TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 8:16 AM
July 03, 2009 | 7:55 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:37 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
15.06.2008
The Father 'Hood

This morning, Barack Obama spoke at Chicago’s Apostolic Church of God—a congregation more than double the size of Trinity United, also committed to a social gospel focusing on public outreach in a predominantly black context. Appropriately, he spoke on fatherhood, reprising many of the themes on child-rearing that have undergirded his personal and political philosophy. A key passage from the address, which specifically discusses the black family unit:

[I]f we are honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that what too many fathers also are is missing – missing from too many lives and too many homes.  They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men.  And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.

You and I know how true this is in the African-American community.  We know that more than half of all black children live in single-parent households, a number that has doubled – doubled – since we were children.  We know the statistics – that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely to end up in prison.  They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves.  And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.

[snip]

Yes, we need more cops on the street.  Yes, we need fewer guns in the hands of people who shouldn’t have them.  Yes, we need more money for our schools, and more outstanding teachers in the classroom, and more afterschool programs for our children.  Yes, we need more jobs and more job training and more opportunity in our communities.

But we also need families to raise our children.  We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception.  We need them to realize that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child – it’s the courage to raise one.

I’ve long recognized this line of argumentation as political gold for Obama, not least because these critiques are universally applicable, but also because they represent—imagistically at least—pushback against the perceived lack of self-correction within deeply malfunctioning segments of black America.

You certainly don’t hear politicians, of any race, encouraging parents to plop the kids in front of a gaming console, nor to leave their children unattended from school’s close to sundown, but targeted discouragement is hard to find. This sin of omission is probably due to the unwillingness of majority politicians to sound the scold, and, well, the lack of comparable platforms for black politicians to make such sweeping critiques.

Yet the lack of discussion—while it cripples the education of all American children—certainly has destructive effects in the black community. Which is why it’s pathbreaking that some of Obama’s biggest applause lines during stump speeches have come as he has proclaimed that parents “need to turn of the TV” and read to children. Mixed-race audiences eat the line up with equal abandon. But Obama’s “Bill Cosby” rhetoric isn’t a matter of dog-whistling for white customers; the stance on strong families seems both good policy and a conviction rooted in the "object lesson" of his own personal history.

Further, I think it's worth noting that this commentary is not naturally inflammatory or somehow antagonistic to black audiences. Busy parents with limited resources are not Sister Souljah, and “Seven Ways to be a Black Father,” running today on The Root, is a bit of proof that these conversations on family are long-running and as serious as any other matter of values and policy that concern voters. The Father’s Day call to action, which Obama’s been making for years, is grist for the ongoing discussion of his centrist credentials on education, and the promise in his 2004 convention keynote speech that every American understands

that parents have to teach, that children can't achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white. They know those things.

Some are lucky enough to know it (Hi, Dad!); some grow into that knowledge. At any rate it's nice to hear.

—Dayo Olopade

(Photo courtesy Getty Images) 

Posted: Sunday, June 15, 2008 3:38 PM with 26 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

blackton said:

It is kind of ironic to add that they (black children without fathers) could also grow up to be the odds on favorite to be President.

June 15, 2008 4:52 PM

GSpinks said:

It is a delicious irony; of course, its also something of a testament to his mother and her parents, perhaps an indicator of what good parenting can accomplish, even against the odds.

Happy Father's Day to all the dads out there!

June 15, 2008 5:03 PM

Nari224 said:

I think you meant to say "need to turn OFF  the TV”

June 15, 2008 6:11 PM

Wandreycer1 said:

Great post.  The whole Sista Souljah construct is so 1992.  It's yesterdays news.  He doesn't need to do that.

Those girls are growing so fast right before our eyes.  They do that, don't they?

Happy Fathers Day to all!

June 15, 2008 7:44 PM

aeromonas said:

Anyone else notice how both the tone and the tempo around here at Talkback has ratcheted back since Clinton bowed out?  Not a bad thing at all.

Olopade, please keep putting up your long, well-written and relatively infrequent posts on what the candidates are actually saying and do your yeoman's service over at E & E, and meanwhile try to use your influence to get Crowley and Scheiber to shut down The Stump, or at least change its focus.  The nuances of campaign strategy and poll results are irrelevant; this election's going to be a blowout.  All Obama has to do is avoid--literally--screwing the pooch.

