An Editorial Notebook: Impossible expectations of Obama
Barack and Michelle Obama on CBS' "60 Minutes"
When a man or a woman shatters a racial, ethnic or gender barrier, the “pioneer” or “groundbreaker” or shatterer of “glass ceilings” inherits the weight of great expectations.
The title “First Black This” or “First Woman That” or “First Hispanic Whatever” carries special demands — and surely much more so for the nation’s first African-American president. President-elect Barack Obama already faces what arguably are excessive and unreachable expectations from an array of interest groups queueing up to advance their agendas through his success. Mr. Obama’s themes of unification and more open international relations have taken these expectations worldwide.
Mr. Obama rightly is hailed as a historic, powerful symbol that democratic values can propel all people to the political pinnacle. Quite literally, there never has been a president like him. Winning the national election was an unparalleled feat, and the days between now and Inauguration Day will see many smiles and embraces. But governing as the first president of African-American or mixed-race descent will test his mettle even more.
Voting blocs that disproportionately supported Mr. Obama — African-Americans, women and Hispanics — already are pushing for multicultural and gender-diverse Cabinet-level appointees. For example, Hispanic voters, who helped to carry several key swing states, already are planning to rally in Washington, D.C., the day after Inauguration Day to advocate for immigration reform.
The president-elect must recognize that his administration cannot be all things to all people, especially during the worst economy in a generation and with our nation fighting wars on two fronts abroad.
Mr. Obama wisely kept his powder dry during the campaign. He talked about trends and concepts but hedged on specific options that could pit key constituencies against one another. It was an effective technique that helped broaden his base of support.
But the demands of governing as a “global citizen” and “groundbreaking pioneer” are more daunting. No matter how he acts — or doesn’t act — on issues such as immigration reform, equal pay for women and rebuilding distressed cities, many will hyper-analyze his decisions through a racial prism. Some will question his motives.
Like those who have broken barriers before him — a first minority or female police chief, school superintendent, governor or corporate chief executive — Mr. Obama will face the extra question: Are you a black president or a president who also is black? Which ranks first?
The question is irrelevant, but it also is inevitable.
Mr. Obama’s ascension has been compared with that of Jackie Robinson, who broke Major League Baseball’s color line in 1947. With due respect to the Brooklyn Dodgers’ No. 42, President No. 44 will have a far greater, and possibly far more enduring, impact.
Jackie Robinson’s breakthrough was one step in a process. It did not, by itself, recalibrate race relations, as Mr. Robinson would have been the first to acknowledge. Resistance to equal opportunity and treatment endured. It may endure beyond Mr. Obama, but his election may mark the beginning of the completion of the journey that started long before even Jackie Robinson first appeared in a Dodgers uniform.
Mr. Obama’s history is more complex. His African father was from Kenya, his Anglo mother from Kansas. He was reared in an integrated family at a time when interracial marriages were rare, and he initially was schooled abroad. His racial duality and his internationalism were essential parts of the personal story of his very long campaign.
Mr. Obama’s success at winning the presidency has been a source of inspiration for all Americans. But no mortal can heal the problems of all people. The first 43 presidents didn’t, and neither will the 44th.
Mr. Obama has a rare opportunity to unite diverse people. Americans should resist reflexive temptations to cast his actions along racial lines. He and the country have too much at stake to get sidetracked with divisive racial politics.
Gilbert Bailon has been editor of the P-D editorial pages since November 2007. Previously, he worked as a reporter, editor and executive editor for The Dallas Morning News and its daily Spanish-language newspaper, Al Dia. He still harbors a passion for all things Tex-Mex: food, music, language, boots and border culture. And yes he has found some of that in the Midwest. 
.
Local 527 group begins major backfilling job for Obama again.
===
Obama hasn’t even taken office and already the “change we can believe in” folks are making excuses. Is “divisive racial politics” first on the list or did I miss one? Have you forgotten already — “Yes, we can.”
Mathematics, not racism, will be Obama’s downfall.
Given that the current President is madly writing out executive orders right and left that commit natural resources to his buddies in the oil and coal industries, without any review of the proposals; and given that the current President is also seeking to define how the TARP funds are spent to favor those at the top levels — President Elect Obama could actually be the Messiah and still will be stuck with a mess he had no hand in creating.
I doubt that Moses with his rod, or Jesus of Nazereth with his miracles, would perform as well as they were reported to.
Given that President Elect Obama is human, I expect he will find that he has been handed Bush’s mess to clean up. Regardles of what he does, someone is not going to be happy with him. Since it took Bush 8 years to screw it up this badly, let’s at least give President Elect Obama the first 3 years to change some of the more egregiously bad decisions made by the current Oval Office Occupant (OOO).
Harnack, thanks for excuses 3 & 4. Let’s start a running list.
1. Racism
2. Mathematics (my contribution)
3. It’s Bush’s fault.
4. Moses and Jesus couldn’t either.
5.
Which of you “yes, we can” folks has the next “why we can’t” excuse. Let’s see if we can reach fifty by inauguration day.
