democratic name.)  But how does he achieve this moderate look?  He accepts the mantle of moderation that everyone will understand -- he cloaks himself in the exceptional religiosity of the Black Community.

This will pretty obviously take him a fair distance.  The black community loves and appreciates it: they're not really looking to be led by Barney Frank or Bernie Sanders anyway.  The pundritocracy loves it, because it's ideologically counterintuitive and makes a good story.  And frankly, those of us who favored Clinton in 1992 (which I did not, in the primaries) have no basis to complain about it, because Bill Clinton -- remember him being called "our first Black President?" -- did much the same thing.

Obama will not come to power as an acolyte of John Conyers or Ron Dellums.  He knows that that is not his alloted path to power -- and he is anything but stupid.  I will grant that his religious convictions are probably as sincere as that of any politician, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't recognize that they are also convenient.  And so he's taking the obvious path to power: saying what needs to be said, like Lincoln Chafee did.  I disagree with him vehemently on some of the particulars, but I don't take it all that seriously; I think it's a mistake to put too much stock in his anti-anti-religious rhetoric.  Clinton showed us that this religous orientation was compatible with a pretty liberal social policy.

I wish he'd show more leadership, but it's a good thing that people love him like they love Oprah, and he can develop as a politician at his own pace.  He's not my choice to be on the ticket at this point, but neither does the prospect that he will be worry me that much.  But I do worry about something else, which I take it was discussed in the diaries today.

Part 2 -- Barack Obama and Sister Souljah

We non-Christian liberals aren't going away.  He has to learn how to deal with us -- and not by demonization.  We are stereotyped by the Right and that will be used as a cudgel against any Democrat -- even if the nominee were (hmmm, can't say Lieberman here) Ben Nelson -- because being a Democrat means that you are going to have to make deals with those in your own party -- to promote the Reichs and Shalalas and liberal judges -- before you deal with the opposition.  So if we remain a potent symbol -- if Obama reinforces rather than defuses the stereotypes deployed against us -- he hurts everyone, himself included.  Because we will be an albatross hung around his neck.

Eyeing Bill Clinton as the paradigmatic successful Democratic moderate, Obama may be tempted to emulate what was either Clinton's masterstroke of positioning, or his ugliest moment of pandering, depending on your vantage point: the "Sister Souljah" smackdown.  Sister Souljah was a female hip-hop artist who, decrying black-on-black violence during the 1992 Rodney King related riots, said "If Black people kill Black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?"  The comment was reportedly taken out of context -- it was not a call to arms, but a way of pointing out that the people in the Black community were not each others' enemies.  No matter; Bill Clinton pounced.

Clinton, with the aggressiveness of Joe Lieberman going after a Democrat, ripped Sister Souljah to shreds for her extreme position.  He also criticized Jesse Jackson for including her in her Rainbow Coalition.  Moderate Democrats credit this act with showing that Clinton was not going to be a captive of the Black activist community, and removing the presumed  albatross of Jesse Jackson from around his neck.

This worked for Clinton in part, though, because he was already beloved by the overall Black community.  He played their music, athe their food, spoke their language.  Moreover, and more critically, the portion of the voting population that agreed with Sister Souljah's putative position was pretty small.  She was a pretty safe whipping girl for Clinton to choose.  Encouraging Blacks to kill whites (which is how her remark was taken, and all that most people ever had heard from her) had, unsurprisingly, a limited constituency.

One wonders if Barack Obama looks at Clinton's success and wonders who is his own Sister Souljah.  Could it be -- the anti-religious Left?

What anti-religious Left, you may ask?  Oh, be fair -- it's out there.  Just as Sister Souljah's words could be taken by some as an extension of the pro-Black-community sentiments of Jesse Jackson, so the anti-religious statements of someone like Richard Dawkins could be seen (fairly or not; I think not) as an extension of the sentiments of the non-religious Left.  And wouldn't it be a great way to show that he was not a captive of those special interests if he ...

Don't do it, Senator!  Don't. I'm not saying that you were going to do it.  But it looks like you've been casting an eye in that direction, and so I have to say this:  you shouldn't do it because there are too many of us.

I'm putting all morality aside here and speaking solely to practical politics:  There are simply too many of us for you to cut loose.  And -- how can I say this nicely? -- we have too much money.  Money that you'll need.  You cannot make us your whipping boys and girls and expect to succeed.

You can disagree with the excesses of the non-religious movement if you must, but don't try the smackdown that makes your audiences hoot in appreciation.  It won't work for you:  you're pro-choice and you don't want to be too anti-gay.  The way for you to win is actually to be a bridge between the non-religious and religious wings of the party.  You can -- must -- rehabilitate us in the eyes of our critics.  You have to make clear that we do have our own ethics and morality and that we sincerely disagree about the role that support of religion will have in public policy because of fears that you, as a constitutional law professor, no doubt fully understand.  You figure out how we can work together without rancor -- how those who oppose our establishment clause concerns can look at us as opponents without seeing us as demons.  Do that, and you'll be stronger if and when you run.  Hell, do that and I can imagine myself supporting you.

Part 3 -- Lincoln Chafee and Sister Souljah

If you're choosing to play the hand that history has dealt you, Senator Obama -- the respectable, intelligent, earnest Black politician who can attract white support while maintaining Black support by doing what Jimmy Carter did and wearing your faith on your sleeve -- then, if I may say so, Godspeed on your political journey.  I think most of us can understand why you would do so, and most of us can trust -- given enough signs of good faith (for lack of a better term) on your part -- that you will support policies that we can live with.  But if you do follow in the path of Lincoln Chafee and walk the path that fate has cleared for you, do not make the anti-religious your Sister Souljah and the non-religious your Jesse Jackson.  You'll hurt us, you'll hurt yourself, you'll hurt the party, and we will have every reason to come after you with everything we've got -- and that probably won't help anyone either.