After President Obama’s inauguration, Cornel West
boisterously voiced how absolutely disgusted he was by the fact that Obama was
sworn in with the late Martin Luther King Jr.’s bible. With Black History Month quickly approaching,
and America’s first African-American president getting sworn in to his second
term on the same stage that MLK gave his “I Have a Dream Speech,” it only
seemed fitting. Right? An event of this magnitude speaks to the resilience
African-Americans have displayed after such a long history of being subjected
to deplorable physical and mental conditions. Right? What exactly was Cornell West so upset about?
Before I discuss Cornel West’s rant, I think that
there is certainly a troubling view of Obama’s presidency. This view, to me,
resembles that of a middle school or high school election when someone’s friend
gets elected to office. The next day that kid expects the water fountains to
overflow with soda, the termination of the teacher that gave them the failing
grade in math, and for their friend to begin lobbying the principle to
implement a new “No Homework” policy.
The heart of the friend, and the newly elected hall monitor breaks when
they both learn the difference between what is known as an elected official and
what we consider a caped crime fighter.
There are many systematic issues that currently exist in America which
deserve focused scrutiny from America’s premiere decision makers. Once Obama was elected it seemed as if most
people expected him to cure America of all its ills. For a few months, “Obama”
was a word many African-Americans thought could get them out of a speeding
ticket and to many others, a word that exemplified a post racial society
(whatever that means). This view of Obama’s position was misconstrued and idealized
him as a savior instead of what he actually is, a catalyst for liberal change
within a democratic society similar to other presidents in the past that
demonstrated their openness to the outcries from the US citizens. The savior view takes the self-accountability
out of the public. What good is a
democratic society without self-accountability?
I do not mean the accountability that is shown by getting out to vote,
but the kind of accountability that citizens show when they present their
desires to their elected officials in the form of demands instead of questions.
Dr. West’s agitation was essentially that by President
Barack Obama merging his presidency with the prophetic ideology of Dr. Martin
Luther King Jr., Obama diluted the very messages that Dr. King fought and
ultimately died for. Dr. West stated
that Dr. King fought against three specific crimes committed by the US. One is a crime against humanity and is
commonly know as the Jim Crow Laws, which were rules designed to segregate,
humiliate, intimidate, and far too often included the lynching of black
people. The second was the war crime of
carpet-bombing in Vietnam. Carpet bombs were a series of aerial attacks with
unguided missiles over Vietnam that covered large selected areas of land. These
attacks obliterated every inch of the selected areas, killing hundreds of
innocent civilians and children in the process.
The third crime MLK fought against was poverty and homelessness, which
is considered to be a crime against humanity when a nation is able to provide
reasonable accommodations for each of its citizens.
I agree with Dr. West that MLK’s legacy has been
egregiously diluted over the years, but I think that this is true for
African-American history as a whole. The separation of Black History from
American History is absurd in theory when they are, in essence, one and the
same. MLK’s message specifically has been reduced to an echo of the “I Have a
Dream” speech. So, if Dr. West’s frantic
outburst was about the fact that media now has a vehicle to fashion the message
of MLK in a way that is more ABC Network instead of HBO, then I share his
concern. However, Dr. West was not speaking to the media or the authors on
history, he was directing his comments towards Barack Obama himself. I have two issues with this intent. The first is simple. Past whatever personal
conflicts that Dr. West and Obama have developed over the years, Dr. West, as
well as millions of other people of all races understand that if Dr. King had
not displayed enough confidence to stand by the people, the people would not
have enough confidence to stand by Obama.
A presidential inauguration for any person other than a white male is an
inspiration in itself, whether that person is female, male, yellow, purple,
etc. My second issue is that I realized
that this “hall monitor” complex has also gotten to our public
intellectuals. As the President of the
United States, I believe that there is an immanent separation between the man
(or woman) and the function of the job.
The people elect the candidate based on their favorable traits, but the
mechanisms of the office do not easily allow that person to operate as he or
she chooses. If Obama were asked how he
feels about the mass incarceration of African Americans and the correlations
between the diminished rights of ex-convicts compared to that of blacks
subjected to Jim Crow (see “The New Jim Crow” by Michelle Alexander), I would
imagine a very strong degree of empathy.
Similarly, I’m sure President Warren G. Harding enjoyed an occasional
glass of whisky during the prohibition era.
As a person, Obama may agree that the incarceration system needs to be
completely reconstructed. He may believe
that individuals arrested for drug possession and drug abuse should be treated
as health issues instead of criminal cases. He may also believe that the
because of the gross disproportion of African-Americans in prison, a new racial
caste system has been created within the last few decades. But it would not be
a wise move for Obama, the elected official, to pass an executive order
releasing convicted criminals into the general population. Public Intellectuals, especially tenured
professors at premiere universities such as Princeton, have the benefit of voicing
their ideologies without the fear of hearing the phrase “you’re fired!” or in
the case of Obama, impeached. Barack
Obama is the President of the United States, and like other presidents in the
past there are policies that you can agree with and some you may not. Many Americans are opposed to the drone
attacks overseas that has been the cause of death for a number of US
citizens. However, some people find
Obamacare a favorable new addition to the American lifestyle.
Now, I am a novice historian at best, but I see a
pattern in the ways most liberal policies were passed in America. The
presidents are nothing more than the final step after the organized voice of
the masses. For example, Fredrick Douglas was born a slave yet he learned how
to read and write and escaped slavery, which was all illegal at the time and
punishable by rather heinous methods. He became a great orator and became an
instrumental figure in many abolitionist movements. Through continuous personal
dialogue, Douglas greatly influenced the conscious of Abraham Lincoln in regards
to the ways that blacks were treated. These conversations eventually helped
inspire Lincoln’s decision to abolish slavery.
Their relationship, unusual in nature but great nonetheless, should have
been included in the 2012 movie “Lincoln” for a more historically accurate
depiction. If Ford Theatre can produce a two-hour, two-man play on their
conversation alone, I think Douglas could have at least had a cameo. I
digress. The common theme underlying
movements such as Civil Rights, Women’s Liberation, and even Al Capone with his
organized crime rings during prohibition, is that the voice of the people must
be bold, unified, and speak loudly for anything to get done in this
country.
Black Public Intellectuals seem to hold themselves to
a high esteem simply because they were once in close proximity to the civil
rights leaders of the past. If anything, these men and women should utilize
their position to mobilize the nation to fix whatever issue they feel deserves
the most scrutiny. Pointing fingers towards Obama will not solve the problem of
mass incarceration and neither will hosting small debates about the
subject. The reason why I call Obama a
catalyst for liberal change within a democratic society is because there are
certain moments in political history when it is apparent that the person in
power is liberal, and if given the opportunity to make a tough decision, they
will lean towards the left. This is true for Supreme Court Justices as well,
such as the fairly liberal rulings of Justice Earl Warren who served from 1953 until his
retirement in 1969. One of his court's most famous decisions was Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. Dr. Cornel West
should not frown upon this moment in history, but capitalize on its full
potential. In fact, he should heed the words of Franklin D. Roosevelt who
stated, after listening to the arguments presented by a group of activists whom
wanted his legislative support, “You’ve convinced me. Now go out and make me do
it.”
No comments:
Post a Comment