Fear of a Black President

For me, the only issue of race that seriously enters into this whole scenario is a personal desire to see our first President who happens to be a black man succeed in the job. This is not unlike my hopes long ago that Jack Kennedy would put the fears about his Catholicism to rest, which he did. A successful Obama Presidency would also remove at least some of the residual and unsupportable bigotry and/or prejudices remaining in this county.

Unfortunately, given Obama's shifting alliances and stances on many different fronts coupled with his frequently observed inability to articulate an extemporaneous rationale for his beliefs, it more and more appears that he may be something of an empty suit at best; a calculated phony at worst. Also the people he has surrounded himself with in the past does not inspire confidence that he will choose wisely in who he surrounds himself with as President. I hope I am wrong about that, but if I am not, his Presidency could be less than successful.

I honestly wanted Obama to be "the One" because he is so darn likable and he has the ability to make my heart go pitter pat. Alas, I don't think he is even after discounting ideological differences.

0 Replies

Fox, We'll continue to have "residual" bigotry no matter whether Obama wins or not.

Some of what you say about his shifting alliances and moderate beliefs in the way he makes his statements does not exude confidence.

However, it's obvious that the supporters of McCain and Obama continues to overlook many of the "faults" we have discussed and exposed that will change few minds as to who they will vote for in November; many will stick with their party no matter what.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

As an Independent; I find myself in the unique position of respecting both General candidates a great deal, which affords me the luxury of recognizing their strengths as well as criticizing excesses from either side when I encounter them.

Perhaps so, however, that doesn't necessarily immunize you from any of the many delusions or errors that beset everyone.

It seems to me that you are far too willing to ascribe racism or other neurotic fears as the necessary explanation for anyone or any group that is presumed to oppose Obama. It seems to me that this is a fairly cheap shot that ignores other evident issues that do indeed have a rational basis; just as is the straw punching bag of the archtype American racist that you so often draw on to illustrate "the opposition" to your favored candidate. These things are, of course, real and true in some cases, but it is far from clear that they represent most of what is going on now. Simply assuming it is true or asserting it repeatedly doesn't make it so.

If you're right, you are right... meaning I am completely unaware that the wool's been pulled over my eyes, if it has been. An unlikely scenario, that.

You should know that my default opinion on assessing conservative's rejection of Obama is political... for this is the most likely cause and it would be foolhardy to guess at something more sinister (whether it exists in the individual or not). However; a more liberal mindset is obviously not predisposed to rejecting Obama's politics; so what say you is the most likely cause?

Maybe you can honestly assess in an unbiased way, and maybe you can't... since it isn't as if you are actually unbiased. For me; I see a clear logical disconnect when assessing a liberal-minded person who largely, inexplicably, grasps at most every reason to reject Obama especially, if it comes from anyone formerly, strongly, in the Clinton camp.

To the unbiased observer; you have possible explanations of; the bitterness of sour grapes (but how long can an intelligent person really excuse cutting off their nose...?), fears of the Rezko type of corruption (but how does this really measure against "Whitewater", Rich Pardon, etc?), membership at a church who's goings on rival : "A night at the Apollo" (but shouldn't this matter mostly only to the religious and/or how does it measure up against the systematic cover-up of decades of child molestation?), and then there's the simple matter of human prejudice.

Now if you want to believe that I find that last one most compelling because Obama edges out McCain for my vote, thereby immediately blinding me to Obama's flaws; I think that's a bit silly especially considering you know my politics pretty well. I think every non-racist conservative would prefer to believe non-conservatives are rejecting Obama based on the same principles they themselves are. Next in line for preference, would be the very reasons they themselves bring up in attempts to earn the Independent vote. This to me is perfectly understandable; and I'll expect you and Finn and likeminded conservatives to continue throwing life-lines to folks like the Bear because of it. It is, to me, amusing to watch him contort in acceptance of them, since he clearly, mostly despises the party you folks belong to. But this too, is completely understandable under the circumstances.

I have a pet project at work. A nice little old lady who's too ignorant to realize there's something wrong with saying she's not going to vote for the 'chocolate jesus'. I spend no less than 5 minutes, pretty much every day yacking politics with her and learning the how's and why's of her prejudice... in order to better understand how to overcome it; which is my personal challenge by November. (I'm fairly well informed, and a hell of a salesman, so I give myself a strong 1 in 5 chance of success. :wink:)

I believe she is representative of a large proportion of American's, though most lack the integrity (or willingness to be berated for it) to admit it at least outside of their comfort zone of likeminded people.

As you know well; any time you're trying to get to the bottom of an objection in a business negotiation, for instance; the stated objection may or may not be the actual objection. One probes their adversary repeatedly, in a myriad of different ways, in an attempt to unearth the true objection... for only after it's been identified can it be dealt with.

