Michael Dyson’s ‘The Black Presidency’

During his presidential two tenures from January 2009 to January 2017, Barack Obama, the first black President of America, has done marvellous things except addressing the race question. This is the central idea of Michael Eric Dyson’s book, “The Black Presidency: Barack Obama and the Politics of Race in America,” published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, in 2016. Dyson is a Georgetown University professor and a political analyst and writer. This opinion piece intends to discuss Dyson’s certain ideas expressed in the book.

Though written in a flowery descriptive language, the book gives an interesting insight into the race competition — even if not the race conflict — rampant in American society. From pages 41 to 46, Dyson elucidates the meaning of “bi-racial” in terms of “interracial mixture” to throw light on Obama’s ancestry — a white mother from Kansas and a black father from Kenya — but ends up explaining how a bi-racial person stands one step above the black and one step below the white pedestal. For instance, on page 257, Dyson writes: “Obama … had often spoken of the benefits of his biracial biography.” That is, the existence of white genes or white blood is important for a black skinned man to succeed. Unfortunately, this is how Obama cannot be called the first Afro-American President but the first Afro-White American President of the US. If Dyson understands this point, he will also understand the reason why Obama did not co-relate himself much with Martin Luther King Jr. and Jesse Jackson Sr.

On the race question, Dyson is disillusioned with Obama on two counts. First, Obama cannot fall into the category of the nation’s father for being rejected by the white, as Dyson writes on page 134: “Obama, too, has many of the better traits of the nation’s former fathers [such as Roosevelt, Lincoln, and Kennedy]…[However,] Obama has been rejected as the nation’s father by millions who refuse to recognise his paternity for no other reason than his race”. That is, while Obama struggled to associate himself more with the white through his bi-racial claim, he was disowned by them. Second, Obama did not do much to address the race problem of the black, as Dyson writes on page 167: “Obama’s failure to grapple forthrightly with race underscores a historical irony: while the first black president has sought to avoid the subject, nearly all of his predecessors have had to deal with ‘the Negro question’.” That is, Obama has failed to ameliorate the lot of the black.

The book necessarily dismisses any racial undertones. While appreciating the freedom struggle of the black, Dyson eulogises the role of Martin Luther King Jr. and Jesse Jackson Sr. For instance, on page 57, Dyson writes: “Martin Luther King strode toward freedom in a history-changing bus boycott,” and on page 59, Dyson writes: “[Jesse] Jackson made the very idea of a black president reasonable [by his “historical presidential campaigns in ’84 and ’88”] in many quarters where the belief had barely existed at all.” Nevertheless, Dyson does not forget appreciating the role of the white presidents, as he writes on page 168: “Neither of these men [i.e. Obama’s predecessors] was black, and yet they triumphed over the demons of race.” That is, Obama could not do for the black what his white president predecessors did for them.

On page 130, Dyson writes: “Few candidates of any race have run as effective a presidential campaign as Obama did in 2008…When Obama became the Democratic Party nominee, he stayed on message and outdid Republican Party opponent John McCain in debates, fund-raising, organisational focus, and mastery of the details. His stirring triumph over McCain suggests that the nation ignored the unfair characterisation of Obama by his opponents and saw in him the best hope for the political and moral restoration of America.” Here, Dyson thinks that the rise of Obama was meant for political and moral restoration of America. However, nowhere in the book does Dyson evaluate if Obama has met hopes.

One major flaw in the book is that Dyson has tried to see Obama’s presidency isolated from or independent of the first Afro-American Secretary of State Colin Powell, who served under US President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2005. Powell — a claimant of having a multi-generational (Afro-European) mixed race — was the first to set an example that an Afro-American national could serve the US at the national level. In fact, Powell went one step ahead under the spell of the Powell Doctrine by crafting the case for the desired invasion of Iraq at the UNSC level in February 2003. However, in the whole book, Dyson dedicates only one sentence to Powell. On page 40, Dyson writes: “The example of Colin Powell surely played in his [i.e. Obama’s] mind: you say or do the wrong thing, and the promise that glimmered on you like fresh dew will quickly evaporate and dull your shine.” That is, it was the rise and fall of Powell that remained a caveat for Obama.

Ironically, with Powell’s craftiness was appended the crisis of legitimacy of Iraq’s invasion. With the passage of time, the Iraq case went weaker whereas the crisis of legitimacy went stronger. Obama struggled with correcting Powell’s mistake by withdrawing US forces from Iraq in December 2011, but without foreseeing the disorder visiting Iraq and Syria under the rubric of the Arab Spring, which allowed Islamic militants to spawn under various banners. In April 2013, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi not only established Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) but, in June 2014, he also declared the foundation of a caliphate. This situation created panic in the Obama camp, which resorted to air strikes on ISIS militants in Iraq in August 2014 and in Syria in September 2014 without the approval of the UNSC. The crisis of legitimacy arose again and consequently Russia jumped into the foray in September 2015 to protect the Syria regime. This situation has engendered a new face of the Middle East. Hence, whereas the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a mistake made possible by Powell, the departure of US forces from Iraq in 2011 was a mistake made possible by Obama. In fact, in order to correct Powell’s mistake, Obama has made more mistakes. Now, the next US President, Donald Trump, is burdened with the task of correcting these mistakes.

In short, the way both Powell and Obama nudged the US and the Middle East into a strategic black hole, it can be said that the era of black dominance, whether unalloyed or alloyed, in US politics is over.

