For me, reading the piece by my old friend Joe Darby on… [Friday’s] op-ed page [of The State, South Carolina’s largest newspaper] was another excruciating instance of the apparently unbridgeable cognitive divide between black and white Americans. I always find it very troubling — in fact, I lack words for just how much it troubles me.
Somehow, Joe looked at the fact that Republicans LIKE an inexperienced conservative Republican, but DON’T like an inexperienced liberal Democrat, and saw it as racism. I realize that after my more than half a century of living in this country, I should not be shocked at such things, but I was. Shocked, and very worried.
Remember this post about Bill Moyers’ hyperbole about the stakes in this election. Something one of y’all said caused me to express my worry about what will happen if Barack Obama loses this election: Democrats, who have been VERY charged up about their expectation of winning, and whose hatred of Republicans has reached new depths in the past eight years, will be so bitter that — and I hate even to think this thought aloud — the political polarization will be even WORSE in this country. MoveOn.org, to name but one segment of that alliance, will probably implode to the point of nuclear fusion.
Read it carefully, as well as the linked piece to which it is responding.
Update: Stephen Green has some thoughts on the general subject here which form a useful background.
Another update: This earlier article by Bob Herbert is also worth reconsidering in the light of this post.
This is a really difficult subject, and a painful and awkward one, but we have to try and face it.
A country isn’t a set of policies. Nor is a President a platform of xyz. A President is a symbol of the nature of a people and hope of a Nation. That is is why Obama must win this election. One needs only to look at the Convention floor of the two parties to see why.
It is a difficult subject. However, I cannot convince myself that it is advanced by the reverse logic that is at the heart of the linked piece by the Rev. Darby. His argument is that since the country’s rush to embrace the inexperienced Gov. Palin contrasts so strongly with the country’s current failure to back the allegedly inexperienced Barack Obama, the latter response must be racist. Conclusion: Obama cannot get elected because he is black, just as:
[blockquote]It’s not surprising in an America where some employers still explain a lack of diversity by saying that they can’t find “qualified†black applicants and where some black employees are fired for not being “trusted team players.†It’s not surprising to black children who are suspended from school for actions that lead to lesser punishment for their white counterparts. It’s not surprising to black women who are called less than ladylike for standing up for themselves and refusing to accept second-class citizenship. It’s not surprising in an America that’s quick to point out the “problems†of black America but can’t see or acknowledge the strengths of black America.[/blockquote]
But the reverse of this logic would argue that the country should elect Barack Obama as its President just because he is black.
If we are to advance the dialog between races, the Rev. Darby and others who think like him are going to have to be objective enough to realize that the comparison is [i]not[/i] between the two most colorful candidates—Obama and Palin—but between the two [i]presidential[/i] candidates: Obama and McCain. And given the difference in experience between those two, there is rational, entirely non-racist ground on which to choose the latter. Not everyone will make a choice on just this ground, it is true. But enough will that there should be no way to argue, should McCain win, that the outcome was “racist.”
What is the difference between Barak Obama and Sarah Palin – footsteps. As Mayor and Governor Sarah Palin has left her mark on her city and her state. The governor has stepped up and made decisions so that right or wrong she is on the hook.
As state senator Barak Obama voted present more often than aye or nay. His walk alone the path of the US Senate has left no mark on the legislative record, unless one ferets out the earmarks he placed in the budget. To be frank Senator Obama looked back, saw he had left no footprints and concluded that he was the messiah.
It is sad that Rev Darby sees racism in this, and sadder still because he has closed his eyes to the faults of Barak Obama as a candidate. senator Obam has always been a bit of an empty suit candidate. He was a “community organizer” – what the heck is that? He was a state senator in Illinois – and he wasn’t exactly a powerhouse in that body. He is a first term US Senator who has been running for president almost from the day he started, which hasn’t left much time to BE a US Senator.
Senator Obama gave a great speech at the 2004 DNC ( much like Gov. Cuomo in in 1984), and he often give really good prepared speeches now. He has built this campaign on the cry of CHANGE, but what that change is he has failed to define in any but the most general terms. To implement this change he puts forward himself, a US Senator with three years experience and a US Senator how has been in Washington since Richard Nixon was president. Both are rated among the most liberal senators in the body (numbers one and four respectfully).
