Monday Morning Reads
Posted: September 26, 2011 Filed under: morning reads | Tags: institutional racism, liberal racism, personal racism, Racism 66 Comments
Good Morning!
I’ve been reading some things that have really gotten me thinking lately. The topic of racism has crept back into the public arena since the campaign season is now in full force. There have been two high profile media stories that have created a stir and one story that’s been percolating in my mind all last week.
There is the coverage of the President who opened the can of worms yesterday during a speech in front of a black audience. The other story was that of Morgan Freeman who called the Tea Party racist on the Piers Morgan Show. Herman Cain shot back on Sunday saying Freeman didn’t get what the Tea Party was about. Before both events, I had actually read this post at The Nation written by Melissa Harris-Perry–who I admire–on white liberal racism that evoked a really strong tweet from Max Blumenthal yesterday. Then, LGF sent me over to Andrew Breitbart’s site where I got an eyeful of comments left there by republicans and teabots on the President’s words that were characterized as black power dog whistles by folks over there. Calls of reverse racism filled the comments section.
So there’s my links to the re-emergence of the racism conversation. It hasn’t been pretty or civil. I really am not looking forward to any 2008 repeat of all that. Thankfully, Sky Dancing has been a refuge from trolls for the most part. I can tell you that Bostonboomer and I have had conversations on the phone about racism in the Tea Party before and I know we both feel there is overt racism in their ‘movement’. This doesn’t mean every one that’s attended one of their rallies is a racist, but all you have to do is look at their placards and you can’t deny it’s there. So, I have to admit to agreeing with Morgan Freeman on his comments. Obama’s presidency has brought a lot of the worst stuff out on to the streets again. I will also send you over to the LGF link to read the comments by Breitbart’s readers if you want to see exactly how alive, well, and thriving racism is in parts of the Republican party. The weird thing is that the folks in the Breitbart comments section think the President is playing the race card. It’s an odd juxtaposition of arguments to watch people screaming reverse racism using really overtly racist language and frames. I mean, how can you talk about reverse racism when writing out your screed in some form of perverted ‘ebonics’ ? Well, any way go look for yourself and you’ll see what I mean.
I agree with the Freeman comments that there has to be some underlying bit of racism in the republican obsession to get Obama out of office. The republicans did some pretty nasty things to Clinton, but I’ve never EVER seen so many people willing to take our entire country down over the election of one man. They’ve been at it consistently for nearly three years now. It’s like watching the confederacy rise again. All we hear is state’s rights and complete mis-characterizations of the president’s policies which have been very conventionally Republican. Draw out a game theory decision tree and tell me what sort’ve end game they have in mind when every strategic move they make is aimed at making Obama a one term president at WHATEVER the cost to the country. It’s just not rational.
Freeman said it unnerves him that the conservative movement is garnering momentum during an appearance on CNN last week.
“Their stated policy, publicly stated, is to do whatever it takes to see to it that Obama only serves one term,” he said. “What underlines that? Screw the country. We’re going to do whatever we do to get this black man, we can, we’re going to do whatever we can to get this black man out of here.”
Freeman characterized the actions of the Tea Party as “racist” and suggested that Obama’s presidency has only fueled the rise of the coalition of conservative activists, and in that context has made the issue of racism “worse.” He said, “It just shows the weak, dark underside of America. We’re supposed to be better than that. We really are. That’s why all those people were in tears when Obama was elected president. Look at what we are, you know? And then it just sort of started turning, because these people surfaced like stirring up muddy water.”
We know Obama’s candidacy stirred up the issue and we know he’s not beneath playing politics with racism when it behooves him to do so. However, his “Come march with me” speech is a narrative that tries to put the President in the same light as MLK when the President is no MLK. I do not think Obama is playing any race card because it feels to me like your basic pandering to a voting segment while trying to shore up your base. I don’t think it’s going to be very effective and I don’t think it’s a black power dog whistle. The Republican reaction to the speech idoes expose some of that overt racism to which Morgan Freeman alludes. When people act like Obama’s going Black Panther every time he gives a speech to black people there has to be something in there that’s above and beyond basic political differences.
However, back to where I agree with Blumenthal and draw the line at Melissa’s statements at The Nation painting those of us who criticize Obama with a huge brush of having double standards for blacks and whites. I had thought about posting this article before but I didn’t really want to go there. I have had my fill of that three years ago. However, in light of these other things, I thought I’d post the link and have the conversation.
Elements of racism are every where. The Tea Party can’t seriously deny that its attracted a pretty virulent strain. I’m not about to say that I didn’t notice it in the likes of people like Orly Taitz and other former Hillary supporters that jumped on the birther and secret Muslim wagon. However, some of this activity by die hard Obama supporters still strikes me as a hunt for communists under the bed and making excuses for the man. Maybe when you’re so vested in some one else’s success and they fail you repeatedly you just keep grasping for all the straws you can.
