by Cass Sunstein

John McWhorter, of this very blog, has recently suggested that people are excited about Barack Obama's future because "he is black," and Marty Peretz, over at The Spine, cites McWhorter's piece with approval. McWhorter complains, "Take away Mr. Obama's race and he's some relatively anonymous rookie." It's not clear whether the proper response is to laugh or to cry. After graduating from Harvard Law School, and serving as president of the Harvard Law Review, Obama taught at the University of Chicago Law School for about a decade, and I know him from his time as a colleague here. He first came to our attention when then-Professor, now-Judge Michael McConnell suggested him for appointment to the faculty because of Obama's first-rate work on one of McConnell's articles for the Harvard Law Review. (Is it necessary to add that McConnell is a conservative and doesn't much like affirmative action?) Obama, we quickly learned, was a person of truly exceptional ability. We asked him to teach at the law school, and he turned out to be a terrific though part- time teacher of constitutional law (serving, for most of his time here, in the state legislature as well). Because of his evident excellence, and his academic potential, we would have been happy to hire Obama as a full- time faculty member. (Take away Obama's race, and he was a complete star, hardly a relatively anonymous rookie.) But he declined, and the reason was obvious: He was interested in political life. The interest fit well with his personal characteristics; he has an extraordinary ability to connect with people, and he also has an exceptionally independent mind. How well I remember his (unsuccessful) race for the House of Representatives; members of the law school community (including people with very different political views) wanted him to win, because he is so excellent and independent- minded, but we hoped that if he lost, he might be willing to join us full-time. Alas he did lose, but he stayed in politics--ending up where he is now. Obama was elected to the Senate not only because of a weak Republican opponent, but also because his evident excellence, his rejection of narrow partisanship, his capacity to listen and to synthesize, and his independent-mindedness came as an extraordinary breath of fresh air to Illinois voters of diverse political views. (Many white voters in southern Illinois, including not-so-liberal ones, loved him.) He marches to the beat of no drummer; he's tough (he definitely has a spine); he believes in respectful disagreement; and he thinks issues through on their own merits, not through simple categories. (As a member of the University of Chicago Law School community, where economic analysis reigns, he knows a lot about how markets work, and he is hardly committed to left-wing orthodoxies about either the economy or the culture.) He's most unusual in politics -- someone whose own expertise, and sheer capacity for work and creative thought, outstrip those of policy specialists in many domains. He's also an exceptional public speaker (this comes as a revelation to those who of us who know him for his sheer ability; professors, even terrific ones, hardly ever (never?) have this kind of capacity to communicate to general audiences). In this light, it's worse than jarring to hear Obama's success, and the hopes for his future, attributed to his skin color. Now I do not mean to deny that there might be something to McWhorter's claims; perhaps he is attempting to engage in positive political science. If so, it would be good to do some serious conceptual and empirical work. We might begin by distinguishing between necessary and sufficient conditions. McWhorter cannot possibly think that skin color is a sufficient condition, in the circumstances, for the enthusiasm that Obama attracts. If he believes it is a necessary condition, he might be right; but what are the grounds for that belief? It is not easy to think of many nationally prominent white politicians, in the last decades, who combined the intellectual ability, the character, and the appeal of Obama. I have no idea how Obama would be regarded if he were white. (He might be regarded as this generation's Jack Kennedy; the two have a similar quickness, youth, charisma, and capacity for humor.) But for any successful politician, there are many necessary conditions for their success. Would George W. Bush be president if his last name were not Bush? Would Al Gore have become vice-president if his last name had not been Gore? Would Senator McCain be a serious candidate for the presidency if he had not been held prisoner in Vietnam? Would Bush, Gore, or McCain be where they are today if they were African-American or Hispanic? (What kinds of questions are these?) I have no idea whether Obama, who is quite inexperienced, should run for the presidency. But it is not charitable to a senator of exceptional promise, and to his many supporters, to attribute his success, and the extraordinary enthusiasm he attracts, to anything other than his ability and his character.

Support independent journalism

Unlimited access for less than $2 a month

TNR Newsletters.

Must reads. 5 days a week.