In March 2008, presidential candidate Barack Obama’s “A More Perfect Union” speech spelled out, clearly and thoroughly, his thoughts on race and what America should do going forward.
In the speech, Obama seemed to take no sides. With cognitive and affective empathy, Obama gave generous explanations for conservatives and liberal behavior, alike, an apologia for everyone regardless of race and positionality. No one was blamed; everyone was praised, at least for their potential to be good citizens.
Obama’s speech was meant to calm the fears of American voters who had never voted for a Black presidential candidate. These fears will no doubt now resurface with Kamala Harris as the 2024 Democratic nominee.
Some among the anti-woke mob, already warmed up from our current culture war, have already labeled her the “DEI candidate.” This is unsurprising, but it raises a salient question: How will contemporary antiracism affect this presidential race?
First of all, calling Kamala Harris a DEI candidate does not align with her deeds. The vice president is known as a progressive, but her endeavors as a prosecutor and attorney general are politically nebulous. What’s more, people mean different things when they say words “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion,” and we are not sure how Harris interprets those words.
Lastly, the DEI backlash is here, and there may not be any way for her to address it without giving more oxygen to her critics. Harris may not want to spend too much time and energy rearranging the furniture on a sinking ship.
However, Harris has to talk about race in some way, if only for her base. To do it right, Harris may need to take a page out of Obama’s playbook.
Perhaps there is an argument that, given this country’s history, comparing the issues of whites and Blacks in the way Obama did in his speech is a false equivocation, but that does not matter. The only thing that matters is that Obama said it, and it established his ethos as a candidate.
The country saw a Black presidential candidate insist that we can and should transcend race because, as Americans, we are better than that. The accuracy of the statement was less relevant.
What’s more, Obama relied heavily on the idea that, as a multi-racial candidate, he was a personification of America. Obama’s story was “a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts — that out of many, we are truly one.” Obama’s identification with Americans as a whole was his attempt to erase any kind of us-versus-them thinking. Harris needs to do something similar.
Perhaps most interestingly, Obama’s take on virtue and responsibility sounded more conservative than liberal by today’s standards.
For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs – to the larger aspirations of all Americans: the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family.
And it means taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.
This quote is a far cry from much of the language of contemporary antiracism, in which despair or cynicism are badges of honor. For Obama, victim mentality is detrimental; it squashes both individual and group agency.
Lastly, we need to realize that Obama’s speech was created in the context of an exigency: the animus his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, directed toward America in a video leaked to the media. After Wright’s imploration, “God damn America,” hit headlines, Obama had no choice but to respond.
Although that response constituted crisis management, it was a positive for Obama’s campaign. Obama’s speech would have landed very differently if given with no incidental catalyst; accusations of “race-baiting” would have abounded. But, after Wright’s diatribe, those people wanted Obama to talk about race.
So, does Harris need a similar incident to prompt a discussion on race? Does that event have to indict her as un-American the way the Wright incident indicted Obama? Given the fact that, regarding race relations, post-George Floyd America is much different than the America experienced during the Obama administration, people on both sides of the political aisle may already want and expect Harris to address her views on race.
This won’t solve everything. I am sure Donald Trump’s campaign will indict her as a race-card-wielder, but a strong distinction between Harris and Obama is the harsh scrutiny Harris is experiencing from minorities, especially Black women, which may present itself as an undeniable exigency.
Either way, we should expect more words on race from candidate Harris. She may have no choice.
Erec Smith, Ph.D., is a research fellow at the Cato Institute and associate professor of rhetoric at York College of Pennsylvania.