Dr. Harris-Perry thinks when we try to hold President Obama to his campaign rhetoric and criticize the deals that he makes with Republicans, we are holding Obama to a different standard than we did President Clinton because of Obama’s race. She believes that there has been unequal liberal criticism of Clinton’s triangulations and Obama’s “cave-ins”. I see more contextual differences than that. Clinton had a huge up hill battle given he got elected so close to the Reagan “morning in America myth”. There was less of an outcry for change then. Obama, to me, came in with a much stronger push for change and Dubya’s legacy was incredibly negative. Changing Dubya’s course would’ve been welcome. Trampling on the Reagan legacy would’ve gotten blowback.
This is Blumenthal’s response.
MaxBlumenthal Max Blumenthal
The Obamabot “you’re a racist” strategy may have shielded Obama from legit criticism in 2008, but it’s spent by now.
If even liberal-left critics of Obama are tarred as racists, critiques of real anti-Obama racism are cheapened, can be discredited by right
….if not discredited then dismissed.
Here’s Dr. Harris Perry’s closing thoughts after naming some disappointing things done by Clinton and Obama.
These comparisons are neither an attack on the Clinton administration nor an apology for the Obama administration. They are comparisons of two centrist Democratic presidents who faced hostile Republican majorities in the second half of their first terms, forcing a number of political compromises. One president is white. The other is black.
In 1996 President Clinton was re-elected with a coalition more robust and a general election result more favorable than his first win. His vote share among women increased from 46 to 53 percent, among blacks from 83 to 84 percent, among independents from 38 to 42 percent, and among whites from 39 to 43 percent.
President Obama has experienced a swift and steep decline in support among white Americans—from 61 percent in 2009 to 33 percent now. I believe much of that decline can be attributed to their disappointment that choosing a black man for president did not prove to be salvific for them or the nation. His record is, at the very least, comparable to that of President Clinton, who was enthusiastically re-elected. The 2012 election is a test of whether Obama will be held to standards never before imposed on an incumbent. If he is, it may be possible to read that result as the triumph of a more subtle form of racism.
My suggestion is that you read the comments column for her post and then go back and look at the actual comments in the Brietbart piece and not just the LGF slice of it. You’ll get a quick lesson in spot the overt racism.
I did see some rethink of her position last night on Twitter after a bit of a pile on.
MHarrisPerry Melissa Harris-Perry
It’s completely possible that I’m wrong & economy is only meaningful variable. But race is worth discussing. Expect allies to agree to that.
Joan Walsh has a response at Salon. I suggest you read it because it’s full of examples of liberals criticizing Clinton. In deed, much of that criticism of Clinton’s triangulations is what sent progressives away from Hillary Clinton in 2008 as I recall. So, it’s a good perspective.
Outside of Congress, many of the white progressives giving Obama the most trouble weren’t uncritical Clinton supporters, either. While we remember Moveon.org getting its start to back Clinton during impeachment, it’s worth recalling that it wanted Congress to censure Clinton for his misdeeds; its slogan was “censure, and move on.” Also, the progressive online group was tiny back then, with nothing like the reach it has now. Obama critic Michael Moore was also a Clinton critic, who famously supported Ralph Nader over Gore in 2000. Nader and Michael Lerner, two organizers of the recent letter calling for a primary challenge to Obama, both regularly attacked Clinton.
For a final perspective, I suggest you go to Black Agenda Report–which btw is holding a fundraiser and could use some support–for some other thoughts on Obama’s form of triangulation. I’m sending you to a recent article called: Barack Obama VS Those Craaaazy Republicans: Is He the Lesser Evil, or the More Effective Evil? Bruce A. Dixon characterizes what he calls Black Misleadership. I’d say he has the same criticism we’ve had and it’s certainly not sourced in white liberalism. However, he frames the complaints using race dynamics.
Since the forces financing Republicans are the same as those financing Democrats the directors of US political theater have the power to play games with us. For them, Obama is the preferable alternative. Only the First Black President could have disbanded the peace movement and rolled into town promising to “cut entitlements” without provoking a firestorm of protest. Only the First Black President could have accepted a Nobel Peace Prize with a war speech, and invaded an African country without millions of protesters in the street worldwide. Only the First Black President with a strong Democratic majority in Congress could have resumed offshore drilling after the Gulf BP disaster, and blocked any new regulation on the oil industry. Only the First Black President could have given GM back to its managers after sticking the unions with its underfunded health care and pension load. Only candidate Obama could have come in off the campaign trail in September 2008 to whip Democratic votes in the Democrat-dominated congress for the $3 trillion Bush bailout, and only the First black President could have quintupled down on that bailout, giving the banksters $15 trillion more once in office.