Senator McCain picked Sarah Palin, a governor from outside Washington who is know for taking on the system – including senior members of her own party. Did she go to Punaho, Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard – no. Then again neither did the president Senator Obama so often cites – Abraham Lincoln.
RS Bunker
I disagree with the analysis of the underlying editorial, particularly the idea that the white electorate’s objections to Obama have to do with uncertainty about his positions, in addition to his lack of experience. As someone who lives in Illinois, and for whom Barack Obama would be junior senator (if he ever made it to the floor of the Senate), I would say that the problem I have with Obama is not a lack of knowledge about his positions, but the very fact of knowledge about his positions. He has consistently been an ultra-liberal in all matters. I think the reason why McCain has started to edge out Obama in the polls is increasing knowledge, among a national electorate that, on the whole, has a centrist to center-right disposition, about Obama’s positions on substantive issues. A local haberdashery uses the ad slogan, “A well-educated consumer is our best customer.” I think the contrary is true of Obama; he presents well up front, a good-looking man who can give a good speech, but the more people learn about him, the less they trust him, or at least the less they agree with him.
Disclaimer: In the 1994 Senatorial election, I voted for Obama’s Republican opponent, Alan Keyes (whose vote total included me and about three farmers from the central part of the state and, presumably, Keyes himself. Keyes’ wife could not vote for him because she was a citizen of the state of Maryland, as Keyes had been until six months before his election). Keyes is also black (or, to the editorialist, Keyes is black), so I’m not sure where that puts racial considerations.
Let me sum up Albany+’s statement at 2 above:
Vote Obama because he is black.
I seem to remember that the dream was that a man be not judged but the color of his skin, but by the content of his character.
RSB
As much as I appreciate the high intellectual tone of this discussion but having listened with increasing disgust to the ranters on talk radio and heard the comments of the various participants in the NPR discussion on race, I’ve reached two conclusions which are very unsettling to me:
a. This campaign may well be one of the dirtiest campaigns in American history and
b. Racism will not be absent from it – but it may take a more subtle and insidious form: Obama was a Muslim (please, I know this is not true, but it has been accepted as Gospel truth already), and once a Muslim always a Muslim (I’m sure a great surprise to those many Muslims who have converted to Christianity). I heard a Republican who happened to be black describe his fear about this election which was that whites are blithely (maybe deliberately) unaware of the extent to which racism is daily reality for blacks in the United States, not as crudely and violently as in the past, but still present.
The campaign of 2008 from both sides has not so far given any indication that it appeals to the nobler nature of the American people.
KevinBabb, you are incorrect.
Keyes is not black. He cannot be black because he is a conservative. Just as Sarah Palin is not a woman because she is pro-life and conservative.
People in this country have react emotionally rather than thoughtfully and factually. There are several causes of this;
In our public schools education has taken a back seat to social indoctrination.
The entitlement mentality that permeates our society.
The litigious nature of our society.
An increasing distrust of business and capitalism.
A disavowal of personal responsibility and a willingness to let government make all of our decisions.
An increasing distrust of science and an increase in “new age” spirituality.
All of these issues are intertwined and reinforce each other and all of them lead us down a path of destruction. We now talk at each other based solely on emotion rather than facts. I don’t know if our society has deteriorated to the point where we will ever again be able to speak [b]to[/b] each other factually and with the mutual respect due a unit of God’s Grace.
I’d like to commend #3 by Chancellor for its perception, and go a little farther. Both presidential candidates have flaws and commendable traits, as do their party platforms. A new citizen would have a great time chosing between them. However, most voters have previous experiences with local and state as well as national politics which heavily influence their current voting choices. To expect that some political overturn is going to occur in 2008 (as in #2) is simply incredible. The big turn overs in the past decades (1974, 1994, 2006) essentially were reactions to partisan overreach, and in turn produced more partisan overreach in the opposite direction. So, I would commend a jaundiced eye be turned towards both parties at all levels this year, as well as in the future. As my late grandfather once commented:
[i]There has not been one substantive party platform in my life that has not been contradicted and then reversed by both parties.[/i]
Politicians can never be called by the name of “Consistency”.