June 15, 2008 8:21 PM

Rhubarbs said:

The TV thing has been a big applause line in each Obama speech I've seen.

Rule of thumb: In a household with one TV, the parents control the television habits of the children. In any household with more than one TV, the children's TV habits control the family. I have never seen a family with more than one TV in which the parents exercise even minimal control over the TV viewing of their children. So don't just turn the TV off; throw out all but your best TV.

June 15, 2008 8:24 PM

sleepyavl said:

Finally something substantial from Obama! There should more of it.

June 15, 2008 9:04 PM

jmkerr said:

Testament to his *mother*, who put her own needs first at every point, and who dumped him off with her grandparents? Please, enough of the messiah complex.

And it's nice of Obama to create an equivalency between loving suburban parents who actually pay taxes and work for a living but might kick back and watch TV with people who abandon their kids.

It's particularly ironic given that Obama is the quintessential career-obsessed absentee father, whose wife constantly bitched about it before it became (literally) politically incorrect to do so.

June 15, 2008 9:07 PM

sdemuth said:

"throw out all but your best TV"

Throw them all out.  Institute a once a weekend family "movie" night and watch a mix of good cinema, nature films, and as the kids grow, documentaries.  Look at stuff that actually promotes thought, rather than advertisements, and crap that sucks the brains and ethical sense out of its viewers.  Read books the other evenings.  

We haven't had a television in our household for 30 years, and it remains the smartest child raising move we ever made.

June 15, 2008 9:19 PM

CRS9TNR said:

You guys better be a little more inquisitive of some of these statements before throwing out the Amens.

A cursory review of Crime shows that Cities that have more cops, have more crime.  Large Urban Cities typically have 5-10 times the numbers of Police Department personnel, and the crime rates are much higher.

Gun Control has not been demonstrated to work.  Michigan's Concealed Carry Weapons law has actually reduced gun deaths.  More law abiding citizens carrying guns makes the criminals think a little more.  Some great stories about people that shot back.

More outstanding (not just regular) teachers is not helping in most school districts.  Take Detroit for example, the school district is loosing students at alarming rates and the only thing worse is their graduation rates.

And we need jobs.  Wow, that's a shocker.  Who would have thought we need jobs.

Obama is taking a popular position in support of Fatherhood, both the WSJ & USA Today ran similar stories on Friday.  Without specifics.

Can't wait to see what he tells Detroiters on Friday.  The Evil Management of the Auto Companies has let you down.  We need to stand up to those Arabs and tell them we deserve their oil.  We need Mothers & Fathers to help save America.

Detroit is probably the worst city in America for Crime, Education and Jobs.  This is his first visit.  I can't wait to hear what he has to say, and how it will be reported.

June 15, 2008 9:51 PM

williamyard said:

In my opinion, the toughest part of being a good father is to love oneself. After that, much of the rest is just playing out your cards.

Kids want dads who love themselves. Neither the "good father" who lives vicariously by screaming at his son's coach at a soccer game nor the "bad father" who spends his daughter's future college tuition money one day at a time at the neighborhood watering hole loves himself, because if he did he would be comfortable being invisible behind the needs of his child, and his child knows exactly what is going on, his child knows that he doesn't love himself, and it tears them up, because more than anything else they want Daddy to be happy.

A father who doesn't turn off the TV because he's working two jobs and then comes home with a big smile on his face after a day he can be proud of and who then spends a mere fifteen minutes with his daughter before her bedtime is helping her more and making her more happy and bringing her more peace of mind and more self-assurance through his own self-esteem than a conflicted father who turns off the TV and reads to her for an hour but is twisted by the poisons of guilt and "what if" and telegraphs his anxiety and self-loathing no matter how many times he repeats "The night Max wore his wolf suit and made mischief of one kind and another..."

June 15, 2008 10:59 PM

WoodyBombay said:

Spoke too soon, aeromonas.

June 15, 2008 10:59 PM

aeromonas said:

Indeed, WB.

I jinxed this thread for sure.

