Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Expecting Too Much
The Obama-friendly conservative Dan Riehl writes:
electing the first black president would ultimately do more to pry away black and other minority voters from a decadent American liberalism, than would anything else....One could no longer make the argument that America is racist, or unfair. Not when a black man has risen to the highest office in the land.
I've heard this argument from many people -- sometimes even from libertarians, who you wouldn't expect to be so government-centric. While I'm not sure what it means to say that America (all of it? some of it?) "is" racist, the presence of a black man in the Oval Office would hardly mean that no American blacks face institutional barriers, any more than the presence of black officers on a police force means that blacks don't face racially driven police harrassment. Yes, a President Obama would be a symbol of progress in race relations. But it is an open question whether he would reverse the policies that helped produce the racial isolation of working-class blacks, the disproportionate number of blacks in prison, or the sorry state of the urban schools that so many blacks attend. It is even conceivable -- not necessarily likely, but conceivable -- that Obama, like many black mayors, would actually make life worse for African Americans.
For the record, I think Obama is the most palatable (or the least unpalatable) of the four frontrunners, mostly because of his stance on Iraq. I do not believe his election would usher in a new age where racism and unfairness have been banished, and where whites can confidently pat themselves on the back without worrying that some black man will interrupt with a complaint.
|2.6.08 @ 1:15PM|#
I suspect that Obama *WILL* make life worse for many black
people... However, he won't be making life worse for them by
design, but by the failure of his ideology to actually deliver the
goods. And it is unlikely he will be any worse for black people
than Hillary Clinton, or other white Democrats.
When Obama harms black people, it will be incompentence and not
racism... so it will still represent a major step forward.
NP|2.6.08 @ 1:15PM|#
Jesse, you seriously need better headlines. How about, in this case, 'Bleak House of Great Expectations'?
|2.6.08 @ 1:17PM|#
If it can't be Paul, here's how I rank the remaining contenders
with least odious first:
Obama
Huckabee (mostly 2nd amendment reasons)
Clinton
Romney
McCain (whom I preferred to Bush 8 years ago, but that just shows
where Bush stacks up)
As for racism and unfairness, Paul would have been the best chance
for removing the black as victim groupthink that continues to
pervade.
|2.6.08 @ 1:23PM|#
In response to the many closed caucuses/primaries Ron Paul was
up against and his reliance on the independent vote:
I registered as a Dem. a year-and-a-half ago, as a sort of protest
to the current administration, but missed CO's Dec. 5 party
affiliation change deadline. So I was stuck caucusing for Obama,
who won a landslide here. I'm curious as to how many Obama
supporters would have gone for Paul in an open caucus, and how many
independents would've showed up. Especially since my precinct had
91 attendees.
And I'm curious as to how good/bad things will be for libertarians
if Obama wins the general election.
javier|2.6.08 @ 1:23PM|#
Bill,
do live in america?? whites have deemed people to be black if they
are 1/8th black. this has been going on since 1700's. mixed race
people are considered by themselves and society to be black.
jaiver|2.6.08 @ 1:27PM|#
And I'm curious as to how good/bad things will be for
libertarians if Obama wins the general election.
first fours years of the next presidency will be akin to a new 'New
Deal'. plus I know hillary won't roll back any of executive
branch's new found powers and I doubt obama would either.
shecky|2.6.08 @ 1:27PM|#
Would the election of Obama make a clean slate for conservatives
and others regarding race?
It seems clear that large portions of whites are willing to vote
for a black man for President. But I think it would be premature
for conservatives to think such an event would lift the reputation
of racism from their shoulders (which seems at least part of
Riehl's point), as it's still not clear how many
conservatives would vote for a black man, even one they
might find otherwise appealing. Though my gut tells me that race is
surprisingly and increasingly irrelevant to such things.
It would be nice for conservatives to genuinely feel good about
African Americans without having to resort to the "some of my best
friends are..." kind of platitude.
stuartl|2.6.08 @ 1:27PM|#
Is anybody else bothered by the argument that we should vote for
Obama because of the color of his skin?
I'm not saying I wouldn't vote for him over Hillary, but it is not
because his skin is a darker shade.
|2.6.08 @ 1:34PM|#
I do not believe his election would usher in a new age where
racism and unfairness have been banished, and where whites can
confidently pat themselves on the back without worrying that some
black man will interrupt with a complaint.
To take this point further, I think there is a brand of
conservative "tolerance" of minority and alternative viewpoints
that is ultimately fine with placating a disenfranchised group. I
observe the same thing with conservatives' attitude towards
so-called feminists. The attitude seems to be "as long as we can
shut them up, we have proven ourselves to be tolerant of other
non-white, non-males...can you go away now?". Well, no. The purpose
of a class or group struggle isn't to be content with minor
concessions made by those traditionally in power. We want the big
gulp! A sea change.
|2.6.08 @ 1:34PM|#
stuartl, I'm just as bothered by that as I am bothered by those who vote for Clinton just because her reproductive organs are on the inside of her body.
Russ 2000|2.6.08 @ 1:36PM|#
One should expect similar results from a war on racism as one would expect from a war on classism or a war on drugs.
fyodor|2.6.08 @ 1:38PM|#
stuartl,
If Obama's election would really improve race relation problems by
convincing blacks who currently think so that whites in American
are not predominantly bigotted toward them, then I would think that
could be one valid reason to vote for him, even if it's based on
something that's part of him inherently and not something he's done
or earned per se. It would be silly to think it could be a
sufficient reason to vote for him, but it would make sense
to consider it as one factor among many. But of course, I started
this post with "If".
