(Liberal) Fear of a Black President
Jesse Jackson's ridiculous comments about Barack Obama "talking down" to black people -- as opposed to Jackson's totally reprehensible comments insinuating violence being committed against Obama (click here to see the video) -- are only the latest in a litany of derisive remarks directed at Obama from stalwarts of the left. Ralph Nader and Geraldine Ferraro and Al Sharpton and Bob Johnson and South Carolina State Senator Robert Ford have all maligned Obama as being everything from a "lucky" black man to not being black enough.
While it's never a shock when operatives of the far, far right have trouble with a person of color achieving stature (though I do believe they play ball better with those in the fold), what a long strange trip this campaign season has been watching so-called liberals fumble the hot potato that is Barack Obama.
Why? Why is Obama of such consternation to the Old Schoolers?
For one, Obama and his candidacy challenge the liberal establishment; by not miring himself in the politics of hand outs Obama elevates blacks above and beyond a herd that was fed the grain of entitlements in exchange for votes. In addition to extolling blacks to take more personal responsibility (a position a Pew research study finds the majority of black Americans hold), Obama has also questioned race-based affirmative action and understands -- again, as the majority of black Americans do -- that what's good for the country is good for all of us. To Jackson that's "talking down" to blacks. To Nader that's "talking white." But to the tens of millions of Americans who helped Obama win the primary (as opposed to Jackson and Nader who have yet to win an election) Obama is simply talking to America.
Moreover, what scares the Old Schoolers is that Obama's potential election removes from them the victim stick with which they flog their diminishing relevance. Obama as president would be empirical evidence that, while there are and probably always will be racists in America, America is no longer a racist nation. There are a lot of liberals who've made good bank stretching out the "you done me wrong, now gimme something" politics of the sixties well into the new millennium.
Obama wants change.
And change for the Old Schoolers ain't a good thing.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Obama is mixed and this is what's in our eyes...
We, you, them can say he's black,, but we really see his as mixed!!
The best side of two worlds!! I call that blessed...
he can see if from both sides and gets it...
I say vote him in lets see him start to get US on te right track..
The other clown has been doing nothing for 25 years and running...
He is out of touch and his faculties are bad...
Ridley concludes Obama wants change...t
The problem for the left is that Obama isn't a lefty. I'm not sure where he sits on the spectrum; probably right of center near Bill Clinton and the DLC. Obama wants change and he's mentioned several things but for sure he doesn't appear interested in changing the status quo. The most significant issue that Obama hopes to change is bringing civility back to politics and working with the opposition, which would require significant compromise of progressive/liberal values. Obama is tries to maintain civility and work with opponents but he doesn't accept that his opposition isn't interested in compromise; so where does that leave Obama's change agenda? Will he govern from the center or will he bare a progressive nature and throw the conservative agenda out the window when (if?) he figures out compromise means capitulation? I don't know but my guess is that this weighs heavily in the minds the left and right. Politics has been pushed far right and its hard to see a viable left. What we have are the loony right and varying degrees of centrism. I suspect Jackson is wondering where in the center Obama fits.
This article pegged it perfectly. Well-written.
"Change for old timers is not a good thing", what a stupid remark. Maybe change for the worst is
what they fear.
"Obama has also questioned race-based affirmative action"
Not quite John. I saw Obama on "THIS WEEK with George Stephenopolos" in April 2007, and he was saying that his kids probably won't need affirmative action. That his kids will have advantages that even many white kids will not enjoy. That is what he was saying. But if there must be a conversation about affirmative action, then so be it.
Because I'm sure you know Mr. Ridley that the majority of affirmative recipients since the program's inception have not been black men, black women, latino men, or latino women. This is not supposition, conjecture, but fact. Government and private industry records have confirmed that WHITE WOMEN have benefitted from affirmative more than anyone else.
And even with those facts, I still support it. What I won't support are attempts to demogogue this issue.
So when folks talk about how some whites are angry about race-specific preferences, its amusing because if someone agrees that affirmative action needs to have a more "class-based" approach, which I support, then that's cool.
But to oppose "race-based affirmative action", based on lies and half-truths about blacks and latinos "supposedly" taking "white jobs", well, that's unacceptable. Let's refine, refocus, and reinvent affirmative action to make it more class based.
