The (Not-So-Amusing) Drama on Obama's Faith Background

Once again, speculation about the President's faith and background has surfaced to the foreground of punditry and public life here in America.  Once again, the echoes of this "issue" has sounded increasingly audible at a critical time and a tense political and social environment (i.e. right before the upcoming 2010 gubernatorial and midterm Congressional elections).    

A point that may be lost here is that perhaps it is not so much about whether Mr. Obama is a Muslim or a Christian.  Rather, upon closer inspection and reflection, the real dilemma may indeed be over the implications of commencing and continuously hammering on this speculation.  The same goes for the significance of responses to such speculation.  

About two years ago, in the midst of electoral frenzy,  Collin Powell correctly summarized the seeming pandemonium and nonsensical undertones when speculation about Obama's faith ran rampant: "[Obama] is a Christian — he's always been a Christian... But the really right answer is, what if he is [a Muslim]? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America."  The point that Mr. Powell made hinted at the notion that the environment surrounding the speculation over Obama's background not only could hurt Obama, but could also ultimately have the effect of marginalizing Muslims (and Arabs) in the United States.  This is the same conclusion reached by CNN anchor Campbell Brown when she wrote in an op-ed "Whenever this gets raised, the implication is that there is something wrong with being an Arab-American or a Muslim. And the media is complicit here, too.  We've all been too quick to accept the idea that calling someone Muslim is a slur ..."  

Contrast these statements with the reply of then-Republican candidate Senator John McCain of "no, he's a decent family man" to statement from campaign rally attendant about the then-Democratic opponent being an Arab.  The presented juxtaposition (even if unintended)---between a scrutinized minority constantly under less-than-flattering spotlight, and a regular mainstream American celebrated by his peers---could not have been invoked any clearer.  Even though McCain's comment was a lot tamer than other characterizations (by TV and radio pundits on the extreme political right), it was 'weak' at best and 'complicit' at worst towards Muslim/Arab smearing at the time.      

Four decades ago, America faced a similar wave of socio-political hysteria.  When then-Senator John F. Kennedy was running for president in 1960, he encountered intense speculation and suspicion, owing to him being a Catholic candidate.  Kennedy recognized those (misplaced) fears and missed no opportunity to declare and affirm his independence from a suspected tie to a dominating hold of the Catholic Church.  One could concede that the particular circumstances surrounding the speculation over the president's faith background and affiliation differ between Kennedy's time and Obama's predicament.  But the underlying environment of hype almost essentially remain the same.  The fact that Kennedy was Catholic was viewed as a point of distrust and non-confidence; in just about the same way so are Obama's feeble connections to a Muslim background.  And there is similarity between Kennedy's and Obama's approaches in responding to this hype: Kennedy sought to assuage misplaced and erroneous fears of a 'Catholic takeover' of America by consistantly reasserting his individuality; Obama may perhaps be seeking to deflate misplaced and erroneous fears of an 'Islamic takeover' by repeatedly reasserting how his Christianity informs his policy decisions and presidential conduct.  

In the Kennedy and Obama cases, those particular choices over how to handle the presidential public persona in both cases may have be deemed as a politically pragmatic necessity to demonstrate leadership and proximity to the American people (and their persona may have truly reflected the presidents' personal convictions about themselves).  But another important angle to the creation of, and reception towards, the presidential persona in these contexts must be examined.  And through this angle we are likely to confront harder questions and answers.  What could the constant pressure (upon candidates and office-holders) to create specific personas say about us as Americans and our stances regarding the values of tolerance and openness we espouse?  What do these instances say about our embrace of the value that we judge a person---not by the color of his/her skin, but---by the content and conduct of his/her character and person?  

I wasn't alive when Dr. King's eloquent "I Have a Dream" speech passionate urged a terribly divided nation to get past the color/race barrier.  But today's phenomenon of hype feeding into ethnic/religious minority issues could reach a point of comparability in worrisomeness to the outrageous hype on American Blacks that ultimately killed the short-lived Reconstruction (and that later reinforced segregation).  Compare the "threat of an Islamization of America" and other sensationalist and pejorative ideas touted by the contemporary extreme right-wing to the treatment of Afro-Americans in the movie Birth of a Nation.  Perhaps King's words may just as well as apply now.  We have undeniably come a long way since King's address in front of the Lincoln Memorial.  Nonetheless, we still haven't resolved isolationist tensions born out of "us and the Other."  It is also reasonable to acknowledge that it will take time, persistence, and measured action to work through these---even after so many years following King's time.  However why does it feel like we have to return to King's words as if they were uttered only yesterday?  In other words, why does it feel like we keep forgetting and/or remain complicit or indifferent?  


[ABC News conducted a series of experiments to test Americans' responses to negative prejudicial treatment of minorities. In most instances responses were indifference and/or inaction, while some responses supported the treatment.  While the treatment exhibited were conducted by actors, the responses recorded by hidden cameras were eye-opening in light of statistics on responses. Some examples: 1, 2.  Variously throughout America, prejudicial treatment is actual not hypothetical.]               