Douglas Gray|2.6.08 @ 1:44PM|#
I'd love to see Obama win, and I think the author has a good point, but not about race relations. IF Obama gets elected, the fiscal mess that Bush has put us into will have to be paid for. The economy will tank, and Obama will not be able to fix it. There will be change all right, but everything will be worse. It won't be Obama's fault, but he'll be blamed anyway. We will simply substitute the "private benefit" Statism of the Bush Administration with the "public benefit" Statism of the Democrats. The saddest thing is that the illusion that any one of these candidites can somehow fix things and make it all go away continues to persist.
Lew|2.6.08 @ 1:46PM|#
The thing about Obama is you can hate him because he's black or hate him because he's white.
Jon|2.6.08 @ 1:48PM|#
Illogic aside, the upshot of the argument is a pretty ugly one. It seems to me that Riehl welcomes an Obama presidency not because it would usher in a "post-racial" America, but instead that it would offer conservatives a facile parody of political quarrels with a racial component ("If the drug war is so racist, how come President Obama got away with coke use?") The core of the argument seems to be: electing a black guy - any one'll do - won't have an automatic effect on racist attitudes or political phenomena, but it will make circumventing the racial element within each of these issues all the easier. American politics often warrants a laugh track, but Riehl's chuckle in this case is premature.
|2.6.08 @ 1:49PM|#
I think more people who don't follow closely are more wary of his name than his skin color. Barack Obama, with opponents never forgetting to toss in the Hussein part, is just a name many Americans are uncomfortable with, mostly conservatives who would probably vote for David Palmer if Jack Bauer told them to. Obama sounds too foreign to them. If he weren't as charismatic as he is, even some Democrats probably would shun him nationally.
|2.6.08 @ 1:49PM|#
SOME "mixed race people are considered by themselves and society
to be black."
there. i fixed that for you. as an example, tiger who is largely
considered by black society to be black, in fact made it clear
quite a long time ago that he's Cablinasion (caucasion/black/asian)
in his mind.
i do agree that most "observably" black people of mixed race are
considered black, at least within society at large to a large
extent and the MSM.
however, there are a heck of alot of asians for instance, who
consider tiger one of them, as much as he is black.
|2.6.08 @ 1:53PM|#
I got whiplash watching Jesse go from calling Riehl
"government-centric" to writing about "the policies that helped
produce the racial isolation of working-class blacks, the
disproportionate number of blacks in prison, or the sorry state of
the urban schools that so many blacks attend."
Talk about your government-centrism! Because Lord knows, there
would be no racial isolationism or other racial inequalities
without the government.
Racism is not a government problem; it is a cultural problem with
governmental manifestations. Free your mind, and the rest will
follow.
And while Reihl's tokenism - there, see, happy now? - demonstrates
a severe misunderstanding of the situation, there is a kernel of
truth in there; seeing a black person elected president will
confound a lot people's assumptions, and change people's
understandings of how this country works.
LarryA|2.6.08 @ 1:53PM|#
Sorry. I know too many folks who believe "whites are racist" the same way they believe "drugs are bad." Evidence is irrelevant.
dhex|2.6.08 @ 2:01PM|#
lew rockwell can sleep easy cause an obama presidency would only
be merely "pretty quick."
har har.
i don't know how much symbolic value it would have, but it would be
interesting to see. sadly i fear a clinton/mccain face-off ending
with a mccain victory.
|2.6.08 @ 2:01PM|#
"For the record, I think Obama is the most palatable (or the
least unpalatable) of the four frontrunners"
Four frontrunners??
Obama and Clinton are roughly tied for front-runner among the
Democrats and McCain among the Republicans makes three. Who is the
fourth? You surely don't think that Mittens still has a chance or
that Huckabee can win outside his Southern/evangelical base?
|2.6.08 @ 2:04PM|#
Racism exists in today's society to the detriment of black
people.
I strongly suspect that there is more perceived racism than actual
racism, also to the detriment of black people.
An Obama presidency won't affect the former, but might
positively affect the latter.
That's not a good reason to vote for him though. If he gets the Dem
nomination, I have other reasons to vote for him.
|2.6.08 @ 2:11PM|#
Given the way we choose Presidents in this country, I don't
think that the winner of any particular election says very much
about Americans as a people.
That said, I am hopeful that an Obama presidency would improve
political discourse in this country.
|2.6.08 @ 2:13PM|#
While I doubt that it would have an immediate effect, I tend to agree that Obama as President would undermine the "America is racist" crowd and do more, in the long run, to knock the pins out from under affirmative action and other noxious race-based policies than just about anything else I can think of.
JoeMorgan|2.6.08 @ 2:17PM|#
From article:
"...not sure what it means to say that America ... "is"
racist..."
Remember, when the politically correct use the term racist, they
simply mean white Gentiles who discriminate.
It is a racial slur given selectively to white Gentiles. Racist =
honky.
So, the translation of the quote would be: "...not sure what it
means to say that America ... "is" honky-ist"
|2.6.08 @ 2:17PM|#
Affirmative action is not about symbolism, RC. That's a common and beloved misconception among its opponents.
|2.6.08 @ 2:18PM|#
...so remember, kids, America is not racist, and people who
complain about racism are just being mean to white people.
Thanks, Morgan
|2.6.08 @ 2:22PM|#
...so remember, kids, America is not racist, and people who
complain about racism are just being mean to white
people.
joe -
See my previous. Your thoughts?
Shaka|2.6.08 @ 2:27PM|#
Riffing off of J sub D's comment. Another likely and unfortunate
consequence of an Obama presidency is that I suspect many people
(of all shades) will start to say to black youth, "why can't you
just be like Obama?"