Onto the substance of the article:
[blockquote] Those who criticized Sen. Obama for his lack of experience, labeled him as long on rhetoric and charisma and short on substance and said they can’t vote for him because they don’t “know†him have gleefully embraced a governor who hasn’t completed her first term and has only proven thus far that she could do a good job of delivering the abrasive acceptance speech that was prepared for her. Those who have railed against pregnant teens and been critical of irresponsible parents have praised her for not rejecting her pregnant daughter, and have lifted up hers as a “typical†American family subject to trials as well as triumphs.[/blockquote]
in the original, is frankly a silly argument in assuming that a specific effect (assessing Obama or Palin as inexperienced) is exhibited due to racial reasons, alone. There might be many reasons for saying one but not the other is experienced or not. I personally see both as inexperienced on the national level and would expect either to have a big learning curve in the federal executive branch. But race, for me, has nothing to do with it, and I see nobody making any such argument.
That being said, there might be a “Bradley Effect” which holds true even in 2008. We will see. But in the meantime, Darby’s accusation that nobody is asking pointed questions about Palin is simply false.
#6. No, vote for Obama because the Republican Convention floor shows the party as it really is. It is a party that does not reflect the diversity racially, culturally, and economically of America as it really is. Nor does it care or even want to.
Obama is where America is going because it is where it really is. It may or not be not be this election, but it will happen.
11, then how come it keeps winning elections? Oh I forget conservative voters do not count.
I will be happy to vote for a black candidate for president, when that candidate is a fiscal and social conservative. I do not care about ethnic background — I care passionately about ideas and ideals.
Kendall, thank you for posting this collection of articles. I have grown in my own walk with the Lord as I have thought through my own racial and ethnic experience of life–and seen however for example Scripture makes reference to ethnic and racial details This election takes on additional importance for me in that my parish comprises individuals with various ethnic and racial backgrounds. We thank God for our mix–it keeps us humble and demands that we learn to listen to each other.
I’m of the same view of Thomas Sowell on “diversity” – it’s ideological conformity hiding behind superficial differences.
If Democrats want to nominate someone for President who has a wafer-thin resume’ that includes huddling with unrepentant terrorists, an undistinguished legislative career and being an accomplished apple-polisher for one of the most corrupt political machines in America, that is their prerogative. Just don’t expect me to vote for him, no matter if (s)he’s a cafe-au-lait Kenyan/Kansan or a blonde-haired, blue-eyed Swede.
#12
When it wins, it wins by lying about who it is and whom it represents, or by appealing to the lowest common denominator in those who thus far have been disproportionally represented among those who vote. The lowest common denominator in this case is greed, ridiculous blind patriotism, and fear. They use the latter two to secure the first for a few.
Again, the Republican Convention floor pretty much says it all.
#15.
There is phony and real diversity. The first does not cancel the second.
[blockquote]There is phony and real diversity. The first does not cancel the second. [/blockquote]
Indeed there is, but the gatekeepers of the word are in no sense interested in ideological diversity. Witness the spectacles of Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele, Ward Connerly, and other African Americans being read out of their race because they toe not the left-wing line. And do I need to point out that Sarah Palin has been similarly defenestrated from the female sex for her heterodoxy?
Diversity is as diversity does, Albany, and right now it’s little more than a stalking horse for left-wing politics.
#17
So DNC does not cancel out RNC? I am having trouble following your argument.
#19. I’m having trouble understanding the problem you seem to be having here with my reasoning. Please explain.
#18. Diversity isn’t as diversity does. Diversity is what diversity is. The “doing” you’re talking about is phony politics. That point has already been made. Not staying on point is avoiding the point. The point is who most represents America’s diversity as it really is.
