Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Primary’ Category

Daniel Larison makes a very strong point:  the world does not like the US because of its policies, and the symbolism of an Obama presidency will do little to heal the rifts and unavoidable tensions with the rest of the world:

As I have said before there is scarcely a more disrespectful, condescending attitude towards the rest of the world than the assumption that they can be bought off or won over with something as superficial as a U.S. President with a mixed racial background.  If the Obama fans actually believe their candidate has some legitimate policy changes to introduce, that might be a reason for other nations to respond favorably to him, but on the whole the changes on offer are, like so much else in this campaign, symbolic and aesthetic.  In the end, Obama fans project their own fantasies about “racial reconciliation” into the international sphere, implicitly likening the majority of the world to our minority populations, which is to belittle them a second time.  This relieves them of the obligation to critique seriously U.S. foreign policy, which is the source of some significant part of anti-U.S. animus, since they have already concluded that America’s reputation can be repaired in some measure simply through the election of one man. 

It sure doesn’t help that Obama knows he’s weak on foreign policy and sometimes plays the hawk, like an in-over-his-head manager playing the tyrant to rattle and silence his subordinates.  His appearance and background will do little to help him with counterparts ranging from China to Pakistan to Russia, and his lack of experience and interest in foreign affairs will provide an additional burden if he becomes the President.  George W. Bush is a good example of this problem in action: he could care less about world affairs before he became President, he’s been unduly influenced by idealistic-sounding idiots like Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, mucking things up mightily because his ability to think critically about the sometimes conflicting advice he’s getting is severely compromised.

Read Full Post »

This super-delegate calculator makes it plain why Hillary cannot win.  Essentially, she would need two thirds of the unpledged superdelegates and double digit wins for the remainder of the primaries to pull it off.  I don’t think she’ll quit, though, perhaps through some small hope that a Sirhan Sirhan figure will perepetrate a deus ex machina and sort out this Obama impediment once and for all.

Read Full Post »

McCain’s mind works as follows: all situations are divided between good and evil. No one is simply mistaken, confused, immature, unwise, or, perhaps, correct in a way that McCain cannot yet perceive.  Though it’s become a bad word, there is such a thing as nuance, and it’s particularly valuable when we’re talking about relations with a large country that we’re not at war with that happens to have thousands of nuclear weapons. McCain seems to think that doubling down on the aggressive policy in the Middle East is good and brave and heroic, so he’s seeking expensive and risky confrontations with China and Russia halfway around the globe, even as he shies away from securing our own frontiers with nearby Mexico.  The latter is prosaic and humdrum, while crusades for democracy in the Caucuses, well, that’s the stuff history is made of.  (Unfortunately, that history will be entitled the Decline and Fall of America.)

McCain has the following in mind:

President George W. Bush said in 2001 that he had looked Russian leader Vladimir Putin in the eye and “was able to get a sense of his soul.” Senator John McCain says he looked into Putin’s eyes “and saw three letters: KGB.”

McCain, 71, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, favors expelling Russia from the Group of Eight club of industrial powers. He calls for forging a “League of Democracies” to confront Putin and hand-picked successor Dmitry Medvedev, who takes over tomorrow, on Russian threats against former Soviet republics and rollbacks of domestic freedoms.

The candidate’s approach to Russia signals that he has aligned himself with hard-line foreign-policy advisers who favor democracy promotion above all and rejects advocates of doing business with authoritarian regimes when it suits U.S. interests.

This election should be treated as a referendum on open borders with Mexico and a policy of quasi-war with Russia. As bad as Clinton and Obama are, neither of them is so uncompromisingly single-minded and ideological about these two very stupid passions of John McCain.

Read Full Post »

I’ve often thought the reflexive invitation to “talk it out” is a bit over-rated.  After all, in close relationships, as in the broader discussions of our communities, knowing when not to communicate is often just as important as communication itself. 

