[Paul Mirengoff is an attorney in Washington, D.C. He is a 1971 graduate of Dartmouth College and a 1974 graduate of Stanford Law School. He has two daughters and lives with his family in Bethesda, Maryland.]

Shelby Steele is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He's the author of The Content of Our Character, A Dream Deferred, and White Guilt. A few years ago, President Bush awarded him the National Humanities Medal.

Steele's latest book is A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win. I've read the first half of it (which deals with Obama the man) and I heard Steele speak about the second half (about Obama the phenomenon) at a dinner sponsored by the Hoover Institution on Thursday. Based on what I've read and heard, I strongly recommend this relatively short work.

Steele views Obama as the first black politician to ride the strategy of "bargaining" to great success. For Steele, bargaining is one of two approaches blacks have used as a "mask" in order to offset the power differential between blacks and whites. He considers Louis Armstrong the first great bargainer with white America. Armstrong's deal was, I will entertain you without pretending to be your equal. His mask, partly borrowed from the minstrel tradition, included the famous smile and laughter.

Today the bargain that works is this: I will presume that you're not a racist and by loving me you'll show that my presumption is correct. Blacks who offer this bargain are betting on white decency, and whites love this.

For Steele, bargainers include Bill Cosby, Tiger Woods (to some extent), and best of all Oprah Winfrey. The power of the bargain, which is founded on white Americas overwhelming desire to get beyond racism, is capable of creating "iconic Negroes." It confers an almost magical quality on its best practitioners, such as Oprah. This is manifested in the ability to sell almost any product to whites.

Leading politicians have adopted another mask, that of the "challenger." They presume that whites are racist until they prove otherwise by conferring tangible benefits on them. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are paradigm challengers. The challenger strategy works beautifully in an institutional setting -- say a university -- but less well on a mass scale. Still, black politicians often prefer this approach because not adopting it leads to suspicion among black leaders and their constituents. They fear that if whites are let off the hook too easily, black power will be diminished.

Obama, of course, is a bargainer, and to Steele this is the source of his almost magical appeal and meteoric political rise. Obama has figured out how to ride the great wave available to very talented blacks who tap into white yearning to get well beyond America's racist past.

Riding that wave demands that the bargainer be content-free (or, to use Steele's word, "invisible"). John and I observed this quality in Obama's South Carolina victory speech last Saturday. I was particularly struck by a passage in which Obama referred to those who "tell us" we cannot have "what we long for" -- "a politics of common sense, and innovation; a shared sacrifice and shared prosperity" -- and must instead "settle for the same divisions and distractions and drama that passes for politics today." By rejecting this view, Obama offers a bargain that is empty substantively, but that appeals to a huge emotional need.

Why, then, does Steele say that Obama "can't win"? He bases this view (of which he admits to being less certain now) on the premise that ultimately Americans won't elect as president someone they don't feel they know. This puts Obama in a dilemma. Americans can't know him as long as he wears a mask. But the moment he takes off the mask, he loses his magic. In support of the latter proposition, Steele cites Bill Cosby. Once Cosby told people what he really thinks, he forfeited his status as an icon and no longer sold very many products on television. In particular, a "bargainer" must adopt conventionally black (liberal) political views. Otherwise, he or she lacks the authenticity to offer "absolution" to whites as part of a bargain.

It's Steele's first premise -- Americans won't elect as president someone they don't know -- that I tend to question. Wishful thinking is an increasingly powerful force in our politics. Is the electorate serious enough to demand of Obama more than feel-good platitudes and their next of kin, standard-issue liberal policy positions? I suspect not, should Obama receive the Democratic nomination.

Indeed, as I mentioned, Steele himself now entertains the possibility that Obama would not have to remove his mask until after being elected president. The prospect of a president who rides to office on a wave of magic that he must forfeit almost immediately upon taking office is a rather frightening one.

Ed Schmitt - 2/15/2008

Here is another instance where a wider-angle historical lens would be helpful. Limiting content in his speeches MAY have something to do with Steele's "masking" thesis and race, but this is an assertion with little evidence. A deeper understanding of political history suggests that presidential candidates entering a campaign with some level of popularity have avoided specifics as much as possible, as each issue they register a position on alienates segments of the electorate. Better to remain a symbol and an empty vessel that voters can project their hopes onto as long as possible. Andrew Jackson, William Henry Harrison (the "log cabin and hard cider" campaign of 1840), and many others have done the same.

