The View From 1776

Our Racist President

Obama ignores reality and blames whites for the indisputable fact that blacks, who constitute only 23% of the population, commit about 7 out of 10 of all violent crimes.

Read Heather Mac Donald’s assessment of the president’s speech supporting racist ranters like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and officers of the NAACP.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 07/22 at 10:46 PM
  1. Heather writes a thorough analysis of Obama's speech and the Zimmerman incident, bringing in all the relative facts such as crime statistics, the history of racial bias, etc., etc. But several of the people commenting provided the real story: Obama was just using the incident to steal the headlines from the latest scandal, and the media cooperated, blanketing the news with emotionally charged racial coverage.

    Perhaps the learned scholar, so lost in advanced academic analysis, could learn from the more practical and worldly-wise common people!

    Clinton set the precedent for this covert manipulation of the news--when his personal scandals got damaging enough he would have a few planes or missiles bomb some "enemy" stronghold in Africa, Eastern Europe, or the Middle East. The military attack would be in fact laughable--two or three missiles or planes over a tent site or abandoned factory--but the press would cover it in detail, burying the latest scandal. Shades of Orwell's 1984 -- "Newspeak!"
    Posted by bill greene  on  07/23  at  07:53 AM
  2. As usual, McDonald’s analysis is excellent. Even so, I can’t help thinking she has missed something quintessential to what is happening here and will soon develop as a result of this President speaking out as he did, when he did. It would not be the first time we have underestimated his political instincts.

    McDonald says, “Obama’s prescriptions for the alleged failure of white America to understand black anger … are arguably worse than his diagnosis of the causes of that anger. ” But are they, and if not, in what sense did Obama strike the right cords with regard to his core-constituencies: black-supporters of his payback agenda and guilty-by-association white-radicals convinced of persistent racism and insufficiently atoned racial-injustice. Moreover, might there not be method to his madness that furthers said agenda that we should heed.

    A few years back, Shelby Steele (columnist, author, Hoover Institute Senior Fellow, and black-conservative) explained Obama this way: “There is a price to be paid even for fellow-traveling with a racial identity as politicized and demanding as today’s black identity. This identity wants to take over a greater proportion of the self than other racial identities do. It wants to have its collective truth— its defining ideas of grievance and protest—become personal truth.... These are the identity pressures that Barack Obama lives within. He is vulnerable to them because he has hungered for a transparent black identity much of his life. He needs to 'be black.' And this hunger—no matter how understandable it may be—means that he is not in a position to reject the political liberalism inherent in his racial identity. For Obama liberalism is blackness. ” – Shelby Steele, ‘A Bound Man’, 2007

    Thus, he pegs Obama as a man obsessed with identifying himself as black, and of conforming to expectations of him as the first black POTUS. Therefore, however absurd or problematic for him to speak at this moment or as he did (as ‘President of all the People’), his core-constituency expect him to speak to the issue in such a way as validates their angst, anger and frustration first and foremost; and he has no choice but to comply regardless his actual grasp on reality. I would only expand on Steele’s remark to add, to Obama (and many like him), not only is liberalism equivalent to ‘blackness’ but to be black is to be liberal regardless the contradiction of original meaning of the term; and those blacks who deviate or ‘defect’ from this equivalence are inherently disloyal. To blacks, liberal is synonymous with ‘liberation’, an historical event steeped in bitterness and determination to a people once enslaved. To whites, ‘liberal’ is an unshakable belief in ‘progress’ and ‘self-improvement’, a viewpoint Obama seems to share only tangentially. So, whether from group pressure of identity-consciousness, Obama must speak to the issue if only to identify with blacks-only frustration with the trial’s outcome, and would have contrived to speak out even had the outcome been different; and with much the same effect.

    Regarding her further comment, “We also need to do more to “bolster and reinforce our African-American boys,” according to Obama, “and to give them the sense that their country cares about them and values them and is willing to invest in them.” Reality check: the country has spent hundreds of billions of dollars over the last five decades trying to uplift black boys (and girls).”, I would respond, why assume Obama is more concerned by either the accuracy of his statements than he is with scoring points for his socialist agenda?

    McDonald’s focus on Obama’s blatant inaccuracies (as though debunking them will correct the common misperception he creates among low-information-voters), distracts from the far higher probability his remarks will be accepted uncritically, and that the harm and mischief they cause will go unchallenged. The harm from incitement is obvious, but less obvious is that they arouse a firestorm of correctives much as his Sandy Hook remarks stirred the anti-gun pot and his false campaign rhetoric created the healthcare firestorm where none existed. Obama is first and foremost a ‘community organizer’, which is a form of demagoguery (i.e., force change through appeals to passion over reason). For all his supposed brilliance, he cannot think outside the fixed script others have imprinted upon and set for him. Not one of his many ideas is his own. They are either handed down from earlier generations of radicals or cobbled together from a host of sources not at all under his direction.

    For example, having lit the health-reform fuse, his signature legislation was put together by variety of radicals, health industry lobbyists, university think-tanks, leftist legislators with play-books full of unrealized agendas, and internet contributors with the occasional ‘so-crazy-it-just-might-work’ idea who were invited to put flesh to his reform proposal. Obama was forced to admit at one point he knew next to nothing of what in the bill for which he would take sole credit, even as it mutated its way through Congress. Doesn’t matter from the demagogic-socialist view because half a cake is better than none, and an omnibus bill chock full of wobbly ideas from which to pick and choose with how he will lord it over us is best of all. Typical of Obama is to poll constituents for ideas he can then ‘spray against the wall to see which stick’, knowing he can rely on this pool of friendly-radicals to feed him ideas that advance the socialist agenda while increasing his personal power and charisma (panders to and empowers himself by empowering wannabe ‘game-changers’).

    So McDonald’s theme, by focusing on Obama’s mishandling, illogic and errors, fails to note Obama managed to inject himself into the debate as a lightning rod for black anger without appearing to do so, that, as a rallying point, he amplifies their voice while quelling the voices of contradicting reason; and he did this by framing the debate such that protests, like hers, can be selectively viewed as attacks on him and his presidency – another innocent black bystander – just like Trevon.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  08/01  at  10:07 PM
  3. Good observations, Bob. Obama's mind-set is somehow both very complicated, and yet very simple. He is as you indicate something of a puppet, dancing and singing tunes taught him by others. Playing at being something he can never be.

    The bottom line may be: Once a community organizer, always a community organizer! The old adage about how presidents grow to fill their role has failed to operate. Harry Truman went from a local haberdasher to a world leader. Reagan from an actor/announcer to a great world leader. Why have Carter and Obama failed to grow, in such stark contrast to those others? Is it their failed principles? Perhaps you cannot build a strong edifice on a faulty foundation.
    Posted by bill greene  on  08/02  at  09:00 AM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.