Barack Obama as Representative of

Barack Obama as Representative of a Deracialized, Post-Civil Rights Paradigm The history of the United States is saturated with struggle, of which the civil rights movement is perhaps the most significant. What is interesting about the contemporary political paradigm of the country is however that apparent culmination of struggle into an understanding of equality as desirable at least on an intellectual level, if not quite yet in practice.

This new paradigm is most evident in the discourse of politicians from minority groups, and most notably in that of Senator Barack Obama, one of the candidates for the presidency. The new paradigm becomes most evident when this new discourse is compared with that of historical leaders in the paradigm of the struggle, such as Martin Luther King. Such comparison brings to light a certain generational gap between the leaders in the civil rights movement and those of the post-civil rights ideal.

It then becomes clear that, although Barack Obama's speech for a More Perfect Union and Martin Luther King's letter from a Birmingham jail send similar messages of hope, the recipients of these optimistic messages are dissimilar with regard to their historical and cultural experiences.

The generational gap between civil rights movement leader Martin Luther King and post-civil rights movement leader Senator Barack Obama emanates from their two most famous works on race, justice, and equality; Martin Luther King's a Letter From Birmingham Jail and Barack Obama's speech, a More Perfect Union. These two works make clear that the general ideals of equality and hope for all within the borders of the United States build their specific manifestations upon the political concerns and paradigms of the specific time period concerned.

Forty years have passed since the onset of the civil rights movement and the desegregation of blacks and whites. Yet the main difference between the generation addressed by King and that addressed by Obama is not so much the level of equality, but rather the inclusiveness of the struggle for such equality. For King, the struggle was to achieve equality for black people in a world predominated by white supremacy. For Obama, inequality is no longer legal, but it is still very much a reality.

Furthermore, the inequality does not focus only on black and white people, but on all races. Obama aims to achieve equality for every race represented within the United States. For him, the aim of equality is therefore much more inclusive than Luther's aim. King's important achievement of legal desegration therefore paved the way for future leaders such as Obama to widen their perspective for providing hope to all within a country that has always professed but seldom practiced the ideal of opportunity and equality for all.

As mentioned above, the two works to be examined are representative of the generational gap between those addressed by King and those hearing Obama's message. One fundamental difference accompanying King's and Obama's respective messages is one of tone. King's letter focuses narrowly upon the opposition that black people were experiencing during the time of writing. At the time, there were extreme and often violent forms of oppression form signs prohibiting black people from entering certain public places to beatings and even murder.

These were the realities of the time, as indicated by the letter. King speaks strongly against such injustice, and focus directly upon the conflicts between black and white, as this is the focus of the experience during the time. Obama begins his speech by addressing these past injustices, and the way in which they still manifest in the United States today. He however uses this as a springboard for promoting a more peaceful country in which equality will become a reality rather than an ideal.

In contrast to King, Obama's tone is one of acceptance and tolerance for those opposing his point-of-view, and for those making statements that he does not agree with. While King displays the same non-hostile tone as Obama, the difference is that King still implies direct opposition, as no other means at their disposal was sufficient to reach the goal of desegregation. During Obama's time, inequality is much more subtle, and thus Obama takes a more subtle approach.

While he is able to remain courteous and open-minded towards opposing viewpoints, he nonetheless indicates his wish to change what he sees as remaining injustice by working with rather than against everyone in the country. This paradigm is then what enables him to stand as a candidate for president rather than as an anarchist or activist working against government. This also sets him apart from the his more radical predecessors. In such a position of leadership, Mr.

Obama also ensures a greater position of power from which to effect that changes that he envisions for the country. In addition to content, King and Obama therefore display further fundamental differences that position Obama more favorably for political change than King. There is no longer direct opposition to black people in the United States. This is exemplified in the very fact that Obama and other black people are allowed to attain positions of power in the United States. King, on the other hand, was in a jail cell.