From their standpoint, Obama needed, and continues to need two things. First, Obama needs running room to his right. In order for Obama to enact the neoliberal policies of his militarist and bankster sponsors, the policy demands of Republicans had to move further and still further rightward. In other words, he needs Republicans to play crazy and crazier, so that wherever he lands can credibly be claimed to be a little better than what might have been under a Republican regime, even when Obama’s position is actually to the right of Bush or Reagan. Secondly, the bankster favorite Obama needs to distract the attention of his voter base with a loud and persistent clamor over cultural issues and sustained furor over instances of personal (but not institutional) racism among Republican candidates and supporters. Like in any production, every actor has a job to do, and everybody does their job.
Since the purpose of Sky Dancing is to discuss real issues, I really couldn’t let some of this burbling boiling social vibe stew stay on the fire without a bit of a stir. So, the links are there for you. Make of them what you will. Since this post has run so long, I want to share one more topic with you.
Back to economists where I’m not such a fish out of water. I had to point out this blog thread on frames by Jared Bernstein because I spent two huge blog posts on Saturday elucidating frames and their impact on markets and the economy. What a co-inky-dink! He talks about a related idea which is how the Republicans are ‘framing’ our historically progressive tax codes as class war fare instigated by that secret muslim, commie, Kenyan president of ours! The same things have been making him think of frames.
That said, ever since the R’s countered President Obama’s emphasis on fairness in the tax code with shrieks of “class warfare,” I’ve been thinking a lot about framing. These thoughts were amplified by this smart piece in today’s NYT, arguing that as the language of budgets (“fiscal sustainability,” “deficit reduction”) has replaced that of economic security, progressives have ceded key intellectual ground.
The piece compares, to great effect, the rhetoric of FDR during the Depression to that of today. But that led me to reflect on the
points Stan Greenberg made, as I reviewed them here. In this regard, the most salient difference in this context between today versus the days of FDR is not just the rhetoric or framing. It’s the underlying faith in American institutions, most notably government.
Greenberg’s point is that absent that faith, a positive frame, even if it’s based in fact (we really do have the right ideas re economic security and they really don’t) will fail to resonate.
This means progressives have some heavy lifting to do. Our work must be to re-establish faith in the institution of government…the belief that this institution is a force for good in your lives and can be more so. And that has to come from explanation, evidence, and effective implementation of government programs.
It also underscores the importance of the current fight for fairness: if people continue to believe that government has devolved into an ATM for the wealthy, an enforcer of the inequality-inducing policy agenda, and a bailer-outer of the rich and the reckless, no frame will be smart enough to convince them otherwise.
So, any way. What’s on your reading and blogging list today?
peej
Carissa
ecocatwoman
mablue2
Mama Lopez
peggysue22
quixote
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Sky Dancing 
My first reaction to the clips I saw of his speech, was that he is seeing erosion in his black base and he was pleading for their support. . A large part of the African American vote is informed and I suspect Obama is loosing them.
The bottom line is that the american people put Obama in and if he is responsive to them, they will put him back in. However his close alliance with banks and his not prosecuting fraud gets noticed along with other issues.
Yes – there are racists, but does anyone listen to them? Economic fear is the dominant issue and the Repulicans are the main culprets of that. It is still early in the election cycle. It is normal for him to be firming up his base. Obama has yet to show a clear path of the Financial Crisis.People just do not see any progress.
A lot of the criticism that I saw about MHP’s argument was that the economy was the huge factor.
It makes me crazy when people compare Clinton to Obama.
Clinton snuck into the White House largely because Ross Perot drew a lot of Indpendent support away from his opponent. He did not have a clear voter mandate. Nonetheless, he pushed through a lot of liberal/left of center legislation in the first two years of his Presidency. Had the Blue Dog Democrats, Republicans and health insurance industry not torpedoed his efforts, we would have a much better health care system now. He also raised taxes on the wealthy and brought the budget under control, with no help whatsoever from any Republican.
Obama had 80% voter approval, a prostrate financial industry willing to do his bidding, and a filibuster-proof majority Congress. He did NOTHING with it that would benefit anyone but the top 1%.
Clinton was re-elected because he did a lot with his political capital. Obama is drawing ire from lefties (who did also criticize Clinton, so that meme is also BS), indies and women because he has not lived up to his promises, and there is no good reason for it. Blame “polarization” or whatever else you want to, but remember that Obama had two years in which to avoid all of that.
As for racism, I agree it is everywhere, but to me there is no doubt that the virulent hatred the Tea Party types have for Obama is rooted in racism. What still beggars belief to me is that there were so many people who insisted that Obama was so amazing and transcendent that he could avoid the “partisan” battles that Hillary would be dragged into. As though they would hate him less for some reason. Utterly bizarre and blindingly naive.
yes, yes and YES
Take as much space as you need to bring facts and data to any argument here!!! Thanks for this!!!