As if the highest goal for a brown-skinned teenager is to become a
placating, gov't shill with affirmative action credentials (see
Harvard Law Review) that wants more coercive power than is healthy
for one person.
Just yesterday an Obama supporter handing out materials at a Metro
station said, upon my ignoring her, "Come on brother, I see it in
you." Not sure what she saw IN me but she and many Obama
supporters, including some of my libertarian friends are just still
projecting and seeing what they want.
One more note, the young lady, like Obama, was African American,
not black American. There is a difference, albeit complicated.
|2.6.08 @ 2:30PM|#
I see Obama as a far greater role model than Clinton. Don't
think there's going to be much argument on that one. Given they are
both socialists, I see no reason to prefer the one that has less to
offer young people in need of a positive role model. Particaularly
when one group of youngins needs a good role model far more than
the other.
That said, I don't care for his racist views on gun control.
|2.6.08 @ 2:32PM|#
Tangential question:
Jesse,
Is your link a tacit (however weak) endorsement of Reed's book, or
was it just a convenient remembered link for your
observation?
Anon
|2.6.08 @ 2:36PM|#
J sub D,
I don't care to sit on my white ass as guess at the ratio of real
to perceived racism that black people in America experience.
Suffice it to say, the elimination of the former is a necessary
condition for the elimination of the latter.
I think we are in agreement, though, that an Obama victory can have
some effect of confounding some people's expectations about
American Keeping the Black Man Down. I'd say that his success has
already done this to a great extent - Hillary Clinton used to lead
in the Black Belt specifically because black voters didn't think
White America would elect a black man. Now, some considerable
number of them have changed their minds. That can only be a good
thing.
As far as eliminating actual racism, that's a bit more complicated.
It's unlikely that David Duke is going to watch Obama's
inauguration and slap his forehead like the V-8 commercials. On the
other hand, there is the pedagogical value. I remember reading once
about Iceland, where the Prime Minister had been a woman for over a
decade, kids would ask "Can a man be Prime Minister?" People are
socialized into their ideas about race in childhood, and it can
only be a good thing for them to see a black president.
But these two categories are not exhaustive. Sometimes I think that
racial problems stem more from white and black people talking past
each other, or having trouble talking to each other about race and
racism, than from actual prejudice or ideological racism. Seeing
Barack Obama elected can give black and white Americans a common
frame of reference, or a jumping-off point, or at least a safe
space to talk about these things, and become more comfortable and
less afraid of doing so. At least I hope so.
At a minimum, I think his ascent to the presidency could be
something that we could all celebrate together.
ed|2.6.08 @ 2:38PM|#
Obama as President would...knock the pins out from under
affirmative action and other noxious race-based policies
Or...demonstrate the alleged efficacy of such programs, thus
helping to perpetuate them.
Be careful what you wish for.
Troublemaker|2.6.08 @ 2:41PM|#
Shouldn't joe recuse himself from this conversation? I swear
that I heard somewhere that he's an avowed racist.
*runs back to seat, sits there looking innocent*
|2.6.08 @ 2:42PM|#
You're full of crap, "Shaka." Barack Obama was an affirmative
action case because he succeeded at Harvard, and you know this,
how? Because he's black?
That's a great email, btw. It really lets us know that you're not
some phoney seizing a fake screen name.
|2.6.08 @ 2:46PM|#
Joe,
I don't list my email because I don't need clowns like you sending
me misguided messages. If you'd like though drop by IJ anytime and
we can have a chat about it.
In the meantime my friends that graduated from Harvard Law have
confirmed the idea that the school is one of the worst in terms of
white guilt and there was not a snowball's chance Obama was not
going to become the editor. He did not "grade on" like most have
to. Get a clue.
|2.6.08 @ 2:49PM|#
Shaka, the man had enough juice all by himself to get elected to
the United States Senate and become the frontrunner for the
Democratic nomination for President of the United States, but he
just hadda be picked to become editor of Harvard Law because of
"white guilt," and not on his merits?
Sure, nobody but you ever gained success on their own.
Jeff Davis|2.6.08 @ 2:50PM|#
|2.6.08 @ 2:50PM|#
Joe, in all honesty he got elected to the United States in part
to a good deal of luck. His primary opponents self-destructed, as
did the Republican front-runner.
Thus, he got to run against Alan Keyes. My dog could win
against Alan Keyes.
|2.6.08 @ 2:55PM|#
The way things are shaping up so that we have no REAL choices in
a good candidate at all has me wishing the Repubs were running a
Black as their candidate as well.
Last years Superbowl was so blown out perspective with having not
just one but two black NFL head coaches. The beauty of this was
that in the course of 4 hours history was made on two fronts. You
had one coach being the 1st black to lead a team to a Superbowl win
and at the same exact time you had the 1st black coach to ever lead
his team to a Superbowl lose. So we killed to 1st's with one game
and now we never have to hear about it again, right.
Had the black coach lost to a white coach last year it would still
be looming waiting to happen but we were fortunete that it was
black vs black so we got a winner and loser all in one shot.
If the Repubs ran a black versus a black they could then say it was
the first Rep nomination of a black and he would either win or lose
against the Dem black canidate. Either was history is made all the
way around and all the 1st's are gotten out of the way. Then we can
get on to fixing all that is broken with everything else in this
country. *holding breath*
|2.6.08 @ 2:58PM|#
Jeff Davis, let me school you on something; I spent several
years of my life as an urban planner in Massachusetts, trying to
get affordable housing built in a rich suburb and dealing with
numerous conflicts between white and minority groups. I need you to
tell me there's racism in Massachusetts about as much as I need you
tell me there's snow.