Indeed, Obama is just the man to lead that effort. Hopefully you will join him in that effort.
Affirmative action is about reconciling economic disparity. I always thought it was a mistake to make it race based, it inflames tensions when you split poor people down color lines. It's not supposed to be a "buy-off" for past wrongs done to minorities. The biggest, most successful case of affirmative action was the GI Bill of WWII. Lots of people who never would have otherwise, broke through into the middle class via education and housing. >Poof< We have modernity. There are more white people who are poor than there are black people who are poor. Poor whites suffering, lack of schooling and infrastructure is just as real as any other group's and is just as urgent an issue. Wind still cuts through a thin blanket and hunger pains hurt everyone.
Well said.
I think it is a generational thing. The old school vs. the new. The democratic party is at a cross roads poised to take a new path. Some are comfortable with the status quo and don't want to change a thing. They are dinosaurs and are on the wrong side of history.
Guess never thought of Jesse Jackson as being someone from the left; liberal, perhaps. But his comments were only a tad more violent sounding than some of the things Cosby has said, and of course Cosby caught flack, too. Mr. Ridley has made a fairly large assumption on this blog. Ferraro was not uttering a racial slur when she said that Obama wouldn't be where he was....in South Carolina with 85% of the black vote going to Obama....I
It should be noted that some black politicians get VERY little black support and some white politicians get almost as much support as Obama is getting - Bill Clinton for example.
Great point! I don't think Condie Rice or Michael Steel would enjoy the same level of support.
Yes. And may I add something about what Ferraro said that was just wrong and that she didn't seem to get -- and that I didn't hear anyone comment on in the press?
Ferraro used herself as an example of someone who had been selected for high office because of her gender, not her qualifications -- as if that should somehow suggest something similar at play with Obama. But there's a world of difference between President and Vice President! Vice Presidential candidates DO get selected, sometimes even plucked out of obscurity, and for any number of reasons. Presidential candidates GET THERE UNDER THEIR OWN STEAM! They run in primaries and caucuses. They get ELECTED, not SELECTED.
Excellent. Your premise has indeed been downplayed if not outright ignored in the msm. It has made me view the Ferraro controversy in a new light, bringing me to conclude that the most dangerous hurdle to Obama attaining the presidency is in the collective form of his jealous-ego'd collegues in the democratic party. It seems to me this is coming from a primordial, very dark place in their psyches; like they don't want him to win because it's not them. Not very evolved.
Well said John! You've touched on a variety of issues and reasons why relics like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, are no longer relevant to individuals like me(young black males). While their past contributions to the advancement and equality of minorities is well documented, I see them currently as nothing more than race baiters that offer more conflict than actual resolution. Obama represents a change that the old "black power" guard reluctantly embraces. From a historical context it proves that much of their past groundwork has come to past, with the first African American candidate of a major political party, but it also represents that much of what they offer is no longer needed, making them less and less relevant. These are not the toxic times of the sixties, when social and racial inequality was rampant. The institutional system of opporunity has evolved to the point where everyone truly has the opportunity to achieve greatness, MLK Jr's dream has been realized in my eyes. Are their racists in this country? Sure, but to sit here in 2008 and say that "I can't achieve something because I'm black" is nothin but a weak ass cop out. What Obama is saying is that the cry for a social crutch is no longer acceptable in the black community, what should be is responsiblity, ownership, and acceptance of the truth. Ancients like Jesse no they would no longer have a job if that widespread responsibility is taken on in the black community.
The color of a person's skin should never be a consideration in casting a vote. How a person looks should also never be a consideration, unless they look like John Hagee or Phil Jackson.
What's wrong with Phil Jackson? He's got that salt-and-pepper hair and those eyeglasses that give him that Zen look. I admit, he's a bit gawky-looking, but he's 6-8, so that can't be helped. :-)
He was gawky when he played for the Knicks. It isn't that. He coaches the Lakers. I own 5 shares of Boston Celtic stock. That's why I included Jackson. And I thought all Obama supporters would also dislike him. All through the primary they complained about Ms. Clinton and triangulation. Jackson invented the triangle offense.