"Michigan's Concealed Carry Weapons law has actually reduced gun deaths.  More law abiding citizens carrying guns makes the criminals think a little more. "

Duke, that's called correlation without causation.  Gun deaths have gone down many places around the country.  New York City's murder rate is at near record lows.  If you want to make be believe that the Concealed Carry Weapons law has anything to do with reduced gun deaths, you're going to have to show me a well constructed study that proves it.

And really, it isn't even plausible prima facie.  Who do you think was getting shot in Michigan before the carry law came into effect?  "Law abiding" citizens?  Please.  The overwhelming proportion of shooting murder victims fall into too categories: abused wives/girlfriends getting shot by their menfolk and young minority folk somehow associated with gangs and/or the drug trade (Bear in mind that being "associated" with gangs and/or the drug trade sometimes simply means living in close proximity to these scourges.)

It has always seemed to me that if deterence was the goal of carrying a pistol, that the "concealed" part of such laws was counterproductive.  Wouldn't it be more effective if those suburban moms and dads were strapping on the outside?  And, of course, in many jurisdictions, carrying a displayed weapon is already legal.  It sure was in VA when I was growing up.  I remember one service station attendant who used always to work with one very impressive .44 long barrel revolver at his hip.

June 16, 2008 12:02 AM

AlanSP said:

jmkerr, classy as always:

"And it's nice of Obama to create an equivalency between loving suburban parents who actually pay taxes and work for a living but might kick back and watch TV with people who abandon their kids."

Apparently you were reading a different speech than the rest of us, since he never even suggested the  equivalence you're talking about.  I assume the passage you're referring to is this one:

"It’s a wonderful thing if you are married and living in a home with your children, but don’t just sit in the house and watch “SportsCenter” all weekend long. That’s why so many children are growing up in front of the television. As fathers and parents, we’ve got to spend more time with them, and help them with their homework, and replace the video game or the remote control with a book once in awhile. That’s how we build that foundation."

Please point to any part of his speech where he equates parents who watch TV with being people that abandon their kids.  If you feel the need to bash everything Obama ever says, at least stick to statements that he actually makes.

June 16, 2008 12:05 AM

AlanSP said:

aeromonas beat me to it on the correlation/causation issue.  I actually think the first comment about cities with more cops having more crime is even more transparently silly.

"A cursory review of Crime shows that Cities that have more cops, have more crime.  Large Urban Cities typically have 5-10 times the numbers of Police Department personnel, and the crime rates are much higher."

This is like saying that houses surrounded by firefighters are far more likely to be burning than houses with no firefighters in the vicinity.  Ever think that rampant crime in cities is what leads to the large police forces in the first place?

On the gun comment, I would add that a) this wasn't a speech about gun control, and b) the lone comment he made about guns, that we need fewer guns in the hands of *people who shouldn’t have them*, is so thoroughly uncontroversial that I'm surprised that anybody would take issue with it.  It's practically a tautology.  Even die hard NRA supporters fundamentally agree with that statement.  They believe that we need more guns in the hands of people who should have them (law abiding citizens) and fewer guns in the hands of people who shouldn't (criminals).

June 16, 2008 12:35 AM

ironyroad said:

Not so silly as all that:  my dad was a cop and he was always suspicious of statistics on crime because he understood that having more cops -- which he wasn't against, of course -- means recording more REPORTED crime.  Force numbers are a statistical factor that affects other factors.  Over the longer term, more cops can lead to better clearance rates and therefore a decline in crime, but often there's an unwillingness to concede the simple fact that putting an extra patrol car into a neighborhood can lead to that car reporting more incidents and thus giving the impression that crime has increased.

The firefighting analogy isn't so useful, as fire is generally an accidental or natural occurrence, while crime is an intentional one.

June 16, 2008 1:14 AM

teplukhin2you said:

Be bold, Barack. Push for scrapping race-based aff action in school admissions and replace it with class-based aff action. It's the right thing to do, and the politically smart thing to do.

PS you might want to get out front of this before McCain does-- and pushes means--tested school vouchers, which are, after all, fundamentally a civil rights issue in the big cities....