Consider Obama’s call for a “national dialogue on race.”  He doesn’t want this.  He certainly doens’t want to hear whites bitching about the petty grievances they have against minor incivilities of urban blacks, and he especially does not want to hear about the very real and very raw feelings of whites who have suffered under violent black criminals.  Most important of all, he sure doesn’t want to hear the rantings and ravings of his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, even though the pastor’s statements in recent weeks are identical to what Obama’s heard for the last 20 years, as Steve Sailer reminds us today of by quoting a lengthy passage from Obama’s first book.

Gregory Rodriguez makes a very good point that Obama is quickly running away from the very dialogue he claimed America needed.  Rodriguez writes:

Right about now, his much-heralded tutorial on race relations is looking more like Richard Nixon’s “Checkers” speech than the Gettysburg Address. Because, after last Tuesday’s formal renunciation of his ties to Wright — and presumably also his white grandmother and all blacks — Obama looks not only tardy but thoroughly hypocritical. Didn’t Obama’s vaunted speech call for an open national dialogue on race, a subject he said was too important to ignore? Didn’t he urge us to address those “old wounds” that still fester today? Whether you agree with him or not, isn’t that exactly what Wright was doing last week when he reappeared in public to make more provocative statements on race and politics?

That’s no way to start a dialogue, Mr. Obama. You don’t call on people to talk and then renounce someone for speaking his mind. Because Wright didn’t really say anything new last week, it seems that his only new sin is that he called Obama’s bluff and, well, sparked another national dialogue on race. Which, of course, points to the absurdity of Obama’s call for more racial dialogue in the first place.

Obama is, if nothing else, audacious!

Read Full Post »

If you think America is fine alternating between corporatist Democratic Presidents and semi-socialist, open borders Republicans, then what I’m about to say will make no sense. But if you think America is on the wrong course, that its people are demoralized, that its schools are corrupt and ineffective, that its people are more and more indebted and unrealistically materialistic, that mass immigration is fracturing our identity, that Christianity is wrongly marginalized in the culture, and that crime, disorder, incivility, and servile habits of every kind are getting worse with each passing year, then you recognize something extreme must happen. There must be an awakening. Conservative minded and patriotic Americans must be pushed to the brink, abandoning their false hopes, and approach politics in the future on the basis of hard-headed appraisals of reality. And a big part of that reality is that America is changing, its demographics engineered by mass immigration, its minority communities resentful and alienated, and the pride of its white majority sapped by a constant drumbeat of lies and exaggerations about the past under the rubric of “multiculturalism.”

Many Americans have no idea how much rage, resentment, and racism exists in America’s Hispanic and black communities. The Reverend Wright episode has allowed the general public to peer into this malevolent universe. This glimpse has frightened people that grew forgetful of why they or their parents left cities for orderly and gated suburban communities. Four years of an Obama presidency will be the best possible thing for honesty and clarity to return to America’s public life. Consider how much more forthrightly mainstream conservatives are talking about Obama and his line of bulls**t about his reverend of 20 years.

National Review’s Jonah Goldberg–not exacly a man living in Jared Taylor’s universe–had the following to say:

I am so sick of hearing talking heads saying that Wright’s sermons are nothing unusual in black churches as if that somehow makes what he says ok. It’s as if something disgusting and untrue is outrageous if one person believes it, but it’s suddenly respectable if lots of people — or lots of black people — believe it. Hogwash.

Michelle Malkin took things a step further. She mocked Obama’s campaign as the “Jive Talk Express” and said the following:

It was just this March, in his Philadelphia racial reconciliation speech, that Obama was urging us not to dismiss Wright as a “crank or a demagogue” and protesting that he could “no more disown him than I can disown the black community.”

Now, realizing how gravely his self-serving association with Wright has wounded his campaign, Obama himself has attempted to do both those things — and expects the American public to believe him when he weakly and belatedly asserts that “when I say I find [Wright's] statements appalling, I mean it.”

As those of us with non-European brains might put it: You be trippin’, Barry.