It is fear of a charismatic, inexperienced, image that left wing liberals line up to psychophantasize with; a parallel delusion to the millions of Bush supporters who rallied around a charismatic, inexperienced , image that right wind conservatives lined up to psychophantasize with.
This has nothing to do with fear of a 'black president' as you proclaim.
We are back where we were 8 years ago. . the same script. . just different actors. . and now with the other half of the paying audience deluding themselves and applauding each other for their role in the latest version of 'American Idol'.
With a very major exception; Bush had a track record as governor in Texas and failed business man that foretold what his presidency would be like. Bush's downsizing of social services in Texas, his bankrupting of the treasury, his exposed as fraud, failed "no child left behind" program in Texas, his alliances with Enron and other convicted felons, his waste of tax money in busing and flying captured illegal aliens onto Democratic turf in order to drain financial social service programs in the area gave plenty of evidence of his intention to do his benefactors good at the expense of the country. It's just that the media owners are wealthy elites themselves (Patricia Hearst, Rupert Murdoch,etc) and the public just doesn't get any fair or necessary news.
Yes, and Obama has his district, I'm speechless. If I say something it is ""Obama, they really need you in Illinoi". For All the Americans that think their lives are so awful and that Obama is their saviour, I have seen terrible, and America is not it.
There is ONE OVERRIDING reason for voting for OBAMA--Supreme Court Nominees. With McCain you will get more nominations like Scalia, Roberts and Alito; with Obama you will get better, more reasonable nominations. The term(s) of the next president will determine how far this country moves to the deplorable crony capitalism, people's- rights-destroying, US treasury-looting and war profiteering conservatism of the Bush-Cheney-McCain Neocons. Anyone voting against Obama for whatever reason--and there are certainly reasons to be unhappy about his recent moves in trying to become the Democratic Ronald Reagan who brings "Obama Republicans" into the Democratic fold--better think hard about the sure to be coming Supreme Court nominations.
If that is the only reason to vote for Obama, then I would rather vote for Nader.
Obama is a fan of Scalia, Roberts and Alito. If elected president, Obama will nominate a token liberal who supports Roe vs. Wade and other liberal causes. That person will be totally unacceptable because of different reasons (cheats on his taxes, wears women's underwear, joggs in the nude, whatever) and Obama will present a Scalia light, noting that he at least tried to nominate a liberal.
Get off the pipe, bish. If you have to lie to get us to consider Nader, then I have to conclude that you are a mccain-enabler and very desperate.
You're completely uninformed - or trolling.
Obama is NOT a strict constructionist. That's exactly what Scalia is. Obama's no fan of Scalia.
You should know better than that bish. The Congress that either candidate is going to have to deal with will probably be quite Democratic and it'll be very difficult for either one of them to put in judges that are off the planet. And, yeah, like you I certainly don't expect Obama to do much better than the Repug, especially in light of his recent flipflops.
O'bama is a fan of Scalia, Roberts and Alito
----------
Would you care to back it up with some proof. You "concerned" t'rolls crack me up. You think you can come on liberal blogs and make stuff up about O'bama and we are going to believe you. I have news for you. You are not talking to "low-information" voters here. You are talking to informed individuals who know how to use the internet to debunk your latest talking points. So, why don't you move along to somewhere you will be appreciated like redstate.c
Tried to post this earlier to you bish but have to agree. Obama's choice of judges will be not as despicable as McCain but damn close to it. He does like and voted for Roberts and Alito. With a Democratic Congress either one would have a tough time getting someone through the Senate that the majority of Dems would not want there.
Find me a Supreme Court judge who will say that a corporation is not a "person" and you'll find that judge you say will fight against crony capitalism. I guarantee you 1000 to 1 that Obama is nothing more than another crony capitalist supporting puppet.
Better think hard about the pending endless wars as well, gas rationing, food rationing, stratospheric debt (like it isn't already)..
With McCain's worst week yet, most here have focused on Obama's perceived flip-flops. The headlines and the remarks should remember what McCain represents
I am a white liberal who voted for Obama in the primary, but now, because of his recent positions on FISA, abortion, impeachment, and faith-based initiatives, I don't know what to think....
