|
A recent Gallup poll found that President Obama’s approval ratings among Democrats and Republicans is more polarized in the second year of his presidency than any other president since Dwight Eisenhower. The Gallup poll found a 68-point gap between conservative and liberal voters, which is the fourth most polarized year for a U.S. President since 1953.
While there are certain to be many explanations for this polarization–particularly the contentious public debates on immigration, health care and the economy–given the rise of “birthers” and other conservative extremists, we should also be mindful of any role race and ethnicity may acutely play in the negative reaction from social conservatives to Barack Obama. While George Bush accounts for six of the 10 most polarized presidential years in Gallup history, the growing wedge in America is cause for concern. Never has the spread been this high (nearly 70 points) for any individual president, particularly one which has made concession after concession to advance a relatively moderate (rather than progressive) agenda on social policies.
It is time we focus on what unites us. We’re all concerned about health care, education, and ultimately, the economy. We’re all connected in the universal struggle for fairness and opportunity. Let’s be sure that our approval of our leaders is informed by of their decisions and actions, rather than by the color of their skin. With the changing demographics of our society, the future of our democracy depends on it.
Copyright 2011 Monique W. Morris
|
|
 OK, this weekend, it cost me over $50 to almost fill up a Hyundai. Enough is enough. If the Democratic Party wants to fulfill its vision to support “honest leadership and open government,” its members need to elect someone who embodies the qualities to make that happen. While Sen. Clinton has every right to stay in the race, there are growing numbers of us who wish to challenge her claim that she’s the stronger candidate.
We’ll treat this as a countdown:
3. Her superdelegate lead has been demolished. The more party leaders witness the public cry for a new political and ideological approach to engagement and problem solving, the more they are starting to realize that Sen. Obama is the stronger candidate for the election in the fall. We’re all sick of the slinging mud…the WWE tactics are tired.
2. Her campaign is in financial trouble. How much longer can Sen. Clinton get away with lending her campaign millions of dollars while calling her opponent “elitist”? I mean, does anyone else see the disconnect? To me, this is dishonest…and not exactly a quality I desire in a leader. I think we’ve had enough of that in the past.
1. Sen. Clinton claims to be a progressive candidate, and yet she has neither rejected nor denounced the support of people who admit on nationally-televised media that they would never vote for a man of African descent to be president…how progressive is that? If she really stood for equal justice, this would be appalling.
|
|
“He does not speak for me. He does not speak for the campaign. He may make statements in the future that don’t reflect my values or concerns.” – Barack Obama
 For weeks now, mainstream media have been loathe to separate Barack Obama from his former pastor. Initially, I found it interesting that the views of a pastor would enter the political realm of the race for a presidential nomination. I mean, is there not, according to the design of this democracy, to be a separation of church and state? Of course, as I’ve written before, the African American church has historically been a place where there is a blend of theology and politics — in fact, it was the only place where African American people were allowed to process — aloud and through prayer — the impact of the conditions in which they lived. But now, as I watch Rev. Wright take a pre-book tour and offer more of his public sermons (love them or hate them), I’m compelled to remind the public of one essential detail: Rev. Wright is not Sen. Obama.
The media seems to forget this every now and then. In what is billed as “election coverage,” many news sources devote comments–and significant segments of their program–to statements made by Rev. Wright! Media fixation on the comments of Rev. Wright have fueled a public perception that Rev. Wright is the spokesperson of the campaign, rather than the former pastor of a candidate. I just read an article that suggested Rev. Wright could “cost” Sen. Obama the nomination, and my stomach turned. If it is true that Rev. Wright could “cost” Sen. Obama this nomination, then the same standard should be applied to other candidates, who have been supported by people whose politics have been questionable to significant segments of the population.
There is no monolithic interpretation of inequality among African American leadership, but this has historically been difficult for mainstream America to digest. In the past, there seems to have only been room for one African American leader at a time, one African American spokesperson. There was Booker T. Washington. Then it was Martin Luther King. Then Jesse Jackson. Were there not other African American leaders working tirelessly to counter the conditions of oppression that surrounded them? At the same time, were there not other African American leaders who argued with the politics of these “spokespersons,” challenging them to consider their position on certain issues? Was there not Ida B. Wells and Marcus Garvey? Was there not A. Philip Randolph? Was there not Malcolm X? Just as there is diversity among the politics of white people, so too is there a diversity of thought and action among African Americans and other people of color.
Keep in mind that Rev. Wright is a minister — the former pastor of a church that included (gasp!) more than just the Obama family as members. He has his own thoughts, feelings, and experiences that inform his interpretation of inequality. As a minister, it is his duty to speak publicly about these issues as he sees them. What minister in this Christian theological framework would not seize the public stage to preach his truth about injustice? Still, it is his truth, not necessarily the truth of the candidate he supports for president.
I’m sure you have reminded your mother or father, on more than one occasion in life, that you are your own individual. John McCain is not Pat Buchanan, nor is Hillary Clinton any of the “conservative” leaders and members of the secret prayer group, with which she is believed to associate. And Barack Obama is not Jeremiah Wright. Please remember that.
|