So when a prominent figure in the American religious and social landscape says recently, "I think the President's problem is that he was born a Muslim, his father was a Muslim, his father gave him an Islamic name.  The Islamic world considers him one of their own ... they see him as a Muslim ..." in commenting on increasing Americans' speculation and confusion over the Obama's religious background, such statements can indeed have a malicious effect.  Even if they were not intended to be a negative hint at Obama, Reverend Franklin Graham's remarks could play into condoning unfounded suspicion towards Obama---and by extension, towards Muslims.  They could further strengthen anti-Muslim and anti-Arab hysteria.  After all, his record on making statements on Muslims and Islam are less-than-bright [see also here].  


Statements like (and even more inflammatory than) these certainly can be amplified and can spread like wildfire and can incite to harassment and violence, in an already still-tense environment or in times of economic hardship.  Recent polls  have shown that negative sentiment and action towards Muslims have been on the rise (here, here, here, here).  News reports (not always highlighted) have also cited the concern over rising harassment and violence towards Muslims.  Notably, Anchor Keith Olbermann of NBC commented: "Muslim and interfaith leaders today are expressing concern that the question of religious freedom is not contained to Lower Manhattan, calling for the protection of community centers, of mosques, of other houses of worship, of Muslim Americans, and of other worshippers around the country, their fears not unfounded. Recent weeks and months witnessing an alarming rise in incidents."  Olbermann went on to describe construction zoning challenges  and "unmasked hatred and violence"---physical and verbal assaults (slurs and exclusionary statements)---on Muslims and their institutions across the country. [Stories about such incidents have also been covered by local, and to seemingly lesser extent national, newspapers.]        

As if having a Muslim-sounding name, or being remotely connected to or associated with Islam or Muslims, or even merely reaching out to Muslims/Islam, is the crux of Obama's image/public persona problem.  What about the other side of the coin?  What about all the hyped talk?  All the implied and direct associations?  All the misinformation and distortion?  All the misunderstanding and lack of knowledge of Muslims/Islam?  All the condensed sound-bite verbiage?  All the political footballing, and the smears?  The discriminatory employment practices justified as 'maintaining company image?' Time and time again it is not only Obama who has been targeted, but also  Muslims/Islam as well.  [Examples include: here, here, here, here, here, here.]

In the end, it is more reasonable to ask why is it necessary to repetitively have this discussion over President Obama's faith and background to begin with?  Yes, substantive discussion over Obama's policies and presidential conduct, and even debate, needs to be encouraged.  But the minute we open up the discussion to include (and fervently question) Obama's faith background, the hype this opening invites can so easily allow substance to fall out.  Rather than being of any benefit, it could so easily fail to serve the public interest.                                                  

'Smearcasting'--A New Report by FAIR

A part and byproduct of the election year has been political rhetoric--from statements and vows to characterizations and assertions--thrown around by and among various persons and bodies. While political rhetoric is only natural exercise integral to the civil discourse process, it seems that unfortunately some dubious rhetoric has crept into the scene. This rhetoric is not controversial and disturbing merely as tactics aiming to fulfill the political/electoral passions and aspirations of some, but more frighteningly it may have amplifications and ripple-effects on a more long-term basis after the conclusion of the election year and inauguration of a new Administration regardless of whomever takes the helm and whichever form that Administration takes. It is reasonable to expect that attitudes, opinions, and mannerisms of public discourse themselves, to outlast public office terms and to have the ability to influence the selection of future leaders.

One of the most disturbing trends evidenced in reoccurring bits throughout this election year has been attention on Muslims and Islam (directed to by some) in inflated, exaggerated, and inflamed tones and manners. This attention has been constructed both in blunt and implied terms. And of the one most prominent and clear examples of such misleading to have surfaced has the been the attempt to link presidential candidate Barack Obama to his cultural heritage and past in a conspicuous effort to raise doubt--and even suspicion--to his legitimacy and trustworthiness as he vies for the highest elected office in the land. What many may not realize is that, when a major candidate is being accused of being of "closeted" member of a particular ethnic or religious group, ultimately the main victims of the fallout and aftermath of such rhetoric will not be the targeted candidate or his/her campaign. In the larger scheme of things, public office-seekers enter through, and exit out of, their office's doors, serving either limited terms, being eventually challenged and defeated by rivalling candidates, or leaving the post in retirement or resignation.

And yes, many discussions continue about the impacts that candidates and officials have had or continue to have long after they leave office. But what may often be more enduring is the discourse and tone within which all of this occurs, and so I come back to the main premise--the implicit and explicit characterizations of, and allusions to, Muslims and Islam that has found its way throughout the current election environment. With the effect of self-righteously conjuring up emotions of uncertainty, fear, and even those bordering or crossing into paranoia that are likely to be exercised without, or in spite of, calm measured and rational discussion and reflection, the culpable tone is aptly called "islamophobia." Below is a link to a newly released report on this trend. It is important to note that the prejudices (and stereotypes) that are behind or that are likely to cause "islamophobia" are not new, as such simplistically distorted views have existed for quite some time (for example, one can extend Professor Jack Shaheen's arguments in his pioneering study Reel Bad Arabs). Similarly, concerns from Arabs and Muslims regarding the growth of a prejudiced or uneasy atmosphere towards them have been aired from time to time over the past several years, as hate crimes have spiked. What is significant is that non-Muslims and non-Arabs are beginning to accept that such challenges exist, as evidenced by the release of this aforementioned report by FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting). Though much remains to be done, the release of these report is a welcome and refreshing development, a milestone in the right direction.

FAIR has created a website specifically devoted for the report at:
http://www.smearcasting.com/