Great post Dak, I will read those links, boy I seem to have missed out on a lot this past week.
I wanted to put this up, haven’t read it yet as it is a bit long: Frank Rich: What Good Did Bipartisanship Ever Do Anybody? — New York Magazine some of you may have seen it.
This: America’s most powerful liberal? – POLITICO.com Print View
and this: BP seeks permission for new Gulf drilling – Americas – Al Jazeera English
That BP piece in Al Jazeera — interesting that the International Press gets the fact that the major polluter wants another chance cut corners etc. etc.
Also some good links to the health problems caused by the BP oil spills and the attempted rebranding of the Canadian oil sands.
We don’t hear much about the ill health caused by the BP oil spill. US Entertainment Media just isn’t that interested.
There is a Cajun doctor who used to be a state senator that was interviewed by local press this weekend who was talking on the incredible health issues–especially respiratory–he had seen this year. He was blaming the spill.
Great post — it is disappointing but not surprising for the race card to be played so soon. 0bowma is a poor president and he’s not going to get any better — Hope & Change aren’t gonna happen. Problem is that 0bama was never a liberal — his favorite President was Saint Ray-Gun and in my book that makes 0bama a Republican. I think a lot of liberals are pissed because they got hoodwinked into voted for a Bush clone.
In my opinion the key to the dissatisfaction is the economy and the high unemployment — which is higher than the “official” number — because the number is always higher no matter who the president is. If 0bama could have lived up to his promises — I really doubt the vast majority would even care what color his skin is.
Also 0bowma is a war president — he is a vicious as Bush was. Too many of us understand that spending Billions and Trillions on wars makes less money available for the needs of this Nation
I went to the caucus and team 0bama virtually promised that if the anti-war folks would only “vote” for 0bama — Peace would break out all over the world. That was a lie. Team 0bama also claimed that he didn’t have corporate ties like that nasty Clinton lady did. In fact all the sins of Hillary according to trained 0bama disputers have turned out to be the sins of 0bama.
Makes no difference to me what color 0bowma claims to be — in reality he is a mutt — like the majority of Americans. What is important is that we haven’t seen any promised improvement. What we have seen is more of the same from 0bowma (including him bowing to Kings and Emperors — but not the Queen of England).
Obowma owns the economy and the lack of jobs and unemployment. He owns the fact that he is a sexist pig — still.
And damned it I wish I were wrong 0bama. He was a crooked Chicago politician and now he’s a crooked Washington DC politician. That’s what’s wrong with him — he lies — he can’t be trusted.
But there will always be haters — like the white guy who was executed in Texas for dragging a black man behind his truck. He said he did it and he’d do it again — merely because the man was black.
Hey this is interesting: The Hill’s 2011 50 Wealthiest in Congress – TheHill.com
You look at that list, and what the numbers are and where they get their wealth…there is your answer for the lack of concern for the working and middle class…from both parties.
Indeed. They NEED high unemployment so people will work for less….alot less If there was jobs, how can they destory the minum wage?
Melissa Harris-Perry’s understanding of research methods is deeply flawed, IMO. She is drawing very flawed conclusions based on “empirical evidence” that could be interpreted in many different ways. But then, political science isn’t really “science.”
For example:
There could be multiple reasons why a “registered Democrat” might vote Republican or stay home. Plus, she completely discounts the possiblity that “registered Democrats” might not want to vote for a Republican in Democrat’s clothing like Obama.
I’ve been a registered Democrat for my entire adult life until recently when I changed to Independent. I refused to vote for Jimmy Carter both times he ran, because he was too conservative for me. How can Harris-Perry explain that? Obama was even more conservative, IMO, than Carter, and was even less prepared than Carter to be President, so why should I vote for him?
BTW, don’t get me wrong. I do believe there is plenty of racism afoot among the right wing crowd. But to call out liberals who don’t want to vote for Bush III and claim they are racist is just too much. I also agree with some of the commenters who saw Harris-Perry’s piece as a kind of shot across the bow–a warning to white liberals that they’ll be called racist unless they support Obama no matter how Republican his polcies are. I’m sure most of the progs will still vote for him in the end anyway.
Yeah. I think MHP is really off base. Clinton wasn’t voted in to remove the reagan legacy. Obama had a mandate to stop the dubya legacy and he has just extended it.
It still gets me to this very day – and it always will. The ONLY reason I didn’t vote for Obama is because he’s black. That’s what she’s saying. I could not possibly have had any other reason for not voting for that slimeball. She is an absolute idiot. Period.
