The Divider

[Rich]

The Divider

By Jacob Laksin
FrontPageMagazine.com | 2/21/2008

A critical plank of Sen. Obama?s presidential campaign has been his appeal for national unity. In speeches crafted to bridge partisan divides, he has assailed the ?drama and division and distraction? of Washington politics and urged Americans to rise above their differences. Whatever one makes of this approach, and substantively it leaves a great deal to be desired, there is little doubting its success thus far. Whether in southern states like South Carolina, with their large black electorates, or majority-white states like Iowa and Wisconsin, Obama?s message has found popular purchase. So it is not a little ironic that the cross-racial bonhomie engendered by the Obama campaign is threatened by the woman closest to the senator: his wife Michelle Obama. 

That was most apparent in Wisconsin this week, where the tension between Obama?s soothing, post-racial politics and his wife?s more astringent views flared out in the open. As Sen. Obama traversed the state to make his final pitch to the voters, Michelle Obama spent the week chiding them for their past folly. Speaking in Milwaukee, she said, ?For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.?

It was a jarring statement. Did the candidate?s wife really mean to suggest that the country had been hopeless until her husband emerged as the Democratic frontrunner? Indeed she did, and just a few hours later, she reiterated the point in nearly identical terms. ?For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country -- not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment.? There was no mistaking her message: Until it found the wisdom to rally around her husband, America had been a source of constant disappointment for Mrs. Obama.

When her remarks justifiably aroused outrage, the unenviable task of explaining them away fell to the senator himself. On the one hand, Obama said, his wife?s words had been taken ?out of context.? But at the same time, Sen. Obama continued, ?she?s pretty cynical about the political process, and with good reason, and she?s not alone.? And sure enough, it was this cynicism that landed her in trouble in the first place.

Yet it?s hard to see what Michelle Obama has to be cynical about. Though it is true that she was born on the South Side of Chicago, there is no shortage of Americans who start from humble beginnings. The difference is that, unlike many, Michelle Obama is also a child of privilege. In a recent interview with Newsweek, Obama reveals that she got into Princeton University not on the strength of her grades, which she admits were unexceptional, but thanks to her brother Craig, a star athlete and gifted student who preceded her to the school. As a ?legacy? candidate and a beneficiary of affirmative action, Michelle Obama was granted an opportunity that others more accomplished were denied. Nor, according to friends quoted in the article, did Obama object when she was later accepted to Harvard as part of the school?s outreach to minority students. ?She recognized that she had been privileged by affirmative action and she was very comfortable with that,? her friend recalls.

Comfortable, perhaps, but certainly not content. A more humble personality might have appreciated the unearned advantages she had been afforded. Michelle Obama seems instead to have developed an abiding sense of racial resentment. This resentment finds its most bitter expression in her 1985 Princeton senior thesis, conveniently blocked from public viewing by the school until after next year?s presidential election, titled ?Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community.? In it, the young Michelle LaVaughn Robinson paints a grim portrait of her future prospects, warning against ?further integration and/or assimilation into a White cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant.? Regardless of the opportunities that had been offered her, Obama continued to see herself as a victim of a racist white society, trapped in the divide that her husband?s campaign now seeks to breech.   

It would be unfair to assume that Michelle Obama?s writings as an angry and alienated undergrad are a reliable guide to her current views about race and her country more generally. After all, contrary to the grim prognosis in her Princeton thesis, Obama went on to succeed in the white ?social structure? she had deemed so forbidding. She has held jobs at top corporate law-firms in Chicago, earned six-figure salaries, and seen her husband, himself of African descent, all but clinch the nomination of the Democratic Party. If that is not enough to make her a full participant in American society, nothing is.

But all evidence indicates that her views remain unchanged. In a February 2007 appearance with her husband on 60 Minutes, for instance, she said that ?as a black man, you know, Barack can get shot going to the gas station.? Not the least of the problems with the charge was its conspiratorial suggestion that blacks were being targeted on account of their race. And in one tragic sense they were, though not, as Obama?s statement seemed to imply, by whites: According to the U.S. Department of Justice, between 1976 and 2005, 94 percent of black victims were killed by blacks. Empirically baseless, Michelle Obama?s warning nonetheless revealed how deeply she had absorbed the narrative of black victimization in America.

It does not follow that the mixed messages of the Obama campaign -- his hopeful and forward-looking, hers sullen and intransigent -- will slow its current momentum. The rapturous crowds who flock by the thousands to the senator?s campaign stops seem unlikely to stand for any criticism of their candidate. (Sometimes literally: fainting has reportedly become a common occurrence at Obama rallies.) Before them, neither Obama nor any member of his campaign can do wrong. General election voters, on the other hand, may look less sympathetically on the prospect of a First Lady who would carry her unrequited grievances to the White House.