#19 I think Albany’s saying the Democrats are “diverse” while the Republicans are homogeneous. Depends on the criteria. I think that both of them are strangely self selected groups which have too many lawyers in their homogeneous top leaderships. One thing is sure, both groups display high degrees of collinearity during conventions, and hence a lack of diversity in that criteria.
[blockquote]#18. Diversity isn’t as diversity does. Diversity is what diversity is. The “doing†you’re talking about is phony politics. That point has already been made. Not staying on point is avoiding the point. The point is who most represents America’s diversity as it really is.[/blockquote]
That would explain Obama’s pastor calling Condoleeza Rice a whore, I suppose. His enthusiasm at having diversity at the NSC and State.
Like I said, Albany, ideological conformity is what it’s all about.
And, as long we’re establishing proper quotas here, do you have the comparative racial and gender breakdowns of the RNC and DNC conventions? I didn’t catch a whole lot of either, but I did see a lot of women and minorities at the state roll call of the RNC…not really what you’ve contended here. Anything other than what we’re all supposed to accept as revealed truth?
#22. The footage is available for each Convention. Take a look for yourself. Divine Revelation is not the subject here and has never been suggested or brought up until your last post.
Ideological conformity is a thinking problem that seems to infect both parties. That does not make the ideology of each of equal merit or truth content. We are going in circles here.
Racial diversity in one’s cabinet or candidates is laudable, but it doesn’t mean much if it doesn’t reflect a deeper commitment to the “diversity” of the culture itself. Again, the Convention floor has a “revealing” word to say on that matter.
Albany+,
You are correct the convention floors show what the election is about. On party is for free enterprise, lower taxes, life, and choosing its candidates on merit. The other is for socialism, class warfare, quotas, abortion, and choosing its candidate based on his race.
So, go ahead chose Obama not for the content of his character nor the quality of his ideas, but for the color of his skin.
RS Bunker
[blockquote]#22. The footage is available for each Convention. Take a look for yourself. Divine Revelation is not the subject here and has never been suggested or brought up until your last post. [/blockquote]
I don’t recall invoking the Divinity, just you, in the revelation. As I said, I saw the state roll call of the RNC and it looked pretty racially and sexually diverse to me, leading me to conclude that your assertion is bogus. Now, you can either produce some figures refuting my observation or we can agree that what we’re working with is just that: anecdotal evidence.
[blockquote]Ideological conformity is a thinking problem that seems to infect both parties. That does not make the ideology of each of equal merit or truth content. We are going in circles here. [/blockquote]
I would certainly hope political parties would exhibit some ideological consistency.
[blockquote]Racial diversity in one’s cabinet or candidates is laudable, but it doesn’t mean much if it doesn’t reflect a deeper commitment to the “diversity†of the culture itself. [/blockquote]
I think you’re catching on, Albany. There are [i]authentic[/i] blacks and then there are the [url=http://www.blacknewsweekly.com/201.html]house (negroes)[/url] and [url=http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Ward_Connerly]Uncle Toms[/url]. Amazingly, if one toes the line on left-wing politics, one can remain black, but woe to the man or woman that strays from identity politics and adopts apostate views. You can almost hear the twang of “race traitor” in the air again.
#25
1) Revelation is first a theological term.
2) I won’t bother to do a nose count of the RNC/DNC Convention floors. You can avoid the self-evident if you wish.
3) I think that Obama himself is proof that their is a greater diversity of “blackness” in the DNC. He has already gotten himself in trouble by promoting responsibility and two-parent families in poor minority communities — not the radical line at all. Yet he can still see the effects of racism as what they are, and not throw the “legacy of racism” baby out with the extremist bath water.
I think the original question was which party/candidate represents the authentic racial, social, and economic diversity of this Nation as it really is? It appears a great deal of sand has been kicked up to avoid answering that question. I think i know why, revelation aside.
RE: “A President is a symbol of the nature of a people and hope of a Nation. That is is why Obama must win this election.”
Well, if the nation and the “nature” of the people of the US is radically liberal and believes in a large State and even further redistribution of wealth and class warfare, then Obama will certainly be elected.
RE: “One needs only to look at the Convention floor of the two parties to see why.”