In this case, the taboo nature of many left-leaning anti-Obamites true objection, leaves them compelled to latch onto other excuses for their largely inexplicable disdain for a candidate who's politics are very nearly identical to the person they formerly supported with vigor. It doesn't require a degree in psychology to see through most of these contortions. While I cannot know who or how many have truly found a peripheral issue they simply can't abide; I remain quite comfortable in my assessment on the whole.

If that really strikes you as being too eager to identify what I see as logical disconnects as racism; we simply disagree.

0 Replies

Well there's little point in either of us arguing whether (say) 10% of those who vote against Obama were decisively motivated by racial factors or whether it was (say) 20%, or even 50% or more as you seem to imply; because neither of us has any objective basis for such assertions, high or low, and ultimately the objective truth is unknowable, precisely because it involves intent. That of course doesn't mean that self-appointed "analysts" won't grind through the statistics and claim to have discovered the real inner motives of the voting public - as long as there is a popular market for such stuff. However, none of us has a basis on which to claim real knowledge of such things.

I don't know your nice little old lady in Wisconsin, and, like you, I don't really know the degree to which her attitudes (as she expresses them to you) may represent those of others. For all either of us know she is now at another site writing her friends about how she is scamming this fast-talking slick salesman from Chicago into thinking she is a racist. Smile

I think we agree that, by all available indicators, Obama appears to have a decisive edge in the coming election -- he is, by a comfortable margin, the likely winner. That alone strongly implies that racial questions are not dominating the choices of most voters.

It appears to me that you are, in effect, suggesting that the the objective factors are so strongly in Obama's favor that the only plausible remaining reason for voting against him is his race. I find this to be an extraordinary proposition that flies in the face of some readily observable facts concerning the choices of American voters.

In terms of his stated positions on most of the key issues before us, Obama is a fairly typical representative of the establishment of the Democrat party - very much in keeping with the positions of Kerry, Edwards, even Dukakis and others who proceeded him. The only palpable differentiation to be found between him and Hillary in the primaries involved the several Clintonesque centrist gestures she carefully took during her years in the Senate and from which she was unable to escape during the primaries. This centrist strategy was an important element of the Clinton win in 1992 and of his enduring success later. Perhaps the most interesting political change to come out of the Democrat primaries is the party's rejection of that previously successful strategy.

It seems to me that the most obvious reason for any voter to choose a candidate other than Obama is precisely this -- namely that the voter in question aligns him or her self with political positions (and policies) to the right of those likely to be found in the new Democrat platform. This has long been the central political divide in the country, and it is hardly remarkable that it should remain so. In fact, the notion that this long-term divide might suddenly stop dominating voter choices calls for a degree of proof that is notably absent from your argument.

Obama is indeed a charasmatic character, and the hard-to-nail-down features of his often soaring rhetoric undoubtedly influence some people, as does the color of his skin. However, I can see no reason to suppose that the net effect of these things won't be very small -- namely that the number of folks persuaded by such factors will be about equal to the number repelled by them. There are likely many voters out there who, mindful of the remarkable enthusiasm of many committed Obama supporters, but still suspicious of his left-wing politics, reject him in terms that might appear racist to those who may be looking for such rationalizations, but whose motives primarily arise out of traditional bread and butter politics. Your nice lady might be one of them, and she might not be as stupid as you think.

0 Replies

"Obama, Jimmy Carter with a tan"

0 Replies

But Obama has many more good qualities other than the tan.

0 Replies

Dys does seem always to find a short path to the heart of the matter.

I hate it when he does that! :wink:

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Dys does seem always to find a short path to the heart of the matter.

I hate it when he does that! :wink:

I'm wrong more often than not but it doesn't even slow me down.

0 Replies

For crying out sideways George. Read the first sentence of my second paragraph again. We are in complete agreement that most who oppose Obama do so because they disagree with his politics. My entire point was about those who oppose Obama, despite agreeing with the vast majority of his politics. This is a MUCH smaller group, but one I fear may not be insignificant.

As for the little old lady; I told you we talk at least 5 minutes pretty much every day. She's open minded enough to hear and even come around on the political points I push, and will even respond with things like, "now that makes sense to me" or "now that I like", but it's always followed by something like "but I'm still not voting for a blackie" or "the chocolate jesus". Unlike many former Clinton supporters; she leaves no doubt what her true objection is. Sad

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Advocate wrote:

It is funny to read the stuff from the right in this thread about how it is so nonbiased. I remember that it was the right that led the opposition to such things as the civil-rights, voter-rights, and other such legislation, as well as a Martin Luther King Day.

Do you believe that "the left" is unbiased? or, for that matter, that you are unbiased?

The fact is, it was the Democrat party that for decades stood in the way of any legislation intended to break down the systematic exclusion of Blacks from political processes in the South. When the moment for change finally came, it was a coalition of Republicans and northern state Democrats in the Congress that enacted the changes. However, that is merely a matter of demonstrable fact that may get in the way of your prefabricated conclusions on the matter.