My state isn't more progressive and racially just than yours
because there aren't racist people up here; there are. My state is
more progressive and racially just because in addition to your
common American racists, we also have a pretty large contingent of
progressives, ie, people who value racial justice.
So how's about you sit your oversensitive, trolly ass down and let
the adults have a serious conversation?
Jesse Walker|2.6.08 @ 3:00PM|#
I got whiplash watching Jesse go from calling Riehl
"government-centric" to writing about "the policies that helped
produce the racial isolation of working-class blacks, the
disproportionate number of blacks in prison, or the sorry state of
the urban schools that so many blacks attend."
Note the word "helped." Note also that the second phrase is
deliberately focused on areas closely related to public
policy.
Obama and Clinton are roughly tied for front-runner among the
Democrats and McCain among the Republicans makes three. Who is the
fourth?
I grandfathered in Romney, though I don't think he'll get the
nomination.
Is your link a tacit (however weak) endorsement of Reed's book,
or was it just a convenient remembered link for your
observation?
I wouldn't call it an endorsement. I'm not generally a fan of
Reed's, but I think that book has some valuable insights in it.
|2.6.08 @ 3:01PM|#
Cesar,
C'mon. Two years ago, that might have been a good point. At this
point, we've seen enough to conclude that Barack Obama actually
does have the brains, charisma, and leadership ability to succeed
in politics on his own merits.
|2.6.08 @ 3:03PM|#
progressives, ie, people who value racial
justice.
Please define what you mean by "progressives" and "racial
justice".
In advance, thanks.
HLS alum|2.6.08 @ 3:04PM|#
In the meantime my friends that graduated from Harvard Law
have confirmed the idea that the school is one of the worst in
terms of white guilt and there was not a snowball's chance Obama
was not going to become the editor. He did not "grade on" like most
have to. Get a clue.
Not that anybody will care, but at Harvard Law "most" students who
make law review do not have to grade on. Only two
or three people each year have grades so good that they get invited
on that basis. Everyone else has to make it through the writing
competition.
Mr. Obvious|2.6.08 @ 3:05PM|#
One could no longer make the argument that America is
racist, or unfair. Not when a black man has risen to the highest
office in the land.
Just watch.
|2.6.08 @ 3:06PM|#
My state is more progressive and racially just because in addition to your common American racists, we also have a pretty large contingent of
progressivesracebaiters, ie, people who valueracial justicereverse racism.
Fixed it for you.
ed|2.6.08 @ 3:06PM|#
the man had enough juice all by himself to get elected to
the United States Senate and become the frontrunner for the
Democratic nomination for President of the United States
Just like JFK!*
*But without the vote-buying bits
|2.6.08 @ 3:08PM|#
J sub D,
No. You are perfectly familiar with both of those terms.
Do you wish to make a point?
Ventifact|2.6.08 @ 3:08PM|#
But it is an open question whether he would reverse the policies that helped produce the racial isolation of working-class blacks, the disproportionate number of blacks in prison, or the sorry state of the urban schools that so many blacks attend. It is even conceivable -- not necessarily likely, but conceivable -- that Obama, like many black mayors, would actually make life worse for African Americans.
You don't suppose there is some inherent property of government by
which it makes life more difficult for citizens?
In other news, "joe" once again stands out in a thread for calling
out racism ("he's black therefore his success resulted from
Aff-Act"), bringing up the most relevant factual point (blacks were
unwilling to support Obama until early white states supported him,
indicating black people are indeed paying attention to national
sentiment toward a black presidential candidate), and ... pissing
and moaning because someone didn't leave a real email address?
Hmm.
|2.6.08 @ 3:09PM|#
Was there ever a point when the "fixed it for you" bit was funny? Or insightful? Or anything other than a big, blinking sign reading "I disagree with you, but don't have the stones to put forward an actual argument?"
|2.6.08 @ 3:13PM|#
I know, how about we DON'T make this a thread about what a
terrible person I am?
Would that be crazy?
If a thread I appeared on wasn't jacked into a discussion of my
numerous ethical shortcomings?
Tell you what, let's give it a shot, see what happens, and if you
don't like the results by, say, 4PM or so, just go right ahead and
put up a nice, long commend about TEH REAL RACISTS. Whaddya all
say?
|2.6.08 @ 3:14PM|#
I'm curious as to whether the Washington Times dug up the decrim
video from 2004 on their own, or whether it was fed by the Obama
campaign.
BTW, Obama voted for an Agricultural Hemp bill in the Illinois
Senate in 2000. Passed with overwhelming bipartisan support,
vetoed, no override vote taken.
|2.6.08 @ 3:14PM|#
No. You are perfectly familiar with both of those
terms.
They have different meaning depending on the user, and you
perfectly well know that. I'm asking what YOU meant.
Sulla|2.6.08 @ 3:16PM|#
As a mixed race (black father, white mother) guy originally from
a Caribbean island, my anecdotal experience is that in the US there
is more racism that most white people think, and less racism than
most black people think.
I don't think it makes sense to phrase it in terms of a political
calculus, i.e. that electing Obama will necessarily have the effect
of causing African-Americans, on average, to become less liberal. I
do think it would have a social effect, causing the
African-American "community" to, over time, be less likely to see
racism where it does not exist. As fyodor said, it's certainly not
_the_ reason to vote for him, but its worthy of consideration.
|2.6.08 @ 3:19PM|#
J sub D,
There is nothing remotely unclear about the comment you are
referencing. My meaning is completely obvious, as are the
definitions of terms in context.
