Very recently, I heard someone refer to Barack Obama as "Osama Obama." My response was that the comment was clearly racist, but another person disagreed, arguing that it was a legitimate way to express a founded anxiety over the political views of the Democratic front-runner. At worst, in their view, it was a veiled critique of his ties to Islam. I'm not very sympathetic. In my view, this comment is expressly designed to target Obama's difference.
The most salient part of his difference, within the perceptions of most non-African-Americans, is his race: he is seen to be non-white. Of course, that is a highly contestable claim in its own right, resting on many problematic ideas which include: the notion that whiteness is a recognizable and agreed upon state; the presumption that whiteness is the pure, natural state of personhood which is sullied when a person has "non-white" ancestors (thus, for example, few white people contest whether he falls into the category of "non-white" or "black" - only whether he can be termed "white"); the idea that one's race is legitimately assessed by anyone other than the person himself; and a failure to account for the empirical fact that many members of the group to which he has been assigned - African-Americans - do not see him as black in some essential way.
He is also identified as different because of his middle name - Hussein - which some see as a proxy for the fact that his father was Muslim and, in the minds of some, he remains essentially Muslim. This essentialness depends on the idea that he either: a) is still a Muslim, but denies it; b) has deep sympathy for Muslims, or Muslim-related issues, because of familial ties; and/or c) he is religiously different, which means either he is non-Christian or, in the new patois of the Bush era, he is a non-Judeo-Christian. Perhaps the Osama title is designed to suggest that, based on his heritage, he cannot be counted on to support the political and social positions dominant among this newly discovered Judeo-Christian community. Or, to be far more generous than I'm inclined to be, perhaps this is just a convenient rhyme with Obama that highlights what some Jews and evangelican Christians see as his sympathy for the plight of Palestinians.
My own feeling is that some staunch supporters of Israel believe that, because Obama is (seen as) black, he is presumptively likely to view Palestinians as oppressed. I think that, deep down, these folks recognize that Palestinians are in fact oppressed - by the actions of multiple countries, for sure, but central among them Israel - and they assume a person with strong ties to another community that has has a long history of oppression will be be open to such such claimsmaking. This does not mean that all black candidates are disqualified, but they must be extra- extra- rigorous in sending substantive and symbolic messages that they are Israel Right or Wrong types.
The question is, does it matter? Is this title ever anything other than an appeal to Americans' basest insticts to fear and hate the other? I cannot see any way in which this name-calling can ever advance good political judgment. George Bush has been a staunch ally of almost all Israeli policy in the last eight years; would it be useful or appropriate to call him Bushstein? Do we consider it OK to call our conservative black Supreme Court justice Uncle Thomas?
Perhaps some folks would call Obama "Osama" even if he were a white Christian with liberal views - but I doubt it. In my view, the name isn't cute or funny. It's just political hate speech.
With such people you can only ask, "dishonest, stupid, or both?" I don't see that there's much other choice.
Posted by: Matt | April 19, 2008 at 08:17 PM