On reacting to Obama

I think you and Larison are absolutely right about this. A very good friend of mine - a moderate Republican, originally, who's disgusted by the moral preening of the Republican party and is going to vote for Obama - and I have been trading emails on Obama for months now. I was never going to vote for him simply because we're too far apart ideologically, but I, too, held out hopes that an Obama presidency would move us forward on race. I'd begun to doubt that over the last month or so, and when I read Sullivan's post last night alleging - without providing a single quote, mind you - that criticism of Obama on the right was motivated by racism, I about lost it.

I'll readily acknowledge that some of the criticism has been juvenile. Much of what passes for conservative thought these days is a Coulterish parody of thought, and it's no wonder that the movement is in such disarray. But let's face it: The harsh criticisms of an Ingraham - which again Sullivan declines to quote - would have been directed as readily at a similar speech by Bill or Hillary. For Sullivan to assert that such remarks constitute racism (or in his smear, again unsupported, of Victor David Hanson the other day as being motivated by "racial discomfort" - what the hell does that mean) merely because they're directed at Obama is dishonest and, frankly, vile. It threatens to shut off political discourse, and it's worthy not of a purported Oakeshottian conservative, but of identity-politics hucksters on the left or the very juvenility he lambasts on the right.

The fear of putting up with this type of discourse over the next four years has moved me from being an unenthusiastic McCain supporter to one who will probably do some actual volunteering for the first time in my life.

Has everyone truly forgotten that Senator Obama is as white as he is black? We say "Oh his poor grandma how dare he out her." But here is a man who grew up with a woman who could only love half of him. We say, "Shame on him for sticking with Rev. Wright. Why doesn't he reject that bigot?" But here is a man who lead him to Jesus, who cared about the neglected half of him, who did good works in a hurting community. Of course Obama gets it! Two of the most important people in his life could only love (or appear to love) half of him. THe man gets it. His is the voice of America screaming in a wilderness of racism and hate, "Why can't you love all of me!"

Rod: "But having grown accustomed to a public ethic in which white people in positions of responsibility get defenestrated with great dispatch when they transgress narrowly defined lines of acceptable opinion on matters of race, many people will find Obama's reasoned, nuanced approach to the matter of his pastor and himself to be special pleading on behalf of a racial double standard."

At least Rebecca and myself, and I believe other essentially pro-Obama readers (although it certainly grates on me to have to listen to people accuse me, or the majority of other Obama supporters, of hero worship), conceded this point multiple times yesterday.

Yes, there is a double standard. Perhaps there should be, some argue, because of the black American experience. I'm not sure about that. But regardless, the double standard exists. Now that you and those who like you are opposed to Obama's candidacy have said that, at length, what are you proposing be done? Is your mission now to stigmatize black racism in the way and to the extent that white racism (or just the suggestion of racism) is unjustly stigmatized in this country?

I'm happy for Obama to be judged and rejected on the liberal bent of his policy preferences. But again I don't see why his membership at Wright's church is a disqualifying strike against him, as you and others basically seem to be arguing.

Did you happen to notice Huckabee coming to Wright's defense on this as well.? Huck sounded quite reasonable to me.

Bless,
Doug

I don't have a problem with him sticking with Wright after the man became his mentor; that's understandable, if perhaps not politically astute. Picking that church in the first place is harder to explain. But worse than that is pretending last week that he didn't know Wright had said such inflammatory things. (Apparently he's backed away from that claim now.) That made him look bad either way: either he was lying, or he didn't know things about his 20-year pastor and mentor and friend that everyone else knew.

Twenty years ago, Obama decided that for his personal and career growth, he should join a radical black-liberation church. And it worked out well for him; he's been an up-and-comer, bursting into the spotlight with his DNC speech in 2004 and becoming a serious nominee for President at a young age, well before his political accomplishments would suggest. Fine, so stick by that decision, and don't run away from it as soon as it becomes inconvenient.

Of course "anti-dhimmi" only refers to him as "Barack Hussein Obama" because "after all, that's his full name." Just as I am sure he always refers to John Sidney McCain III...

"Just out of curiosity, what would a 'black nationalist voting record' look like?"

Well, presumably a black nationalist wouldn't vote for aid to Israel, as Obama keeps doing. Not that it earns him any points with the Israel lobby, whose motto seems to be "You must not only vote with us, but you must never even have any friends or advisors who disagree with us, even if in fact you don't take their advice."

Really, Obama's voting record is almost indistinguishable from Hillary's. If anythng, his major disagreement (health care) puts him to her right, as Paul Krugman has observed *ad infinitum.* I'm with Hillary and Krugman on this issue, which is one reason I support Hillary. Another is that I saw this coming--as I mentioned, the Wright business is nothing new. Not that it makes me think any less of Obama personally. I agree with Jess Walker: "If you don't have a friend -- a real friend, someone who means something to you and sometimes influences your decisions -- who occasionally expresses a nutty opinion ('The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color') or an impolitic truth ('a country and a culture controlled by rich white people'), then you really, really need to get out more." http://www.reason.com/blog/show/125555.html

I speak as one who for years went to a shul where the rabbi would periodically deliver vehement sermons against not only Arabs but the Israeli Left. No one seemed to think that my attendance there meant an endorsement of everything he said.

Of course "anti-dhimmi" only refers to him as "Barack Hussein Obama" because "after all, that's his full name." Just as I am sure he always refers to John Sidney McCain III...