In my opinion she is digging a bigger hole here, alienating more people and going so far as to do a personal dig on Joan Walsh. The most interesting thing I noted about Melissa Harris-Perry is that she sees the Civil Rights struggle as only a struggle for Black Americans when it was not, and at least Joan Walsh gets that part right. Harris-Perry goes out of her way to say to Walsh that she isn’t a ‘friend’ in a not to graceful way.
Melissa Harris-Perry fails to note that it was Colin Powell who was working against his Commander and ChiefPresident Clinton, and threatening to quit, there by causing racial problems. Harris-Perry also fails to point out that it was Donna Brazile who along with others was vocal in removing LGBT from the Democratic Platform, because it would be ‘offensive to the Civil Rights Movement’.
Howard Dean deposition: Delegate Selection @ 10:57 on tape “…Influential individuals in the Black Caucus, who did take a position, Donna Brazile was one of them, that there should be no change…”
So, when Melissa Harris-Perry says she writes on ‘sexual orientation’ /LGBT issues she fails on research, while placing the blame squarely on President Bill Clinton and not noting the that the African American community has a large anti-gay bias and that both in 1993 (Colin Powell threatening to quite and mobilizing against his Commander and Chief) and in 2008 (Donna Brazile who has no elected position and others blocked GAYS/LGBTs from the Democratic Platform for inclusion) they worked to block the Civil Rights of Gay/LGBT Americans.
With Melissa Harris-Perry doing outreach to white Liberals and Katt Williams doing outreach to Mexican Americans, the hope is that Obama is re-elected via guilt and attacks…
My apologies for the long comment.
From Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, in an interview reported Sept. 19, 2011:
“If Bill Clinton had been in the White House and had failed to address this [17% unemployment for blacks] problem, we probably would be marching on the White House. There is a less-volatile reaction in the CBC because nobody wants to do anything that would empower the people who hate the president.”
The same GOP, the very same people in many instances, who are opposed to President Obama, are the ones who conducted the Republican witchhunt against President Clinton. Remember? Filegate, Monicagate and the impeachment, Travelgate, Vince Foster’s suicide being cast as a murder, subpoenaeing billing records of the Rose Law Firm in the futile hopes of finding something illegal, the Whitewater controversy (a 3-time failed effort), and of course, the ultimate perfidy of Clinton, Haircutgate (http://mediamatters.org/research/200702090015).
A minimum of $70 million of taxpayer money was spent to harass and persecute both Clintons.
That same GOP did hate President Clinton, but the CBC would still feel comfortable marching on him?
So, who’s letting skin color decide their reaction to leaders who don’t do their jobs?
The republicans did some pretty nasty things to Clinton, but I’ve never EVER seen so many people willing to take our entire country down over the election of one man.
Has the GOP congress started impeachment proceeding for Obama yet? Has the press done nothing but insists 24/7 on his resigning? Until threy do, what’s been going on does not approach what was done to Clinton….states rights is about destroying the public sector and Obama cheer leads that wave. Imo the Tea party is financed by billionaires and exists on the national leavl to help Obama look like a Dem…where would he be without the Tea Party? Then we would have to look at his truly awful record instead of the right on time re-emergence of the racism conversation. I really expected more complains on the web about his lecturing others about getting to work lol!
The Republicans shut down the government under Clinton.
Indeed. Because unlike Mr. Obama , Clinton fought them. And after he stood up to them and they shut down the government, their Contract on America fraud was up.. An actual Dem , who wants Dem policies to be successful ,fights Repugs. Obamna does not want that
and so he “caves” every time. But there is no caving about it. Because he agrees with the GOP
Yes. All this stuff is an extension of Gingrich’s plan to get rid of Clinton. I still believe it has racist overtones now because there were still things that were worked on and passed in the meantime during the Clinton years. The tea party has made any thing impossible now. There used to be republicans that would leave the fold in Clinton’s time. They don’t do that now. They are scared the Tea Party will primary them.
Oh yeah I forgot to add is there a special prosecutor appointed and give hundreds of millions , the use of hundreds of FBI agents and complete freedom to break laws them self in the pursuit of the Obamas yet?…and for years? People don’t remember what is was like because the Clintons fought back and saved this nation…apparently and sadly just so Obama can hand it over. But at least we got a few more years, thanks to the Clintons
And let’s not forget Starr’s henchmen pawing through Hillary’s underwear drawer looking for God knows what re that craptastic boondoggle, “Whitewater.”
Wake me up when some goon is manhandling Michelle’s lacy frillies.
Oh, did I mention that Bill Clinton’s super secret Grand Jury testimony was broadcast on every TV in America, a blatant infraction of the law?
Obama would assume an eternal fetal position on the closet floor if he faced one tenth the witchhunt braved by Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Funny how the snooty Harvard professor forgets that in 1995/6 Clinton had bragging rights about a roaring economy and twenty million new private sector jobs.
