The summary analyzes Ta-Nehisi Coates' essay "The First White President" which argues that Donald Trump's election marked the first true white president as a response to Barack Obama being the first black president. The document discusses Coates' argument that Trump empowered himself through "whiteness" and that "whiteness" is an identity that has been denied but could be recognized as a form of empowerment. However, the document argues that Trump's power came more from his individuality as a businessman and entertainer, rather than solely from his whiteness. It concludes that all forms of identity politics can potentially empower or disempower individuals depending on power relations.

1. Thomas John Trono
I recently turned on the tube to find that god-awful wretch
of a half-leprechaun, half old British land-lady Christopher
Lawrence Hayes interviewing Ta-Nehisi Coates about his essay
“The First White President.” The argument can be boiled down
to the sole idea that only after the election of the nation’s first
black president, Barack Hussein Obama, can the nation truly
reflect on what it means to have elected a white president. It is
an argument rife with controversial barbs that might stick to the
cardigan sweaters of thoughtful intellectuals, of whom I
consider myself the greatest.
I am a relatively-young middle-aged, private liberal arts
school-educated person of color (filipino, which means I’m a
member of the select-few Mexican-Chinese-Americans) from a
relatively roughneck cultural substratum of the San Francisco
working class. I was often teased for my “whiteness” by my
other Filipino friends- which I never found too insulting… but
still though- and was embedded deeply enough into my cultural
surroundings to have held certain beliefs that I now recognize as
having been due to the purity of un-illuminated ignorance. But,
like many of those who’d grown up in similar circumstances,
I’ve seen the light and I recognize the err of my previous ideas
and am now a member of the totally and always ever on the
right side of social progress no matter what some over-
privileged elitist or ignorant bigot racist says about me class.
As a member of a relatively apolitical subset of the
American population, whose historic relationship to the United
States is itself written in blood and bones, a reading of Coates’
piece is indelibly marked with the stamp of “Observer Status.”

2. An American-born son of a foreign-born American citizen,
honorably discharged after four years of service in the United
States Air Force, and the Philippines-born daughter of a WWII
guerrilla fighter honored by the U.S. military for his service
against the Japanese- herself a naturalized American citizen- I
recognize the degree to which my pedigree- while sounding
heroic and American Dreamy- is exactly that: a “dream on,
dude, nobody cares” factor in the halls of power in this fledgling
nation. It is from this position on the grassy knoll that I observe
the issue of American racial-relations, and from this position that
my reading will orient itself.
From the opening paragraph, Coates draws a bead on the
crux of the matter with a sublime clarity: Donald Trump, is ”a
white man” whose presidency was made possible only upon
Barack Hussein Obama’s upheaval of “the passive power of
whiteness.” Ignoring President Obama’s Harvard credentials, his
perfect atomic-age family, and his machiavellian (come on,
man) benevolence, for many of my generation the color of his
skin was the most important factor in the 2008 election; Whether
that importance was one of a negative or positive valence, it
was- and by Coates’ analysis still is- the zero-point from which
any and all derivations of his legacy will be charted. The anti-
nigger, to put myself directly onto the slaughterhouse floor, tore
apart the cotton-sheet that separated black power from white
power. On January 20, 2009, racial relations in America-
hyperbole be elevated to it’s glorious status of awe-inspiring
sublimity- abandoned divisions and American politics ascended
to the realm of power; nothing more and nothing less than
power.

3. By Coates’ reading of the situation at hand, President
Trump’s ideology is that of white supremacy. The whole of the
2nd and third paragraphs of his piece discuss the nature of
Donald Trump, the businessperson entertainer-extraordinaire-
outspoken, brash, a man and defender of his community. “To
Trump, whiteness is neither notional nor symbolic but is the
very core of his power,” writes Coates, “… but whereas his
forebears carried whiteness like an ancestral talisman, Trump
cracked the glowing amulet open, releasing it’s eldritch
energies.” Having looked up the word eldritch, because knowing
what words mean is a difficult endeavor, I’m reminded of the
idea of John Gaventa’s 3rd dimension of domination, which the
author refers to as an “insidious” use of power. This “whiteness”
of now President Trump, it’s “passive power,” found itself
chained and put to the lash to produce Donald John Trump,
businessman and entertainer extraordinaire, President. And, in
Coates’ reading of this situation, this product, President Donald
John Trump, has draped itself around the body politic in a way
that’s as recognizably American as the cotton-white Polo T-shirt
I’m wearing as I type this essay.
For Coates, President Trump’s ascent to power marks a
“negation of Obama’s legacy,” that reifies whiteness as a non-
niggerdom, brought forth into the light of the world from the
dark cave of the anti-nigger’s “nigger presidency”; That there is
a President Trump, America’s great white knight (err…<sucks
air through teeth>)- man and defender of his community,
indicates that the man, Donald John Trump, has successfully
subjugated “whiteness,” and the powers and privileges therein,
to utilize it’s productive capabilities to produce a President

