The Emancipation Inauguration

Do you remember the 2002 Academy Award Ceremony?  It marked the first time an African-American had won the Best Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role (formerly “Best Actress”).  And though Sidney Poitier had previously won Best Performance by a Male Actor in a Leading Role (a.k.a, “Best Actor”), the Academy had gone 38 years without awarding one to a black man.  Denzel Washington had won a Best-supporting Actor award for his stunning performance in Glory, but never a Best Actor.  I never saw Monster’s Ball, the movie for which Halle Berry won her Oscar in 2002, but I’ll always remember how she received tearfully the honor on behalf of “all women of color.”   I’m still a little bitter that D.W. didn’t win for his role as Coach Herman Boone in Remember the Titans, but I digress.

The buzz leading up to the 2002 Oscars was all about whether we would at long last exorcise the demon of Hollywood racism by awarding Berry and, in a lesser way Washington, with Best Actress / Actor Oscars.  As it turned out, they both won, and Berry’s acceptance reflections captured the weight of the moment.  

But I can’t shake the pre-award buzz, and I wonder still to this day whether the outcome was in part predicated on an external criterion: a broad yearning for racial emancipation.  It's a noble yearning that has found fulfillment in many segments of our culture.  Hank Aaron, Martin Luther King, Jr., Colin Powell, Oprah Winfrey, Tiger Woods, Barack Obama – a wholly insufficient list of truly inspiring stories of African Americans who broke through previously impenetrable racial barriers.  You’d have to have a heart of stone to not be inspired by what they accomplished.

Sort of.

What I mean—and yes, I’m aware that I’d better explain myself quickly—is that some of the people mentioned above accomplished much as they broke through their respective barriers.  Oprah Winfrey didn’t become a billionaire by chance: she built an enduring brand over decades, shrewdly parleying hard-earned capital from that brand in to multiple successful business investments, the current OWN travails notwithstanding.  Hank Aaron really did hit 755 home runs, and he did it despite threats on his life and without chemical aid.  MLK’s accomplishments would only be tarnished by my brief comments, so I’ll just leave that one alone.

President Obama has been, quite frankly, a totally different story.  January 20, 2009 was historic, to be sure, and it drew more attendees than any prior inauguration in history.  Many viewed it as a type of national political emancipation.  It was also a global phenomenon: Liberia, Sierra Leone, St. Vincent & the Grenadines, to name a few, even issued postage stamps commemorating his ascendancy.  But it unquestionably also marked the first time the U.S. had chosen a president with so little leadership skill and experience.

Do you remember all the arguments in 2000 that George W. Bush’s eight years as governor of Texas proved nothing, because it was a relatively weak office?  How about President Clinton's comment on Sen. Obama's rise:  "This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen." 

President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize was similarly historic: had any previous prizes been awarded with such a heavy reliance on a recipient's hoped for diplomatic success? Agree or disagree with the nominating committee’s choices, they nearly always choose people who’ve accomplished much, whose prior labors—often times completed years before—have advanced the cause of peace demonstrably.     

So, here's the burning question, one I'd like to repress but can't: was the object of our hope actually what Barack Obama represented to us, and not his preparation for the job or his capability to execute it?

It’s hardly a secret that I don't favor the president’s job performance and political philosophy.  But—and I want to make this point crystal clear—I’m also very disciplined to not condemn him as a person.  I refer to him as President Obama, not Barry, nor by including his middle name, nor even casually as "Obama."  I yearn for his removal from office, but I teach my kids to respect him and I don't share my disapproval of his job performance with them.  He’s my president, too, and I thank God to live in a country where we get to choose our leaders.

Still, his first term has been an disaster by any measure.  Millions of Americans are out of work and he has the gall to say that his economic policies have worked.  He routinely sacrifices private sector success stories on the altar of statism (e.g., "you didn't build that").  He applies counter-cyclical stimulus to structural unemployment.  He understands the U.S. auto industry bailout to have been a success, but is unaware that the success is purely because creditors were stiffed.  He is oblivious to the awkward partnership between American defense spending and Western entitlement expansion.  He showed a moment of brilliance when he appointed Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson to find a bi-partisan solution to the federal deficit problem, but then threw them under the bus when they presented their very reasonable solution.  Out of pure ignorance (I'm choosing to believe it's ignorance), he’s distorted and responded incapably to the financial events of the last 4 years.   His NLRB is a pro-labor guerrilla organization.  He dogmatically clings to demonstrably anachronistic Keynesian multipliers when it's convenient, but now is, pardoxically, advocating higher taxes (JM Keynes is rolling over right now).  He holds little regard for religious liberty (August 1 HHS mandate).  His Justice Department is incompetent and out of control.   He hates and can't work the political machine that is Congress (endearing, actually, but also politically neutering).  His State Department hasn't endured any major failures, but only because Secretary Clinton runs that show practically independently.  He's getting no help from his Veep, who's being kept as far away from the microphones as possible--actually that one's pretty smart, considering.   

