filed under: Uncle Herman

-- What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground. (Genesis 4:10)

I watched a little exchange on the internet last night between analyst Karen Finney and MSNBC host Martin Bashir (link) in which Finney called GOP Presidential hopeful Herman Cain an Uncle Tom.  Not in so many words, of course.  She prettied it up by saying that the base of the Republican Party liked Cain because he was a black man who "knew his place" and that he made the base feel "like they are not racist because they can like this guy."  Bashir approved, "Wow.  Thank you for spelling that out."

So what, exactly, did Finney spell out?  Is it true that Mr. Cain allows the white people in the Tea Party to feel good about themselves because he allows them to put up one of their own -- albeit a puppet, a charlatan, a fraud -- thereby alleviating their inbred prejudices against all things black?  At the heart of this question lies a deeper one:  What does it mean to be a black man in America?

I can't even begin to answer these questions in a way that satisfies the racial divide that continues to color our politics in this post-Obama period, this period that was supposed to be post-racial because we had, as a nation, finally come to right some wrongs and elect a man despite his color, because of his ideas.  The reason I cannot answer the question properly is because it seems to me that the charge made by Finney -- so lovingly supported by Mr. Bashir in bas relief -- is exactly the same charge one might make against the establishment left in the case of the President himself  (link).  Here is one we can accept.  Clean.  Articulate. (link)

You see, the problem is that racial politics in the US, as it is defined by the academic and political communities, is ultimately an emic account.  This means that it must be seen from the inside out, from within the black culture.  Such an account is specifically not etic.  That is, it is not a problem that can be viewed from the outside in, from an outsider's perspective.  The white conservative takes the words of Martin Luther King Jr., regarding the need to view people not on the basis of the color of their skin but on the content of their character, at face value.  And he thinks that by being racially neutral, by being color-blind, he is meeting his social responsibility.

But that is entirely wrong.  It is as wrong in the case of black culture as it is in the case of gay culture.  Or feminism.  Or Islamic ideology.  If you are reading this and you are a fundamentalist Christian, for example, think about the things that the media says about you.  Do they understand your views on the world?  Do they understand the deep and sacrificial love that Christ has for the church and that the husband, by extension, is supposed to have for his wife?  Or do they simply argue that the Christian right wants to keep women barefoot and in the kitchen?  It is because they are, by and large, viewing the problem as an anthropologist would view the New Guinea tribesmen.  You are a curiosity to them.  They do not understand you because they do not live in your world.  And you, if you are a white conservative, do not understand the needs of blacks, and gays, and women who want abortions for the very same reason.

But do liberals understand?  Well, here is where it gets a bit sticky.  I do a little carpentry on occasion to help afford my lifestyle.  I remember being shocked once by a comment made by one of my customers, who was the proto-typical Northeastern Democrat.  Organic foods and composting, holistic health and Public Radio -- the whole bit.  Not a move was made without checking in with Moveon.org, first.  Everything in her life revolved around what Charles Schumer would have her do.  WWCSD.  So imagine my surprise when she told me I should make a flyer to advertise my work and she was insistent that I put a picture on the flyer.  Because I am dense and didn't get it, she finally spelled it out.  In order to get business in her neighborhood, it would be a good thing to have my picture on the ad, "to let folks know you're white."  Whisper the unthinkable.  Wink.  Nod.

What?!  Isn't that exactly the kind of underground racism that teabaggers are accused of?  Well, yes and no.  It is certainly a kind of racism.  (And, it seems to me, an especially pernicious one.) But it is different from the kind of claim that is leveled at the right.  That is because the charge that is leveled at the right is one of overt, outsider racism.  The left shares, apparently, the views of black culture (link), at least in part because it helps to shape them.  Call it the Democratic Plantation, if you will, but the fact stands that the official public voice of the black culture in America speaks with a left-leaning accent.  So when Karen Finney claims Mr. Cain is an Uncle Tom, she means he is a black who stands outside the fold.  A black sheep, so to speak.  A prodigal son, as yet unreturned.

So is it possible that the right likes Mr. Cain because of his ideas and not because of his skin color?  Well, yes, absolutely.  But it is also probably the case that they like him just a little because he is a black man who doesn't march in lockstep with the crowd.  It's why they latch onto comments made by Bill Cosby and elect Michael Steele their Party Chairman.  It's why they like Clarence Thomas.  They see them as clean articulate versions of their own type of black man, ones given to promotion of free enterprise, who see social responsibility as key to effective societies, who view government as an interloper.  And the left shoots across the bow of such blacks because they are playing electoral politics.  They are protecting their turf.

Meanwhile, the black community, for reasons of its own, just does not agree with Herman Cain.  At least not in large numbers.  At least not yet.  And least not publicly.  Herman Cain would claim they have been brainwashed.  He would, by running, change all of that.  But his is an uphill battle.  And it will be fought, if it is fought at all, by white people, against the grain.  Because black people do not agree with him.

And Karen Finney's comments are but one reason why.

(If you like this article just a little, feel free to read a little analysis I did of Al Sharpton (link) as an astute reader of public tastes, and a larger analysis of President Obama's role (link) in changing racial politics.  Thanks.)