The best baseball player ever, Willie Mays, played for the New York (and San Francisco) Giants — arch enemies to the Brooklyn Dodgers.
Any chance of an African-American candidate who stands for freedom and liberty (ie arch enemy to the democratic party)? That would be change I could believe in. Maybe his slogan could even be Change you won’t have to just believe in.
Gilbert,
Please don’t start the meme about how Obama can’t live up to the expectations that have been set for him by the adoring media, which includes the Post-Dispatch. This can ONLY be attributed to a sudden concern that “Oh SH**! He can’t possibly live up to the everything we have said about him!”
No. He is the President Elect. He has a seal and everything. Don’t worry. I am confident that every stumble, every gaff, every shortcoming, every problem, every challenge, every problem, every “Oh sh**!” every disaster, every world conflict, every economic ill, will find a warm and comfortable home on your editorial page………blaming George W. Bush.
A# (Bflat) -
What excuses?
Fact: President Bush is madly signing off on executive orders in order to beat the 60 day “deadline”. Even your favorite Fox News is reporting on this. The recent preponderance of these orders are designed to make it easier for oil, gas and coal companies to drill and mine in and around national parks. Yesterday he also loosened up the endangered species regulations so that these could not be used to block the previous orders. Look for challenges in the federal courts on Monday seeking injunctions against all of these.
Moses & Jesus: I admit this was a bit of hyperbole, however, my point is that the expectations being put on President Elect Obama by some of his followers, and even by some of his detractors, seem to be all out of proportion to any human being’s ability to deliver on them.
Now on to your numbers 1&2.
“1. Racism
2. Mathematics (my contribution)”
Given that the rate of “hate crimes” as reported across the board after November 4th has gone up, specifically featuring President Elect Obama; and, given that all were committed by “whites” who chose to use language such as “put a bullet in the n****r’s head” etc., how can this be construed as anything but racism?
Mathematics. If you mean that you are viewing President Elect Obama as representing a “minority” view, he won by 52% to 46% with the other 2% being everyone else. The current President with a 51% majority ran around proclaiming he had a “mandate”, so where does your math enter. Figures and data and formulae comprise mathematics, not words and assertions. Words, assertions and syllogisms comprise the field of logic. Now there is mathematical logic, but I seriously doubt this is what you are speaking of.
One question for you and others in your clan:
What would you do if President Elect Obama is actually able to meet all of the unreasonable positive expectations of his supporters? (ie. turn the economy around, get the green economy going great guns, handle health care in a way that is fair to all, get jobs and employment turned around, provide the tax cuts as promised, works out immigration reform using Senator McCain to help, etc).
Harnack…. I make no attempts to defend either the Bush administration or the Republican party. Neither have kept their word to the American people. But Bush is responsible for his own failures as Obama will also be.
By mathematics I am referring to the bane of the government worshipers and Marxism as a whole. Look back thirty years then project the growth of the number of people dependent upon government forward thirty more years. Project the increase in government spending forward thirty more years. Project the increase in government employees, campaign costs, special interest influence and all the other related factors. Promises of socialist utopia have always failed because the mathematics always catches up.
The original editorial provided the racism excuse. You folks can beat that horse as long as you like. Philosophical disagreement with Obama’s Marxist beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with his race (or fractions thereof).
Barack Obama was elected as the next President of the United States. I hope for and will support any constitutional efforts he makes to lead the nation toward peace and prosperity. However, I do not believe in bigger federal government, collectivism, reverse discrimination, appeasement of our enemies, or surrender to foreign invasion across our borders.
Although a libertarian who believes in the U.S. Constitution including the second, ninth, and tenth amendments; I will be vilified as a right wing, racist, redneck bigot each time I express my views. If expressed in the wrong venue I will probably be investigated by local, state, and federal bureaucrats and media partisans just like Joe the plumber. So be it. Others have paid a much higher price to preserve my right to express those views and lawfully disagree with my government.
Harnack, the list of excuses is a good beginning as it stands. Obama and his supporters can either show their hand or admit they were just bluffing.
A# -
1. You mentioned projected growth etc, yet no where do you give any figures on this, so for the nonce your statements are assertions of “fact” not the “hard facts” themselves.
I realize it is popular for rightists and libertarians to call anything in economics that falls short “pure capitalism” “socialism” or “marxism”, however, again this is your assertion and not supported by facts.
The ploy you and others have used is to call someone by a particular label, ie “socialist” or “marxist”, then behave as if the label is true, then build a string of conclusions based on your initial label. The problem with such a procedure is when the person being labelled rejects the the label and chooses to define themselves for themselves.
For example:
Libertarians hold the primacy of the individual and the individual’s rights as being inviolate by the state. Included in this list of rights are legalization of marijuana, etc. It is patently obvious that Libertarians a essentially amoral and are prone to breed criminality and licentiousness. Therefore Libertarian must also support rape as long it is done as a matter of individual assertion of a “right to rape.”
Would you accept such a definition of libertarianism? (Somehow I suspect you ouldn’t.)
My point in all of these discussions is that well meaning and well intended people will abjure labels and try to focus on what is important. This is where civil discourse must be held.