Do you have a point? If so, spit it out. If not, I'm not interested
in a semantic game.
|2.6.08 @ 3:22PM|#
I'm not interested in a semantic game
And on that day the Internet was broken when the most bullshit
phrase ever uttered by Man was typed into it.
|2.6.08 @ 3:28PM|#
Affirmative action is not about symbolism, RC. That's a
common and beloved misconception among its opponents.
I never said it was, joe. I said it was a noxious race-based
policy.
I don't care to sit on my white ass as guess at the ratio of
real to perceived racism that black people in America experience.
Suffice it to say, the elimination of the former is a necessary
condition for the elimination of the latter.
I'm not so sure. I've known a few black people (granted, they were
successful professionals) who did not reflexively blame racism for
every suboptimal outcome in their lives.
The definition of "racial justice" is by no means widely agreed on.
Many folks think it should mean "color-blind", while others use it
to call for reparations for slavery that ended five generations
ago.
|2.6.08 @ 3:29PM|#
my anecdotal experience is that in the US there is more
racism that most white people think, and less racism than most
black people think.
That would be my guess.
First Little Pig|2.6.08 @ 3:30PM|#
Personally I really wanted Collin Powell to run back before he
detonated with Iraq. Had he been the 2000 nominee I think this
whole topic would have a different tone. I also think a better
opening for both women and minorities would come from the right
side of the spectrum rather than the left, just as Thatcher did in
the UK.
I think Hillary, perceived as a lefty (though I think most here
know better), and carrying the baggage of Bill's presidency will
allow 50+1% of voters to bolt for McCain.
BTW I sympathize with what Joe is trying to say. He has a point,
though I think a Libertarian forum is a tough place to make it.
|2.6.08 @ 3:31PM|#
joe doesn't want to define terms because that would leave him less wiggle room. That is why I asked. I hate when terms meanings change halfway through a discussion.
Roger Maltz|2.6.08 @ 3:33PM|#
Ah, the ever present sanctimonious Massachusetts liberal. They're so gosh-darn righteous that it makes you feel dirty simply in the glowing personality rays.
|2.6.08 @ 3:33PM|#
Sorry, joe old buddy, but left wingers have pretty much rendered any term of the form "____ justice" completely meaningless, just as they did with such gems as "fascist", "racist", and "fair" (shudder) previously. I'd say a definition is in order.
|2.6.08 @ 3:38PM|#
RC,
Yes, you did. When you wrote this: R C Dean | February 6, 2008,
2:13pm | #
While I doubt that it would have an immediate effect, I tend to
agree that Obama as President would undermine the "America is
racist" crowd and do more, in the long run, to knock the pins out
from under affirmative action and other noxious race-based policies
than just about anything else I can think of.
You were claiming that the mere sight of a black person holding
high office would "knock the pins out from under affirmative
action," as if its underlying purpose were tokenist. In fact,
affirmative action is about desegregating institutions and allowing
cross-racial professional and social relationships to form. The
mere presence of a black president can only be said to "knock the
pins out" from under affirmative action if you believe these "pins"
are about tokenism, and don't understand what the actual "pins"
are.
You don't have to agree with the theory behind affirmative action,
but it would be more respectable if you didn't struggle so hard not
to even acknowledge what that theory is.
|2.6.08 @ 3:40PM|#
J sub D,
joe doesn't want to define terms because we are not having a
discussion about Massachusetts, Mississippi, and how racism differs
between them. Nor do I want to have one. I was merely kicking a
troll in the ass.
|2.6.08 @ 3:48PM|#
joe, fair enough.
Reasonoids, if you ask me to define something for the sake of the
discussion, I, with my admittedly limited language skills, will
take a stab at it.
|2.6.08 @ 3:58PM|#
In fact, affirmative action is about desegregating
institutions and allowing cross-racial professional and social
relationships to form.
I thought it was about forcing employers to consider race and
gender in their hiring practices.
|2.6.08 @ 3:59PM|#
"But these two categories are not exhaustive. Sometimes I think
that racial problems stem more from white and black people talking
past each other, or having trouble talking to each other about race
and racism, than from actual prejudice or ideological racism.
Seeing Barack Obama elected can give black and white Americans a
common frame of reference, or a jumping-off point, or at least a
safe space to talk about these things, and become more comfortable
and less afraid of doing so. At least I hope so." When I first read
this statement, it sounded reasonable, but upon review (I always
review things joe says that initially sound reasonable), how does
it give black and white Americans a common frame of reference? He's
a rich, well-educated, privileged politician and a majority of
blacks outside of the entertainment industry are poor or
lower-middle class and it is there that the stigmas, prejudices,
and stereotypes come from, and are further perpetuated by poor,
uneducated whites who do not make up the majority of whites (that
would be the middle class). Race issues are an extension of
socio-economic class issues. If we're not talking about money, we
aren't talking about what is the root of the problem.
"At a minimum, I think his ascent to the presidency could be
something that we could all celebrate together." His ascent to the
presidency should be celebrated? His policies would contribute to
the problems that are of socio-economic class more than they would
"help" to stem the tide of racism. Furthering the economic problems
will further alienate poor people from middle and upper class
people and blacks in large part will feel the brunt of it,
especially if it appears in anyway that he was doing things
primarily for blacks over anyone else. I don't think he'll focus on
"black issues" more than any other issues, but we're already seeing
political opponents using color against him.
By celebrated, do you mean we should all feel better about
ourselves because we've elected a black president? If he were
libertarian, I'd celebrate, but not because of his skin color.