During his presidential two tenures from January 2009 to January 2017, Barack Obama, the first black President of America, has done marvellous things except addressing the race question. This is the central idea of Michael Eric Dyson’s book, “The Black Presidency: Barack Obama and the Politics of Race in America,” published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, in 2016. Dyson is a Georgetown University professor and a political analyst and writer. This opinion piece intends to discuss Dyson’s certain ideas expressed in the book.

Though written in a flowery descriptive language, the book gives an interesting insight into the race competition — even if not the race conflict — rampant in American society. From pages 41 to 46, Dyson elucidates the meaning of “bi-racial” in terms of “interracial mixture” to throw light on Obama’s ancestry — a white mother from Kansas and a black father from Kenya — but ends up explaining how a bi-racial person stands one step above the black and one step below the white pedestal. For instance, on page 257, Dyson writes: “Obama … had often spoken of the benefits of his biracial biography.” That is, the existence of white genes or white blood is important for a black skinned man to succeed. Unfortunately, this is how Obama cannot be called the first Afro-American President but the first Afro-White American President of the US. If Dyson understands this point, he will also understand the reason why Obama did not co-relate himself much with Martin Luther King Jr. and Jesse Jackson Sr.

On the race question, Dyson is disillusioned with Obama on two counts. First, Obama cannot fall into the category of the nation’s father for being rejected by the white, as Dyson writes on page 134: “Obama, too, has many of the better traits of the nation’s former fathers [such as Roosevelt, Lincoln, and Kennedy]…[However,] Obama has been rejected as the nation’s father by millions who refuse to recognise his paternity for no other reason than his race”. That is, while Obama struggled to associate himself more with the white through his bi-racial claim, he was disowned by them. Second, Obama did not do much to address the race problem of the black, as Dyson writes on page 167: “Obama’s failure to grapple forthrightly with race underscores a historical irony: while the first black president has sought to avoid the subject, nearly all of his predecessors have had to deal with ‘the Negro question’.” That is, Obama has failed to ameliorate the lot of the black.

The book necessarily dismisses any racial undertones. While appreciating the freedom struggle of the black, Dyson eulogises the role of Martin Luther King Jr. and Jesse Jackson Sr. For instance, on page 57, Dyson writes: “Martin Luther King strode toward freedom in a history-changing bus boycott,” and on page 59, Dyson writes: “[Jesse] Jackson made the very idea of a black president reasonable [by his “historical presidential campaigns in ’84 and ’88”] in many quarters where the belief had barely existed at all.” Nevertheless, Dyson does not forget appreciating the role of the white presidents, as he writes on page 168: “Neither of these men [i.e. Obama’s predecessors] was black, and yet they triumphed over the demons of race.” That is, Obama could not do for the black what his white president predecessors did for them.

On page 130, Dyson writes: “Few candidates of any race have run as effective a presidential campaign as Obama did in 2008…When Obama became the Democratic Party nominee, he stayed on message and outdid Republican Party opponent John McCain in debates, fund-raising, organisational focus, and mastery of the details. His stirring triumph over McCain suggests that the nation ignored the unfair characterisation of Obama by his opponents and saw in him the best hope for the political and moral restoration of America.” Here, Dyson thinks that the rise of Obama was meant for political and moral restoration of America. However, nowhere in the book does Dyson evaluate if Obama has met hopes.

One major flaw in the book is that Dyson has tried to see Obama’s presidency isolated from or independent of the first Afro-American Secretary of State Colin Powell, who served under US President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2005. Powell — a claimant of having a multi-generational (Afro-European) mixed race — was the first to set an example that an Afro-American national could serve the US at the national level. In fact, Powell went one step ahead under the spell of the Powell Doctrine by crafting the case for the desired invasion of Iraq at the UNSC level in February 2003. However, in the whole book, Dyson dedicates only one sentence to Powell. On page 40, Dyson writes: “The example of Colin Powell surely played in his [i.e. Obama’s] mind: you say or do the wrong thing, and the promise that glimmered on you like fresh dew will quickly evaporate and dull your shine.” That is, it was the rise and fall of Powell that remained a caveat for Obama.

Ironically, with Powell’s craftiness was appended the crisis of legitimacy of Iraq’s invasion. With the passage of time, the Iraq case went weaker whereas the crisis of legitimacy went stronger. Obama struggled with correcting Powell’s mistake by withdrawing US forces from Iraq in December 2011, but without foreseeing the disorder visiting Iraq and Syria under the rubric of the Arab Spring, which allowed Islamic militants to spawn under various banners. In April 2013, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi not only established Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) but, in June 2014, he also declared the foundation of a caliphate. This situation created panic in the Obama camp, which resorted to air strikes on ISIS militants in Iraq in August 2014 and in Syria in September 2014 without the approval of the UNSC. The crisis of legitimacy arose again and consequently Russia jumped into the foray in September 2015 to protect the Syria regime. This situation has engendered a new face of the Middle East. Hence, whereas the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a mistake made possible by Powell, the departure of US forces from Iraq in 2011 was a mistake made possible by Obama. In fact, in order to correct Powell’s mistake, Obama has made more mistakes. Now, the next US President, Donald Trump, is burdened with the task of correcting these mistakes.

In short, the way both Powell and Obama nudged the US and the Middle East into a strategic black hole, it can be said that the era of black dominance, whether unalloyed or alloyed, in US politics is over.

 

The writer is a freelance columnist and can be reached at qaisarrashid@yahoo.com