Ethicalego Opinion

The press denies Obama the right to a self-image.  

 Barack Obama believed he had the vision and leadership qualifications to help America heal its economic and social ills.  So, he announced his candidacy for president of the United States. He only declared himself a Democrat political candidate.

Obama did not characterize himself a white, black, African-American or Civil Rights candidate. Conversely, he did not characterize himself as not a white, black, African-American or Civil Rights candidate. If he selected either choice, he would have assumed the image of a racial stereotype, someone voters would not accept for president. 

Obama rejected a common belief that Americans must form their self-image based on a racial-group caricature drawn and controlled by others. Instead, he models a self-image based on personal experiences and values.  His presidential campaign supports the idea that Americans serve personal and national interests better as self-determined individuals unified in a national effort  than they do as group members serving diversity goals. The national response shows that many Americans share this philosophy.

I never expected to see this idea gain national support during my lifetime after 64% of California voters defeated proposition 54 in 2003. They rejected the idea of self-defined citizens living equally and cooperatively in a free society, besides voting not to direct government to stop classifying citizens as racial stereotypes. Therefore, I feared the multiculturalists’ ideas of diversity corrupted thinking so that race-based thinking would rule American society for another century. Now, primary-voting patterns show a new awareness growing in America.  

Of course, the early successes of the Obama candidacy do not mean an end to race-based characterizations in American society and government. My survey reveals many national news articles that persistently describe Barack Obama as the “black candidate”.  There is no newsworthy reason for them to do this, because he characterized himself as a national leader and not a black or civil rights leader.

Those writers refuse Obama the right to decide his self-image when they label him the “black candidate.”  This label tells readers, “This is a black man and his skin color matters.”  Stubbornly, they continue the idea that all politicians with recent African ancestors must be black civil rights leaders. They do this although at least half of the voters in completed primaries suggested the candidates’ skin color and gender did not matter to them.

Just as disturbing are polltakers and political analysts’ obsessive concern about the “white male” vote.  They fixate over why so many white-labeled male Democrats voted for Obama in the primaries. The discussion implies that white-labeled male voters are closed-minded bigots who acted out of character voting for a “black candidate”.  Some writers presume this election result represents white-labeled male antifeminist sentiments more than it does new ideas about race. Continuing this presumption, it follows that all white-labeled males who voted against Obama did so from racism.

I find all those presumptions and implications disgusting.  No doubt, many people voted from racist and antifeminist feelings. Nevertheless, white-labeled males voted for Obama and Clinton when they had other choices. Therefore, is just as likely that most of them voted for or against candidates, because they liked or disliked their credentials and not because of race or gender considerations.  

The most strident attackers of the Barack Obama candidacy have been the creators and leaders of the African-American and the cultural diversity movement. They attacked him by accusing him of not being black enough. This accusation suggests the same racial stereotype those press articles do that Obama is a “black candidate” who must lead from mostly a race-based, civil rights perspective.

Should I say shame on them for trying to protect their African-American fiefdom over the interests of their followers and other Americans? Or, should I pity them as leaders behind the times?  Either way, trends in society show decreasing support for their misguided movement. 

I do not want to paint Obama as a visionary with a savior’s insight that will be the nation’s salvation. First, I do not believe in national leaders as saviors. Second, primary results show that millions of citizens also understand the need for a new direction and a different type leadership. This wave of awareness is creating and energizing the Obama candidacy as much as he is leading it. This is how it should be.

America is in trouble, but it has the talent to fix the problems.  However, it needs a leader with the skills to coordinate this effort and to make Americans feel good about their nation again. This leader must understanding that he or she must lead a unified effort of all Americans rather than act as the savior with all the answers.