Ventifact|2.6.08 @ 4:03PM|#
Considering that there are differing definitions of "race" and VASTLY different understandings of the idea of "justice," I'd say it's reasonable to determine what exactly one means by combining those two notions into racial justice before proceeding to have a legitimate debate on the topic.
|2.6.08 @ 4:07PM|#
I spent several years of my life as an urban planner in
Massachusetts
This sentence explains so much about a joe it's amazing.
|2.6.08 @ 4:07PM|#
"OK: Mise-en-scene. Go!"
Don't have a clue. Guess I won't be using the term. Do you want to
play the vocabulary game?
No googling allowed of course. ;-)
|2.6.08 @ 4:10PM|#
Ventifact,
The faulty assumption in your construction is that he wants to have
anything even remotely resembling a legitimate debate.
joe wants to pop in here, call us all racists, use the fact that we
object to being called racists as proof we are racists, and then
sit back to admire his beautiful bouquet of confirmed biases.
joe's support of Obama makes me want to vote for Obama less and
less.
|2.6.08 @ 4:11PM|#
My personal definition of racial justice is if every law,
criminal prosecution, and sentencing were equal regardless of race.
I don't think any state comes close. Most states are more harsh to
suspects of color, and states that are supposedly progessive are
too lenient for fear of being accused of racism to the point where
they shorten sentences for hard crimes while persecuting drug
crimes to "save" people from themselves. It's a joke.
Best bet is to just get rid of the laws pertaining to victimless
crimes and focus on crimes with victims. Then, whether or not they
did it would be the only decision until sentencing. Then, a
color-blind judge would be nice. Not holding my breath there.
GILMORE|2.6.08 @ 4:19PM|#
man we are a nitpicking lot arent we.
This probably is a topic we all agree is pretty fucking dumb (e.g.
"VOTE FOR OBAMA = GET A FREE 'NOT RACIST CARD!!'")...yet, it
nevertheless devolves into the same fricking patterns.
The funny part about this is that if you poll black americans, many
would be like, "Obama's not black... or AS black as most black
americans. Hes African or half african or something" Obama doesnt
get any cred at all. In the words of David Chapelle (in reference
to Wayne Brady), "that guy makes Briant Gumble look like Malcom X".
He's perhaps a cut better than Colin and Condi, but he still aint
no Funkmaster Flex Friday Night Street Jams.
Obama is the "black" candidate for white Liberal Arts school
graduates who see it as an opportunity to assuage the white guilt
hammered into them by howard zinn et al. I dont think obama himself
would consider himself "black" before everything else. He's tiger
woods 'black' ;)
There's a funny poem by Paul Beatty where he describes the end of
racism as... let me see if I can find it... ah. Here =
"the first latin black korean
national hockey league offensive superstar
center ice crossover
one hand on the stick
blue line breakaway
blastin a drive high and tight
stick side
red light and siren"
Ventifact|2.6.08 @ 4:23PM|#
joe --
I assume you posted this in response to my initial
post in the thread:
I know, how about we DON'T make this a thread about what a terrible person I am?
You will note that in my post I commended you for being the only
person to call out the racism inherent in the assumption that any
successful black person achieved their success as a result of
affirmative action (the Harvard Review thing). You may also notice
that I argued that you presented what I considered to be the most
substantive and convincing post in the comments, namely the fact
that black voters were unwilling to vote for Obama because they
concluded it would be a wasted vote (since whites would not support
him and he'd flop) -- until Obama began to win lots of white votes.
Thus you brought up a clear and pertinent example of how the
success of Obama really could promote better race relations.
I also alluded to you putting Shaka's handle in quotation marks by
putting your own in quotes when I used your name; I thought it was
a little silly for you to do so. Aren't most names here fake? Is it
conventional to put everyone's fake handles in quotes? Finally, and
relatedly, I was quite confused this remark of
yours:
That's a great email, btw. It really lets us know that you're not some phoney seizing a fake screen name.
I assumed Shaka had left an obviously fake email along the lines of
shaka@chaka.kan; I looked above and saw that Shaka had
left no address at all. I can't think of a reason there's really
anything wrong with a fake address, nor with omitting an address.
What makes Shaka a "phoney seizing a fake screen name"? Is thoreau
pretending to be the Thoreau? Am I pretending to be a kind
of rock? Is sixstring pretending to be a guitar? It just seemed
like you were getting worked up over a point of contention I
couldn't fathom. Maybe I've misunderstood your intentions, so I'm
open to clarification.
Ventifact|2.6.08 @ 4:34PM|#
Oh, and btw, I rarely consider the "fixed it" thing funny. Also, I think it makes it less funny to add the actual remark "fixed it" instead of just reposting with the edits marked.
GILMORE|2.6.08 @ 4:48PM|#
I planned to name my first son "Shaka Zulu Gilmore", as it
happens.
It was that or Leif The SkullSplitter.
|2.6.08 @ 4:54PM|#
You were claiming that the mere sight of a black person
holding high office would "knock the pins out from under
affirmative action," as if its underlying purpose were
tokenist.
When I said "knock the pins out", I made no reference whatsoever to
the purpose of affirmative action. I was referring to reducing the
support for it, whatever its purpose.
In fact, affirmative action is about desegregating institutions
and allowing cross-racial professional and social relationships to
form.
That's certainly one, rather optimistic account of its purpose.
There are others, you know, but whatever the purposes or efficacy
of affirmative action, I was speaking solely to a different
issue.
You don't have to agree with the theory behind affirmative
action, but it would be more respectable if you didn't struggle so
hard not to even acknowledge what that theory is.
