Why was this familiar, even banal message a source of controversy? Because it badly misdiagnosed the problems we’re confronting. In a time of asymmetrical political radicalization, a call to “meet in the middle” still equally apportions blame for the division itself without demanding accountability for harm done. And it sounds nonsensical in the face of the challenges facing the country. Where is the middle ground on racism? On extremism or domestic terrorism?
“Renegades” offers more nuanced fare than the ad does, however. The premise is that these two men, despite their very different life experiences, have managed to build a meaningful friendship and have deep conversations about things like race in America. But Obama and Springsteen are not avatars of the divides in the US today. Setting aside that they are both fabulously wealthy men known around the world, they share a set of liberal values and a commitment to democracy that have been rejected by a significant number of Americans.
And so the solution — a conversation across the divide — may work for Obama and Springsteen, but it does not truly reckon with the structures and forces that are eroding American democracy, nor get at the deeper challenges around race and justice in the US. That’s clear in the way the show’s first two episodes unfold. They focus on race and racism, but in a sanitized way — the pair swap stories about their experiences with race from 30 or 40 years ago, no tough introspection or thorny dilemmas here. But it feels like it’s doing the hard work of thinking about race, and that will suffice for people whose primary goal is to feel like they’re doing that work.
“Renegades” also lands just as two controversies roiling the podcast industry illustrate the conceptual limits of “conversations about race” — and who claims the authority to conduct them.
Ongoing change will require looking more closely at the core values of journalism and media. There’s precedent for this: Media values regularly change in response to shifts in politics and culture. In the 1950s and 1960s, wary of the power of extreme political ideologies, journalists practiced objectivity as a kind of skeptical and technocratic centrism. When political movements crowded out consensus politics in the late 1960s, journalists treated objectivity more as a both sides practice: Here’s a voice from the left and a voice from the right, and readers can choose which is more persuasive. Now there is a reckoning with the way objectivity has acted as a shield for Whiteness, and how it might become a more anti-racist practice.
For podcasting, there’s a somewhat different challenge: confronting the say-anything-debate-everything ethos incubated in the mostly White, male world of early podcasting. And it means taking a look at the limits of unity, too, in bridging a divide before the hard work of reckoning, and restitution, has been done.