I've referred to "George Herbert Walker Bush" and "William Jefferson Blythe Clinton" in various places in the past. What does that say about me?

Wright is 67(?).

My final take on all this is that I still dont know the real truth of what is going on. I am suspicious that it is the national media with its ratings needs and its agenda propagation that has driven it. I used to read the Chicago Tribune which I regarded as a pretty decent paper. I am struck by the silence there (if someone has useful links ive missed to the Trib let me know please). When the national media do an interview or some in depth reporting then would be the time to judge. As an angerholic I understand the adrenaline rush of righteous condemnation but I will wait.

I have been and remain unconvinced that guilt by association is something I want to participate in unless its someones political partner. I do believe in judging people (if I must ) by all their words and actions, not just a few of them. If they are otherwise decent folks I do give them a pass on stuff sometimes. I know this is the internet and everyone is perfect here but thats what I see people do in real life.

Steve

First of all, white Europeans kidnapped and treated them like property. And even many white people who were against slavery still did not consider black people to be equal human beings. And even many members of the union army were not fighting to end slavery, but to preserve the Union. After slavery was abolished, black people in the South were kind of left to fend for themselves. In general they were limited in the jobs in which they were allowed, and because it had been illegal to teach them to read in many states, they had a hard time rising above their previous station.

And while segregation may have been legally enforced by a minority of states, more subtle institutional policies and everyday discrimination and harassment was practiced up North. African-Americans, or really anyone with dark skin, was treated with suspicion and denied jobs and promotions, even if their educational or experience level surpassed that of their white counterparts. Just the fact that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 had to be passed to enforce the 15th Amendment throughout the entire country is telling.

Upon the abolishment of slavery and segregation, there have been very few programs established to make restitution. It's like repeatedly beating a person severely, realizing that you shouldn't have done that, and then just leaving him on the ground and thinking "Well, I'm sure he'll be ok now that I've stopped beating him. And so what if every so often someone else comes along to kick him while he's trying to crawl to the hospital, at least he's not being beaten anymore." Maybe something like Affirmative Action was designed to help pull that person up off the ground and make sure that their wounds are tended.

What does it matter that segregation ended before the median-aged voter was born? It ended before I was born (I am 30), but not before my parents and grandparents were born. And there are still plenty of African-American voters (or are the only Baby Boomers white?) who remember when they weren't allowed to legally vote due to unconstitutional state restrictions. And what about all of the African-American people who lived through the overt and covert discrimination of that period? You don't think that has limited in any way the opportunities they were able to give their children? We're only a generation removed from this, yet as a nation we want to pretend like it's something out of ancient history.

There is a disproportionate number of African-Americans in the prison system to the number of African-Americans in the national population. You can only conclude one of two things: a) white people and other ethnic groups are so much better that they don't commit as many crimes; or b) there are historical inequalities and institutional problems that make it more likely that African-Americans will commit crimes, will be convicted (even if innocent), and will be given harsher sentences.

Slavery and segregation may be over, but the consequences of it still ripple through the African-American community at large. We all should be proud of any of our ancestors who fought both slavery and subsequent discrimination, but for most of us, our ancestors set back and let other people do the fighting. And many people haven't cared about what happened to African-Americans one way or the other as long as it didn't effect their life personally.

When Obama does not win the Presidency the headlines from the New York Times will be:

"Nation NOT READY for a black President."

The text will go on about the endemic racism rampant in the US that prevented him from becoming our leader.

Wait and see if I am wrong.

"We all should be proud of any of our ancestors who fought both slavery and subsequent discrimination ..."

Does this mean I get a get-out-of-jail-free card? Thanks great, great grandpa! He did some serious kick-ass fighting under General Sherman in an early special forces unit (the Pioneer Brigage). Wait, I'm also related to a slave holder. Damn! But ... I'm related to him through his mixed-race daughter, so what's that supposed to mean? Oh, and then there's that ogher great, great grandpa who fought in the Army of Northern Virginia. I'm so confused, Barbara. Please help me out. I can't figure out whether I'm supposed to feel guilty or not.

Crack is just a solid form of cocaine, yet the penalties for possession of crack are usually much harsher than for powder cocaine.

The delivery method of crack as well as what people do to get it are much harsher than the effects of cocaine as well...

So we need to elect someone just for the sake of being either black or female, why not double-dip and wait for a black female so we can automatically resolve all the issues in one fell swoop.

Barbara,

I spend time with the Catholic Workers in the Woodlawn section of South Chicago. I have seen first hand some really awful stuff. I shouldn't be belittling your very real concerns. I have a real hangup
over guilty little white girl handwringing. But that's definitely my distorted view of things. I have a German sister-in-law who goes on and on about her family's Nazi past. But her shame seems to be an expression of vanity to me. If it hadn't been for grandfather's party membership I would be as beautiful inside as I am on the outside.

I really see no other way to a color-blind society than producing almost forensically accurate histories of our past but also color-blind rules. That does not seem to be fair to those whose footing is not level today, culturally and socioeconomically speaking, because of past injustices, but how else can we move forward? Should the son of a carpenter get passed over for promotion by the daughter of an investment banker who went to the finest prep schools in the nation because of some gender preference? The wrinkles in a preference-based system will never get ironed out, and resentments will grow all around, especially if we experience bad economic times.

I guess this is really not directed at you, Barbara, I'm just thinking out loud.