My girlfriend has been listening to Democracy Now a lot lately. She rides the bus to work and has taken to downloading the previous week's DN broadcasts and listening during the ride each morning. She just made a suggestion to me that I found really intriguing and all I could say was: Whoa, can I post about this on the dailykos? She said yes -- with the caveat that she may be wrong.
Here's her tentative analysis: the equation of Obama and Bush, when it comes from white progressives, may in some cases be coming from conflicts embedded in white progressive identity.
More over the fold.
My girlfriend started her thinking-out-loud analysis by describing part of a recently aired interview Goodman did with Noam Chomsky.
She said that Goodman was asking Chomsky for his analysis of Obama's presidency so far. His response was that he had said from the start that he didn't like either candidate and that Obama is what he claimed to be -- a centrist Democrat.
My girlfriend found Chomsky's straighforwardness and deep unconflicted-ness about not liking Obama very striking -- in contrast to Amy Goodman's energy.
Here's a snippet from the show she was thinking about:
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think President Obama is any different than President Bush when it comes to the economy? And if you were in the Congress, would you have voted for the bailouts and the stimulus packages?
NOAM CHOMSKY: He’s different. I mean, first of all, there’s a rhetorical difference. But we have to distinguish the first and the second Bush terms. They were different. I mean, the first Bush term was so arrogant and abrasive and militaristic and dismissive of everyone that they offended, they antagonized even allies, close allies, and US prestige in the world plummeted to zero. Now, the second Bush administration was more—moved more toward the center in that respect, not entirely, but more, so some of the worst offenders, like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others, were thrown out. I mean, they couldn’t throw out Dick Cheney, because he was the administration, so they couldn’t get rid of him. He stayed, but the others, a lot of them, left. And they moved towards a somewhat more normal position.
And Obama is carrying that forward. He’s a centrist Democrat. He never really pretended to be anything else. And he’s moving towards a kind of a centrist position.
My girlfriend chewed on this contrast for a bit. Thinking about Goodman specifically asking Chomsky about the difference between Bush and Obama in terms of economic policy, and thinking about how Goodman bhas asked other people on the show questions along the lines of "Can we say this is Obama's war now." (this I don't have a link for because it's a broader memory from my girlfriend).
My girlfriend then went on a pretty intense questioning rant in which she asked: why can't all progressives just accept that they are in a different political location than Obama? He's a centrist and they are progressives! Of course they will criticize him. They don't agree with him on many things. Why can't that just be direct and straightforward? Why is an obvious difference in political positions translating into this weird equation of Obama = Bush in some cases and contexts? It's as if there are some people who can't just let there be a straightforward difference between the progressive position and the centrist/moderate position that Obama has openly occupied.
My girlfriend then started wondering if there is a conflictedness from at least some white progressives in particular who feel like they should support Obama because he's black. And in this conflicted-ness, if he can be compared to Bush, then that provides a justification for not supporting him because Bush represents heinousness, and not the advancement of people of color.
She asked, Don't you think there is some sort of white progressive identity that says: Advancement of people of color is a good thing. We as progressives identify as good people when it comes to issues of race, and so we support this good thing. But there are always exceptions -- individual people of color can be put into a different category because they have allied themselves with "evil." Like Condoleeza Rice or Clarence Thomas for example. So in order to be able to openly and strongly criticize President Obama, some white progressives have to put him into that category.
Up until she said this last part, I wasn't sure how much I agreed with her analysis, though I was certainly intrigued. But when she said that last part, I decided I strongly agree that she is getting at some hidden aspects of the energy I have sensed around some of the Obama-Bush comparisons in white progressive contexts.
So let me post that part again, because I think it is just that useful:
She asked, Don't you think there is some sort of white progressive identity that says: Advancement of people of color is a good thing. We as progressives identify as good people when it comes to issues of race, and so we support this good thing. But there are always exceptions -- individual people of color can be put into a different category because they have allied themselves with "evil." Like Condoleeza Rice or Clarence Thomas for example. So in order to be able to openly and strongly criticize President Obama, some white progressives have to put him into that category.
Yeow.
So. One problem with things like this -- for me -- is that they are not explicit. These dynamics are by their nature supposed to be hidden and thus are easy to refute.
And further, I know that there has been a whole lot of drama on this site around criticisms of Obama and the Obama-Bush comparison. I know that statements attending to specific dynamics from specific contexts get twisted into "you are saying that about anyone who criticizes Obama" and that I am likely to get some of those comments here.
And in addition, I know that talking about racism on this site is a pretty dicey prospect no matter what.
But I am posting this diary anyway. Not to prove an argument and not to say that any time that someone makes an Obama-Bush comparison it is from the space described here ... but because I feel like my girlfriend is onto something useful in taking apart for scrutiny some of the dynamics swirling around these days.
I am tempted to devise a drinking game related to this post in which certain kinds of responses require us to drink. But more than a couple of glasses of wine make me fall asleep so I won't hold myself to any such game.
Instead, I will say this: If this analysis is not accurate in describing you for any reason -- then it's not about you.
I am going to repeat that in case anyone missed it the first time:
If this analysis is not accurate in describing you for any reason -- then it's not about you.
Okay then. Any serious issues any readers have with that part (about whether it is about you or not), you can take up with my girlfriend, who conveniently is not a dailykos member and thus not available for comment.