The formula of race relations since the 1960s goes something like this: when blacks misbehave, the source must be found in white racism. The worse the behavior, the worse whites must be. Black rioting in New Orleans after Katrina . . . George Bush’s fault, plus decades of “white” neglect. L.A. Riots . . . 12 years of neglect. O.J. Simpson kills two white people . . . Mark Fuhrman made racist remarks and framed O.J. Crack-powder cocaine disparity . . . whites are guilty of “institutional racism” by punishing blacks harshly who try to get rich quick in the drug trade.

This is all nonsense. There are many causes of black misbehavior and failure, but racism is no longer a significant factor in minority failure and hasn’t been for over 30 years. In spite of this, black resentment is at an all time high, inflamed by agitators like Reverend Wright. Limited government conservatism requires whites to reject this formula. It’s no longer accurate, and it’s exacerbating black failures that could be reduced by white and black elites standing shoulder to shoulder and providing moral leadership. This new generation of leadership won’t emerge, so long as whites demur to black leaders, their lame leaders consist chiefly of useless demagogues like Sharpton, Wright, and company.

It’s good that mainstream conservatives are speaking plainly about Wright, black racism, and the various lies used to support the superstructure of “white guilt.” It’s good they’re calling McCain out on pulling punches in the face of this nonsense. Four years of this trend will propel someone like me well into the middle of the conservative mainstream, and that would be a good thing. Obama’s presidency will stress and purify the conservative movement, leading to clarity on issues of culture, the welfare state, demographics, and racism that it has lost in the fog of “compassionate conservatism” under President Bush.

Read Full Post »

Even Obama’s white supporters were starting to get put off by what Reverend Wright implied about Barack Obama. But they’re all back on board now . . . most especially, Andy Sullivan.  The candidate of few accomplishments–legislative or otherwise–calmed them down once again with the right words. 

He’s the candidate of hopeful words, after all.  His speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention propelled him into the limelight.  Since then he’s carefully–oh, so carefully–positioned himself for the national run.  He’s avoided controversial votes and controversial people.  Wright was the exception; he needed Wright back in the day to get an entree into South Side Chicago politics, and, Obama was loyal to him for this reason.  Obama also had an emotional connection with Wright: the reverend and the scene at Trinity gave Obama the authentic blackness he has obsessed about since high school. 

But Obama’s essentially a pundit running for president.  Where leadership, tough choices, and tangible work were required–with Wright, in the Senate, as a law professor–Obama’s nowhere to be found.  He makes mistakes of judgment because he’s unwilling to take risks.  But his true believers are always willing to be sweet talked back into his arms.  All is forgiven; in this case, 20 years of membership in a black racist church coupled with the unbelievable alibi that he never heard any of this crazy nonsense from Wright until recently, even though his talk is a core expression of black liberation theology. 

In the meantime, conservatives are castigated for suspicious that these words were opportunistic, too late, slightly dishonest, and the product of political necessity.  In the minds of Obama’s true believers, something is wrong with us for being skeptical about a smooth-talking, liberal, Chicago politician seeking national office.

Read Full Post »

We have three very bad candidates for President. One is an angry, open borders fanatic. One is a black nationalist and smooth-talking charlatan. One is an crude and unaccomplished ladder-climber whose only qualification is her association as putative spouse of an ex-president.

Which of these three losers will best rally conservatives? One argument for either Hillary or Obama is that conservatives will become united, thwarting these presdients’ worst proposals, and rethinking policy and principles based on the damage of the Bush Presidency. But have the horrors and mistakes of the Bush presidency caused a rally of real conservatives?

It seems like his faux populist war talk instead creates a kind of false consciousness, where memories of the anti-war movement counterculture of the Sixties and the pussilanimity of the Democrats during the Cold War made instinctual conservatives mistakenly support all the unthinking talk of war in the Middle East.   The distraction of the Iraq War let conservatives forget about all the ways this president is, in fact, advancing the Sixties agenda, i.e., open borders, big government, silence on various culture issues.

