Obama and the "birthers"

     The perceived need for the President of the United States to make public the official long copy of his birth certificate to prove that he is, indeed, a citizen of the U. S. is a shameful moment in the American past.  It is likely to prove as embarrassing as John Adams's refusal to stay in Washington, D. C. to see his former friend, Thomas Jefferson, inaugurated. It reminds one of all of the loyalty tests devised during the Cold War, and Joe McCarthy's disgusting brow-beating and berating of those testifying before his committee, and the House on Un-American Activities Committee hauling all sorts of terrified persons before their committee to humiliate the testifier and his/her families and friends.
     The fact that President Obama felt compelled to offer this evidence is disgusting in several ways. First, on the political level, it is apparent that the Republican Party leadership had many opportunities and plenty of time to quell the "birther" movement from the start. It did not do so out of fear of its most vocal social (not financial) benefactors on the far, far right. Yet, the Republicans had every interest in doing the right thing. In the 1960s, when former governor of Michigan, George Romney, was considering a run at the presidency, a small number of persons raised the point that Romney had been born in Mexico, not in the U. S., and since the 14th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution states clearly that:  "Persons born in the United States are citizens of the Uniteds States and the state wherein they reside," they thought they might have a point.  Yet, it had long been understood that children born of American parents while they were abroad were also considered to be American citizens. No political opponents made much of this issue, and Romney remained a legitimate candidate in everyone's eyes until he decided not to run. One would think that one of the current Republican candidates, Mitch Romney, who knows the story of his father's political career full well, would have been loud in his condemnation of those who would keep the "birther" issue alive.
     Second, the sub-text of race is hardly hidden by those who oppose President Obama's claim to be a citizen. It has only been about fifty years since African Americans could indeed claim the practical rights of U. S. citizens, and many who deny the legitimacy of his citizenship now would willingly return to the era of the 1950s, when Blacks in most of America knew their place, which was not in public office or even voting for that matter. There is more than a little truth to the fact that right-wing Republicans (and let's face it, they are almost all right wing) sentimentalize the 1950s and would like to return to the Eisenhower era, when true family values prevailed. There was more ugly about the 1950s than good, however. The decade did witness the rise of a broad American middle class, caused by the fact that the U. S. was not devastated by the World War II as was most of Europe and much of Asia, but it was also the era of racism, the suppression of women, and a period of anti-intellectualism.
     Finally, the even more disturbing element in the origin's of Obama's birth issue is what it reflects about American notions of the "other." In fact, only American intellectuals would use the term the "other" because most non-intellectual Americans either bask in the misperception that everyone is included in America, or they complain that America is not pure enough, i. e., pure white, conservative, native born, and christian. As I have argued in other places, Americans are not familiar with the outer world, especially that exotic world of Africa and Indonesia (and we might as well say Hawaii, in regard to those who hate the "other") which helped to inform and educate Barack Obama. A majority are ethnocentric. In fact, a majority are xenophobic in a way that only the world's most backward, remote, and traditional nations can be identified as xenophobic. For a country that often lauds its heritage as a land of immigrants, this narrow view of human acceptance is especially troubling.