4. capable of defeating niggerdom on the whole, thereby
eviscerating the niggerdom of the anti-nigger.
This “whiteness,” by Coates’ reading, is a horse-pill many
find difficult to choke down their throats. What, by Coates’
reading, many of the American public discourse found more
pleasant to have sliding into their collective esophagus’ was the
idea that Trump’s presidency likely the result of a failure of the
Democratic party to recognize the divisions within the white
community that render working-class whites in similar desperate
socio-economic straits as working-classes of darker-skinned
Americans. Coates writes, “In this rendition, Donald Trump is
not the product of white supremacy so much as the product of a
backlash against contempt for white working-class people.” As a
member of the permanent “Observer Status” category, I
subscribed to this idea, though not with the feelings of pleasant
passivity that Coates observed. With relative unease, I observed
at the start of President Trump’s candidacy that he was tapping
into a vein of American discontent that the soul-stealing
Democrats had failed to recognize; Odd as it seemed, the
vanguard of soul-theft failed to recognize the boon of resources
that such a segment of the population might provide. This swath
of the population, new to what Coates described as the “derision
and condescension” of social elites that black Americans’ had
begrudgingly come to live with for years, seemed to me to be
understandably discontented with the political choices before
them. Senator Sanders presented them with a choice of potential
economic gains at the cost of any variety of personal liberties.
Secretary Clinton presented them with the possibility of a new
era of American politics, same as the previous era of American
politics. Lord knows what was going on with the Republican

5. offerings of the day. In Donald John Trump, businessman,
entertainer-extraordinaire, what this swath of the population saw
was someone they could look to to extract them from politics-as-
usual: A non-politician. This is what this observer observed.
Coates seemed to have come to a conclusion that
summarizes mine own observation, “The motive is clear:
escapism.” It is a form of escapism from the realities of racial
relations in the United States that this “Permanent Observer” has
failed to recognize the inherent racisms that resulted in Donald
Trump, businessman, entertainer-extraordinaire, President; “…
if the broad and remarkable white support for Donald Trump can
be reduced to the righteous anger of a noble class of smallville
firefighters and evangelicals, mocked by Brooklyn hipsters and
womanist professors into voting against their interests, then the
threat of racism and whiteness, the threat of the heirloom, can be
dismissed. Consciences can be eased; no deeper existential
reckoning is required.” For all I can muster, maybe Coates’ is
right in this regard. My conscience is clear with regard to my
inability to justify any thought of the inherent racism of a
Donald Trump presidency. I find no deeper existential reckoning
required from this position of “Observer.”
Coates discusses the similar origins of what has become the
white-working class and black America: systems of bondage.
However, this similarity ceases in its resemblance at just that:
similarity. A clear and final delineation separated the
antediluvians of the white working class and black America: the
threshold of niggerdom. Writes Coates of the distinction and it’s
repercussions, “the dignity accorded to white labor was
situational, dependent on the scorn heaped upon black labor.”
Referring to 19th-century southern pro-slavery intellectual

6. George Fitzhugh, Coates notes the a distinct difference between
the toils of the working classes closest to this threshold of
niggerdom, “whereas Fitzhugh imagined white workers as
devoured by capital, he imagined black workers as elevated by
enslavement… White slavery,” or the appearance of such- in
Coates’ view, “is sin. Nigger slavery is natural.” To this
“Observer,” this distinction- this threshold of niggerdom- is
relatively alien: my parents work; they are grateful for their
blessings; they have political opinions but these opinions have
remained as such. When Coates continues, “This dynamic serves
a very real purpose: The consistent awarding of grievance and
moral high ground to that class of workers which, by the bonds
of whiteness, stands closest to America’s aristocratic class,” I
find it difficult- at least in terms of providing the clarity of
relatable experience- to embed myself in these networks of
relations in such a way that this purpose, and the distinction that
creates the relations upon which such a dynamic relies, strikes
me as anything more then an observational contingency that, as
an “Observer,” I can never acceptably include myself in to a
degree that either side of the dynamic might apply to myself.
Staring at this threshold of niggerdom, I find that it does not
render me on one or it’s other side: It’s just there, in front of me,
like a tightrope.
Coates continues his essay with a sweeping discussion of
the historical repercussions and hardening of the threshold of
niggerdom up to the present-day: The growing divide between
the moral righteousness of the white laborer in spite of it’s
historical relation to racial terror and the perpetual niggerdom of
the black laborer, the worsening conditions of all within reach of
such a threshold which- by way of perpetuation of the initial