As for "civil rights", I suppose much depends on which particular rights you are talking about. "The Left" tends to favor relatively sweeping, coercive mandates governing the behavior of individuals and institutions - mandated racial quotas in schools & universities; even employment and housing patterns are examples - while "the right" tends to resist such restrictions on individual choice, preferring voluntary action as a better long range solution.

However these distinctions all require some thought, reflection, and a willingness to consider other points of view. Some find that very difficult.

George, I guess you are trying to be cute. You know very well that the former southern Dems were such in name only. They were very conservative and ultimately became Reps because of civil-rights legislation.

0 Replies

Advocate, I believe you have it pretty close to the vest; blacks didn't even have the right to vote in the south before the Civil Rights Act.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

"Obama, Jimmy Carter with a tan"

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL,

OK with respect to your 2nd paragraph. In part I was responding to this and other like comments on previous pages. Perhaps I am taking some of it out of context, but there did - and does still - seem (to me at least) to be a fairly consistent thread to it all.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Racist and invalid, eh? I'll raise you idiotic to the extreme. I can understand why some of our European friends might think that might be an actual factor: They actually pay attention to world news and know there are such things as black leaders in Africa. American racism requires no such excuse... and the average idiot who may peddle such nonsense could likely name not one African leader as an example (without Googling one up). Do get used to hearing lots of bizarre reasons for not supporting Obama from lefties, though. It seems even anonymous posters like to keep their racism quiet, here. Just look for the obvious logic disconnects... like supporting a white candidate with a nearly identical set of campaign promises.

Overall I believe the racist factor is much overestimated in most quarters. That many Blacks might be suspicious is perhaps understandable, but generally I believe most commentators - particularly those in Europe - over play its effects. We both know from our everyday experience how much things have changed over the past few decades. Very often it is the symbols of old patterns of intolerance that are the last to fall - and do so only long after the foundations of it are eroded away by new ideas and understanding.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Thou protests too much Bill.

I've not accused you of naming Obama your messiah or drinking an ounce of Kool-Aid. I have argued that you place too much importance in eloquence, but that's something entirely different.

If you are able to rationalize away your candidate's backtracking which is so obvious he has been scolded for it by the NY Times, then good for you. You'll be able to hold on to the Obama buzz when you flip the lever for him on November 2nd.

The fact that he hasn't been in Washington for the past two decades is a weak foundation for an assertion that he is a Washington Outsider. Clearly he's a quick learner.
Quick learner, yes, and I would have little faith in an outsider who wasn't. The point is; he hasn't had decades to develop his clique... he didn't rise to the top through decades of carefully executed compromise (favor borrowing that will need to be paid)... which inevitably has to erode a politician's free will. This, in my opinion, is the recipe for a commander in chief that leads his party, rather than follows... maybe even in a Teddy Roosevelt kind of way. The buck stops here, etc. I can understand how a confident, competent lefty in chief would be unappealing to you.

But not to lefties.

Of the "insiders", John McCain has earned as much of my respect as any man out there, precisely because he hasn't consistently caved to the party line. The liberals will point to his primary pandering... which will continue through the general, though perhaps to a lesser extent; and scream, "flip-flopper!" But this too, is par for the course, and any man unwilling to compromise will never be in a position to lead.

I didn't mean to suggest that you ever accused me of messianic beliefs, Kool-Aid, etc... but you've ladled that over the Obama group in general for quite some time. Indeed; it is your own past labeling/rhetoric that you now rely on to be incredulous at the stark hypocrisy you now see. This is an effective strategy, so I expect it to continue, just as calling Obama's opponent McSame is utter nonsense to those in the know, but effective just the same.

I'll remind you that the lefties' seeming utter devotion to Obama is nothing new. The only real difference is that their doubtless faith is now in support of Obama, rather than in opposition to George Bush, as it was 4 years ago (this in itself, is a positive change). Even peeps like Rox are no more fanatical than fools like Dookie were then, remember?

As an Independent; I find myself in the unique position of respecting both General candidates a great deal, which affords me the luxury of recognizing their strengths as well as criticizing excesses from either side when I encounter them. Whatever you do; don't take these criticisms personally because they most certainly are not personal.

Regards

I take your comments personally no more than I intend my own.

I don't think we agree on what Obama is quickly learning.

He may not have much experience in governance and foreign policy, but he has plenty of experience in politics. After all, he has risen through the ranks of Chicago politics, and his one time beloved pastor made a very sharp point, recently, of defining him as a politician.

Comparing him to TR is, in my opinion, quite a stretch, and probably wishful thinking.

Your support of the man puzzles me. He only very recently has even approached the centrist positions which you seem to hold. There really is no evidence at all that he is in anyway free of the partisan restraints of his party, and the notion that he is something new to the political scene is crumbling daily.

