Tonight a BBC news television show, Panorama, covered the Obama campaign and the issues involved in his presidential candidacy. It raised some important points concerning how people conceptualize the role of race in this year's US elections. I have been interested in Obama for the last three or four years or so and was very glad he did decide to run in the 2008 elections. As a result I've been following what's been going on in the US political scene a bit, although, being in the UK, I don't quite get all the feeling for how he is being perceived there. Mostly I just read what comes through the media over here and what I can pick up through the NY Times and a few other news sources in the US.

Firstly, let me introduce the show's theme by highlighting some of the comments Obama was allowed to make on the program. One of the key facets of his campaign is his persistent claim that he will win or lose based on his ability to communicate a vision for the future that American people can sign on to and race is not going to be the determining factor. A black candidate is able to represent a wider audience than black people alone, just as a white candidate is able to do the same. The people politicians seek to represent in America are more intelligent and adept at deciding on a political candidate than the basis of race. With that in mind, I'll make a few responses to specific arguments coming through the show.

The show made the argument based on a political psychologist's view, that 80% of white Americans are racist on at least a subconscious level. Therefore, Obama is at an immediate disadvantage and can't win unless he gets all black votes.

I reject this account. I am not going to give sociological data at this point, just the basic premise of why.

Firstly, it is difficult to quantify subconscious racism and although I do not doubt that this kind of thing goes on, the main problem with the show's account is that the same psychologist will then tell you that Obama is the subconsciously racist white person's dream. So not only does this psychologist know racism so well in America that he can tell us that no one will vote for a black man without thinking scary thoughts subconsciously, but now, they will vote for Obama because although he's black and they are racist, he is black in a way that they like. So then, doesn't this mean that the whole issue of white America's subconscious racism doesn't apply to the dreamy black Obama? Doesn't this undermine the logic that he has to win all black votes?

This leads to another problem with the "America is inherently racist" line of argument that the show was trying to make. Even though they've said he's the perfect white man's dreamy black candidate, evidently this only applies to the northern middle class people or blue states, which includes the black barbers they interviewed in Chicago in the beginning of the show who said they liked Obama and thought America is ready for this kind of "grey" candidate.

So really what they mean is that the issue is the really racist southern white people who will never vote for Obama. They assume that this applies to everyone white in the South. So, because no Democratic candidate can win the white house without winning a few southern states, Obama has to win all black votes in the South if he is to have any chance. Obama's dreamy-ness for white people in the North would therefore keep him from winning the Whitehouse in the racist South both because he's not dreamy enough for the super racist southerner white people and because his affinity with the subconsciously racist people in the North turns off the black people in the South.

I don't accept this again, and agree with Obama's assessment.

Firstly, the African American community is not one homogeneous thing in the South or otherwise. The show interviewed the poor segment of the black community in the South. In the start of the show they interviewed the black barbers in Chicago who believe that it's time for a mixed "grey" candidate. But the show did not talk to middle class and wealthy black people in the south. They also focused on the worst cases in the South, like Jena. Not all southern states have the same make up as Jena. I liken this to the racism of the media which wants to pretend that black people are all one thing. The contemporary example of a more nuanced view can be found in Chris Rock's comedy which hits directly on the growing middle classes and the other values and kinds of differences which exist in the African American people groups. Again, I'm not citing sociological data here, just a contemporary premise upon which Obama has the national support he does.

Obama himself makes a really important point in this regard. He notes that the media tries to assume that African American voters are so daft as to see a black candidate and vote automatically for that candidate. Or, if the candidate is not black enough then they will vote for someone who is. His point has consistently been that he is not running for black or white America, but the United States of America. His point is that African Americans, just like any other American, will make their decision on who they will vote for based on policy and not on color. This is exactly as African American candidates have voted in the past and many may still vote for Clinton if she was up because they like her policies better, or trust her experience to execute them which is what the difference between them amounts to at the moment. Experience vs. judgment is how Obama has played it thus far. Based on this week's polls, Clinton's level of experience seems to resonate with voters well.

