Student Question
Do you agree with Jamelle Bouie's argument that the concept of citizenship and its ties to slavery and enslaver power still impact America's politics today?
Quick answer:
Jamelle Bouie argues that the concept of citizenship, linked to slavery and enslaver power, influences current American politics, illustrated by historical figures like John C. Calhoun and modern movements like the Tea Party. While Bouie provides a nuanced examination, some may disagree, particularly regarding his portrayal of Barack Obama's presidency. Critics suggest that Obama's election did not initially spark widespread suspicion and that his policies sometimes favored elites, challenging Bouie's binary depiction of race and power dynamics.
Whether one agrees with Jamelle Bouie’s argument in his 1619 Project essay depends on how they view the link between history and the current political climate.
Bouie makes the case that “Obama’s election reignited a fight about democratic legitimacy.” He then analyzes John C. Calhoun and his idea of nullification, which was that states didn’t have to abide by federal laws. He says Calhoun championed “liberty of the master.” To prove his point, he quotes him as saying that liberty was a “reward reserved for the intelligent, the patriotic, the virtuous and deserving.” Bouie then talks about Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and the Tea Party movement to illustrate how anti-democratic, race-based ideas have manifested in following iterations of the Republican party. Based on Bouie’s nuanced examination, it’s reasonable to agree with him that citizenship, and thus who qualifies as a credible voter, goes back to slavery and enslaver power.
However,...
Unlock This Answer Now
Start your 48-hour free trial and get ahead in class. Boost your grades with access to expert answers and top-tier study guides. Thousands of students are already mastering their assignments—don't miss out. Cancel anytime.
Already a member? Log in here.
one might disagree with Bouie's portrayal of Barack Obama’s presidency, which could make his claims vulnerable to debate. Bouie says, “Obama’s election reignited a fight about democratic legitimacy.” One might counter that Obama’s election wasn’t initially cast as suspicious. There weren’t myriad conspiracies about election fraud like in the 2020 election. Instead, Obama had a rather sweeping victory, with Democrats controlling the House and obtaining a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
Thus, Obama and the Democrats had the power to strengthen civil rights legislation and further attack the slavery/enslaver power dynamic, yet they didn’t. One could also argue, as others have, that Obama’s presidency demonstrates that the “liberty of the master” might not mean a white master, as many of Obama’s policies favored the wealthy, the elite, or the “masters.”
Indeed, it’s possible to question the binaries in Bouie’s argument. Bouie presents the Tea Party and Republican extremism as a “reaction to an ascendant majority of Black people, Latinos, Asian-Americans, and liberal white people.” However, in the 2020 election, one out of every three Black men in the Midwest voted for Donald Trump. Maybe Bouie could have done a better job explaining the complexities of race, socioeconomic status, and political affiliation in his essay.
References