June 16, 2008 1:37 AM

AlanSP said:

irony, I'm not saying that there aren't complex relationships between police presence and crime (there are, a full discussion of which is sort of outside the scope of what I want to say here).  My point was that the argument that CRS was making makes very little sense.  I assume he was arguing against Obama's statement that "we need more cops on the street,"  The implicit argument is roughly as follows:

1. If having more cops reduces crime, then places with lots of cops should have less crime than places with few cops.

2. Places with lots of cops (big cities) have far more crime than places with few cops (smaller cities).

3. Therefore having more cops does not reduce crime

The reasoning is faulty because it ignores the possibility that there are other important differences between the big and small cities besides the size of their police force, and the possibility that crime drives the size of the police force rather than (or in addition to) the other way around.

The point of the firefighter analogy is that the job of firefighters is to deal with a problem (fires) and thus they tend to go to where that problem exists (places that are on fire).  A similar principle holds for the police. Police forces aren't just randomly distributed; rather, more police get sent to areas with higher crime rates, and when there is a rise in crime, a frequent political response is to expand the police force.

Maybe this would be a better analogy, since it has something equivalent to reporting issues you mentioned:

Hypothetical Obama: We need more doctors

Hypothetical CRS9TNR: A cursory review of disease shows that buildings that have more doctors, have more diseased occupants.  Hospitals typically have many times the numbers of medical personnel, and the disease rates are much higher.

Now, diseases are certainly more likely to be diagnosed when there's a doctor around, but that really doesn't tell the whole story of why places full of doctors tend to have lots of sick people around.

June 16, 2008 2:18 AM

johnalthousecohen said:

"A cursory review of Crime shows that Cities that have more cops, have more crime.  Large Urban Cities typically have 5-10 times the numbers of Police Department personnel, and the crime rates are much higher."

The key word here is "cursory."

You should do a quick Google search of "correlation is not causation."

And you should read the section of the book Freakonomics where they tease out the data to show: more cops ---> less crime.

June 16, 2008 6:42 AM

Rhubarbs said:

Regarding the numbers of cops, at a national level, the general increase in criminal activity since 1960 tracks very well with two correlative events:

(1) Increases in the number of young men in the population; and

(2) The decline by about 50 percent in the per-capita number of law-enforcement officers.

In the 1990s, we saw a temporary decline in the number of young men in the population, as my paltry generation came of age to commit serious crimes. We also had a brief, slight uptick in the per-capita number of police officers, thanks largely to Bill Clinton's first big crime initiative. And, lo and behold, national crime figures dropped. In recent years, the Baby Boom echo generation has come of age to commit serious crimes, and Republican government nationally and in many states and localities has led to a return to decreasing per-capita policing. Crime rates are back up generally.

So, unless we plan to start "culling" each new generation of a percentage of its young men, the answer is more cops with better training. Which costs money, which at the state and local level must be raised through actual taxes rather than borrowing. Simple equation: You're either against crime and for more spending on policing, or you're against more spending on policing and therefore actively pro-crime. Which is to say, Republicans are, by and large, demonstrably pro-crime.

(Regarding concealed-carry, both sides need to face the reality that concealed-carry has not led to the Wild West shootout culture liberals feared, but that its crime-prevention bone fides have not yet been proven as gun advocates claim. The same "logic" that says that concealed-carry laws reduce crime because states that have the laws have less crime would also "prove" that the death penalty causes murders, since states with the death penalty have more murders than states without the death penalty.)

June 16, 2008 10:41 AM

GSpinks said:

jmkerr,

Why are you so bitter? Is it because Obama got good grades in school, whereas McCain barely managed to not flunk out, or is it just because you hate black people? And whats the big deal with your Messiah complex? I bet it really gets your goat to know that a humble midwestern girl was able to see past race and marry a black man, and pour a full allotment of love on her child. Its obvious your parents didn't love you, because they never would have let you grow up so stupid.

Y'all have spent more time trying to paint Obama as a Messiah than any democrat I've ever met. Yet, you can't figure out why we treat you like confused little retarded children when you try to knock Obama off of the high-horse on which *you* placed him.

Given that you happily eat the intellectual garbage on sites like beabaddemocrat, and then attempt to pawn it off on others as reasonable thinking, I am not surprised that you are so bitter, nor that you simply cannot figure out why the smart-folk gathered here do not fawn over the wisdom that pours from your pie hole.

