Understanding Obama: Part 06

The election of Barack Obama to the U.S. Presidency was a singular event. For the first time, the nation’s chief executive was African-American, or more precisely, biracial. As Obama noted, writing about his parents, “he was as black as pitch, my mother white as milk.”

Obama’s racial ambiguity would be both an asset that he would deploy on the campaign trail, but also an Achille’s heal which would ultimately erode his support among Black voters.

Although his presidency was greeted at first with exuberant jubilation among African-American citizens, in time, Black activists like William Darity would author articles with titles like “Barack Obama Failed Black Americans.” What caused Black voters to see through the Obama image?

The sad reality for millions of African-Americans was that, during the eight years of the Obama presidency, unemployment rose faster among Blacks than among any other racial or ethnic group; income declined faster; and family net wealth declined farther and faster. Other numbers extend that trend: home ownership, employment among teenagers, etc.

If the Obama administration wasn’t able, or didn’t care, to help African-Americans in terms of economic opportunity, did it help them in any other way?

Obama did extend help to selected individuals, some of whom were Black. For example, Obama fired inspector general Gerald Walpin in order to help Kevin Johnson, an NBA star turned politician. The complex series of events is explained by historian David Limbaugh:

On July 11, 2009, Obama abruptly announced his decision to fire Gerald Walpin. He sent letters to leaders of the Senate and House notifying them of the termination, to take effect in thirty days. His stated reason? He had lost “the fullest confidence” in Walpin, which is “vital” in “the appointees serving as Inspectors General.”

After only six months in office, Obama fired a federal employee. The only justification for the dismissal given by Obama was a loss of confidence.

The lack of detail is significant. What caused this lack of confidence? Was there there theft, or embezzlement, or bribery?

This was not your ordinary executive firing of an at-will staffer. The Inspector General is a highly sensitive position that acts as a watchdog against government corruption and must not be occupied by a lapdog who provides cover for wrongdoing. To be fired by the leader of the very branch of government one is assigned to investigate is enough to create a presumption of suspicion.

Who suspected whom of doing what?

If Obama had suspected Gerald Walpin of unethical behavior, then the usual process would have included some investigation or report. Instead, Obama merely referred vaguely to confidence.

On the other hand, if the suspicion was directed at Obama, i.e., that Obama’s firing of Walpin was unethical, then Obama’s vague explanation would make sense.

The Inspector General, and the various inspectors general who work in that capacity, are tasked with investigating unethical, negligent, or corrupt practices in government. A president who fires an inspector general without substantive explanation is revealing that there is something to hide, that this inspector general had discovered that there was something to hide, and that the president in question is actively engaged in a cover-up.

Suspicion immediately arose that Obama was firing Walpin because of Walpin’s investigation of Kevin Johnson, a former NBA star and mayor of Sacramento, California, who is a strong Obama supporter and personal friend. Before becoming mayor, Johnson had established a non-profit called St. HOPE to help “revitalize inner-city communities through public education, civic leadership, economic development and the arts.” After opening an investigation into whether St. HOPE had misused an $850,000 AmeriCorps grant, Walpin discovered that Johnson had used AmeriCorps funds to pay volunteers to participate in political activities involving the school board and to run personal errands for Johnson like washing his car.

Gerald Walpin had discovered that Obama’s friend Kevin Johnson had been misappropriating taxpayer dollars for his own personal benefit. Obama fired Walpin to protect Kevin Johnson.

Kevin Johnson was ultimately forced to repay the money, and the charitable organization which he’d founded, St. HOPE, was ineligible to receive any federal funding for a period of time.

How did this seem to Black voters? Within six months of taking office in 2009, Obama devoted his attention and energy to firing an investigator who’d uncovered the financial corruption of one of Obama’s friends. But Obama’s time and attention, if they were directed toward African-Americans at all, were not effective in reducing unemployment, increasing wages, creating jobs, or growing the net personal wealth of Black Americans.

By 2012, the situation hadn’t changed, with unemployment figures hovering around 8% or 9%, as David Limbaugh reports:

The standard unemployment figures also downplay another unsettling trend: private-sector job creation is at near record lows. Fewer existing businesses are hiring and fewer entrepreneurs are starting new businesses, meaning fewer jobs are available for the unemployed. Prior to the recession, more than 5 million new employees were hired each month, but this figure fell to 3.6 million by June 2009. By February 2012 it had only slightly improved to 4 million. While fewer employees are being laid off since the start of the recession, unemployment remains high because of these sluggish job creation figures.

After four years in office, unemployment was high, and unemployment for African-Americans was even higher. But after only six months in office, Obama had leapt into action to rescue one of his personal friends from the legal consequences of misusing federal funds — i.e., to rescue his friend from the legal consequences of crime.

It is no surprise, then, that in November 2012, fewer Blacks voted for Obama than in November 2008. Obama had lost significant amounts of support among the African-Americans who’s so enthusiastically greeted his presidency four years earlier.

Varieties of Nationalism: From Benign to Malignant

The word ‘nationalism’ is widely used, and too often carelessly used. Reflection reveals that this word can refer to a variety of things, from a beneficial and peaceful sentiment to an aggressive and warlike passion.

The evil version of “nationalism” is a value system in which the existence, growth, and power of the nation-state is the ultimate value, outranking other potential values like family, justice, duty, honor, religious faith, art, or friendship. This evil type of nationalism can lead to combat and hostility, because if the nation-state is the ultimate value, then anything or anyone else can be sacrificed for the good of the nation-state.

As historian Jill Lepore writes, the evil form of

nationalism is often thought of as what happens which a nation-state demands extraordinary sacrifices from its people — especially by participating in wars of aggression — and, requiring their consent, asks for that sacrifice in the name of the nation. The more outrageous the war, the harder it is to gain that consent, the more grotesque the depiction of the nation’s enemies.

By contrast, the good version of “nationalism” is not only salutary, but it is even necessary for a peaceful global community. This form of nationalism is a fondness for one’s own nation, and the ability to objectively see the achievements and contributions of one’s own nation. Importantly, such peaceful nationalism also allows the individual to appreciate the contributions and achievements of other nations. This type of nationalism leads to peaceful international relations because it allows each nation to have respect both for itself and for other nations.

The term ‘nation-state’ merits definition: a state is a clearly demarcated geographical territory with its own government. In common language, a ‘state’ is what we often call a ‘country.’ A ‘nation’ is an ethnic group — a group which shares a language, or a culture, or a shared narrative history, or a way of life, or artistic traditions like clothing, music, and food. A ‘nation-state’ is when a nation and a state are coextensive, i.e., when they are the same thing.

Notably, it is sometimes debated as to whether the United States is a nation-state. It is a state in any case; but the question is posed as to whether there is enough of a common culture to merit calling the United States a nation. Those who argue that the U.S. is not a nation point to the diversity of religions, languages, and cultures within the territory. Those who say that the U.S. is a nation point to commonalities which universally join the citizens: bluejeans, hamburgers, a fondness for cars (the ‘automobile lifestyle’), popular sporting events, popular music, etc.

The reader will decide for herself or himself.

So it is, then, that learning to have a fondness for one’s own nation, and to appreciate the achievements of one’s own nation, is not necessarily a warlike sentiment. It is, however, a necessary perspective for creating a peaceful community of nations: wholesome friendships between countries can be formed only by those nations with a healthy appreciation for both themselves and for other nations.