William Kristol’s March 24, 2008, op-ed rant in the New York Times was interesting to say the least. His piece, “Let’s Not, and Say We Did,” was written shortly after presidential candidate Barack Obama delivered his monumental speech on Reverend Wright and race. Kristol artfully denounces Obama’s rationale for remaining associated with his reverend by citing that Obama is indeed an “able politician” and an “accomplished orator.” He then goes on to criticize Obama for comparing Wright to his white grandmother and the black community and claims that Obama has no real interest in carrying out a meaningful dialogue on race.
Kristol’s main argument is that now is not the time for a national conversation about race affairs in the United States; rather, we should continue to debate on core election issues, which will consequentially result in the improvement of race relations. Interesting. But how can a conversation about “economics, social mobility, education, family policy and the like” possibly be considered comprehensive if it fails to address the fundamental issue of race that is embedded in each of them? On the eve of the country’s potentially first black president, with racial tensions amongst Americans gaining momentum amid the political debates, race is undoubtedly an issue that we cannot afford to ignore.
Race is a big deal. The longer we pretend that people like Reverend Wright are alone in their “fanatical” views, the deeper we sink into the racial divide. Kristol states that “Obama compared Reverend Wright, who was using his pulpit to propagate racial resentment, with his grandmother, who may have said privately a few things that made Obama cringe.” Kristol attempts to downplay the significance of Obama’s grandmother’s racist remarks compared with those of Reverend Wright’s. But are they really that different?
To his congregation, Wright is a religious figure and a mentor. For Obama, his grandmother was a caregiver, a role model and a cherished family member. Both have significant influence over their congregation and family, respectively. Would not a close relative saying a racist remark toward her own flesh and blood have a lasting impact? Her racial insecurities were so deep-seated that she resorted to treating her own biracial grandson unfairly, just as Reverend Wright used his pulpit to echo the racist sentiments he learned in the racially turbulent past.
Similar resentment toward the government has historically been a part of the black church since the early days of slavery. The fact is that Reverend Wright is not alone. We all harbor some form of veiled prejudice toward one another that we each may have expressed in overt and subtle ways. This being said, Kristol is wrong in wanting to avoid a national conversation concerning race because racial prejudice plays an important role in the lives of every American, whether we realize it or not.
Race is still a big deal. How else can we explain the racial controversies consistently being brought up by the media? It is clear that the fact that Barack Obama is black caused the media firestorm of racial paranoia that has ensued. Toward the end of the op-ed article Kristol declares, “Luckily, Obama isn’t really interested in getting enmeshed in a national conversation on race.” Kristol is wrong in concluding that Obama simply does not care to engage in meaningful discourse about race. Rather, it is that Obama refuses to be subjected to the role of the “black candidate” who must always fully address every single issue related to race.
If Obama were constantly to address the damaging comments made by Reverend Wright, he’d eventually be deemed an out-of-touch radical who is engrossed in racial affairs. In his a “More Perfect Union” speech, Obama states that “Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems” (New York Post). By attempting to distance himself from the racial chaos brought on by the Wright controversy, he is creating for himself a more balanced playing field in the presidential race.
The truth of the matter is if race is not a core issue, as Kristol insists, then the media would not repeatedly find ways to test and question Obama’s racial allegiance. The American public’s eager consumption of the racial controversies surrounding Obama is evidence of how little ground we have gained in race relations and how much a national discussion is needed to improve the situation.
Race will always be a big deal. According to Kristol, what this country needs are “results-oriented debates about economics, social mobility, education, family policy and the like,” not a national debate on race. Although his argument is understandable, one cannot possibly think of carrying out a comprehensive debate pertaining to any of those issues if race is not also incorporated.
Ironically, the subjects Kristol mentions are among the most pertinent issues facing minority communities in the United States today. None of them can truly be solved unless we first acknowledge the underlying theme present in all of them—their relation to race. Therefore, Americans need to engage in genuine discussion about race if we ever want to make significant progress as a country. So let’s not fool ourselves and pretend we did, by saying we did.
Lisa U. Aliche is a journalism student at Rutgers-Newark. Posted September 2008.