Nevertheless, I hardly expect to convince you not to vote for Sen Obama.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

George, I guess you are trying to be cute. You know very well that the former southern Dems were such in name only. They were very conservative and ultimately became Reps because of civil-rights legislation.

No. You are wrong - as usual. The fact is the Southern Democrats were, during all those decades, very well aligned with the Democrat party platform on most all issues, economic, trade, industrial and labor policies, taxes and foreign policy. Moreover several of the Southern Democrat leaders, LBJ most prominently, themselves became leaders in the Civil Rights movement. It was only later with the more coercive elements of Federal affirmative action programs in schools, employment and other areas that the realignment occurred. That however is a matter of fact, probably incompatible with your preconceived formulations.

0 Replies

From Wiki:

Southern Democrats are members of the U.S. Democratic Party who reside in the U.S. South. In the early 1800s, they were the definitive pro-slavery wing of the party, opposed to both the anti-slavery, Republicans (GOP) and the more liberal Northern Democrats. After the loss of their territory in the American Civil War and the Republican-led Reconstruction which followed, Southern Democrats regrouped into various vigilante organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan and the White League; eventually "Redemption" was finalized in the Compromise of 1877 and the ensuing institutionalization of Redeemers throughout the South. As the New Deal began to liberalize Democrats as a whole, Southern Democrats largely stayed as conservative as they had always been, with some even breaking off to form farther right-wing splinters like the Dixiecrats. After the civil rights movement successfully challenged Jim Crow and other forms of institutionalized racism, and Democrats as a whole became the symbol of the mainstream left of the United States, the form, if not the content, of Southern Democratic politics began to change. Most Southern Democrats defected to the Republican Party at that point and helped accelerate the latter's transformation into more progressive party Republican organization.

After World War II, the civil rights movement took hold by Republicans. Democratics in the South, however, still voted loyally for their party. The old conservative stalwarts were trying to resist the changes that were sweeping the nation. With the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it was the final straw for many Southern Democrats, who began voting against Democratic incumbents for GOP candidates. The Republicans carried many Southern states for the first time since before the Great Depression.

When Richard Nixon courted voters with his Southern Strategy, many Democrats became Republicans and the South became fertile ground for the GOP, which conversely was becoming more conservative as the Democrats were becoming more liberal. However, Democratic incumbents still held sway over voters in many states, especially those of the Deep South. In fact, until the 1980s, Democrats still had much control over Southern politics. It wasn't until the 1990s that Democratic control collapsed, starting with the elections of 1994, in which Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress, through the rest of the decade. Southern Democrats of today who vote the Democratic ticket are mostly urban liberals. Rural residents tend to vote the Republican ticket, although there are a sizable number of conservative Democrats. However, most Southerners are still registered Democrats but tend to vote Republican in national and some state elections.

0 Replies

I don't think it's Obama's skin color that scares people, it's more likely his cozy friendship with folks like terrorist and Pentagon bomber Bill Ayers.

And it should scare anybody, black or white.

If John McCain had been friends with Timothy McVeigh, do you think he'd be a viable candidate?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

I don't think it's Obama's skin color that scares people, it's more likely his cozy friendship with folks like terrorist and Pentagon bomber Bill Ayers.

And it should scare anybody, black or white.

If John McCain had been friends with Timothy McVeigh, do you think he'd be a viable candidate?

How racist of you!

Don't you understand that the Obama/Ayers connection is off limits?

0 Replies

Senator Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence. But he was an eight-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost forty years ago is ridiculous.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

OCCOM BILL,

OK with respect to your 2nd paragraph. In part I was responding to this and other like comments on previous pages. Perhaps I am taking some of it out of context, but there did - and does still - seem (to me at least) to be a fairly consistent thread to it all.
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Racist and invalid, eh? I'll raise you idiotic to the extreme. I can understand why some of our European friends might think that might be an actual factor: They actually pay attention to world news and know there are such things as black leaders in Africa. American racism requires no such excuse... and the average idiot who may peddle such nonsense could likely name not one African leader as an example (without Googling one up). Do get used to hearing lots of bizarre reasons for not supporting Obama from lefties, though. It seems even anonymous posters like to keep their racism quiet, here. Just look for the obvious logic disconnects... like supporting a white candidate with a nearly identical set of campaign promises.

Overall I believe the racist factor is much overestimated in most quarters. That many Blacks might be suspicious is perhaps understandable, but generally I believe most commentators - particularly those in Europe - over play its effects. We both know from our everyday experience how much things have changed over the past few decades. Very often it is the symbols of old patterns of intolerance that are the last to fall - and do so only long after the foundations of it are eroded away by new ideas and understanding.

Come on, George. That paragraph specifies Lefties as well. No Sale.

0 Replies

Fear of a Black President

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know