Lol.
So you’re saying that all black people support radically liberal policies and a large State and even further redistribution of wealth and class warfare, as well as abortion on demand? Well tell that to Condaleeza Rice and Powell and Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell.
I dunno — seems kind of prejudiced from my perspective, but to each his own.
Sarah, right now the “redistribution of wealth” is going in one direction only — up. Meanwhile, the middle class taxpayer bails out all those great free-market “de-regulated” financial giants. This isn’t “class warfare.” These are the facts on the ground. Socialize losses. Privatize profits. We’ve been through this already. It’s the Republican way.
#28 But it is a Democrat Congress with the power of the purse. You are making up convenient talking points.
#26
1) Tell it to the [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/revelation]dictionary[/url], where it’s relegated to third.
2) I just want you to support your contention, seeing as you are basing your entire argument on it. Perhaps the recognized identity groups you claim were there were over-represented as regards the overall population. Is that “diversity?”
3) Explain to me this concept of “blackness.” It doesn’t appear to be pigment-based, given your final paragraph in #23, so what makes one “black” and can I become black if I assume these traits and thoughts?
Albany+, I don’t follow how you could tell about cultural and economic status by looking at the footage of people at the Republican convention. It seems to me that the only things clearly visible would be race and sex. There were plenty of women there; so you’re really saying that you didn’t see enough black people there. I agree; there should be more, because I think that lower taxes, less governmental control, and more free trade (within the limits of legal protections against fraud and dishonesty) benefit everybody, blacks definitely included, and I wish more folks could come to realize that.
The implication, however, is that you think blacks aren’t there because Republicans are racists. You don’t provide, nor does all this speculation about the election provide, evidence for that. I recall reading lots of stuff about racism — in the Democratic primaries, among Democratic voters. No doubt there are people in the dark corners of both parties, and outside them, who still vote based on skin color. Their numbers are rapidly shrinking, thank goodness, and I don’t see evidence that more Rs are racist than Ds.
I don’t vote for symbols. I vote for candidates who advocate the policies I support, or the ones who come nearest to it.
Katherine- I rather think tthat Jeremiah Wright is one which votes racially, though he might not vote for Obama this time around.
#29. It’s not power, it’s blackmail. It’s a necessary rescue after years of Republican “free-market” “de-regulation” ideology. (I’m not important enough to receive “talking points.”)
#30 If Bill Clinton can become “black,” I guess you can too. Engaging in abstract arguments about race, however, won’t change anything on the ground that needs changing.
I’m not basing my entire argument of the racial composition of the RNC convention. I said it was representative.
Thank you for your dictionary citation. The Webster’s at my hand makes it second. I think the present context, however, makes understandable my earlier assumption of your meaning.
The dust remains in mid-air obscuring the presenting question.
#31 I don’t vote for symbols, but I know they matter. To you, and to me. I don’t believe that racism is nearly as much the problem as class — and it is in this regard that I find Republicans most duplicitous for the reason alluded to in post # 16.
#33, it’s bedtime in the Middle East, so I won’t see your answer until tomorrow. How were you able to determine “class” by watching the RNC videos? And how is “class” determined? Those who have inherited wealth are distributed among both parties, as are people who have made bundles of money on their own.
Folks, Albany is a Democrat. He is going to argue in favor of his candidate. Don’t expect logic and don’t feed the trolls. He is right and you are not.
[blockquote]If Bill Clinton can become “black,†I guess you can too. Engaging in abstract arguments about race, however, won’t change anything on the ground that needs changing. [/blockquote]
I suppose I’m asking what determines race, Albany, since it seems so very important to you. If it’s not pigmentation, as you’ve alluded to, then how can you determine that the Democratic Convention was more “diverse” than the Republican? If it’s holding a certain set of views, political and otherwise, are you not conceding my point?
Or, in more concrete terms, if Sarah Palin is not, [i]pace[/i] Gloria Steinem et alia, a woman and blacks such as Colin Powell, Shelby Steele, Clarence Thomas, etc. are not, despite their dark pigmentation, black because of their politics (while Bill Clinton is, if we’re to listen to Toni Morrison), isn’t race just a political construct?