There is no question that there is racism and segregation and injustice in the South, but I would contest their monolithic nature as well as highlight the state to state differences. I would contest that all white southerners are overtly racist and that white voters there would never vote for Obama. I don't accept this. Second, I would reject the idea that Obama has to appeal to only poor black people in the South because that's all there is there. Rather, he, like any other candidate, has to present his case for the future of America and convince a wide range of people he can execute that vision and bring it to fruition. Then people of various cultural dispositions will decide if that is what they want to see for America as well.

Now let me touch on the pseudo Marxist critique of Obama's racial idealism that the show touches on. I don't believe it's appropriate to say that Obama is wrong to point out the aspiration towards togetherness in America.Obama's famous speech at the 2004 Democrat primaries spoke of the need to look beyond red and blue America, black and white, and to the hopeful vision of the United States of America. He dismissed the interviewer's critique of this speech, precisely because of the ridiculousness of her assumptions that to speak aspirationally is wrong or inherently overlooks the real problems. I also don't accept that he's just another crass politician playing the white middle class votes. Not only is his position consistent with the life he's lived rooted in the Chicago area, but his position is consistent with a long standing interpretation of American equality.

It has become central since Lincoln to interpret the American terms, "all men are created equal" and "freedom and justice for all" as progressive. This was a debate Lincoln effectively won in the 19th century. His case to America at that time was that the founding fathers did not mean white men, but rather, as was exemplified in their own actions when they freed their estates, the founding fathers recognized that they had set out an ideal which their new nation would have to aspire towards. In every generation, people of various cultural and ethnic dispositions have risen up to pursue the justice our constitution claims to uphold. Today's generation is no different. What we are seeing in Jena is an example of the American ability to stand up against injustice and continue to progress towards real and true equality and freedom

The kind of political theory I am attracted to these days, and is popular in post-Marxist thinkers like Jürgen Habermas, Michael Hardt, Terry Eagleton, Slavoj Zizek, and even Pierre Bourdieu to some extent, are those who pay attention to the importance of the political imagination. This is a place theologians often engage political theorists these days. Political ideology is not abandoned because it is a distraction from concrete practices (Marx's critique of religion as opium for instance), but rather called to wrestle with practical experience in more adequate ways, i.e Habermas's "detranscendentalization." So it is right to ask if Obama's message is just phantasm or propaganda, but it is quite another thing to pretend that it is wrong to focus people's attention to a political vision of justice and the common good. In this regard, even the staunch atheist political theorists are recognizing the power of religion in inspiring people towards change. The messages of integration and intrinsic value and rights of everyone that religions often portray are being cited and investigated to a much greater degree today. Habermas's comments upon winning the Kyoto Prize a few years ago are a good example.

Obama presents an imaginative vision of hope and people criticize him for being a dreamer out of touch with the realities. It's fair to ask, but I don't see it as a plausible critique. He is well aware of the realities, but his response is to point people to the solution and inspire hope as a crucial component to change. This is precisely what I would expect from someone who worked on the grass roots level where vision casting is a crucial counterpart to logistics. I see a person who rightly recognizes that no political change is possible without hopeful imagination. Of course, America faces segregation and racism. But solution based thinking must work beyond the identity politics of marginalized people taking the centre pieces of the white and powerful pie. An "us vs. them" mentality has proven unworkable in today's pluralist societies. Good political problem solving today does much better when it expands the pie and demonstrates the possibility that there is more for everyone when everyone participates in the solution together. That is the basic framework of Obama's economic message and policies.

Needless to say I found the show a bit inadequate. Having said that, it gave me a chance to consider why I continue to follow Obama's campaign and the huge support he has gained in the past few years. Who knows what will happen in the primaries in 2008, but I have the sense that Obama will outlast them be that in the White House or the Senate. With any luck other candidates with similar vision and hope for America will follow in his footsteps.

Update on Tuesday, October 23, 2007 at 11:32AM by Timothy Stanley

Was hunting around on YouTube today for a few clips on Obama and thought I would post them here as well. The first is a clip from Obama's interview on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno. The next is poignant discussion of race and Obama's candidacy on Tavis Smiley's show on PBS. Lastly, there is a Mad TV spoof debate between Obama, Clinton and Giuliani which is very funny for those following the candidates at the moment.