Interesting though that racial politics of the black power kind seems to have died out in the UK. Or maybe it’s just a sign of the black community’s success in having integrated into British society. Or maybe the media just like to play with others these days and ignore it.

The bit I like most is where Mr Phillips talks about Bill Cosby. Now, forgive me, but the decline of Jimmy Tarbuck doesn’t make me construct some grand thesis about how he pandered to the liberal establishment which worked for a while but ultimately was going to leave him stranded…..entertainers have their day Trevor, that’s just the way it is (or at least was before Strictly Come Dancing…..)

http://www.e8voice.blogspot.com

Not sure quite where he’s going with this as yet and whether there’s any serious thinking behind the reference of if he’s just playing up his ‘there is such a thing as society but its different from the state’ thing, but its at least nice to see a Tory trying to make a nuanced argument for once.

What IS the point of Trevor Phillips? Does anyone think he’s got anything worthwhile to say any more? It seems like every time he opens his mouth these days it’s to say something idiotic.

—-
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/letters/letters-drug-policies-789312.html

Sir: I was a little surprised to see the front page of The Independent (28 February) and my somewhat apocalyptic claim that “Obama will do nothing for black Americans”. Strangely, I don’t recall saying that.

My article in Prospect, on which The Independent’s coverage was based, was not a personal attack on Mr Obama or whether he would make a great president. The actual focus of my ire is those who are attempting to use Mr Obama’s arrival as signalling the dawn of a post-racial Nirvana in America; those who would use his success to say “job well done” and ignore the hard work of tackling that country’s deep divisions.

A high-profile black figure who gets the whole world talking about race, politics and the mix of the two should never be dismissed in the off-hand way yesterday’s coverage suggested I had. Mr Obama may indeed be a worthy American president. What he won’t be is a solution to that country’s racial divide.

Trevor Phillips

Chair, Equality and Human Rights Commission, London SE1

—
It is good to see something of a retreat, but I am not much convinced by this.

The Independent masthead that “Obama will do nothing for black Americans” may have been a little dramatic, but the report was a very fair and straight one. Phillips did claim that an Obama Presidency would prolong America’s racial divide, and indeed claimed (with little or no evidence) that Obama knew this and was cynically using that.
http://independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britains-equality-chief-obama-will-only-prolong-americas-racial-divide-788556.html

And my response was based entirely on the text of Phillip’s full Prospect piece, which contains the arguments about descendants from slavery, about the postponement and setting back of the arrival of a post-racial America.
https://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?&id=10043

Two problems with this defence.

Firstly, if it was not a personal attack on Obama, why does the article describe him as ‘charismatic, capable and ruthless’ and accuse him of bad faith: ‘In truth, Obama may be helping to postpone the arrival of a post-racial American and I think he knows it. If he wins the cynicism may be worth it to him and his party’ and then one final reference to ‘charm, skill and ruthless cynicism’ … In the absense of any positive comment about Obama, the debate he has sparked, it is difficult to see that thus ‘ was not a personal attack on Mr Obama or whether he would make a great president’.

Secondly, there is no reference whatsover in the article to anything other than Obama’s racial identity, as mixed race and black. There is no discussion of the framing of his campaign and what he is saying about race, to back up the Shelby thesis or Phillips’ view that it is cynical. There is no discussion of any policy positions he has taken or may take on either racial or social disadvantage. As I point out in my piece, he has suggested an archetypally ‘post-racial politics’ move to make affirmative action programmes about both class and racial disadvantage.

Perhaps it may be relevant that the letter is signed by TP with his job title, where the article is written in a personal capacity, as it simply says ‘Trevor Phillips is a broadcaster and journalist’. (Andrew Grice of The Independent says he had to call up Prospect to check it was the same Trevor Phillips!)
http://indyblogs.typepad.com/independent/today_in_politics/index.htm

So I doubt its a tenable defence, but there is an element of backing away. TP will be surprised if Obama beats Hillary, but he doesn’t think he can be the harbinger of a post-racial America. Well, he might make some progress, beyond the progress he would undoubtedly symbolise. I doubt he’s going to say ‘job done’ on day one.

It seems to me TP is not just holding Obama to a higher standard, but to an impossible standard. I expect TP has now found that many people think we might as well give Obama a hearing before he is dismissed out of hand.Re the Clinton comparison at the end: many people would like a politician with Clinton’s skills and ability to connect, but without his self-destructive flaws. Such politicians have been on offer, but only in the West Wing fantasy politics of Jed Bartlet and Matt Santos.

The only way to stand the core thesis (’healing postponed’) would be to explain how Obama could move America into post-racial politics (which TP’s own analysis was pretty regressive) and to offer a proper analysis of what he is and isn’t doing at the moment in that regard.

I wonder if Phillips is embarassed about the fact t hat this article’s come out now when most African Americans have rallied around Obama, as a way to heal the racial divisions of the past, and effectively ignored what people like Phillips said in the past.

Mr Phillips is not exactly being ‘colour-blind’ is he? Apparently, Obama is ‘black’ enough for whites but not for blacks:

For whites, Obama as president would be the living proof that America truly has left the past behind. For blacks, on the other hand, Obama is simply another prophet offering true emancipation—another Garvey, King or Jesse Jackson.

The proof of when Phillips has left the past behind will be when he supports a candidate on his or her merits and doesn’t feel the need to mention skin colour at all!

That is one thing that no politician in his right mind is ever going to remember. You can hope for miracles, but it is not wise to expect one.

I think that these attacks are interesting because they demonstrate how little Obama is beholden to the Americas existing political black establishment.

Which is good for him, because a politician obviously tied to a minority group e.g. rich whites, never wants to draw too much attention to the fact. People might suspect him of intending to govern in the interests of the members of that group, at the expensive of non-members. Which is why you do not see Cameron making a big thing about Eton, or Brown telling everyone he is Scottish.

In many ways, Obamas tactics are an even more encouraging sign than his success so far.

Reading the full Prospect article I couldn’t help but be amused by his comments on ‘bargainers’ - in fact I’m genuinely curious about how closely Shelby Steele’s thesis about bargainers actually resembles Phillips’ presentation of it, because at first glance it looks suspiciously like an ultra-polite and extremely cagey way calling someone an ‘Uncle Tom’.

What’s most amusing is that what Phillips seems to be criticising is essentially the same modus operandi that he’s adopted in recent years, that of doing everything possible to ingratiate himself with the ‘establishment’ - particularly since Cameron appeared on the scene, since when he’s been sucking up like there’s no tomorrow in preparation for the possibility that might end with ‘Call me Dave’ as his de facto boss.

How his comments read, more than anything else, is as the thoughts of a man whose near relentless cozening up to the establishment of late has cost him some political credibility in his own community and who now, mistakenly, thinks that taking a potshot at a political figure who operates at a safe distance away from ‘home’ and trotting a few trite references to a Marcus Garvey and Malcolm X he can safely get back a bit of credibility without having any kind of face off with his immediate paymasters.