“29. It’s not power, it’s blackmail.”
You are right, they are not talking points, simply agitprop nonsense. What “blackmail”? After that response, I probably should not ask.
[blockquote]It’s not power, it’s blackmail. It’s a necessary rescue after years of Republican “free-market†“de-regulation†ideology. [/blockquote]
For the record, Fannie Mae was created under a Democratic President and Congress (1938) and converted into a private corporation in 1968, also under a Democratic President and Congress.
Freddie Mac was created by a Democratic Congress under Nixon.
Both are government-sponsored institutions.
I agree with #13. If, for example, should Condolezza Rice seek public office in the future, I will be very happy to vote for her.
I bitterly resent the “chip on the shoulder” attitude of Mr Darby and those who espouse his position. While there might be some racist voters in this country, not all Republicans or conservatives are racist. For that matter, one might be a Democrat and be racist, or a liberal and be sexist. Or prejudiced against a candidate because of his age – or youth.
I hold certain beliefs regarding the role of government in the lives of the citizenry. I hold other beliefs regarding the role of the family, the sanctity of life, and our nation’s role among the nations of the world. My vote will be based upon those beliefs, and will be given to the candidates whose proven (rather than published during the “silly season”) beliefs most closely dovetail with my own.
If the presidency is determined by entitlement, then let’s dispense with the farce of an election and appoint Mr. Obama as President, or is that too blunt for what Albany actually wants? Does he want his coronation of Obama with plausible deniability? That is, so he can pretend that there was an free and fair election? You know the fact of a free election means that your side just might lose.
#40 I’d recommend drawing lots, its more biblical.
I understand Albany+ now.
I tell a specific racial group that based on the color of their skin they are victims and always will be victims. I give them fish and do everything I can to prevent them from learning to fish and as a result keep them in dependency upon me, the giver of fish. And they had better show up at convention if they want any more fish, makes for good photo ops.
I thought that was manipulative, abusive, evil and racist. But now thanks to Albany+ I understand that it is embracing diversity.
#42 Except for the race bit, that first bit is precisely how the defense contracting industry relates to the federal government. Why shouldn’t it work with the rest of society?
I know I took a risk in posting this because it is a topic that generates a great deal of passion.
Please, I would prefer it if we could return more to the arguments of Mr. Worthen and Mr. Darby. Also, some of the responses are not exactly hospitable to Albany’s point of view. (And I am not asking for agreement necessarily but for civility and understanding). #42, for example, I doubt whether Albany would agree with your stating of his or her position.
In any event, could this not be a thread for the relative merits of the current two presidential candidates/tickets but on this issue of race and elections in general and this one in particular.
#14, thanks a lot for that comment. I have certain disciplines I go through during the week in terms of things I peruse, one of which is a regular reading of The State since it is so important in South Carolina. When I read this piece above this morning I was sad and uncomfortable and challenged–sometimes an important place to be.
[blockquote]In any event, could this not be a thread for the relative merits of the current two presidential candidates/tickets but on this issue of race and elections in general and this one in particular. [/blockquote]
Democrats picked their candidate on the basis of race, and will now lose the election because he’s a George McGovern retread. It’s quite likely the first president “of color” will be Bobby Jindal, who will follow the first woman president, Sarah Palin.
I apologize if I misunderstood Albany+’s position. in my post #42 please replace Albany+ with Democrats (I guess that is ok, see post #33).
I would also like to add the following to my #42 post.
If a member of this racial group starts to fish for themselves they will probably be attacked mercilessly as a sell out, oreo, uncle tom, etc.
The remarks from #35 on, with the exception of Fr. Harmon’s refereeing, are non-responsive to anything that I have actually said. Of greater relevance, I suppose, is that it appears T19 members are of only one stripe and to not toe the Republican line is to risk being called a “troll.” Enjoy the groupthink. We could have had a discussion.
