What’s worse: the fact that a dubitably relevant Jesse Jackson recently said he wants to remove Senator Barack Obama’s genitals, that Jackson suggested the Democratic nominee is talking down to black people, or that he quickly backpedaled and meekly joined the media in the ongoing Great American Talkdown? Undoubtedly, it’s the last of these three.
Already a questionably relevant and relatively sinuous narcissist, Jackson had an opportunity to engage the American people and the media in a true discussion about Obama’s position on faith-based initiatives and the framing of his message to the community. Instead of addressing this matter openly, he weakly whispered his disagreement ‘off mic’ and, once another of his ignorant statements was brought to light, he failed to take the opportunity to do any leading.
If Obama is, in fact, talking down to black people by oversimplifying complex cultural phenomena (a matter of much debate; in fact, Michael Eric Dyson wrote an entire book on this idea following Bill Cosby’s much-televised personal responsibility comments), then the ridiculous way in which the idea was brought to the forefront should not overshadow the issue at hand. Yet Jackson has allowed his brutish murmurings to obfuscate a potentially relevant discussion, thereby continuing (assuming it began at some point) to patronize the community and enabling the media to do the same.
How so? Isn’t the suggestion that Jackson’s comments could hurt Obama’s campaign indicative of a belief that the American people, in general, and African-Americans, in particular, need to be talked down to? Certainly, the portion of Jackson’s comment regarding removing Senator Obama’s genitalia wouldn’t negatively affect Obama’s presidential campaign. Thus, the media is suggesting that Jackson’s talking down to black people comment could negatively affect Obama’s campaign. But isn’t the very asking of this question implying that people can not distinguish a single criticism (legitimate or otherwise) from complete disavowal, thereby suggesting that people’s inability to think critically requires they be talked down to if one wants to avoid negatively affecting an entire campaign via one whispered, critical remark?
What’s worse is that Jackson has further enhanced his history of waffling by joining this apparent Great American Talk Down. By saying that his support of Obama is “unequivocal”, Jackson is suggesting that he is either a hypocrite or that he too thinks the people can not distinguish criticism from dismissal. And yet, in the same breath, Jackson says that Obama’s emphasis must go beyond a message of personal responsibility and into one that “must address the structural crisis in America”.
Maybe this is yet another poor choice of words on Jackson’s part. It’s possible that he is merely a staunch, not unequivocal, supporter of Obama despite his criticism of the faith-based initiatives message. If this is the case, however, he needs to stop carrying the unequivocal support flag and actually become the leader the media has mistakenly claimed he’s been for years. This means calling Obama on the carpet when the mics are openly on and the cameras rolling.
Whether it be on Obama’s FISA stance or his faith-based initiatives discussion, Jackson, or some other more relevant leader, and the American people need to question all our leaders and understand that just as we can criticize the government and love our country, we can criticize potential presidential candidates and still support their candidacy.