A friend writes an interesting point about how the “unity” of a Clinton or Obama presidency may give us false hopes:

As far as the Conservative movement goes, I still choose having someone in office who will appoint decent judges and protect the country even if it means a slightly smaller chance the conservative movement will regenerate, which I am not even sure is the case. Consider that an Obama or Clinton (or Gore) presidency would give anyone to the right of Lenin plenty to complain about, and it might actually serve to paper over significant differences among the right that need to be hashed out. Think about some of the conspiracy theorists that got thrown into the conservative movement during the Clinton presidency. And look who we elected President afterwards. It doesn’t seem like a Democratic presidency was all that helpful to the Conservative movement (I know that Bill was more moderate than these goons, but still).

All of these candidates are so bad, it’s hard to decide who will be worst.  We can only think now of who will accomplish the least, be the least bad, or, if bad, do the most to unify conservatives.  I think more and more that person is Obama, because our biggest national hang up is confusion about equality, the role of government, and race.  He, more than a McCain or Clinton, I believe will be ideological, supporting open borders equally with McCain, but also supporting divisive minority set asides and various symbolic embraces of black barbarism.  Can you imagine a President Obama during black riots or a foreign attack on Americans?  He’s never faced these kinds of issues, and, to the extent he has, has been an apologist for or associated with the most extreme anti-American leftism. 

Becoming accustomed to criticizing this man, seeing his errors, realizing he’s a charlatan (a process already underway), and taking note of his conflicting loyalty to his tribe over the people as a whole will be a cleansing process, albeit a painful one.  I think he’ll be less likely to win than McCain or Clinton, but I think his victory would be the best hope for a conservative revival.

Read Full Post »

Obama not only wants to define his message, but he wants to be able to characterize each and every one of his remarks.  Anything else would be a “distraction.”  You know, politicians are honest, and it is a cynical rejection of “hope” and optimism to read between the lines of his candid remarks for their leftist, racist, and anti-American implications. 

The funny thing is that all of the bad news is coming out so late in the game when Hillary has only a miniscule chance to pull off a victory.  It’s a campaign akin to East Prussia ’45 consisting of a certain victor whose callousness is more and more apparent and a nihilistic dead-ender .  (Well, maybe that’s a little strong.)  Anyway, he WSJ had a good take on this today:

Yes We Can” has devolved into “Who the Heck Is This Guy?”   Mr. Obama’s political brilliance to date has been to use his message of hope to deflect questions about himself or his record. He’d actually created the perception that to challenge him was to challenge “hope” itself. Think back to that soaring race speech, which so successfully turned the debate toward America’s shared problem, and away from Mr. Obama’s individual Jeremiah Wright problem. But the San Fran comments proved one scandal too many; man and message have now been delinked.

Read Full Post »

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them…And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

This is Obama’s latest gaffe. He accidently told the truth that everyone knows: liberal elites don’t love Americans so much as they feel sorry for them. Flush with confidence after dodging the Rev. Wright bullet, Obama has fallen back on the old liberal standby: poor and middle class whites need to recognize their real interests are economic and similar to those of poor minorities. In other words, what they seem to think is important is in fact an illusion at best, a type of vice at worst.

This was Bill Clinton’s New Democrat formula; he wanted to unite the poor and middle class through broad government entitlements, and the key to this was to put the government in charge of health care. He wanted in effect to bribe the middle class to look the other way on government privileges for minorities, women, gays, and the like by making middle class whites part of the group feeding at the trough. Clinton knew that the old canard of “welfare queens getting rich” carries little weight among recipients of Medicare and Social Security, whose beneficiaries consist mostly of people who have worked hard most of their life. He wanted to promote this thinking among younger working people, as well.

Obama’s whining about the mass hysteria of Pennsylvania’s poor whites is obviously selective and results-oriented. Obama is calculating and contradictory in his rhetoric. Obama cares quite a bit about social issues, in particular those involving race. He knows that man does not live by bread alone. That’s why liberal wedge issues are often symbolic in nature and have little to do with over-turning capitalism. It’s why Obama retreats into vague generalities about “hope.” It’s why rich Hollywood moguls and hundred-millionaires like the Clintons support raising taxes on the “rich.” As liberal globalists, they are scared of the the gun-toting Christian peasantry, care a lot about gay marriage, are wedded to sexual politics and feminism, and are very concerned with showing their moral superiority to poor whites by supporting things like affirmative action.

