losing a religion that was almost mine
Music: Van Morrison: Veedon Fleece (1974)
The Jesse Jackson flap yesterday finally motivated me to post something of substance---or toward substance abuse (hello, my friend tequila!). As anyone remotely close to a screen will know, yesterday the news broke that Jesse Jackson was "talkin' trash" about Obama on FOX. Apparently unaware his microphone was hot, Jackson said to a colleague that Obama has "been talking down to black people" and that he wanted to "cut his nuts off." These comments have circulated widely because, presumably, it demonstrates division among blacks about Obama. The underlying warrant here is that all black people, especially black politicians, think alike and stand in solidarity. The news also created an opportunity for Obama supporters to spin this as good news: white people don't like Jackson, therefore, this is a nice distancing moment that will draw more whities toward the Big O.
It's a shame, however, that Jackson's "point" (pun intended) was eclipsed by his countless apologies. Jackson is angry with Obama for amplifying his "personal responsibility" rhetoric in recent weeks, instead of focusing on larger, structural issues, like "racial justice and urban policy and jobs and health care." Obama has apparently been speaking on parental responsibility for years, and has a fairly standard line on absent fathers (I agree with the problem of absent fathers, I would simply disagree that said fathers must be male). But what Jesse's "loving criticism" was to be about was the way in which Obama has intoned a therapeutic, Horatio Alger-style---or Oprah-style, take your pick--- rhetoric that downplays the social-cultural and material causes of social ills----and the deeper reasons for single-parent households (which, less face it, are not the province of African Americans, but all Americans). Obama, in other words, has amplified his personal responsibility rhetoric, moving to the right, for votes. For someone who was a has spent his life working toward structural change, the kind of change that one cannot create by oneself, Jackson thinks that by going post-race, Obama might turn into just another white-guy, neo-liberal president.
If you've read my blog for any expanse of time---and in particular, my thoughts about how Obama threw Rev. Wright and African American rhetorical traditions under the bus---you'll know why I am similarly sympathetic to Jesse Jackson. I am an Obama supporter and my vote will be for him, unquestionably, but I too am disappointed with Obama's rhetorical drift to the right. Yes, it is true he has always been more "centrist" or "conservative" than people realize, but his votes on issues have been fairly progressive and his rhetoric has seemed to build on a Left-style romantic idiom that signified allegiance with those civil rights leaders of the past who worked toward structural change. What we're witnessing in Obama's rhetoric, in other words, is a retreat from the preacherly persona and civil religion style. I don't have time this afternoon to present snippets of text, but its there: the move has been from a flirtatious, religious crooning toward an issues-focused, personal-responsibility "blame the individual" type rhetoric.
For a very brief moment I was about to let myself go into Obamania, but my cynical reserve and distaste for political kitsch kept me on the shores of Nader (not that I would ever vote for Nader; I just wish there were a true, third or fourth party in this political life). Obama's rhetorical drift to the right in recent weeks (not so much his stand on policy, which seems consistent) troubles me. Although Jackson is ridiculously unpopular, I'd vote for him over Obama.
That said, yes yes, I noticed that Jackson threatened castration. Of course, from a psychoanalytic vantage castration is the power of the father, what the child fears. Castration represents one's entrance into self-consciousness and the symbolic world. He who claims the power of castration claims the agency of language. I've seen Jackson speak in person twice, and both times he whipped me into frenzy. The man is an amazing rhetor. By claiming to want to cut Obama's nuts off, Jackson is threatening to remove Obama's rhetorical power, to muffle his speech. The motive for wanting to do so is obvious: Jackson dislikes Obama's rhetoric.
The problem with such a sentiment, aside from its meanness, is simply that no one has the phallus. Jackson is deluded if he believes he has it, just as deluded as Obama who believes the problem among African Americans is that fathers don't claim it. Hence, the irony of Jackson's statement.
So I say to both Jackson and Obama: It's the structure, stupid.