Obamas speak out on 'racist experiences.' Why now?

In an interview with People magazine, the Obamas appeared to be edging into the national conversation about race sparked by the events in Ferguson, Mo., and Staten Island, N.Y.

Jonathan Ernst/Reuters
President Obama standing onstage with first lady Michelle Obama and their daughters Malia (2nd l.) and Sasha (2nd r.), participates in the taping of the 'Christmas in Washington' television special to benefit Children's National Medical Center in Washington December 14, 2014.

The Obamas say they’ve experienced the everyday casual racism that blots US life for African-Americans.

Not (for the most part) as president and first lady, of course. Since 2008, they’ve been protected by the symbols of the presidency and by the Secret Service from that sort of thing, they told People magazine in an interview released Wednesday.

“Before that, Barack Obama was a black man that lived on the South Side of Chicago, who had his share of troubles catching cabs,” said first lady Michelle Obama to People.

Mrs. Obama said her husband, in his pre-White House days, was also mistaken for a waiter at a black-tie gala and asked to get coffee. President Obama himself said a white person once assumed he was a parking valet.

“There’s no black male my age, who’s a professional, who hasn’t come out of a restaurant and is waiting for their car and somebody didn’t hand them their car keys,” he said.

In discussing these indignities, the first couple appeared to be edging into the national conversation about race sparked by the police shooting of teen Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., and the death of Eric Garner after an apparent police chokehold in Staten Island, N.Y.

Up until now, Mr. Obama has been impersonal and somewhat restrained in his remarks in the wake of these tragedies. With his People magazine comments, he seems to be making two points. The first is that small racist experiences happen to every black person in the United States. That goes a long way toward explaining why blacks as a whole have much more suspicion about police action and racial progress than do whites, as measured by polls.

“Since the late 1990s, blacks’ optimism that there will be a solution to the country’s racial problems has consistently trailed whites’ by about 12 percentage points,” write Gallup poll editors in a recent roundup of racial attitudes.

Obama’s second point seems to be that there’s been progress on these issues despite the fact that he's suffered racial slights.

“The small irritations or indignities that we experience are nothing compared to what a previous generation experienced,” he told the magazine.

He might also be trying to address his own polls in a small way. Since August, his rating on how he’s handling race relations has dropped eight points, according to Pew Research.

Overall, the public disapproves of Obama’s actions in this area by 50 percent to 40 percent, according to Pew. Within those numbers is a big racial split: Blacks approve of Obama’s job on race relations by 57 to 33 percent. Whites approve by (coincidentally) the same numbers, but reversed: 33 percent approve and 57 percent disapprove.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.