"Forward"?  Where, into Gehenna? 

But what about Osama Bin Laden?  Fair enough.  I seem to remember that the Navy SEALs played some  role in that job, too, but we can give the president that one. 

Even including OBL's capture, as president Mr. Obama is in over his head--way over his head. Should we really be surprised? The gentleman was a state legislator (a part-time job unless you're in CA, PA, NY, or MI), a community organizer, a part-time law-school lecturer, and he almost completed half a term as a U.S. Senator before beginning his run for president.  A very politically well-informed liberal friend of mine responded to the question,“Why would Barack Obama make a good leader?” by saying “Well, when he was managing editor of the Harvard Law Review, he brought two factions together.”

The Harvard Law Review.  Hmmm. 

I want to be crystal clear again: I don’t condemn him as a man.  He’s a valuable human, gifted and loved by God: in public speaking and perhaps in diplomacy, were that his primary occupation.  He'd probably be a very good ambassador.  I’m sure he’s a captivating law school intsructor.  I have no reason to think that he wasn’t well-suited to be a community organizer.  He's smart as anything.  He'll probably make a boatload on the public speaking circuit.  He's a terribly affable guy--who wouldn't want to share a beer with him in the rose garden?  I also admire him personally: he got himself through Columbia and Harvard Law School and gives every indication of being a good husband and father.  

This November, though, he's not asking you whether he's likable and is a good father, if he's a capable law school instructor, whether he'd excel as a diplomat, or to affirm his exceptional public speaking skill.  He's asking you for the opportunity to remain CEO of the executive branch of our federal government.  And there's the rub: he’s just not presidential material, a point he continues to demonstrate daily, 3 ½ years into his presidency.  He doesn’t lead, he accuses.  He doesn’t accept responsibility, he blames.  He doesn’t think through the implications of his economic policies, he weaves sound bites and builds straw men to defend the indefensible.  Frankly, I really doubt that he actually wants to be president.
 
Above all, I want to be clear about this point: Barack Obama has failed as president because of disposition, the contours of his giftedness, his misunderstanding of choice and markets, and his lack of experience—NOT because he is African-American.  Think of it this way, what If I were president?  I'd do a horrible job!  Would you fault me for not being gifted and sufficiently experienced to be president?  Should I fault you for the same deficiencies? 

In all of this, though, I don’t blame President Obama.  He may never have had anybody tell him (at least no one close to him) that he’s not a leader, that his experience is insufficient preparation for the task of governing.  He’s been worshipped as messiah and has responded with humble acceptance. I believe that he really does mean well.

Who do I blame?  I blame the American electorate.  We fell for the entirely vacuous “Hope and Change” motto--we don't want truth and substance, we want clever, we want smooth, we want someone who sounds like us, and we want to feel inspired.  We were war-weary and reacted, reaching for what we saw as the polar opposite of President Bush.  We love that the president talks about siding with the little guy.  And we yearn to show the world that racism in America is dying.  Boy, how we yearn for that one, and good for us for desiring that (again, all hats off to MLK).     

But here’s the thing: racism won’t die for political leaders until we can joke about our black president’s short-comings and gaffes like we can about our white presidents' quirks (here's an audio clip of John Lovitz and Dana Carvey chatting about this phenomenon).  It won't die until we can criticize job performance without the ensuing trigger-fingered hate speech allegations.  It won’t die in America until we hold minority political leaders to the same standards of excellence as whites.  It's been done in other fields: Gabby Douglas, Richard Parsons, and Thomas Sowell each have demonstrated that attainment of objective standards of excellence is possible in their respective fields—why not in politics, too?

Whether you agree or disagree with affirmative action policies for disadvantaged groups, can we not all agree that certain roles are so important that they must be earned and not bestowed? 

If you really yearn for the death of racism in America, you’ll fire Mr. Obama in November.  Deep breath: again, I'm not talking about firing him because he's African-American, and none of it's personal; he just failed.  And may I interject this: please, as a culture, let's quit imagining failure as a type of shame-filled Purgatory.  It merely means a lack of success and it's OK when someone fails at something.  Making President Obama out to be a success in contrast to his proven failure is, quite frankly, racist itself and complete fantasy.  President Bush—never known for his eloquence—referred to the “soft bigotry of low expectations.”  Truly, if you want to respect President Obama, you’ll treat him as you would any white guy who blew it.  

Unless of course if you truly can say in your mind as well as your heart that he's succeeded, then by all means vote for the man.

This next inauguration holds the promise of a type of emancipation. Are we really serious about eliminating soft bigotry as well as blatant racism?  Or does that challenge hit a little too close to home?