I'm quite aware of the theory behind affirmative action. I question
how many supporters genuinely support that theory, of course, as
well as the efficacy of affirmative action in achieving the goals
you set for it. What I struggle with is the outright contradiction
between the practice of affirmative action and the goal of a
colorblind society. I don't think you get to racial justice by
handing out racial favors.
|2.6.08 @ 4:57PM|#
Is thoreau pretending to be the Thoreau? Am I pretending to
be a kind of rock? Is sixstring pretending to be a
guitar?
While I am not pretending to be Will Smith, I am also not
pretending to be an enemy of the state.
(R C Dean is short for Robert Clayton Dean, the name of Will
Smith's character in the movie "Enemy of the State.")
I do find it a little odd that I am being accused of being a
cryto-racist when my nom de blog is that of a black man.
Vent|2.6.08 @ 5:02PM|#
Maybe a
crypto-fascist or neo-fascist?
Jimmy explains how some people view Ron Paul's success...
Joel|2.6.08 @ 5:47PM|#
I know, how about we DON'T make this a thread about what a
terrible person I am?
Joe: Troll, or just really wrong about everything? Discuss.
Sorry, Joe. Couldn't resist.
|2.6.08 @ 8:27PM|#
Nick,
The President isn't supposed to be Everyman. He's supposed to be
what Everyman aspired to be, and Everyman Hero. The common frame of
reference can be that Barack Obama can play that role across color
lines.
His ascent to the presidency should be celebrated? His
policies... Your opinion of his policies doesn't matter. The
President is not just Head of Government, but Head of State. This
isn't a conversation about what we think about his policies, but
about the cultural effect of having a black person play that role
in our society.
|2.6.08 @ 8:28PM|#
To all:
I neither want to have a debate about the definition of "race,"
"justice," and "progressive," nor play "the Vocabulary Game."
Good Lord, aren't we boring enough?
|2.6.08 @ 8:30PM|#
GILMORE,
Obama is the "black" candidate for white Liberal Arts school
graduates... Obama is the black candidate for about 80% of the
black electorate to date, and electorate that had previously
supported Clinton in the belief that Obama was too black to
win.
|2.6.08 @ 8:40PM|#
Ventifact,
I was not, in fact, calling you out with that comment. I regret it
if you took it that way, as that was far from my intent.
R C Dean, whoever called you a crypto-racist? Give me his name, and
I'll set him straight about you.
On "racial favors" - let's keep in mind what we're talking about;
desegregation. We're talking about making classes or workplaces
integrated when they would otherwise be segregated. It isn't a
reparation or a payment, it's a change to how our society is laid
out and functions, and will end. I see these "high principle"
arguments made against affirmative action all the time, and it
strikes me how abstract the language becomes. This is because those
principles - race-conscious policies are wrong! - cannot survive
contact with actual affirmative action practices, like enrolling
enough of the qualified black students who applied to your grad
school to make sure the classes don't look like Harvard 1921.
GILMORE|2.7.08 @ 12:36AM|#
joe | February 6, 2008, 8:30pm | #
GILMORE,
Obama is the "black" candidate for white Liberal Arts school
graduates... Obama is the black candidate for about 80% of the
black electorate to date...
yeah, i know. Im not disputing the guys pull, im talking about the
nature of why he's a racial 'tweener' that works on a national
level, and also loses a chunk of votes to the institutional
democratic black vote thats going to Hilary and Bill (as pancho
sanza)...cause he's not as 'black'as they are!
i.e. hilary does better with older african americans than obama,
who tend to see obama as outside the traditional sycophant black
democrat establishment. whatever. Im trying to point out why he
works as an anti-hilary in general. I hope he gets the nom.
|2.7.08 @ 1:06AM|#
"mixed race people are considered by themselves and society to
be black."
Says who? Tiger Woods does not "consider himself" black, or white,
or asian. Things change, even when it is inconvenient for the race
baiters.
|2.7.08 @ 1:19AM|#
Everybody talks here of the racism of Republicans as if that is
a given. Actually, I think it will be interesting to see how many
Democrats will vote for BO in the general election. I am looking
forward to it.
If Ron Paul gets the Republican nomination and Barack gets the
Democratic nomination, then you have a quandary: vote for Paul and
be a racist, or vote for Obama and be a statist. There is nothing
like politics to make everybody look bad.
|2.7.08 @ 1:31AM|#
As far as eliminating actual racism, that's a bit more
complicated. It's unlikely that David Duke is going to watch
Obama's inauguration and slap his forehead like the V-8
commercials.
What is unlikely is that you will realize that
David Duke is no more representative of the average white than
Louis Farakan is of the average black guy.
|2.7.08 @ 1:44AM|#
we also have a pretty large contingent of progressives, ie,
people who value racial justice.
How do you define "racial justice"?
Mad Max|2.7.08 @ 2:27AM|#
Ah, joe, I would have though you, of all people, would have been
wary enough to avoid referencing right-wing talking points.
"Racism is not a government problem; it is a cultural problem with
governmental manifestations. Free your mind, and the rest will
follow."
Do you realize that your last sentence is a quote from a notorious
piece of Republican propaganda by En Vogue?
The full quote is
"Free your mind and the rest will follow
"Be *color blind,* don't be so shallow" [emphasis added]
http://www.asklyrics.com/display/En_Vogue/Free_Your_Mind_Lyrics/320090.htm
The term "color blind," of course, is a notorious
anti-affirmative-action slogan designed to mask Republicans' wicked
agenda of dismantling decades of racial progress. The term was
cooked up by Karl Rove and Rupert Murdoch during one of their
regular meetings. These meetings take place at the Springfield
Republican Party Headquarters, shown here:
http://www.darrelplant.com/images/party_headquarters.gif
|2.7.08 @ 2:27AM|#
I guess I should have read the whole thread before I pointed out
"how awful Joe is". My apologies to Joe, et al.
