There has been a theme running through the coverage of the Barack Obama campaign for some time now. It has disturbed me -- and Christopher Hitchens states clearly why I feel disconcerted by it.

Isn't there something pathetic and embarrassing about this emphasis on shade? And why is a man with a white mother considered to be "black," anyway? Is it for this that we fought so hard to get over Plessy v. Ferguson? Would we accept, if Obama's mother had also been Jewish, that he would therefore be the first Jewish president? The more that people claim Obama's mere identity to be a "breakthrough," the more they demonstrate that they have failed to emancipate themselves from the original categories of identity that acted as a fetter upon clear thought.

It does seem rather interesting that in an age where "multi-racial"has become more and more common a response from Americans of mixed heritage, there is an insistence that Barack Obama be stuffed into one neat little pigeonhole. And more disturbing is the fact that many people find his race to be relevant, and are willing to suspend judgment because of it. We ought to be asking "Is Barack Obama qualified and competent to be President? Is his platform good for America?" Of negligible relevance is the question "Is America ready for a black president?" What is important is not the possibility that Obama will be the first black President -- what matters is whether he is or isn't the best possible president.

Posted by: Greg at 11:34 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.