Business, Economics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary

The Ironic Presidency

45 Comments

The difference between 2008 and 2011:

The one constant here is Obama’s false pitch in 2008 that everything that came before his hope-and-change elixir was simply awful and everything after would be wonderful, from a cooling planet to falling seas — all delivered in teleprompted mellifluousness with a new post-racial cool. In 2008, for a conservative critic to suggest that the former Chicago community organizer was a glib rookie senator — without any experience in national politics, clueless about the private sector, with no prior record of industry or inspired legislation, and with a mostly unknown and poorly researched past — was to earn the charge of racism; in 2011, for a liberal to do the same, I guess, will be seen as sober and judicious bipartisan reflection.

And they’ll still call us racists.

45 thoughts on “The Ironic Presidency”

  1. I wish I could ask one of the news anchors this question:

    “A lot of talking heads tried to blame racism for the widespread opposition to policies supported by Obama. But that opposition always existed, no matter who was President. What were the talking heads expecting? Did they think conservatives and moderates would change their politics overnight just because the President is black?”

    1. “They were always racists!”

      Really, you should know better than to argue with the evil and/or insane. 🙂

      1. Proof (as if I needed it) of their insanity/wickedness:

        Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., pointed that out back in 1994 when the Republican-led Congress pushed for tax relief. Rangel denounced Republicans’ plan as a form of modern-day racism, saying, “It’s not ‘spic’ or ‘nigger’ anymore. (Instead,) they say, ‘Let’s cut taxes.'”

        1. I see what you are getting at. I can’t for the life of me figure out why Debbie “What’s-Her-Name?” Shultz keeps talking about how the Republicans want to return America to the Jim Crow era. It’s just such a stretch to equate economic reform to segregation, it boggles my mind. Clearly progressives exist on some existential level that I’ll never comprehend.

          2. DWS is crazy in a bottle.

            That was not the most offensive thing she has said after or before becoming the head of the DNC.

          4. Yeah, the Democrats are really keen on protecting the interests of African Americans. After all, they’re the party of slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow laws and segregation.

          5. Saying that black people will be disproportionately affected by voter ID laws is kinda racist, too, because it says that they are disproportionately unable to spend the $10-15 it costs to get a non-driver’s-license ID. Every time I hear about some little old grandma in New Orleans who’s too poor to have a car to drive herself to the DMV, I wonder 1) how does she get groceries, and 2) why doesn’t her church organize something. Lots of churches have a couple of vans for the express purpose of driving people without cars to service on Sunday.

          6. Saying that black people will be disproportionately affected by voter ID laws is kinda racist, too, because it says that they are disproportionately unable to spend the $10-15 it costs to get a non-driver’s-license ID.

            It’s worse than that. Every recent voter ID statute that I’ve seen has provisions for free photo IDs for people who can’t afford it and alternate means of ID than a license for people who can’t drive (e.g. the blind). That they’re really implying is that blacks are too stupid or lazy to get an ID because it requires a very small effort on their part.

            You have to have an ID to buy a drink or cigarettes if you look young. You have to have an ID to apply for government benefits, board an airplane, cash a check and do a host of other things. Requiring a photo ID for voting is not an imposition except perhaps for those who shouldn’t be voting or who intend to cheat. Perhaps we should adopt those ink stains that they used in countries like Iraq to prevent repeat voting as well.

          7. ” they’re the party of slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow laws and segregation.”

            Please. I see this argument all the time on this blog. It is like the 1960s, 70s, 80s, and 90s never even happened, eh?

            I have two links for you.

            A general overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

            An interview with Ken Mehlman, RNC chair, Bush campaign manager, where he admits what the Republicans did, and he admits they were wrong to do it.
            http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/17/le.01.html
            (search on the page for the phrase “southern strategy”)

          8. Bob, you’re full of shit. I was born in Alabama in 1957 and grew up there. The white Democrats there are little changed from the George Wallace days. They can not escape what they did and what they continue to do. How much time have you spent there?

          9. I’m going to guess that the people you are talking about don’t like Wasserman-Schultz or Obama either. In other words, they don’t represent the mainstream of the Democratic party.

          10. That wikipedia entry is a little one sided. When it comes to contentious political topics, wikipedia is not a source to be trusted.

            But go ahead and look at wikipedia and you will see that a greater percentage of Republicans voted for the civil rights act than Democrats.

            60’s, 70’s, and 80’s? Might as well add in 90’s and 00’s because that entire time the Democrats have been attacking anyone that disagrees with them as racist.

