IV. Reparations in an Obama World
Does the election of a Black man as President change the political prospects for Black reparations? Many law schools have hosted symposia on reparations, including the symposium at the University of *945 Kansas School of Law. In 2005, I attended one sponsored by DePaul University of Chicago, in conjunction with Reverend Jesse Jackson and Operation Push. We discussed health policy, racial disparities in health, and reparations. Near the end of the symposium, we sat on the stage at Operation Push while Jesse Jackson preached to the crowd of Service Employees International Union health care workers and the faithful from the South Side of Chicago. Little did we note that two blocks away future President and First Lady, Barack and Michelle Obama, were buying a home at 5046 South Greenwood Avenue. The contrast between Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama is striking. In his December 2007 essay in The Nation, Gary Younge discussed the rise of “new” Black politicians like Barack Obama:
The emergence of this cohort has filled the commentariat with joy--not just because of what they are: bright, polite and, where skin tone is concerned, mostly light--but because of what they are not. They have been hailed not just as a development in black American politics but as a repudiation of black American politics; not just as different from Jesse Jackson but the epitome of the anti-Jesse.
One key difference is the rhetoric of reparations. At several points in the campaign, then-Senator Obama was asked whether he supported reparations for slavery. He deflected the question, voicing support for helping all disadvantaged schools: “if we make the investments and understand that those are our children, that's the kind of reparation [sic] that are really going to make a difference in America right now.”
In other interviews, he acknowledged the reality of slavery and racism, but focused on broader remedies, avoiding some of the rhetoric of reparations:
“Asked in Moline about a controversial demand by some blacks for reparations for slavery, Obama spoke about how slavery had left a stain on the country that has yet to be eradicated. Still, he said, he opposed ‘just signing checks over to African-Americans.”’ *946 . . . .
“The legacy of slavery is immeasurable, but the best strategies for moving forward would be vigorously enforcing our anti-discrimination laws in education and job training.”
If Obama was giving a nuanced answer, it was lost on the press; the headlines proclaimed “Obama Opposes Slavery Reparations.” Obama did not contest the headline. This is unsurprising; as the first Black major party nominee for President, it was unlikely he would embrace slavery reparations. One reason is his path to the presidency. Most Black politicians in Congress come from majority-minority House districts. These districts are designed to have a majority of minority voters, and they reliably elect minorities to Congress. In these districts, some Representatives can champion reparations and still be re-elected every two years. As a result, the gerrymandered structure of Congressional districts creates a less centrist and potentially more radical Congressional Black Caucus. The First District of Illinois has returned Bobby Rush to Congress for eighteen years. His status as a former Black Panther has not hindered his tenure as a Congressman from the South Side of Chicago.
Obama ran against Congressman Rush in 2000 and lost. But, Obama polled well among white voters. These results encouraged him to subsequently run for statewide office--for the United States Senate. The political difference is immense: a statewide politician must garner a majority of the entire population, not just a majority of a racially disproportionate gerrymandered district. Obama approached the election with a different history and trajectory than traditional Black politicians. With this foundation, Obama was elected President of the United States in 2008. The rhetoric of reparations is not on his political agenda, and that fact takes it off the nation's agenda as well.
Let me be clear what my claim is here: I do not suppose that the mere election of a Black President serves in and of itself as reparation for the history of slavery, racism, and segregation. This election was full of symbolism and history, but President Obama cannot singularly carry away this debt by the simple act of election. Nevertheless, the election *947 has permanently changed the rhetoric of reparations, even if some have not recognized it yet. If our Black President will not embrace slavery reparations, the issue will have no political traction in the United States.
And yet, fulfilling his comments on the campaign trail, President Obama may bring some of the substance of reparations without the rhetoric. As I write this Article in early 2009, he just signed a huge stimulus package. The law makes historic investments in education, infrastructure, and jobs; almost unnoticed in the political debate was an additional $87 billion for Medicaid and billions more for investment in health information technology. The Obama Administration is making health care reform a top priority. Major health care reform might provide near-universal coverage and make significant headway against racial disparities in health. President Obama appointed Eric Holder as U.S. Attorney General, and plans to step up enforcement of civil rights laws. But when Holder called Americans a “nation of cowards” on confronting racial issues, President Obama distanced himself from the remark:
I'm not somebody who believes that constantly talking about race somehow solves racial tensions . . . I think what solves racial tensions is fixing the economy, putting people to work, making sure that people have health care, ensuring that every kid is learning out there. I think if we do that, then we'll probably have more fruitful conversations.
President Obama has exiled reparations talk to the political wilderness, ignoring the impressive body of work on reparations theory. But he is talking about health care reform, education, and the needs of average Americans. If he achieves a higher quality, lower cost, and more comprehensive health care system, then Blacks will be some of the biggest beneficiaries of improved health status. He does not talk the talk, but walks the walk; avoiding reparations rhetoric in order to achieve reparational results. The end of reparations talk might be the price for actual progress in Black health.
This appears to be the deal that has been offered. I doubt a better one will become available in the next decade or two. I would celebrate *948 the end of Black health disparities, even if it further marginalized reparations talk. But, just like the plaintiff in the Slave Descendants Litigation, I lack standing to accept this deal, albeit for a different reason.
. Associate Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law.