What Obama’s really saying is that the social issues of his supporters are legitimate, while those of whites are the illegitimate epiphenomena of fear, hatred, and resentment against their declining power as a group. Black rage is good; “angry white men” are bad. He wants poor whites only to consider economics (in Obama’s mind the primary culprit), while he wants poor blacks to consider all of their resentments, as their economic circumstances, racism, and the like are all rooted in the same economic forces in his Marxist reasoning. Rich whites, finally, should only consider the wedge social issues of the Democratic Party. In spite of his reputation for sophistication, his philosophy is typical for a politician: whatever you do, vote for him.

It’s why Obama asks us in his great race speech to forgive the rantings of a Reverend Wright, even as we must recognize the intrinsic evil of his white grandmother’s representative fear of black criminals. As for the elephant in the room–the liberal program’s privileging of minority groups against whites–for Obama it’s just a question of understanding and recognizing your own collective guilt. It’s the right thing; economic interests must take a back seat. (Once again, moral considerations must trump economic ones when the power of minorities is involved.) There is also a hedge; Obama promises a payout from the coffers of even richer whites, so he’s really dodging the issue suggesting it won’t be a big problem. Rich whitey will raise all boats, black and poor white alike.
Remember his speech, “Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many.” It’s apparent from his on-again/off-again concern for social issues that Obama only employs his economic rhetoric selectively. Everyone is well within their rights to vote for him for any reason. The poor are promised a payout. They should think with their wallets. Wealthier whites, however, should embrace “hope” and vote for Obama, even if it will hurt their bottom line.

Read Full Post »

Liberalism is a very damaging philosophy. It denies the reality of groups. It requires willful ignorance of reality. It demands equality even where inequality is the natural result of free choice. That said, the old liberalism of FDR and MLK was far less damaging than the radical, anti-American leftism of someone like Noam Chomsky or Jeremiah Wright. The former was often a misguided result of a laudable concern for the poor and the incompetent.

Juan Williams, to his credit, calls out Obama for his bad judgment and bad values in standing by someone like Rev. God Damn America for so long. He notes that Obama has failed an important test of leadership by excusing the counterproductive paranoia of many black Americans. He writes:

Last March in Selma, Ala., Mr. Obama appeared on the verge of breaking away from the merchants of black grievance and victimization. At a commemoration of the 1965 Selma-to-Montgomery march for voting rights, he spoke in a King-like voice. He focused on traditions of black sacrifice, idealism and the need for taking personal responsibility for building strong black families and communities. He said black people should never “deny that its gotten better,” even as the movement goes on to improve schools and provide good health care for all Americans. He then challenged black America, by saying that “government alone can’t solve all those problems . . . it is not enough just to ask what the government can do for us — it’s important for us to ask what we can do for ourselves.”

Mr. Obama added that better education for black students begins with black parents visiting their children’s teachers, as well as turning off the television so children can focus on homework. He expressed alarm over the lack of appreciation for education in the black community: “I don’t know who taught them that reading and writing and conjugating your verbs were something white. We’ve got to get over that mentality.” King, he added later, believed that black America has to first “transform ourselves in order to transform the world.”

But as his campaign made headway with black voters, Mr. Obama no longer spoke about the responsibility and the power of black America to appeal to the conscience and highest ideals of the nation. He no longer asks black people to let go of the grievance culture to transcend racial arguments and transform the world.

He has stopped all mention of government’s inability to create strong black families, while the black community accepts a 70% out-of-wedlock birth rate. Half of black and Hispanic children drop out of high school, but he no longer touches on the need for parents to convey a love of learning to their children. There is no mention in his speeches of the history of expensive but ineffective government programs that encourage dependency. He fails to point out the failures of too many poverty programs, given the 25% poverty rate in black America.

And he chooses not to confront the poisonous “thug life” culture in rap music that glorifies drug use and crime.

