In light of the current economic climate – while chewing on recent Republican, populist-tinged victories in New Jersey, Virginia and, most recently, Massachusetts – the question regarding African American support for President Obama is bound to come up.  It’s the anniversary of his first full year in office, we prognosticators expecting it.  But, it’s an even more poignant question amid the very racialized national conversation taking place – from gawks at Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) “gaffes” to nauseating outrage at bigotry on tap from the likes of commentator Rush Limbaugh and evangelical zealot Pat Robertson.  We should see this coming at the turn of every Black History Month. 

To consider that question, context is needed.  We need to carefully examine writings on the socio-economic construct wall.  In the case of Black folks, the recession has pretty much decimated over a full quarter of our middle class, setting Black economic progress back dramatically despite clear electoral gains on the political landscape. A depressing Center for American Progress Report on "The State of Minorities in the Economy" offers some dismal figures on African American unemployment rates, including how "... minorities have been disproportionately affected" by the recession. CAP states: "[M]inorities were not receiving the benefits of the economic growth prior to 2007."  Further:

At the start of the recession, the unemployment rate for African Americans on a quarterly basis was 8.6 percent. In the two years that followed, the unemployment rate rose 7.2 percentage points to 15.8 percent.

Yet, for some reason, you’d be strangely oblivious to the harsh reality of Black unemployment should you stumble upon a recently touted Pew Center Social Trends Survey which indicates "the perceptions of blacks have changed for the better over the past two years, despite a deep recession and jobless recovery that have hit blacks especially hard."  Pew finds:

“Barack Obama's election as the nation's first black president appears to be the spur for this sharp rise in optimism among African Americans. It may also be reflected in an upbeat set of black views on a range of other matters, including race relations, local community satisfaction and expectations for future black progress.”

The Pew survey was by telephone and included a sampling of 2,884 adults, including 812 African Americans. Something missing here? Perceptions seem misaligned with the reality of the current situation.  One has to ask who, exactly, did they sample?  And, where were the sampled Black respondents residing at the time of the survey?  There is a blatant incongruity between these two reports that can’t be ignored.   

Obviously, African American support for the President - based on anecdotal observation and data-driven evidence - remains high.  If the election for his second term were to take place tomorrow, Obama would enjoy, at the very least, a high margin of grassroots, base support from the African American community (unless there other strong, viable and credible candidates or elected officials with equal or greater gravitas, background and magnetism to split that vote during either the primary or general). In this sense, the recent Pew Social Trends survey is accurate - signs of Black euphoria, despite a recession that's battered us, can be directly linked to the feel good nature of a "brotha running things."   One can argue that the President takes this built in support for granted.  Bruce Dixon of Black Agenda Report calls it “delirium” in a recent piece:

Barack Obama’s presence in the White House is bad for Black people’s mental health. Even as the African American economic condition deteriorates by the day, Blacks perceive a world in which their prospects are improving. Something did change for the better for Black people in 2009. The problem is, it only happened in their minds.

Dixon makes an intriguing point that’s hard to ignore. It brings to mind an earlier conversation with colleagues who craved for meaning: was the election of Barack Obama a Great Okie Doke?  As the economy spun out of control, falling off its global axis, did we get duped into a false sense of symbolic power and security while sliding into the financial abyss of unemployment, foreclosures and poverty? And, are surveys from sources like Pew simply pulling our collective leg, a mainstream media attempt to mute Black criticism of the President while encouraging distraction from issues of critical import?

It's important to note that the extent of current Black support for the President may be more organic than policy-driven, something intrinsically spiritual and based on bonds of cultural affinity and obligation.  Nothing wrong with that – contrary to Dixon’s argument, there is much self-esteem boost in that.  Obama in the White House solidifies a certain aspect or vision of Black Power as normal rather than irregular – particularly when it’s combined with images of other African Americans in positions of political and economic power.  Simply put: it’s encouraging.  Who wouldn’t want their children growing up in an era where a President who looks like them is calling the proverbial shots?

And, by no means are we implying here that Black folks are less politically savvy or less informed - to the contrary. But, the level of pride is much thicker than the level of tangible satisfaction with what's he done thus far this year.  It’s time to recognize. Serious analysis of the Obama Administration is more crucial now than figurative feelings of racial ownership.    

A common, defensive retort amongst many upset by media, partisan or ideological criticism of the President is that "it's only been a year."  True – it’s only been a year. But, the President as “Master and Commander” has an impressive array of weapons at his disposal to respond much more rapidly to the tragic economic situation than he has.  This doesn’t include a simple maintenance of Wall Street status quo, satisfied with upward ticks in the markets while there is no fundamental change in regulation or system.  Recent, devastating electoral blowbacks had more to do with frustration over lack of aggressive action on jobs and foreclosures than it did with disagreements over health care reform.  Clearly, there were missed opportunities for a more direct approach.  Let’s hope we don’t find ourselves saying, by the end of 2010, that “it’s only been two years.”  

Sure, it was predictable that the right’s most venomous voices would find a way to turn America’s desire to help Haiti into something dark. But you’d think these guys would at least wait a day before starting to spew their bile. Nope.

Pat Robertson has declared that Haiti brought the destruction on itself by, well, asking the devil to free them from the barbarism of Europe’s slave-based economy. Video over at Media Matters, but here’s the relevant quote:

That speaks for itself, but as columnist David Sirota Tweeted, Robertson can only be considered a sociopath at this point.