          11. Bob-1, if you are guessing, maybe it would be better to shut up rather than flaunt your bias and ignorance?

          12. Larry says I’m full of shit, and Eric tells me to shut up, and Wodun tells me (politely!) that the wikipedia entry is biased, but the RNC chair, Ken Mehlman, admitted that there was a southern strategy and apologized to the NAACP, and one of his successors, Michael Steele, also admitted the same:
            “This party was co-founded by blacks, among them Frederick Douglass. The Republican Party had a hand in forming the NAACP, and yet we have mistreated that relationship. People don’t walk away from parties, Their parties walk away from them. For the last 40-plus years we had a ‘Southern Strategy’ that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South.”

            So, Eric, two questions:

            1) How do Alabama racists in the Democratic party feel about the leaders of their party, Obama and Wasserman-Schultz?

            2) Why do the overwhelming majority of African-Americans vote for Democrats? (Do you think that if you just reminded them about who was behind Jim Crow laws they would vote differently? Do you suppose they just don’t know?) A grand unified theory would be preferable, one that explains why Jewish Americans also vote for Democrats in overwhelming majorities.

          13. And here’s one more RNC chair weighing in on the matter. Josh Reiter, this one is for you, as it gets back to your original point.

            Lee Atwater said:

            “You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968, you can’t say “nigger” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

            —

            So, that’s three Republican National Committee chairs admitting it, I wonder if I can find some more?

          14. Oh, sorry, it was Titus’ point, mocking Rangel for saying that “cut taxes => racism”. Funny that Rangel was quoting (or channeling) Atwater….

          15. Biden: “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy”

            Bob: “Look over there“

          17. Yes Bob, and Ted Kennedy was the “Lion of the Senate!” according to Obama. I guess that makes the drinking, womanizing, and the mixture that leaves his secretary to drown in a river all ok to you. Or, does the thought of being part of a Kennedy/Dodd sandwich turn you on, Bob?

          20. “Saying that black people will be disproportionately affected by voter ID laws is kinda racist”

            ¿Qué? ¿Negros afectados al contrario por identificación del votante? ¿Quién sabía?

            I thought some underdocumented ethnicity was complaining about Voter ID. I honestly never knew people were calling it anti-Black.

          21. fairly roundabout way of saying, “Titus was right.”

            How do you figure? Were you making a non-partisan point?

            You presented Ragel, a Liberal/Progressive making a seemingly insane connection between racism and lowered taxes. I presented Lee Atwater, a former Republican National Committee chair (and top strategist) explaining the connection. So: the connection wasn’t absurd, and it was Conservatives who were knowingly making it to appeal to racist voters. Seems to me that either you were completely wrong, or
            a) you weren’t making a point about Conservatives vs Progressives
            AND
            b) you weren’t arguing that the connection was insane.

          22. How do you figure?

            Alan asked a question. I told him the answer he would receive. You appear and perform exactly as I predicted. How was I wrong? Are you traveling FTL? Did you answer first? Tell us how things went in your reference frame…

          23. More here (I could go all day if necessary…): the Ex Pres framing the debate. To his credit he attributes, “personal attacks” to racism, but fortunately (for him), the folks on the ground went on to interpret any pro-limited government view in the Obama era as de facto racism.

        2. Yes, it means the Fallacy of Composition is alive and well, and thus imminently predictable.

          But what about you, Bob: are the commentators here, those who disagree with Obama’s performance as Pres to motivated by racism? When folks here argue for low tax rates, are they being racists?

          1. I don’t think the Fallacy of Composition applies when we are talking about the Republican leadership (three RNC chairs) and in particular, one of their top strategists, the guy behind the Willie Horton commercial, etc.

            As for the folks here, the short bumpersticker answer, in my opinion, is “No! They’re Not Racists, They’re Sincere Libertarians”. And especially when it comes to lower taxes. I think that when people here say that they want to see the tax rate drop, they are not speaking in code. And I think they can make a decent argument that lowering taxes, cutting regulations, and otherwise making government smaller and less intrusive will actually help poor people of any race, and will help victims of racial discrimination regardless of their wealth. I think they are wrong, but it is a decent argument, and more importantly, a sincere one.

            I do have a longer answer, with more caveats. I don’t have time for it on this sunny holiday afternoon. Here’s a lazy first cut at a partial outline:

            1) There have been one or two openly racist commenters here, but in that case, the Fallacy of Composition *does* apply — they didn’t represent Rand nor the great majority of his readers, and they don’t comment often.

            2) Rand himself has said some things I find borderline racist, but I’m sure he’d defend himself with vigor and sincerity (if he bothered to comment at all!) I also think he’s wrong about The Bell Curve.

            3) Rand is wrong about anti-racism. He is so wrong about it, it makes him appear racist sometimes.

            4) Islam. There is probably a racial component here. Even if there isn’t, the over-reaching anti-Islamic bigotry on this blog is racism’s half-brother, and it is pretty outrageous.