As to Obama's events, these are rallies and this is a stump speech. He's been plenty substantive on a wide range of issues (as just about all of the candidates have been), but his plans have generally been left to campaign website and, to a lesser degree, meetings with editorial boards, and the debates.

And we don't have to look as far back as the 19th century to see examples of what the author asserts in the final sentence - "The prospect of a president who rides to office on a wave of magic that he must forfeit almost immediately upon taking office is a rather frightening one." I've been scared for some time.

John Edward Philips - 2/11/2008

Mirengoff analyzes Obama as just another black politician, making the usual American mistake of seeing all blacks as members of a single ethnic group. Obama is not from the ex-slave caste that Americans confuse with black people. He is a mix of white and Kenyan Luo, raised in other countries, coming from outside the traditional black American community. Don't people remember the argument about whether or not he was black enough? He's obviously black, he's just not from the single ethnic group that Americans ethnocentrically confuse with all blacks, although he has married into it.

The real question about Obama is whether America is ready for a half-Luo president. Kenya's powers that be weren't, even 14 years after the death of Oginga Odinga. Are we?

John Edward Philips - 2/11/2008

"Us"? Perhaps the post boomers. Obama gets the youth vote by promising to move beyond a divisive, boomer obsession with culture wars, including race, that many young people feel to be already out of date.

McCain, on the other hand, appeals to those who would prefer to trade the irresponsibility of two boomer presidents for the stability of the older generation. Obama vs. McCain would be the ultimate rejection of boomer ascendancy, perhaps never to return.

James W Loewen - 2/9/2008

Unfortunately, politicians, especially Democratic ones, have been giving content free speeches for decades. That's the key reason why Democrats (John Kerry comes to mind) lose, even though their positions, should they have one (on Iraq or anything else), might be in accord with lots of voters. In 500 words or less, tell me Hillary's position on Iraq? Her speeches are at least as content free as Obama's. Many Americans do respect people whose positions differ from their own, but they feel manipulated by would-be leaders who are opaque.

Caroline Hill - 2/8/2008

I generally like Obama, but I too have been struck by the content-free nature of much of what he says. What actually does 'our time is now' mean? what is it that 'we can' do? Who, btw, is 'we'? does anyone know?

Oscar Chamberlain - 2/8/2008

Precisely my thought on reading this.

Maybe Steele makes a distinction between types of masks in his writing. But even when a politician is revealing a "true" aspect of himself, it is heightened or idealized in some manner. It has to be in order to communicate effectively regardless of the medium.

covell f meyskens - 2/8/2008

I find it curious that the mask trope is being uniquely applied to Obama. Don't all politicians use masks?

Mackie Joseph-Venet Blanton - 2/8/2008

"The prospect of a president who rides to office on a wave of magic that he must forfeit almost immediately upon taking office is a rather frightening one."

Whence and Why suddenly but at the end comes this notion of a forfeiture? After such a thoughtful run-through on Shelby Steele's book on Obama, Mirengoff's illogical conclusion is what is actually frightening. We in no way need to stick to Steele's trope of a "a mask". No one worth having an opinion on this matter has called upon us to do so. We are free to think otherwise. There is no reason for us to assume -- but for our own projections -- that relaxing the protocols of persuasive public speaking means that the speaker will then become less than inspirational or magical in his ensuing discourse and purpose. Mirengoff is most likely someone who is uncomfortable with Barack Hussein Obama for unstated reasons and prejudices and will grasp at any useful twist of view in order to turn a rumour into an innuendo. Obama's presence is one of courtesy and dignity. When we put aside Steele's trope of a mask and pay attention to Obama's presence of self, one will soon realize that it is not only Obama's face and voice that appeal almost universally to everyone but also the content of his spoken discourse, which can transfigure us all.

John Gorentz - 2/8/2008

I thought the term historians use is "negotiated" rather than "bargaining." Aren't all political relationships the result of negotiation (or bargaining, if you prefer)?