June 16, 2008 11:57 AM

michael said:

The message need not be seen as stark or absolute but neither is it so without substance that it should be taboo.

"We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception." should be more banal rather than seen as a single excuse or a weapon wielded by ignorant whites. Bias and stereotypes are dangerous and destructive but that doesn't mean one can hope to provide solutions and ignore any ounce of truth, regardless where it exists. Nor should this be be an opportunity to parse or seek what he did not say about guns, poverty, education or even the role or gender of the responsible single parent. It's no small thing because we must admit there is room for an argument before we can hope to elevate it. Cast off parts or the whole thing...in the light of day. Or, keep that which passes the test.

Sadly, McCain is so weak with his base that he must ignore their flaws if not pander or allow them to propagate without question.

Barack may be onto something or not but McCain The Maverick lacks the clout to question whether any subject on the right deserves the status of a taboo. The result is safely undiscussed topics but we always pay a price for letting any truths evade that light of day. McCain's courage will be more convincing when he rattles the cage of his own team.

June 16, 2008 1:08 PM

jmkerr said:

"Is it because Obama got good grades in school, whereas McCain barely managed to not flunk out, or is it just because you hate black people? "

Hahahahaha. Find a dictionary and read up on false dichotomies. To put it mildly.

And really, you ought not to ever use the word "retarded" in a post. It gets people to realizing exactly what your problem is.

"Please point to any part of his speech where he equates parents who watch TV with being people that abandon their kids. "

The equivalency is that he's lecturing everyone on how to be good parents. Some people abandon their kids. Other people at least get a job. The best of them go to college (the gold standard for parenting, according to Obama). But all of them need a lecture on being good parents from a guy whose wife said "It's not that he doesn't care, he's just never there."

June 16, 2008 1:35 PM

ironyroad said:

AlanSP -- I still think you're making a couple of massive assumptions, to which I'd just say two things:

1.  It's not true that big cities have more cops per capita of the population.  Los Angeles, for example, has a noticeably low proportion of police to civilian population (there are some complications here in re the number of small cities in the LA area and the size of the LA country sheriff's office, however), but there was a distinct decrease in crime in the late 90s and early 2000s there too.

2.  It's simply not the case the police go where the crime is.  Indeed, it's one of the perennial complaints that prosperous middle class areas get much faster police responses to incidents  (including less drastic ones) than poor or minority neighborhoods do.  To add to that, those neighborhoods often see more aggressive, remote, and undifferentiated policing than middle class neighborhoods -- often on rational operational grounds, but it doesn't help in the longer term.

June 16, 2008 1:49 PM

GSpinks said:

"false dichotomies"

finally, something besides visceral, partisan rhetoric! :)

"retarded"

Unlike some, I'm not afraid to be politically incorrect, especially when I am clinically correct. If you insist on blogging like a mentally deficient child, I have no choice to but call you on it.

Now, since it appears you are done with your carrying on, I would be happy to read a post wherein you actually defend your postulation regarding Obama's deification at the behest of supports who blog on this forum.

June 16, 2008 8:03 PM

CRS9TNR said:

Sorry to get back to this thread so late, I am out of town.

My comment on Crime and Police Officers was not meant to demonstrate a statistical correlation or valid argument.  

My point was Obama had not demonstrated why more police officers are needed.  I pointed out the discrepency where more Police Officers are employed actually have more crime.  And these officers don't do anything.  You could talk to opne of the 25,000 people that had cars stolen in the City of Detroit and they would all tell you the same thing, the police don't do anything.

If you read into my argument, he is 'Dog Whistling' to the unions.  Police Officers and Teachers are both heavliy unionized and want more of their members on the job.

In a speech on Personal Responsibility it is ironic that he wants more Poilce & Good Teachers.  The Gun Control bit confirms the liberal approach.

While my argument on police and criminal statistics is not well developed, this is a blog.  I have read the Crime Statistic for Detroit, Suburbs and other large Urban Cities and I can tell you, there is something wrong in America with how our Police Departments are set up.  And we don't need more police.

If you have something I should know, let me know.

June 17, 2008 10:47 PM