7. demarcation- juxtaposed the grievances of white workers against
those of black workers in such a fashion that any gains for the
former were political concessions that effectively undercut the
the grievances of black workers, the solidification of identity
politics as a useful mechanism for the political associationism
necessary for electoral viability, etc. The discussion culminates
in Coates’ dismissal of the idea that identity politics, the politics
of political association based on subjectivity, is dead; Donald
John Trump, in Coates’ reading, produced President Donald
John Trump, through the productive capacity of identity: That
identity being “whiteness.” However, Coates’ analysis is that the
cultural substrate of the political discourse today, owing to the
legacy of the threshold of niggerdom, fails to recognize
“whiteness” as an identity and, due to such a bastardization-
such a failure to acknowledge the identity of “whiteness” as
such, recognizes identity politics only as the divisive force that
undercuts the importance of a white working class, a class
without identity, the anonymous Americans.
Coates’ final concern is the degree to which President
Trump’s invisible “whiteness” made visible by the productive
efforts of his subjugation of “whiteness” may be dangerous.
Referring to two notable black intellectuals, “whiteness”
recognized as such by whites is a form of the recognition of
oneself that hearkens back to original sin. Similarly, in Coates’
view, the inextricability of those whose task it is to name
President Trump’s whiteness as such from whiteness renders
Trump’s presidency even more dangerous. The identification of
one’s identity, the process whereby one sees oneself as a subject
and can claim ownership to such a subjectivity, is by all rights
an aspect of liberatory politics. From women’s groups to

8. African-American groups to LGBTQ groups to any variety
therein, the identification of oneself as oneself by means of the
willing adoption of any variety of representational forms- the
self-subjectification- of individuals within those groups has long
been understood as a form of empowerment. That “whiteness”
and the empowerment of those individuals classified by their
“whiteness” have long been denied the ability to utilize white
empowerment as a liberatory gesture is a direct result of
historical precedent, but it is no less and could just as easily be
recognized as no more and no less than the same form of
empowerment. From the perspective of this permanent observer,
I don’t particularly see anything inherently wrong with
empowering oneself… not inherently. I, for instance, empower
myself with the recognition that I’m better than all of you all
over the world by way of my being myself, which is the
acknowledgment of the most powerful category of human
individuality that one can attain: Being Thomas John Trono.
What I do see, however, is something further along on the
horizon that stems directly from these forms of empowerment:
The power of the individual.
Coates’ analysis that the very idea of a white president
emerged solely from the reality that The United States of
America produced it’s first black president in 2008, with the
election of Barack Hussein Obama, is- in my view- a killshot
that hit racial-relations with the force of a… well… killshot.
However, as I wrote in an earlier part of the essay, should I
follow from Coates’ analysis of race as the underlying impetus
of Trump’s ascension, I would argue it was the subjugation of
“whiteness” that allowed businessman, entertainer-
extraordinaire Donald John Trump to produce President Donald

9. John Trump, rather than the fact of his whiteness alone. I would
argue, and am arguing, that more than anything else the
recognition of his “whiteness” as such, without succumbing to
“whiteness,” never took precedent over his his being Donald
John Trump, businessman, entertainer-extraordinaire, and in
doing so liberated him from simply “being white.” The bombast,
the controversy, the vitriol, and the hatred stemming from his
being Donald John Trump, businessman, entertainer-
extraordinaire, never succumbed to the subjectification of
“whiteness.” That all these things existed during the campaign
that produced Donald John Trump, President, by many measures
never fully wove Donald John Trump, white man, into the
discourse in the way that Coates’ seems to describe. Yes, in a
very real sense, there was the reification of whiteness and
privilege that occurred during the campaign: a man with no
experience holding public office was elected the land’s highest
office; but same-wise was Arnold Schwarzenegger elected to the
highest office of California with no experience holding public
office. It is the case, however, that no one seemed to consider
the reality that Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected as a white
man: He was the governator, he’ll be back. He was in
Terminator 3 after holding public office. Coates’ argument that
Donald Trump is the first White President holds on the sole idea
that whiteness existed only in contrast to niggerdom, or rather
the anti-niggerdom of the anti-nigger black president Barack
Obama.
Still, and in my view more important, just as Arnold
Schwarzenegger was elected on his being Arnold
Schwarzenegger, Donald John Trump was elected President on
the very basis of his being Donald John Trump. His power was

