And so it ends, as it always seems to in American politics, with the spouting of banalities:
Hillary Clinton: "I think it’s appropriate on Dr. King’s birthday to recognize that all of us are here as a result of what he did."
Barack Obama: "Race has always been an issue in politics in this country, but one of the premises of my campaign ... is that we can’t solve these challenges unless we can come together as a people and not fall into the same traps as we have in the past."
Basically, what we have here is a replay of the whole contretemps surrounding Trent Lott's lionizing of Strom Thurmond. There are charges of insensitivity, the media takes the opportunity to cover what it says is the "larger issue" of race on American politics—lots of broadbrush, politically correct statements about past injustice in American history, pundits declaring that "race" is the third rail in American politics—and then it finally culminates with politicians affirming their support for equality or civil rights and acting as if that represents a courageous position.
In this case, Clinton acknowledges the importance of MLK in the civil rights movement and Obama says that race shouldn't divide Americans. And so, in fact, we haven't had any kind of real discussion about race at all.
Of course race should be a major issue in this election. Obama should be questioned thoroughly about his identity as an African-American: why does he choose to identify with a racial group at all? does he think he's been the beneficiary of affirmative action? can any decent drug policy in this country not take into account the fact that blacks are punished far more harshly than whites? We can't accept his statement that race shouldn't divide us because it does, and even if we come together and all vote for Obama that will not change the reality that this society is highly segregated and racially polarized.
But please don't get me wrong: Clinton needs to be question on the issue of race as well as on the issue of gender. We can't simply overlook that fact that she's a woman. Her gender has been integral to the development of her identity and her politics. Is it the only reason she believes what she believes? No. But it's certainly a major cause.
Frankly, I even think it's fair to ask her is she has used birth control, what kind?, and how often? (It strikes me as no different than asking if she has ever smoked pot). I also think it would be fair to ask if her periods have caused her to have mood swings. We know this happens to women. Why avoid the issue by saying gender is irrelevant? Instead, confront the issue head-on. There has to be a way to ask this question without implying that because a woman happens to menstruate she is not fit to be President.
I think the American people are intelligent enough to recognize the nuances involved here. But I don't think the media knows any longer how to cover those nuances. It's all sound and fury.
One final note: I am no supporter of Clinton, but what worries me about Obama is his tendency to spout banalities.
Consider his statement on nuclear power: “What I have said is that if we could figure out a way to provide a cost-efficient, safe way to produce nuclear energy, and we knew how to store it effectively, then we should pursue it because what we don’t want is to produce more greenhouse gases."
This is a complete statement of the obvious. Everyone would support nuclear energy if this was the case.
It's just my fear that all of Obama's talk of "hope" and "change" is meaningless rhetoric.
Lawrence Goodman
lawrencegoodman at gmail.com
* The opinions Goodman expresses herein are not his own.