Rush Limbaugh’s not far behind. He actually managed to get on air and argue against the U.S. sending aid. “We’ve already donated to Haiti,” he crowed. “It’s called the U.S. income tax.” That was just one remark in a train of nonsense he spat out in his radio show today, including arguing that President Obama has only responded to this catastrophe because it will build his “credibility” in “the black community -- both the light skinned and dark skinned black community.” Oh Rush, you’re just so funny and witty. That’s a knee-slapper. Literally uncounted thousands are dead and this jackass thinks it’s a chance to make race jokes. To enrich himself. Disgusting, and every company that does business with him ought to be ashamed of itself today.

On a positive note, here’s a couple of great places you can donate: Partners in Health has been providing emergency medical services in Haiti since 1987. They’ve got clinics in Port au Prince and cities around the country and an established staff of care providers. Also Doctors Without Borders, which has set up an emergency response team for Haiti to which you can donate directly.

--KAI WRIGHT

UPDATE: Here's what White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs had to say about Limbaugh yesterday.

Continuing the conversation on the race for 2010, here is a surprising development that wouldn’t change the Senate math for Democrats, but could start quite a fight:

While she has done little of note in her first year in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s former seat, Gillibrand is by all accounts a capable lawmaker, winning the respect of her colleagues on the Senate Foreign Relations, Judiciary and Environment and Public Works Committees. She makes a credible pairing with influential senator (and potential future majority leader) Chuck Schumer, also of New York. But she took office under less-than-ideal circumstances—after once-favored Caroline Kennedy’s flameout, and amid uncharitable comparisons with her similarly blonde but far more qualified predecessor.

If elected, Ford, himself the son of a longtime congressman from Tennessee, would replace retiring senator Roland Burris as the only black member of the upper chamber of Congress. Ford, however, has been out of the political game for a few years now—recall that the last election he won was for a seat in the House of Representatives in 2004. Though he was the victim of some unseemly race-baiting in his bid for a Tennessee Senate seat in 2006, he has since been a bit of a dilettante—alternately, a Fox News commentator, the head of the hyper-centrist Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and a vice president at Merrill Lynch. These are hardly the most populist of credentials. Nevertheless, a group of powerful Manhattanites—and a few in Albany—appear to be casting their lot with Ford.

Ford will certainly benefit from name recognition—and the special reverence bestowed upon upstanding black men running for elected office. But will New Yorkers tolerate the obvious carpet-bagging? Ironically, Gillibrand’s predecessor proved that it's possible, winning millions of New York voters with a “listening tour” over the course of 2000. And Bill Clinton counts Rattner as a friend, and himself rode to power with the backing of the DLC. Maybe, with their powers combined, Ford can pull off the same trick.

—DAYO OLOPADE

Is the Obama administration about to open a third front in Yemen? A visit by Gen. Petraeus to Sana’a this week was a strong sign that the military option is fast becoming the first reaction to a terrorist event. We’re still in Iraq; we’re escalating in Afghanistan; and we’re already crossing the border from Afghanistan into Pakistan in a pursuit of terrorists with a strategy that increasingly looks like a game of whack-a-mole.  If the next terror attempt comes from one of the 14 newly-dangerous countries now on the special watch list, will we be dispatching troops, or at least drones, since we like to do things by remote control and keep our casualty rate down? It is hardly comforting that the pundits assure us that ground troops are not needed "for now.”

An anti-terrorism policy that lacks a political component is a dead end.  But even Obama’s brilliant speech at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony didn’t quite paper over the gap between his initial rhetoric and the combative strategy he has embraced. And invoking World War II surely didn’t address the litany of failed imperial interventions in Afghanistan that stretches back to Great Britain in the 1920s through the Soviets in the 1970s.

While many Americans have joined our allies in becoming disappointed with President Obama, we can assume that those on the fence, including many moderate Muslims who hoped to see a real change in U.S. policy, are downright disillusioned. We’re backing off closing Guantanamo. We’re in another Muslim country and debating intruding on yet another. At this point in time, there is little reason for them expect real change in U.S. policy in the Middle East. True, we’re no longer torturing captives for information. But the ambitious plans to tackle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict --a very real cause of rage used by both the Islamic radicals and oppressive governments --has disappeared from Obama’s priority list in a flurry of contradictory statements and retrenchments.

At the same time we keep redefining who we’re fighting. A a decade ago, the theory was that suicide bombers were disillusioned, uneducated young men with no future. Now they’re the sons of wealthy Nigerian entrepreneurs and the graduates of prestigious British universities.  In the end, we fall back on the American knee-jerk instinct. Categorize and cauterize. After 9/11, it was young Muslim men of Arab descent; some U.S. citizens joked that they were victims of FWM (Flying While Muslim), repeatedly pulled out of line for the so-called random checks that yielded no box cutters and no shoe bombs. Now it will be Cubans and Syrians and Algerians and Nigerians and Somalis.

There is no wall tall enough, no barrier perfect enough, to guarantee us perfect safety. Chances are that a competent terrorist will get through one day, no matter how well we learn to “connect the dots.” Then we’ll go chasing after another mole with our sizeable mallet. Until we develop  a policy that wins hearts and minds in the Middle East and in the broader Muslim world the Abdulmullatabs will continue to bloom --and not just from those 14 countries on the watch list.

--Joel Dreyfuss