His letter was written by hand, while Obama's speech reached the nation via a myriad of technological platforms. The generational gap is therefore illustrated in concrete terms both by the respective ways in which the two leaders communicate, and by the type of equality that they are trying to end. Andrew Sullivan is in agreement with the viewpoint that Obama's candidacy is well connected with the cultural and political time period in which it is platformed. While race is one of the issues, it is no longer the only one.

As such, Obama both acknowledges that race is still an issue, but also that many other issues are also at stake. The racial struggle has been part of the American political paradigm for more than 40 years, but more recent struggles, as Sullivan points out, have also taken their toll upon the country. Not least of these is the conflict created by government-sponsored foreign wars that began with Vietnam, and according to Sullivan, is merely perpetuated rather than reborn by the recent invasion of Iraq.

In order to mitigate such conflicts and reunify the nation, Obama's candidacy is symbolic of national and cultural development. This development has reached a point at which racial and cultural differences can be overlooked and even celebrated in favor of a unified rather than conflicted nation. Such unification, according to Sullivan, can best be achieved by Obama, as he is representative of both race and acceptance.

He acknowledges the wider issues and focus upon solutions that can be achieved by acceptance and working together rather than by forcing citizens into accepting laws and actions to which they find themselves fundamentally opposed. This is why Sullivan believes that the time is perfect for a candidate like Obama, whose racial background and associated past combine with his vision for the future to become for the United States a voice of unification.

Being less radical than predecessors such as Martin Luther King and other activists, Obama has the power to subtly and effectively create the changes that he feels are necessary. His paradigm of moderate policy, eloquent public speaking, and professional politics position him in a much favorable light in terms of his fellow politicians than would activism and radicalism. And indeed, contemporary America provides a more unique and radically different platform for such leadership than has ever been the case before. Not all authors are however in agreement with this viewpoint.

Political scientist Shelby Steele for example views Obama as a "bound man," precisely as a result of his tendency to bargain rather than challenge. According to the author, bargaining is at the heart of all success attained by black people. And there are many instances of bargaining in Obama's speech. Indeed, his entire political campaign focuses on a bargaining process for the unification of citizens of all colors within the United States.

The lack of challenge, according to Steele, is not so much the problem as the tendency to hide it for the benefit of successful bargaining. In order to do so successfully, according to Steele, discipline is required. This is was Obama lacks. This viewpoint is to some degree reiterated by Sullivan, who makes note of Obama's inconsistency levels of political professionalism and behavior during his campaign. Steele warns that lapses in discipline will ultimately defeat the power and success Obama's bargaining message.

Sullivan on the other hand is more forgiving: despite such lapses, the latter author still believes that political timing and Obama have met each other at exactly the right point to attain ultimate success. According to Janny Scott, the fact of Obama's biracial background combines with his political aspirations to complicate the bargaining issue.

The author holds that his existing success emerges precisely from negotiating the pitfalls presented by a need to "appeal to whites while still satisfying the hopes and expectations of blacks"; or in other words, bargaining between two groups who have been directly opposed for long historical years. Steele's warning however appears to be negated by the fact of Obama's success. While there are indeed lapses in his discipline, these can be said to serve only as an indicator of Mr.

Obama's humanity, connecting him more closely rather than alienating him from his followers. Other authors also point out some potentially problematic factors in Obama's campaign and policy issues. According to Gerring and Yesnowitz, for example, Obama has used his biracial background as a mask behind which to avoid taking a stance on any matters of importance, including the Katrina aftermath and the Iraq issue.

While supporters believe that he is, as mentioned above, representative of new social and political paradigms in the United States, others feel that he is not only youthful and inexperienced, but also fundamentally hypocritical in his policy that claims an all-inclusive stance but that in truth takes no position at all. Be this as it may, the fact remains that this moment in American history is right for a candidate such as Obama.

Both in physical, mental and political terms, he is a candidate that can be said to truly represent equality in the United States as well.