#48 It is you who kept on responding hyperbolically, e.g. “blackmail”. Being accused of being a troll is simply a call to end a dysfunctional set of accusations which never are grounded in reality. I keep on pointing out your unreal points, and now I’m “of one stripe”. Well, that “stripe” comment is simply an ad hominem and ignores the diversity of opinion here, even among people who you have conveniently labeled as Republicans.
For the record I am registered Libertarian and quite often disagree with Republicans, who seem to have become enamored with big government.
Another unfair and non-responsive comment. My “blackmail” comment had a clear and cogent definition, which you omitted in your cut & paste because that is how you like to play.
[i] It’s not power, it’s blackmail. It’s a necessary rescue after years of Republican “free-market†“de-regulation†ideology.[/i]
My remark was in response to your rather unbelievable suggestion that democrats are somehow to blame for these necessary bailouts brought on by years of radical free-market “get government regulation off our backs” ideology from the Republicans.
I will bow out now.
#50 For the record, I’m not a registered Democrat and never have been. Truly, bowing out. Good night.
[blockquote]The remarks from #35 on, with the exception of Fr. Harmon’s refereeing, are non-responsive to anything that I have actually said. [/blockquote]
Not to belabor the point, but I think I showed quite clearly that the issue of race (not to mention sex, ethnicity and sexual preference) in politics today are little more than stalking horses for a leftist political project. Or did I misread your “deeper commitment to the ‘diversity’ of the culture itself” remark in #23?
It’s gotten to the point that to go against the orthodoxy of the Left will get you ejected from membership and accused of racism/sexism/homophobia….you know the drill, Albany. Shelby Steele wrote years ago that the black agenda had wound itself so tightly around the Left’s that deviation from the left-wing line had become racist in itself. We now witness the spectacle of the same thing happening to women.
Obama will lose, and lose largely on the strength this phenomenon. Americans can sense there’s something dark and hateful at the center of the Left, and they aren’t about to put the levers of power into its puppet’s hands.
RE: “Sarah, right now the “redistribution of wealth†is going in one direction only — up. Meanwhile, the middle class taxpayer bails out all those great free-market “de-regulated†financial giants.”
But they’re not at all “free-market” . . .Good grief, have you no idea of what the free market actually is?! I’m totally opposed to the creation of Fannie and Freddie. And I have no clue why you’re talking about the Republicans, in your response to me, when I merely pointed out to you that your comments about how Obama “must” win the election were prejudiced.
I’m not a Republican. I don’t give a hoot in the holler about the Republican Party. I’m a conservative — I think conservative principles are both loving and true to that Constitution which created this great Republic, the United States of America.
In any case, I’m not certain how this can be a thread that discusses “this issue of race and elections in general and this one in particular” when in fact the people [i]who are not going to vote for Obama are conservatives and the people who are going to vote for Obama are liberals[/i] — because you know . . . Obama is not a conservative.
If Obama is defeated — and I had honestly expected him to be elected — it will be because the majority of people decided to vote for a person who was less liberal than Obama.
I can assure everyone that we wouldn’t be having all of this amusing wringing of hands by the media about the possibility of the black man not being voted for . . . [i]if the black man were Clarence Thomas running for President on the Republican ticket[/i].
Oh there would be a lot of wringing of hands . . . . but it wouldn’t be all the breathless speculation about whether people not voting for Thomas were bigoted or not.
In terns of a party recognizing diversity:
Which party first:
seated African-American delegates to their convention?
gave a vote to an African-American for president at a convention?
seated women in the convention hall as a delegate?
Answers:
The first African-American delegates to a Republican national convention were seated in 1868. The Democratic party didn’t seat an African-American until 1936.
Frederick Douglass was the first African-American to receive a vote for president at the 1888 GOP convention (her received one vote). The Democrats didn’t cast a vote for an African-American until 1968 (Washington minister Channing Phillips).
The first woman delegate to a Republican national convention was seated in 1900 (from Utah). The Democrats didn’t seat a woman as a delate until 1908 (from Colorado)
(source: CNN)
Correction:
Frederick Douglass was the first African-American to receive a vote for president at the 1888 GOP convention ([b]he[/b] received one vote).