Instead the senator, in a full political pander, is busy excusing Rev. Wright’s racial attacks as the right of the Rev.-Wright generation of black Americans to define the nation’s future by their past. He stretches compassion to the breaking point by equating his white grandmother’s private concerns about black men on the street with Rev. Wright’s public stirring of racial division.

Obama is insecure about his identity. Only someone who is 100% black, has been around black people his whole life, and has personal knowledge of the best of black American life–someone like Williams, Bill Cosby, or MLK–finds it natural to criticize his fellow blacks. Such a man can weather the inevitable charges of “airing dirty laundry” or “selling out.” Obama, by contrast, always feels he might not be black enough. And, for him, the black world is authentic and blameless in a way that the white America of his mom and grandparents is not. It should be obvious why we wouldn’t someone like this, someone undergoing a perpetual and adolescent crisis of identity well into adulthood, in any position of power.

I suggested many moons ago that Americans are not so much prejudiced against blacks as they are prejudiced against the last two generations of black leaders, symbolized by agitators like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and by sure failures of leadership as David Dinkins and Ray Nagin.  Obama’s obeissance to these kind of fools shows that while he may be a “race man,” he is not his own man.

Williams points out that as Barack has gained support among blacks, he has abandoned the rhetoric of unity and moderation that he championed earlier in his run, the kind of talk that appeal to NPR listeners and other latte liberals. It was questionable if such a candidate could ever ultimately appeal to the blue collar whites that are swing voters in a national election. But an overt, if dissembling, black power candidate never had a chance. It will be hard for Obama to put that genie back in the bottle.  (Of course, it is remarkable that the Clinton machine, for all of its vaunted “hard ball” tactics, never sent an operative to buy thse videos or look them up on You Tube and get the word out before it was too late.)

As a consequence of this late disclosure of Obama’s knee deep commitment to black nationalism, an angry bully, who has alienated most of the conservatives in his own base, may be propelled to the Presidency. Mccain will win in spite of his unpopular views on Iraq simply because of the Democratic Party’s continued embrace of unpatriotic, divisive figures beholden to minority interests and anti-Americanism of one kind or another. It’s like a combination of Dukakis (unpatriotic), Jesse Jackson (hateful and racist), and John Kerry (academic and pacifistic) finds itself in Obama, whose only saving grace is his rhetorical prowess. Republicans and 527s won’t pull punches the way Democratic primary candidates have thus far. The Democrats’ selection process seems perennially unable to put forward a winning candidate, even during a time of economic insecurity and an ongoing and unpopular war.  Obama, while apparently a winner, was only held together until now by a thin tissue of media incompetence and mistaken impressions.  While much can happen between now and November, I believe he will lose.

Read Full Post »

Steve Sailer’s made this point a few times, but considering Obama’s long record as a liberal of the worst kind, it’s worth re-stating:

First, more than anybody else in recent politics, Obama has internalized the rule in all the self-help books on how to win arguments: Restate your opponent’s argument respectfully to show you understand it. Since most people assume their rival disagrees with them only because he is too stupid to understand their reasons, this instantly disarms much opposition. Indeed, Obama’s intelligence and verbal skills allow him often to summarize his opponents’ ideas better than they could themselves.

What his opponents don’t realize is that, although Obama is more than smart enough to grasp their logic, he just doesn’t care about what they care about.

Obama reminds me of a famous incident in Charles De Gaulle’s career. When in 1958 he journeyed to war-torn French Algeria, where the French Army’s mutiny had propelled him back into power, he stared out for a long moment at a waiting throng of European residents, then pronounced four words: “Je vous ai comprisI have understood you.”

The mob went wild with joy. “De Gaulle understands us! He will make everything right.”

Nonetheless, much to the surprise of the pied noir Europeans who cheered De Gaulle that day, the French president then proceeded to give Algeria to the rebels, dooming Algeria’s one million Europeans to exile for life and their Arab allies to death.