But that wasn’t what made us enthusiastic about the man; it was his lily white hide, at least according to Harris-Perry.
People were jailed because they refused to lie about Clinton to this special prosecutor.
The one thing that continually bugs me is how some progs keep holding up the HCR as a big leap forward when we could have had the same damned plan back in 93 or 94 if the Dems had supported Dolecare instead of fought it as the corporate giveaway it was. Obama pushed through the republican plan that the Dems had rejected earlier.
I was reading something from Brad Delong yesterday (it was about Confidence Men)… and he Delong said something about Obama’s HCR in passing… calling it overall successful or something. WTF?
Yeah, I saw the DeLong article too. Not one of his strongest efforts.
A thoughtful post, Dak. As to the framing issue, I think that matter is on point. Reagan started the chant: Government is not the solution, it’s the problem, and it’s been percolating ever since, expanded and perverted to: let’s squeeze Government so small we can drown it in a bathtub or make Government absolutely inconsequential in the lives of all Americans, turn over all power to the States. Certainly the disastrous 8 years with Bush&Co could turn anyone off to Government or governing in general because of the hideous abuses and erosion of basic civil rights. Enter Obama, the so-called Lightbringer, and we have only more obfuscation, civil rights curtailment, economic inequality and war, war, war.
It could turn anyone into a cynic.
I frequently read the Black Agenda Report and the anger is explosive. I thought the essay clip you included was one Dixon’s best for its searing honesty. Obama’s election had a lot to do with his race, the fact that his candidancy/election was heralded as historical. But anyone mentioning the dubious nature of putting so much weight on that historical element or questioning Obama’s thin resume [think Geraldine Ferraro] was immediately branded a ‘racist.’ We all remember those days!
The Tea Party has a definite problem with ‘the other,’ whether it be Muslim, Hispanic immigrants or the AA community. I’ve read some of the most virulent screeds from self-proclaimed ‘former’ Dems claiming every Muslim is ready to cut your throat, immigrants [of the illegal type] are the worst sort of parasite and every black person is a Welfare Queen in the making. The humanity is always stripped out of the discussion, the generalizations are enormous and racism and fear are laced throughout. Like it or not [and TP members always cry foul], the Republicans have fanned this sort of thing for political reasons and TP members [not all but a lot] have run with it.
I neither like nor trust Obama. I think he’s been weak and vacillating and completely fraudulant in what he rode in on and what he’s actually done. I have no affection for the neoliberal strain in the Democratic Party, the Third Way adherents. Maybe I did give Clinton more slack in his own failures and triangulations. But the truth is we weren’t perched on the edge of financial disaster in the 90s as we are now or completely undone by endless, senseless wars.
Barack Obama may have been able to slide through during a 90-like world. But for the moment, he’s the wrong man in the wrong place. And that has nothing to do with race.
Really well said. I agree.
As for framing, the Democrats not been good at it in the past few decades. The Republicans go out on TV and repeat their talking points over and over again, and instead of countering with liberal talking points, the Democrats used the Republican memes as a starting point. Plus very few Dems make themselves available for the talk shows, so even if they wanted to make liberal points, they’re outnumbered on TV. I think people like Chuck Schumer could get on if he made the effort.
From the BAR link above:
And this:
Wow…
Obama won election because the nation was sick to death with the Republicans and that “hope and change” meme held promise.
But unfortunately he refused to honor the very same changes he spoke of and the constant “bowing and weaving” to the opposition underscored his flaws. This was not the leadership the Dems signed on for.
Racism was prevalent in the GOP with the advent of the birther movement and few hid their distaste as the Tea Partiers took hold as evidenced by the signs they waved or the words they used to question his heritage.
The simple fact is that the principles held out by the Dem Party have been weakened by a president who caved into the demands of the GOP and is now looking to shore up his credentials and there aren’t many left on this side who trust him to do the right thing.
The Dem Party is infused with people of color but the GOP overall is not. The distrust on the Dem side is strictly the fault of Barack Obama himself but I support the idea that the hatred coming from the Right lies more in the racial question itself. Their opposition to Bill Clinton was based more on “class” when they went after him, no holds barred.
When polls show that more than half of the GOP clings to the belief that Obama is a foreign born Muslim it is in direct relation to “racism” since that constant clammering has worked.
Yup. That few republican leadership will quell the kenyan secret Muslim meme is also proof that Nixon’s southern strategy is alive and well.