Sorry for the typos, friends. It’s been a loooong week.
Terms, not “terns”
delegate not “delate”
#51 To be clear in response, what you have not described is not “blackmail”, whatever it might be. To use such semantics is to [i]troll for responses[/i], hence that accusation from another, which I now firmly support. Instead it is the way our error prone government works, which you might get used to if you set back and actually studied it. If the Democrats pass it, it is theirs. Just like if a Republican president invades Iraq, that war is his. Political accountability works, try it.
To the general audience (esp. the elves) the prior thread is quite interesting, as it shows the issues by which many people choose for whom to vote for President. Some feel that they are forced to vote for one candidate or another, nay [i]blackmailed to do so[/i], while others are [i]latitudinarian in their political criteria[/i], recognizing that those who we vote for are men who put their trousers on one leg at a time (applies for women as well, thankfully).
Where this thread ties back into the top level is that [i]Race[/i] evidently is NOT the causative issue, though it may be the most self evident. Throughout the history of America race has been an issue when Good Men (both sexes) were in shortage; initially causing slavery to be instituted contrary to all morality, and later to decide who would recieve the first benefits of America’s bounties. Being purposed to be a [i]nation under God[/i], we cannot forget that God knows neither black nor white, male nor female. [b]We should not forget that purpose in 2008.[/b]
Kendall is right; yes, a very uncomfortable and rather sad subject.
For the record, I am white and would have absolutely no problem whatsoever voting for a black man, had he the right resume.
That said, and I’m sorry if this ticks people off, but would Obama even be on this ticket this year, with his resume, IF he weren’t black?
Sarah Palin is #2 on the Republican ticket and she DOES have mayorial and gubernatorial experience, which Obama DOES NOT have; i.e. she has experience running something and frankly, running something big.
I am actually deeply sorry that the AME pastor who wrote the underlying column believes as he does, because I find it a complete mischaracterization of American culture.
Somebody convince Colin Powell to run for president, as EITHER a Republican or a Democrat, and WATCH HIM win by a landslide. He’d have my vote in a NY minute…
God help us all…
GiD
With all this media frenzy over racial issues, why does not the media discuss Obama’s actual genealogy? It appears to be 50% Caucasian, 43.75% African Arab, and 6.25% African Negro; i.e. he is 1/16 black. While race is pretty much irrelevant as to qualification for office, if the media is so obsessed about racial issues, shouldn’t they report what his race really is?
I wasn’t going to rejoin this, since my question #34 was not answered, but #61, 43.75% Arab? I realize Obama Sr. was Muslim, but I have seen his photos and he doesn’t look Arab to me. I thought that by as far south as Kenya the majority of Muslims are of indigenous African descent. Converts do become Arabized in names and culture.
On Kendall’s point, from reading this article, it seems that black citizens of American descent do look at the country and the world through different eyes than do others. “Others” often includes black African immigrants, and here Obama is an exception, having adopted the “black victim” ideology deliberately.
Surprised me too Katherine. But I have seen it several places without contradiction. Obama has made several references just to being “mixed race”. Due to his appearance, however, he would likely suffer discrimination, regardless of his actual genealogy.
Oh, no question half of him is not Swedish, Bill Matz. I just wonder what “African Arab” is. I suspect we’re talking about African Muslim, which is a religious identification, not a racial one.
My apologies to all for having taken up too much post time here on this important subject. It seems from a review that it is difficult for all concerned not to bring their general [i] a priori [/i] concerns about “liberals” and “conservatives” to bear on very specific points which do not benefit in analysis from those general starting points. In other words, there’s too much baggage — including language baggage — being brought to the table in this discussion to get to the heart of Fr. Harmon’s post. I had my hand in that, and I apologize.
I believe Arab is an ethnic subset of Caucasian (which would make him 93.75% Caucasian). But the point is that while referring to him as “African-American” is accurate, it is misleading because the normal connotation of A-A is black. Hence the clarification that most of the African roots are Arab. On that point religion is irrelevant. But, as I stressed originally, this entire discussion is relevant only because of the media obsession with race.