?We are the change we seek,? Barack Obama is fond of saying on the campaign trail. To the extent that the phrase has any meaning, it is that the United States is fundamentally a noble country, with an active and engaged citizenry seeking do right. Sen. Obama has certainly persuaded his supporters to believe that. Now if only he could convince his own wife.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Laksin is a senior editor for FrontPage Magazine. He is a 2007 Phillips Foundation Journalism Fellow. His e-mail is jlaksin@gmail.com

[Rich]

 
 Michelle's America
Mrs. Obama talks about herself and her country.
by Jonathan V. Last
02/19/2008 12:00:00 AM



Madison, Wisconsin
Roughly 600 people gathered at the Capitol Theater in Madison's downtown Overture Center yesterday to listen to Michelle Obama make a pitch for her husband's presidential bid. They were treated to a revealing glimpse into the mind of the candidate's wife.

By now one passage from her speech has received much attention. She said:

For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction. And just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment I've seen people who are hungry to be unified around some basic, common issues and it's made me proud.
It was an extraordinary declaration for a 44-year-old woman. She expanded on it a bit later, claiming that "Life for regular folks has gotten worse over the course of my lifetime, through Republican and Democratic administrations. It hasn't gotten much better."

Do these comments provide a glimpse of her general political worldview--one that is surprisingly critical of America for the wife of a presidential candidate? Or do they suggest a certain narcissism about the Obamas and their view of themselves? Or both?

In many ways, Michelle Obama's stump speech is reminiscent of her husband's. She dwells at length on the issue of change and frequently talks in the idiom of political self-help. She worried that "We spend more time thinking about what can't be done, what can't change, what won't work. And the problem with that is that it cuts us off from one another in our own communities. It's cut us off from the rest of the world. And the sad part about it is we're passing on all these fears, this cynicism--we're passing it on to the next generation." "Everything," she explained, "begins and ends with a little bit of hope and a whole lot of dreaming."

Mrs. Obama's remarks were also light on policy--which is understandable. After all, she's not the one standing for office. But she showed something like contempt for even the idea of actual policy talk. "I know voters like a plan," she said. "What's the details, tell me about your policies. Plans are important, I agree. . . . But a lot of this stuff isn't rocket science."

Instead, she voiced deeper concerns: "Barack knows that at some level there's a hole in our souls," she said. This was a variation on her normal line that "Barack Obama is the only person in this race who understands that, that before we can work on the problems we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation."

Michelle Obama obviously believes her husband is up to this challenge. (In Nevada she told a crowd that "Barack is one of the smartest men we will see in our lifetime.")

Mrs. Obama also spent some time during her Madison remarks dwelling on her own life. In a passage attacking No Child Left Behind, she claimed that "If my future were determined just by my performance on a standardized test, I wouldn't be here. I guarantee you that."

She returned to the subject of her test scores and education later in the speech. She began by telling the crowd how she met a poor, presumably black, girl in South Carolina. Talking about this young girl, Mrs. Obama said:


She also knows that she is so much better than the limited expectations that this nation has for her. . . . She is hoping that the grownups in this country see some use for hope. Because that's all she's got. And she's dreaming that we'll get it right. And I know, because I was that little girl.

Now all my life I have confronted people who had a certain expectation of me. Every step of the way, there was somebody there telling me what I couldn't do. Applied to Princeton. "You can't go there, your test scores aren't high enough." I went. I graduated with departmental honors. And then I wanted to go to Harvard. And that was probably a little too tough for me. I didn't even know why they said that.

But I could go through every curve and twist and turn of my life and find somebody that was telling me, "Lower your expectations. Set your sights low. You're not ready. You can't do that." And every time I pushed past other people's limited expectations of me, and reached for things that I knew I could do, and grabbed my seat at the table that others felt so entitled to, what I learned is that there's no magic to these people who feel so much more ready than me. I'm just as ready--always just as prepared--as anyone at that table.

It was a remarkably un-self aware moment. If it's true that her scores didn't merit her admission to Princeton and Harvard, then rather than having someone trying to hold her back, it seems that someone was willing to take a chance on Michelle Obama. And that faith was rewarded: Even though her test scores weren't particularly outstanding, she thrived in elite settings and has had, by all accounts, an impressive professional career, too.

But Mrs. Obama seems to both accept such a benefit of the doubt and then decry something that sounds a lot like the soft bigotry of low expectations. And she presents her academic credentials as a triumph over some nebulous group of people. When she talks about "grabbing her seat at the table" and finding that there was no "magic" in the other people who had also earned their way there, it sounds uncomfortably like she is dismissive of others who might not have had the help she received.

Or perhaps it's just her reaction to a sense that there have been many people trying to stop the ascent of her and her husband. (If such people exist, they've been spectacularly unsuccessful.) Talking about Barack's Senate campaign, in which he ran unopposed by a serious Republican challenger, Michelle said that the couple learned that "when power is confronted with real change, they'll say anything to stop it." There "they" go again.

Instead of seeing America as a place which afforded her the opportunity to create a blessed life, Mrs. Obama seems to view it as a place where some "people" are always trying to hold her back. Whoever these "people" are, we should be glad they haven't been successful. Michelle Obama's progress is--despite her telling of it--an inspirational story that should make us proud of America, not frustrated by, and scornful of, it. It says something about her view of this nation, and of her husband and herself, that she seems to find it so difficult--their own experience notwithstanding--to feel gratitude for and pride in her country.

Jonathan V. Last is a staff writer at THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

 
 
? Copyright 2008, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.