Obama and the Right Message

In 1996, I sat in a friend’s living room in Chicago and listened to Barack Obama discuss his decision to run for a senatorial seat in the Illinois State Legislature. I remember thinking how great it would be if this articulate and thoughtful young man could eventually emerge as a national political figure. Since that time, Obama has not only become one of the country’s most influential political figures, but also a serious candidate for the Presidency of the United States. Yet, many question whether a black American can overcome the odds and ascend to the most powerful political position in the world. Given Obama’s political strength and appeal, I maintain that he can and will if he chooses to become more politically courageous.

Since his early days as an Illinois state senator, Obama’s political messages have been broadly directed at all racial and ethnic groups. He has consistently promoted the idea that whites, blacks, Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans can unite in pursuit of common goals. He maintains that if political speeches are tailored solely to white audiences, people of color will draw back, just as whites often recoil when speeches are targeted to racial minority audiences.

According to Obama, the challenge lies in articulating problems and seeking resolutions that attract the attention of all racial and ethnic groups, such that individuals across groups are able to recognize their mutual interests in working with, and not against, one another in the political arena. When Obama ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004, these messages of racial harmony resonated across the state, even in the conservative, largely white areas of down state Illinois. As Obama spoke, people listened not simply because of his eloquence or rhetorical skill, or the refreshing appeal of his message, but in large part because of the sincerity of his conviction.

Obama’s campaign for the U.S. Senate in Illinois was not unlike the impressive victory of Deval L. Patrick ‘78 in the recent gubernatorial election in Massachusetts. Like Obama, Patrick’s win was cemented by his great appeal across economic, racial, ethnic, and ideological lines, thereby dramatically demonstrating that a black politician can indeed generate widespread support. It solidified the contention that a politician’s message, not his or her race, is of primary importance.

Even Jesse Jackson, who is often viewed as a polarizing figure, transcended the racial divide with his stunning upset of Michael Dukakis in the 1988 Michigan caucus. Not only did he win landslide victories in Detroit, but he also drew a surprising measure of white support in the Upper Peninsula, and in cities like Kalamazoo, Ann Arbor, and Saginaw. Like Patrick and Obama, Jackson’s popularity was based on the broad appeal of his message, which focused on jobs, a higher minimum wage, education, housing, and day care for working women. These examples reveal that black candidates can draw political support from non-black voters if their political messages address the constituents’ basic concerns.

Accordingly, the strength of Obama’s unifying political messages will undercut the importance of race as a defining factor in the success or failure of his presidential campaign. Far more important than his race will be his ability to excite his liberal base in the primaries. Given Obama’s eloquence and charismatic appeal, he ought to enhance his chances of winning the election by being politically courageous. If he were to take strong but carefully measured positions on key issues, he would not only be able to address the concerns of liberal Democrats, but also draw the attention of moderate Democrats, Independents, and even some Republicans who are looking for a change in direction.

For example, Obama could follow the lead of Democratic Senator Jim Webb, whose response to President Bush’s 2007 State of the Union address garnered broad appeal. Both his powerful populist message on the growing class divide between the very rich and the rest of America and his strong condemnation of the war in Iraq pleased liberal Democrats, but also very likely drew the attention of moderate Democrats and Independents. Such rhetoric takes political courage, but since Obama’s election to the Senate, increased media attention has made him more cautious, turning him toward consensus-building messages that have become increasingly bland.

This should not come as a surprise. As Obama has stepped into the bright media spotlight, he has become more like the other candidates who for the most part are “listening to their handlers and gurus and fat-cat contributors,” as Bob Herbert of the New York Times so aptly put it. This is a formula for caution, not courage. If Obama continues with this tempered approach, he runs the risk of losing support to candidates like John Edwards, who has already shown a tendency to take politically bold positions on issues such as poverty and the war in Iraq.

Thus the more Obama tries to avoid offending particular groups with “safe” arguments, the less likely it is that he will be able to sustain enthusiasm among his core followers. It would be a shame if he took this path; of all the candidates, Obama has the greatest ability to excite liberals with politically strong and courageous positions and still maintain the support of moderate Democrats and Independents. Indeed, I strongly believe that, if elected, Obama has great potential to unify this divided nation and become one of America’s truly great presidents.

William Julius Wilson is the Lewis P. and Linda L. Geyser University Professor.