Very thought provoking post. Thank you for putting it all together. I have to disagree with the point that there must be some underlying racism behind the Republicans’ obsession to make Obama a one term president. That was their plan all along. They knew they could not win in ’08 after Dubya ruined the world. The next best thing to a win in ’08 was to elect the weaker of the two Democratic frontrunners, and that’s what they did. They crossed over and became Democrats to vote in primaries, Rove was whispering secrets in Donna Brazille’s ear, and the corporate controlled media helped by providing a nonstop assault on Clinton while swooning over Obama. Now the next step in their plan is to destroy Obama and make sure he serves only one term. I think they must be delighted that he turned out to be more Republican than Democrat, but now they have to get their power back. I agree that they are going after Obama with both barrels, but I don’t think his race has anything to do with it, it was the plan all along.
Thank you, as I recall that when Goodwin was maced at the Republican Convention Donna Brazile was too but refused to make an issue because she was there with ROVE! Working both sides, while claiming to have been unbiased at the RBC in DC meeting. We got played, and HOW!
What seems to be overlooked in all this mess we are currently wading in is the fact that the GOP from day one of Obama’s swearing in dug in their heels by announcing their primary intent was to make him a one term president.
At a time when the nation was reeling from the effects of a financial meltdown with foreclosures, job loss, and the middle class losing ground, the very people sent to DC to correct the damage and offer some form of aid to a bleeding economy put their evil intentions to work by refusing to do just that. The “Party of No” kept to its pledge and does so today.
Those who look to that side of the aisle for relief are kidding themselves. When a party that is bent on ignoring the real issues just for the sake of gaining back the power of the Oval Office puts that promise to work, they do not deserve one single vote.
Yet there will be those who will move to that side out of their contempt for Obama and vote against their own interests “just to send a message”.
With Repubs at the helm we are assured of a corporatocracy with an underpinning of a theocratic agenda that may take several generations to overcome.
The current slate of GOP contenders, and the present GOP congressional leadership, have just about guaranteed that belief.
“If Bill Clinton had been in the White House and had failed to address this [17% unemployment for blacks] problem, we probably would be marching on the White House. There is a less-volatile reaction in the CBC because nobody wants to do anything that would empower the people who hate the president.” –Rep. Emanuel Cleaver
Here’s the thing… there IS a way to “march on the WH”/hold Obama accountable *without* empowering the haters/VRWC.
It’s called…
Challenging Obama *from the populist left*…i.e. constructive criticism.
Gathering the strength in numbers of people who are frustrated with the lack of a New Deal, galvanizing that energy, and becoming the louder than the rightwing “criticism.”
I’ve criticized Hillary from the left without any “fear of enabling” her haters.
This seems to be a very strange concept for partisan supporters of Obama (and for that matter, even of Hillary) to grasp. You don’t have to blindly accept everything about the candidate you support. And, you’re not enabling said candidates’ bigoted haters by calling them out for legitimate reasons in line with your principles. You make your candidate stronger by challenging them.
It’s one reason of the many reasons I thought Hillary was the best person for the job, even though she’s more hawkish than I am on foreign pol… the left had no qualms about holding her accountable. I knew they’d be marching on her WH even if she was doing everything right that Obama is doing wrong… and that’s not automatically a bad thing to me. I would *want* the left *making Hillary* do more.
Exactly. The difference between Obama supporters and Clinton supporters is that we weren’t wearing blinders. We didn’t approved of everything Hillary did or said and we recognized she wasn’t as liberal as some of us wanted. But she had the experience and the strength of will to stand up to Republicans and Wall Street. We knew she was the better of the two candidates.
And she won the primaries — she had more votes. The only way 0bowma “won” was by cheating — which is his history — he wins by cheating.
Oh yes, this is true Wonk.
I was critical of Bill Clinton when he was president for things I did not agree with…just as I was with Hillary. Holding them accountable.
I believe the blanket accepting nature of the journalistic press towards Obama does have something to do with being labeled a racist and it also goes a bit deeper with the addition of white guilt. That is not the only reason for it mind you…but there is that underlining feeling.
I always thought politicos wanted feedback and that they wanted to listen to their constituency and not attack them for their input. I guess that is the difference in speeches vs real interaction with the voters and hearing their concerns.
Absolutely true, Wonk. I’ve always said Hillary Clinton is far more the hawk than I’ll ever be. However, on domestic issues she would have been superior to what we’re seeing now. She’d actually thought about the problems and had ideas ready to go. On Day 1.
There’s no candidate in the Universe that I or anyone else is going to agree with 100%. Unless, of course, you’ve been imbibing the koolaide. Nor are there any saints out there. Hillary Clinton is a politician; she would never have survived this long had she not been a very good politician. For me, her intelligience, work ethic and dedication as a public servant always outweighed whatever disagreements I had over foreign policy. And she would have been pushed as every POTUS is pushed from all directions. But I was and I am still convinced that Hillary Clinton has conviction and principles, values that she’d never budged on and would have fought like a tiger to protect.
Sadly, that’s not the case with the present Administration. Everything is negotiable because it’s all about winning and nothing more.
