The first thing that jumps out at you today when you consider Shelby Steele’s book on Barack Obama, A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can’t Win,  is probably the failed nature of the subtitle. But bad marketing aside (and Steele has admitted that the subtitle wasn’t his work), the book isn’t really about presidential politics as much as it is race relations in America.  And as a result, it sheds a great deal more light on race and culture than on the current president.Sure, there are certainly insights to be gained about Barack Obama and even about how the presidential primaries, and general election, played out in the light of Obama’s race.  But mostly Obama is a perfect contemporary lens with which to discuss Steele’s thoughts and ideas about race. And they are still worthy of discussion and debate now that Obama is president. Those familiar with Steele’s work will be familiar with his ideas but this slim volume is a great introduction

I am going to oversimplify to a degree here so please read the book for a fuller explanation, but Steele basically argues that there are two types of African American figures in mainstream American culture or two distinct ways in which they relate to American mainstream society: the bargainer and the challenger.

First, the bargainer:

When bargainers in any walk of life seek success in the American mainstream, they make a very specific deal with whites (individuals and institutions): I will not use America’s horrible history of white racism against you, if you will promise not to use my race against me. In other words, bargainers grant whites the innocence and moral authority they need in return for their goodwill and generosity.

In contrast, the challenger:

When challengers reach for success and power in the American mainstream, they never give whites the benefit of the doubt. Quite the opposite, they use their moral authority as blacks to stigmatize whites as born racists. Challengers presume whites to be guilty of racism in the same way that bargainers presume them innocent-as a strategic manipulation. Challengers put all whites in the position of having to chase after their racial innocence. The challenger’s code: whites are incorrigibly racist until they do something to prove otherwise.

You might recognize such figures as Bill Cosby, Collin Powell, and Oprah Winfrey as classic bargainers and figures like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson as challengers.

The most successful bargainers in American life often reach the status of what Steele calls the “iconic Negro”:

The iconic Negro is someone who dispels the sense of “otherness” between the races and replaces it with a feeling of warmth, human familiarity, and racial goodwill. In him or her we have the sense that good race relations are really very easy and natural, and that tension between the races is essentially superfluous.

And again Oprah is the classic example, a figure beloved by millions and one whose imprint can make or break a venture.

Clearly, Obama has taken on this mantle in the realm of politics. In fact, Oprah signified as much by traveling with him and stumping for him early in the Democratic primary. And clearly Obama acts as a symbol for a lot of folks not of specific policies but of a better racial future for America; a sense that we have risen above the ugliness of racism. In return for his making them feel better about themselves they feel a profound gratitude towards, and a connection to, him.

This has to be a great asset for Obama, right? Yes, but there is a wrinkle in this scenario (and hence the title and subtitle of the book). The black community is inherently suspicious of bargainers. If racial guilt is the only tool they have to make their way in mainstream society any movement to deny the pervasive role of racism weakens the community’s power. This explains the near constant grumbling about those popular African Americans who refuse to use their position to castigate whites about racism (see Tiger Woods or recently Bill Cosby).

Steele argues that this puts Obama in a difficult situation:

If, to please blacks, Obama does more challenging, he begins to lose his iconic status with whites, his ability to flatter them with trust. He loses white votes because whites don’t want a challenging Al Sharpton; they want the iconic Negro, the bargainer in whom they see their own innocence and the nation’s redemption. If, to please whites, Obama bargains more, trades more innocence to whites, he loses votes among blacks-a vital constituency in the Democratic party-who define blackness as challenging, as withholding innocence from whites.

This in fact played itself out early in the primary with questions about Obama being “black enough” and his early lack of widespread support among African Americans.  The conventional wisdom holds that it was Bill Clinton’s awkward racialism, and a recognition that Obama could actually win, that caused the African American community to rally behind Obama to such a overwhelming degree (for my thoughts on this see here).

But one interesting aspect of this is Obama’s adoption of liberal mindset trapped in nostalgia and the past.  His political views are really no different than any other urban leftist.  Rather than using his unique background or his popularity to forge a new way of looking at race and politics, he suports the liberal status quo on issue after issue.  Steele sees this tied up with race.  Obam:

[N]eeds to “be black.”  And this hunger—no matter how understandable  it may be—means that he is not in a position to  reject the political liberalism inherent in his  racial identity. For Obama, liberalism is blackness.

And it is this bargainer/challenger dynamic that is at the root of his, and our, problems.  It lock him into a moribund liberalism and keeps him from offering reforms he might otherwise support:

Barack Obama is bound to the antiresponsibility  political left because his political fate depends on  his ability to offer innocence to whites—this  despite the fact that he clearly seems to accept  the importance of individual responsibility in  social reform. For his own mother, apparently,  responsibility was a rigid creed. He says of her,  “The idea that my survival depended on luck  remained a heresy to her; she insisted on  assigning responsibility….” Yet he offers no  thinking on how to build incentives to  responsibility into actual social policy.

And it this in flexibility that makes him a “bound man” and may be his biggest weakness:

But in many ways his truest  problem—the reason he is bound—is exactly that  he is so utterly conventional. Barack Obama works  entirely within the current configuration of race  relations—the masks of bargaining and  challenging, the need in whites for racial  innocence. And he exploits that world to move  himself ahead, not to advance a new configuration  of race relations—or to end such configurations  altogether. He is neither a revolutionary nor even  a reformist. He is simply infatuated with the  possibilities of his own skin color within the world  as it is, not as it should or could be. His genius is to  know his currency within the status quo.

It will be interesting to see how these dynamics play out over the course of Obama’s time as president.  What happens as the economy worsens and politics remains ugly and polarized even after his election.  His becoming president is not going to change the racial dynamic in this country so what happens to all that good will?  And will African Americans continue to trust him to act in their interests even if that means not using race as a bargaining chip or if that means moving past old political perspectives and coalitions?  Only time will tell.

But as noted above, Steele’s work is about much more than just Barack Obama.  If you are interested in subject of race in this country and its interaction with politics and public policy you owe it to yourself to read this book.  Shelby Steele uses the fascinating role and history of Obama to offer a window into the thorny subject of race.  It is not an easy subject to think about and discuss – and Obama’s election hasn’t made it any easier no matter what some might say – but it is an important one.

A great many liberals love to lecture on the importance of having a “national conversation” about race.  I challenge you to disregard the condescension, and the inherant slant, of such an argument and instead use Steele’s work to begin that discussion.  If more people could come to understand these dynamics we might actually be able to have a healthy conversation on this difficult topic.