Joe, my compliments for refusing to clarify what you mean by
"racial justice". It is less painful, I am sure, to get beat up
about your sloppy language than it will be to actually say, in
print, precisely what you mean by "racial justice".
|2.7.08 @ 2:38AM|#
...enrolling enough of the qualified black
students who applied to your grad school to make sure the classes
don't look like Harvard 1921.
Joe, I know this will piss you off, but would you define
"qualified"?
|2.7.08 @ 2:48AM|#
"The term "color blind," of course, is a notorious
anti-affirmative-action slogan..."
Even when Martin Luther King used it?
|2.7.08 @ 5:31AM|#
I believe wholeheartedly and one hundred percent in the ideal of
racial justice!
It is very important that global Jewry is held to account for their
enormous theft of wealth from the sovereign peoples of Europe
throughout history. Likewise, the moral depredations visited upon
European society by the repugnant customs of these
never-assimilated foreigners must not be forgotten in any final
accounting; there are crucial intangibles at stake which must not
be swept aside in the haste to punish usury and usury alone,
however inarguably vile that usury may be.
Finally, though there are those who lack the moral fiber to call
for it openly, there is the issue of blood libel which has remained
unresolved in all of the intervening years, festering like a
pustulent sore on Europe's conscience. Let its conscience go no
longer unheard! It's time to scour sores and remove the necrotic
matter, through contact with which healthy tissue can only come to
harm.
Oh, racial justice is a priority to me. Yes, indeedy.
Ventifact|2.7.08 @ 6:04AM|#
Sometimes I wonder how many people wander into these forums and miss key sarcasm. (Wouldn't life be nice if that was the only thing really behind misperception of libertarios as racist? If only...)
|2.7.08 @ 8:06AM|#
It is most assuredly a matter of type and not degree.
Unless you think morbid fear of fascism is on a continuum with
plain old liberal trolling, in which case ___?___.
G|2.7.08 @ 11:23AM|#
"... open question whether he would reverse the policies that
helped produce the racial isolation of working-class blacks, the
disproportionate number of blacks in prison ..."
You mean the ones where blacks commit a disproportionate amount of
crime or perhaps you mean the policies that caused blacks to drop
out of school in disproportionate numbers or the policies that
caused blacks to have shocking numbers of illegitimate
children.
For a site run by libertarians, there seems to be a dismaying lack
of emphasis on personal responsibility. Quit blaming the
pathologies of the black community on a group of legislators.
|2.7.08 @ 11:54AM|#
GILMORE,
yeah, i know. Im not disputing the guys pull, im talking about
the nature of why he's a racial 'tweener' that works on a national
level, and also loses a chunk of votes to the institutional
democratic black vote thats going to Hilary and Bill (as pancho
sanza)...cause he's not as 'black'as they are!
Obama seems to be scoring as well among black voters as Jesse
Jackson, and better than Al Sharpton. He is getting huge turnout.
I'm not sure there is evidence for your theory that his support
among black voters is thin.
|2.7.08 @ 11:59AM|#
wayne,
I have never, not even once, stated that David Duke is
representative of the average white person. As a matter of fact, I
think it's pretty clear that I was singling him out as a special
case, and then went on to talk about how more normal white people
might react.
But while we're on this topic, how's about you stop singling out a
multi-millionaire professional golfer as you Mixed-Race Everyman?
Let me assure you, someone who looks like Tiger Woods is going to
be followed around by the mall cops more than someone who looks
like Jack Nicklaus.
Also, wayne, I DON'T define qualified. Colleges define qualifed for
themselves.
|2.7.08 @ 12:04PM|#
In the words of David Chapelle (in reference to Wayne
Brady), "that guy makes Briant Gumble look like Malcom
X".
That was Paul Mooney (as Negrodamus). Paul Mooney kicks ass.
|2.7.08 @ 12:10PM|#
I haven't the foggiest idea what Mad Max is babbling
about.
You listen to En Vogue. That's nice.
|2.7.08 @ 12:57PM|#
For the record, I think Obama is the most palatable (or the least unpalatable) of the four frontrunners, mostly because of his stance on Iraq.
Your opposition to the war has rendered you a supporter of the
biggest socialist in the race. Nice way to go.
DannyK|2.7.08 @ 5:17PM|#
How is Obama the biggest socialist in the race? He's said more nice things about capitalism in the last month than John McCain, for God's sake!
Jennifer|2.7.08 @ 5:18PM|#
Your opposition to the war has rendered you a supporter of
the biggest socialist in the race. Nice way to go.
Referring to someone as being the "least unpalatable" makes you a
"supporter?"
|2.8.08 @ 3:04AM|#
"Also, wayne, I DON'T define qualified. Colleges define qualifed
for themselves."
Nice dodge. Tranparent though.
|2.8.08 @ 7:32AM|#
"People are socialized into their ideas about race in childhood,
and it can only be a good thing for them to see a black
president."
That is a nice, warm and fuzzy statement. Not necessarily correct
though. Robert Mugabe is a black president, or is he emperor now,
in Zimbabwe. I would venture the opinion that his presidency has
not been a good thing for Zimbabwe.
BO is not Mugabe however, and he might make a good president
despite his evil half-caucasian side. I like him better than the
bad-witch anyway.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245