When I voted for him, what I thought I was voting for was the content of his character. Now I don't know what his character is.
It's called W-I-N-N-I-N-G. I know as a liberal Democrat it's a remote concept. But that's what you must think about right now. Doing what you have to do to win, because politics is a game of strategy. Hillary & Bill knew this, they just didn't plan on having any real competition, so they fell short. Don't you remember, no matter how disingenous, dishonest or shrill Hillary was (or Bush, or Nixon or Bill were) they never turned off their core supporters.
Win-- rehabilitate character later, if you must.
"It's called W-I-N-N-I-N-G"
I would call it P-A-N-D-E-R-I-N-G or S-E-L-L-I-N-G O-U-T. In the end, he will lose the one group and will not win the other group.
Im a white moderate and I will continue to support Obama because the alternative is unthinkable.
Concise. Complete. Lucid. Even a troll is speechless to assertion.
Liberal= when things don't go my way i can and will change my mind. Maybe you drank to much Koolaid or something. Sen. O's positions have not changed (Nuance). Actually having someone who is willing to talk to and not talk at us is refreshing. I'm a black radical with conservative leanings who voted for O. in the primary and will most likely vote for him in the general. Do i agree with him on everything, NO. do i trust him, YES. I lived thru (9) President's each whitter than the next and this last a$$hole is just beyond words, maybe you can afford to waste another 4,8 12 maybe even 16 yrs. but a whole lot of us can't. You gotta a kool tag and all, but being Retro and Futuristic at the same time means that you only appear to go forward simply to end up right back where you started, and for the 17 to 20% of us that started out in the bottoms of some ship we just want to go forward and never go back. And by the way what difference does it make if your White, Black, Red or Yellow. The question is, are you a Democrat?
"Sen. O's postions have not changed".
Public funding? Changed my mind.
http://www
Welfare reform? Changed my mind.
http://www
Granting Telecomm companies immunity? Changed my mind.
http://new
There are many more other examples from gun control to nuclear energy where he's flopped. Thing is, when it comes to leading, a leader must stand for something instead of blowing with the latest poll. The role of government in society must be clearly spelled out for the people and O's bowing to conservative circles shows no backbone.
Additionally, this is not a country that elects left-wing presidents - never has. Democrats, unfortunately, have no chance of being elected unless they are perceived as moving to the center (Bill Clinton practically invented it). To a large extent, the GOP does it to. Remember W and the compassionate conservatism that many of you swallowed lock, stock and barrell. I think Obama's heart is in the right place and I will continue to gladly support him.
Well, then, I guess you didn't know very much about who you were voting for. Other than flipping on FISA, the remainder of the positions you quoted are positions he had held for quite some time. O'bama is, and always has been a little too conservative for my taste, but he is still, by light years, the best choice we have for President. The fact of the matter is this country is not ready for a true liberal to lead. I do think that O'bama is a little more liberal than he is letting on. There's nothing to stop him from letting that liberal out once he takes office. We have to all remember how middle of the road Bush presented himself as being. Then he took a hard turn to the right and never looked back. O'bama may take a soft turn to the left once he takes office.
I am very disappointed with his FISA vote, but I understand why he thought he needed to do it. But, other than that, I still trust his character since he had held true on all other issues.
You're right: The country may not be ready for a true liberal leader, one who edited the Harvard Law Review; alternatively, they are ready for a follow-up leader who distinguished his collegiate career by earning "C's" (or worse, having graduated #492 out of 496).
Can we please have once again an intelligent president? Give our country a fighting chance? And give the rest of the world a break?
John, John, John. Not all human endeavors revolve around race. How about simply writing about Americans? Not African-Americans or another other ethnic group. Try to get over it, please.
This IS 2008, right? You have a mulatto running for President, right? That should make TWO races happy.
It is how they can SERVE Americans that is important. Stay focused, dude!
Happy Dae.
http://www
Ridley's writing is directly on the money - and this article doesn't really talk about race anyway. It's about how older liberals (and he specifically mentions Jesse Jackson, so there goes your contrived race angle) fear Obama because he's not following their playbook.
Anyone who doesn't believe race is still a highly relevant topic is (a) not paying attention, (b) not black, or (c) both.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