Read Full Post »

Well, it’s been a tough week for Obama. While most of the week was spent dodging reasonable criticisms of his association with his anti-white minister of 20 years, I want to note something else that is strange about him and his campaign: its artistic style and cultish feel. In my entire life, I’ve only seen one kind of campaign poster for president: an all-graphic red-white-and-blue portrayal of the candidate’s name.

Obama’s supporters have strangely enough made his image part of the schtick in more ways than one, viz.:

This is actually quite creepy and unusual. Nothing like it has appeared in a major political party before, at least nothing that I can remember having seen. It’s reminiscent of the huge images of The Leader in totalitarian regimes, such as in the North Korea parade below:

For Obama, this phenomenon is representative. Along with Obama’s empty and evasive rhetoric, it is a sign of the banality and superficiality of his campaign, its rootedness in image, advertising, manipulation, extensive promises, and a very thin record. It’s one more rung on America’s descent from republic into unrestrained mobocracy.

Comically (or tragically enough), the lyrics to the song Cult of Personality speak directly to Obama’s bamboozling of Americans about his real agenda–an unreformed leftist agenda, coupled with tinges of black nationalism. The popular 80s song was sung by the exposed ventriloquist act, Milli Vanelli popular crossover rock band, Living Color:

Look into my eyes, what do you see?
Cult of personality
I know your anger, I know your dreams
I’ve been everything you want to be
I’m the cult of personality
Like Mussolini and Kennedy
I’m the cult of personality
Cult of personality
Cult of personality

Neon lights, a Nobel prize
The mirror speaks, the reflection lies
You don’t have to follow me
Only you can set me free
I sell the things you need to be
I’m the smiling face on your t.v.
I’m the cult of personality
I exploit you still you love me

Read Full Post »

Prominent libertarian columnist Radley Balko gives Barack Obama’s nutty minister a pass.  Balko says, “I don’t begrudge black folks the occasional indulgence in righteous anger–even obviously crazy, raving righteous anger. Particularly within the sanctuary of a church. The indignation from the right over Rev. Wright is ridiculous, and frankly seems manufactured.”  Actually what’s manufactured and remanufactured ad nauseum is black anger over events in the distant past and imaginary white racism in the present.  I doubt Wright saw much segregation in Chicago.  He was born in 1941.  Restrictive covenants ended in 1948.  No one alive today experienced slavery.  He went to integrated schools, served in an integrated military, and witnessed the passage of the 1965 Civil Rights act as a young man. If whites aren’t always nice to him, maybe it has something to do with his saying things like “God Damn America!” from the pulpit.

I have to agree with Ann Coulter, who speaks plainly to all of those who ask for one-sided “national conversations about race”:

We treat blacks like children, constantly talking about their temper tantrums right in front of them with airy phrases about black anger. I will not pat blacks on the head and say, “Isn’t that cute?” As a post-racial American, I do not believe “the legacy of slavery” gives black people the right to be permanently ill-mannered.

Unlike Coulter, Radley’s problem is that he’s a liberal.  Recall that he excorciated Ron Paul for a newsletter written 15 years ago by someone else.  He was offended by the author’s mocking descriptions of black hoodlums in the LA Riots, but feels nothing when Reverend Wright shows glee at 9/11 or fans the flames of black race hatred by waxing eloquent about evil whites.  The new generation of libertarians, it should now be clear, are basically stingy liberals that share their liberal cousins’ guilty views on race and culture, but don’t feel anything should be done by the government to alleviate the plight of poor people . . . unless they’re drug dealers. 

I realize in thinking about Obama, Wright, Jena Six, and my own unease with so-called “white nationalism,” that my views on racism are as follows: the racism of the past was wrong, extreme, and unjust, but it is basically dead, and white America deserves some credit for killing it. The remaining charges of racism are the product of propagandists and race hustlers, people like Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright.  (more…)

Read Full Post »

Obama promises to heal our racial divisions in his latest speech.  But, as evidenced by his long association with Jeremiah Wright, he is willing to tolerate gross expressions of race hatred from black associates.  This strange tolerance for race hatred from blacks suggests that his promise of healing may be a chimera.  But in his own mind, I think he can reconcile these contradictions: Americans must become more like Obama himself.  Obama is mixed race, a mulatto.  His description of the racial issues America faces are prefigured in his own identity and behavior.  In the way of a solution, Obama has thoroughly subordinated his white identity in favor of the black.   (more…)

Read Full Post »

I just read the full text on Drudge. Here’s the takeaway:

America’s basically good, but still has to work out its racial issues. Black people used to have it worse, and we need to acknowledge progress.