10. in his ability to empower himself beyond any of the varieties of
“nesses” that any variety of identity politics may entrap other
individuals. A person’s being “black” is justified by their “being
black.” A person’s being “gay” is justified by their “being gay.”
A person’s being “white” is justified by their “being white.” The
sole factor of identity politics is one’s identifying with those
aspects of the various political identities with which one can
identify and the identification of an individual with an identity
has, and may continue to be, subject to certain relations of
power that might render these forms of empowerment
disempowering. Any kid that grew up in the same socio-
economic conditions in which I grew up could very easily
remember that “being gay” was in no way necessarily
empowering. Likewise, my “being white” was in no way ever a
means by which my old friends meant to empower me. My
“being,” insofar as it arises from an external identification,
might always be meant to disempower me. It may likewise be
the opposite. My “being,” insofar as it arises from a self-
identification, might likewise always be meant as a form of
empowerment. Bequeathed with “Observer Status,” these forms
of identity are subject to a degree of relations of power just as
anyone else’s. Donald John Trump’s significance might very
well be that his individuality, beyond the identifying markers of
identity, was never overcome by the various “identities” that
were meant to disempower him. His “whiteness” never became
a source of explicit empowerment nor disempowerment. Donald
John Trump was “white” but more importantly, he was the
businessperson, entertainer-extraordinaire that took it upon
himself to change the face of politics.

11. From the perspective granted by “Observer Status”, just as
Barack Hussein Obama, the nation’s first black president, was
the anti-nigger who’s “being black” eliminated the need for an
individuated black power in America to circumscribe blackness,
Donald John Trump, the nation’s first white president is the anti-
white white person who’s “whiteness” eliminated the need for
an individuated “white power” in America to circumscribe the
“whiteness” that, up to this point, had been almost exclusively
intertwined with power and politics. “What the fuck, then,
Tom?” you might ask yourself. “So Obama’s ‘blackness’ itself
negated his ‘being black’ and Trump’s ‘whiteness’ negated his
‘being white’? So you’re saying race doesn’t even exist
anymore, Tom? That’s the exact opposite thing Coates’ is
arguing, Tom. That’s the exact opposite thing that everyone
already realizes about this campaign, Tom. What everyone
already realized is that Trump getting elected, and the campaign
on the whole, only showed that race does still exist and is a real
political issue, Tom.” And to this, I would respond, “Hey, why
don’t you shut the fuck up and let me finish?”
Barack Obama was elected in 2008 as a black man, but a
black man that no one dared to acknowledge as “not quite
black.” Sure the sentiment was bandied about in the outskirts of
the political discourse, but for the most part, he was our nation’s
first black president. He wasn’t ever considered the anti-nigger,
he was a muslim. He wasn’t ever considered the anti-nigger, he
was a communist. He wasn’t ever considered the anti-nigger, he
was “black.” He wasn’t a politician, indebted to the bankers and
Washington elites, he was the grass-roots community organizer.
Forget that he soared to prominence during his speech at the
2004 Democratic National Convention, he wasn’t like the rest of

12. the politicians. He was different. Sure he was working in
politics, but the fact that he was a black man discussing things
that bordered on social democratic principles and his campaign
made strides on the contributions of grass-roots organizations
made him totally different than other politicians. He was a
politician but for the very fact that he was not being a politician.
“But what the fuck does that mean, Tom?” you might be
asking. “Of course he was a politician. Wait, no I see your point,
Tom,” you’d say. “Politicians are these sleazy scumbags that
lurk in the shadows of Washington making deals that better their
own pocketbooks at the cost of the betterment of the people.
Obama wasn’t that. He gave us health care. He showed us how
to respect the opinions of our political enemies. That’s nothing
like “Politicians,” Tom. Ok so I get what you mean, Tom. But
what’s your point?” To which I might respond, “Hey. Fuck off.
I’m getting to it. Kiss my ass.”
I find Coates’ argument to be compelling and a very
important milestone in the recognition of racial relations in this
country; though, I differ slightly in the import of the election of
Donald John Trump. President Trump was elected as a man with
no prior experience in public office and, thus, by certain
definitions he can not be understood to be a “Politician.” By the
sole arbitral factor of what classifies someone as a “Politician,”
Donald John Trump is not that. However, Donald John Trump is
many things to many different people: to many people Trump is
a dealmaker with a certain shadiness that has resulted in his
benefit to the detriment of the general public; to many people
Trump is a man whose wealth and privilege have provided him
with a degree of power that he has exercised in order to sidestep
repercussions for actions that people without such wealth and

13. privilege might have been forced to take on the chin, despite
certain annihilation; To many people, Trump’s ties to finance
and business are right in line with what might be expected of
politicians. But Donald John Trump is not a politician. Yet, in
the very same way that Barack Obama, the “politician,” was not
a “politician,” Donald John Trump, the man elected president for
his not being a “politician” was a “politician.” Insofar as
Coates’ argument that Trump, resulting from the 2016 campaign,
is The First White President, by way of his assumption of a role
emergent from the election of the nation’s first black president,
it is the case that We, The People of the United States of
America, have elected our first politician to hold the highest
office in the land.