            5) Genetic determinism, blah blah blah.

            —

            I just don’t have time to expand on the above. But I can tell you this: when I hear people say “The Tea Party Is A Bunch Of Racists” or “Libertarians are racists”, I cite this blog( along with Tea Party activists and small L libertarians I know personally) as evidence to the contrary. Too bad I can’t say the same for the Republican leadership and all too many of their voters.

          2. And I’m open to the possibility that the Republicans have made a fresh start. I’m really just saying that when someone says “Democrats are the party of Jim Crow laws”, you’ve got to consider more recent history — the Republican Party of strategists like Lee Atwater and the Southern Strategy. And I think I’m done for the day, so have fun skewering my arguments while I’m gone!

          3. To me it looks like the Democrats have become less racist over time, which is good but they are not content that neither party is for racism. Instead when they try and claim the mantle of the anti-racism party, they have to have an “other” that is for racism.

            Sort of like how when Obama was elected NPR and Chris Mathews said it was a triumph over racism. Did you know that McCain was a racist that ran on racism?

          4. Good point, W. The anti-racist banner has much more meaning if the Other is perceived as being genuinely racist instead of merely dis-interested in the issue. Ideally, one must claim the moral high-ground without going over the top for the broadest appeal.

            Thus when one group is actually racist, it is sufficient for the anti-racist group to speak in color-blind terms of human brotherhood since the racism of the Others is obvious to all through word and deed. But when the Other is not racist, the accusations must be shouted from the rooftops.

          5. Islam. There is probably a racial component here.

            Of course. It has nothing to do with the subjugation of women, jihad, stoning. It’s… RACIAL.

            Sorry to be so outrageous and over-reaching Bob.

          8. Bob-1, in your quote from Atwater, he’s talking about George Wallace (Democrat). Beyond that, Atwater wasn’t in charge of the RNC in 1954, when he said Wallace (Democrat) started out with “N,n,n”, as he was only three years old.

          9. He was talking about Reagan’s campaign — how to emulate Wallace’s strategy for Reagan to get Wallace’s voters in Reagan’s day and age.

          10. So, the question was how to attract some of the vast numbers of racist Democrat votes, and the guy explaining (Atwater) it was only 17 when George Wallace last ran as an independent, hoping to gather enough racist Southern Democrats to stop segregation. Yet Reagan attracted Southern votes by being strong on defense, appealing to the military pride and heritage of Southern whites, not their racism. Southern whites backed Eisenhower for the same reason.

            Further, whites in the South didn’t swing Republican in anything but Presidential races until 1994. The Republicans never attracted but a handful of racist Southern Democrats (the Southern strategy never worked), most of whom went to their graves voting Democrat. The median voting age is about 44, so Southerners who were voting against segregation in 1954 were 84 years old in 1994. In short, the Southern old guard died off, Democrat and racist to the bitter end (old codgers rarely have epiphanies).

            The Democrats, being calculating racists, realized that they should pander to the blacks, promising them free helping of mashed potatoes and such. As Lyndon Johnson said, “Them ni**ers know who to vote for. They know to vote for me!” So they conducted grand social experiments that even Daniel Patrick Monihan blamed for destroying the black community and black families, but the dependency it created made sure that blacks still voted Democrat in huge percentages, which is all that matters to the party that was proud to defend race-based human slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, and which under Woodrow Wilson banned blacks from federal civil service jobs.

          11. Bob1,

            To most people, the expression “the guy behind the Willie Horton commercial” indicates the guy who engineered the ad. That guy was Floyd Brown. Lee Atwater remarking on an ad doesn’t make him “the guy behind it” any more than my comments here make me the guy behind Transterrestrial Musings.

            There would be nothing wrong with the Willie Horton ad in a society without race-baiters. It highlighted one travesty of the Massachusetts furlough program.

          1. HNN and historian Joseph Crispino are (to me) unknown quantities, so I will reserve judgment on the “non-partisan” claim.

            Volokh conspirator David Bernstein has a post on the Neshoba County speech. He says the “states rights” line was a PR snafu, but discerns that the audience interpreted it in context with economic policy (since that really was Reagan’s context).

            http://volokh.com/posts/1200709160.shtml

            Here’s the transcript to the speech.

            http://neshobademocrat.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=297&ArticleID=15599&TM=60417.67

  2. The point of asking the question is to get the talking head to hang him/herself with his/her own words in public.

    The Left has long claimed that conservative principles hurt women and minorities, and that conservatives know it.

    1. Unfortunately, they all know the catechisms. Everyone does. They’re procedurally generated from simplistic algorithms.

Comments are closed.