As for Reverend Wright, no one’s perfect. I liked some things my minister did and didn’t like others. Sure he hated white people, but he had soup kitchens too. Plus, he’s like family. As for where Wright’s wrong: black people have problems primarily because of racism, I agree, but we need to get beyond blaming whitey.  Whitey’s playing ball, more or less.  Further, someone like Wright doesn’t realize that white people have problems too because a lot of them are hard-working, poor, and buffeted by the forces of globalization, just like black people are.

I’ve known bigoted black and white people–including my own grandmother–and didn’t throw them under the bus for a single wayward remark (or in Wright’s case 20 years of highly refined incitement to racial arson). Also, I love my white mom, just in case anyone forgot about her.

Let’s talk plainly:  for someone as nuanced as me, single-issue explanations based on conspiracies about other races are not entirely accurate, but this kind of “folk wisdom” is common among older blacks. Maybe if you all weren’t segregating lunch counters and calling us nigger every five minutes, these older people would chill out.  I’m the middle man here.  After all, I’m half white.  These hateful feelings that I’m giving you some insight into are a bit of a generational thing, and I’m also a Gen Xer.

Ultimately, we all need to understand each other and reach some Hegelian synthesis of social solidarity. The root of that solidarity is a frank acknowledgement by whites that most black problems are caused directly or indirectly by the past actions of white people, as well as white capitulation to “fear” today; at worst, blacks merely have “complicity in our condition.”

But there is some hope: black and white people can unite around fleecing rich people, attacking corporations, and expanding government programs.  This will help all kinds of poor and middle class people, and therefore both groups can achieve racial harmony by uniting around the Obama candidacy. The speech ends with a nice vignette about a tender moment between a little white girl and a nice old black man illustrating that very possibility: black and white people sometimes get along, especially when they’re working together on the Obama campaign.

In fairness, this speech does address some of the criticisms I have made, showing that he’s more sophisticated than Hillary and her tone deaf, avoidant responses to controversies. He articulates where he agrees and where he disagrees with Wright. He basically said he thought the good outweighed the bad. He portrayed a more positive vision of America than Wright, pointing to the possibility of racial peace (by emphasizing class struggles and nuanced historical understanding (i.e., mentioning the slaveowner ancestors of his wife and his racist grandmother)), and, as he often does, Obama showed some understanding of the roots of white resentment in a way that was not a caricature.

Of course, this speech will not make Wright’s words go away. Seeing him holler “God Damn America!” is pretty powerful. It seems even with this explanation that there’s a point where someone decent and intelligent, someone who had a loving white mother and loving white grandparents, would distance himself from a white-hating crazy person like Wright, even if he would tolerate a wide range of other disagreeable statements by a pastor or family member.

I do predict the media will be enthralled–Sullivan already is. This speech will appeal to a tableau of common media attitudes: belief in America’s deep corruption, coupled with a belief in the possibility of progress; it will testify to Obama’s fundamental reasonableness and moderate tone; it will position him again as a “racial healer”; it will appeal to the healing power of words and rhetoric by a man with such a mediocre record; and, it will show the “horse race” folks that he can take a controversial campaign fast-ball and swing hard, nearly hitting one out of the park. This speech will definitely keep Obama in the Democratic Party game, at least, and stop the bleeding that the Wright controversy portended.  It does little however to assuage the concerns of thinking people that his close association with Wright shows that Obama’s a moral idiot and a calculating coward, who cannot stand up to other black leaders, in spite of his claim to be a healing figure.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 26 other followers