Yes, this is a proven fact as many of us have examined the Wikileaks saga with opened eyes and many people have even noted that we could separate the two, and no one went on to attack us for doing so. With Obama is follow completely or you’re a racist… and frankly I am tired of it.
Yes, he finally did the right thing on DADT but it wasn’t without a fight and constant work by activist to do the RIGHT THING, Gays/LGBT are Americans and deserve equal rights, full Civil Rights.
MHP this morning:
MHarrisPerry Melissa Harris-Perry
“The Epistemology of Race Talk.” A response inspired by critics of my recent @TheNation piece
The link doesn’t work for me.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/163629/epistemology-race-talk
Another blah blah blah — poorly written piece — sort of a parody of how an academic with zero research supporting her opinions would write. She could use fewer word to say the same thing.
She’s wrong — she backed the losing team.
Have you seen this?
Very interesting… kid gloves may be off.
Jesse Jackson was on CNN this morning and he went around the complaining remark but you could tell he was not comfortable.
I’m glad she keeps pounding away on that highly destructive unemployment problem. I don’t see how any one can support policies that practically institutionalize the problem.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4997d5fa-e83d-11e0-9fc7-00144feab49a.html#axzz1Z4pp2O9Q
Perp walks finally?
Thanks for compiling this together, Dak! Great work.
Good to see you back adding your wonderful comments and thoughts too!!!
I agree, DAK’s post is well done and it does allow us to air out the cob webs, as I recall the ‘racist meme’ attacks and the personal ones, was what drove me into exile from the Democratic party.
Will the South Rise Again?: Voting Rights Edition
—By Siddhartha Mahanta
H/T to John Smart’s links
…
The End of the Road
Obama Should Quit
by PAUL STREET
more from the authentic leftist
Did you notice that most of John Smart’s Monday links center around Obumbles quitting? Every one of those articles gives me a ….. well you know…
Still going through the links from your roundup. Wonderful job bosslady….
Hillary 2012
for sure 🙂
Well done, Paul Street packed lots of information and history into this article.
I feel completely justified in saying that there is racism in the Tea Party. We joked about the lack of black faces during the tea party debate in Florida…but jokes aside, that is a very serious observation. Of course there was the “token” black man, and you can bet your ass the cameras found him and exploited his presence.
Just as the NRA has racial overtones, and I will lump the GOP in with that as well, how else can you explain the blatant hatred for welfare mothers…who are predominantly black…and the absolute disregard and disgust for social programs that assist the poor. The phrase, killing two birds with one stone come to mind…the can stick it to the poor people, that has a disproportional number of blacks.
(I will not discuss the sexism and misogynistic traits of all parties, as that kind of prejudice is perfectly acceptable.)
The point is yes, there is a racial element to the GOP’s actions and regard of the Obama presidency, but it is not the only force behind the constant bashing he gets from the GOP members of Congress. I think all the politicians have an agenda to pursue, they are focused on getting major funding and perks from contributors…and they are focused on the one thing that matters to them, that being themselves.
They are not going to the extreme no-tax mantra and offsets in the budget for those working class and poor tea partiers…(Yes, there are members of the Tea Party that support the very ideas that will be detrimental to them.) These politicians are going to the extreme for the big money men…the Kochs and the Grovers. That the GOP can ridicule and deny a black man while delivering what the big money men have made deals for, they are killing two birds with one stone…
Their actions are motivated by money and funding and I will say it…blatant SCOTUS approved corruption on the campaign front and secret deals in back rooms.
The speech Obama gave to the CBC was insulting and degrading. He should be called out for it. (It seems that Waters is voicing some disgust over that ridiculous characterization of Black Voters that spewed from Obama’s mouth this weekend.)
I truly believe that Obama not only has personal problems with women, as we all have observed repeatedly here on SDB, he also has problems with the poor blacks he was talking down to via the CBC. He is an elitist conservative plain and simple.
This was a most excellent post Dak, juicy indeed. 😉
Thanks for writing it.
John W Smart hits another out of the park 🙂
When Mrs. 0 called Bill Clinton a racist and said she wanted to claw out his eyes — from there on I had zero respect for her. Mrs. 0 also made some nasty remarks about Hillary — but then so did 0bowma. Then I read her poorly written college thesis — and it was dripping with racism.
So I expect that if 0bowma continues to campaign — Mrs. 0 will be trotted out again to pull out the racist card.
For all of 0bowma’s faults I don’t believe the guy is racist — but he is more than willing to let others play the racist card.
I believe it was somewhere on the Black Agenda Report that this was going to be the nastiest election campaign in the history of the world.
Thing is that this campaign started in Nov. of 2008. 0bowma never did settle in to do the job.
Interesting article on the Wall Street Journal about the Melissa Harris-Perry article, Maxine Waters and the 2012 election.