Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Netroots Nation panels online Previous entry: Iowa: school officials strip-search five teen girls

Why the paranoia isn’t completely off-base

Photo from dday.  Yes, that’s a real book.

I know I’m going to sound like a broken record on this, but it’s because the wingnuts keep acting like a broken record, but the yanking their kids out of school thing?  It’s amusing to me that Obama is being accused of “indoctrination”.  Obviously, the real fear here is that schools are going to interfere with wingnut indoctrination of their own children, that this speech could interrupt a steady stream of at-home education in being racist, being afraid of liberals, and general intolerance.  Schools have always been seen as a threat because children are as influenced by peers and non-parental adults as their adults. The wingnuts aren’t wrong to believe that their kids could be influenced to not be hateful by their peers, of course.  What they’re wrong is in believing that teaching kids to hate is such a great idea. 

We laugh at the wingnuts pulling their kids out of school, and we point out that Obama’s speech is perhaps the most bland, inoffensive, apolitical thing he’s ever written. But that’s exactly what the wingnuts are afraid of.  They can just imagine their kids sitting in a classroom, watching this man speak—-a Democrat, a liberal, a “socialist” (so they’ve been taught), a black “racist” (so they’ve been taught)—-and two things might occur to them.  1) Their classmates do not share their fear and hatred and 2) Obama is saying the same sort of things that anyone would say.  In fact, the sheer normalcy of the situation is hard to deny, and kids who are eager to fit in with their peers are extremely unlikely to start insisting that up is down and this normal situation is scary and fucked up.  And that might be the first step towards becoming a more open-minded, decent human being.  No wonder their parents are scared. 

Wingnuts, particularly the Christian right, have always seen the appealing normality of the “secular” culture as its main threat.  We laugh at the book I posted above, but you can sort of see the paranoid logic of it.  The Beatles are threatening because the Beatles aren’t threatening.  They’re wearing suits and are all sweet smiles, particularly in the early 60s.  Sure, there was panic about their so-called long hair, but you can really see how that was grafted onto them in order to give shape to the general feeling that the Beatles would use their nice image to suck your kids in, and next thing you know, your kids would be buying more than Beatles records.  They’d branch out, maybe even start asking about records by forbidden artists, more daring artists, maybe even black artists.  The ugly fact of the matter is that at least through the early 70s, a lot of white adults were alarmed and angry over the potential of rock music to instill the values of integration into their kids, as evidenced by everything from the radio battles to the way that record companies used to use pictures of white kids dancing as the covers of albums by black artists, which seems to me a way to give kids cover to get the records into their houses without parents freaking out. 

We might laugh at that book and the panic over the Beatles, but put yourself in a wingnut’s shoes.  And you’ll see they actually were vindicated in their fears.  The be-suited and smiling Beatles may have seemed innocuous, but by the end of the decade, Jimmy Hendrix was blaspheming “The Star-Spangled Banner” at Woodstock.  From the perspective of non-nuttery, that doesn’t seem like a big deal, particularly since Hendrix was being profound, not disrespectful.  But yeah, you can see what a wingnut is thinking.  Plus, the Beatles themselves became drug-using, peace-promoting hippies. 

If you are genuinely afraid of a Satanic/communist conspiracy, then you’re going to see normalcy as especially threatening.  Since you are a wingnut, you might get ensnared into elaborate theories about subliminal propaganda or something like that, but the threat is actually right out there in the open. The non-nuttiness of most people, especially those around your kid, might turn them.  Being stuck in Wingnutville isn’t exactly the most appealing thing in the world, since at bare minimum, it means giving up any hope whatsoever of being cool.  The sexual paranoia, the constant fearfulness, the strong pressure to dress like an old person when you’re not even old enough to drink?  Doesn’t really hold a candle to being part of mainstream youth culture.  You take one look at the successfully indoctrinated children—-go visit the College Republicans on some campus, for instance—-and you see why it’s a hard sell.  I’d imagine even more so when confronted with President Obama, who actually came as close to being cool as a politician can get.  To make the whole situation worse for parents trying to raise a resentful weirdo with a chip on his shoulder and a hatred for people that aren’t just like him is that this new generation of kids especially reject homophobia and racism.  That’s why home schooling is becoming a more popular option for wingnuts.  You have to build that wall.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 09:35 AM • (91) Comments

The college republicans at UCSD were passing out “Who is Deceiving the Liberals” at a number of events last year.

Comment #1: BenYitzhak  on  09/08  at  10:33 AM

Honestly, I think the wingnuts are crying about this simply to be disagreeable.  They didn’t get their way and now they’re throwing a tantrum.  It’s just like the toddlers I know who will refuse neutral or even good things in protest of not getting Something They Want.  They don’t care about this speech; they’re just still cranky that a black man and Democrat got elected as president.

Comment #2: bananacat  on  09/08  at  10:58 AM

I too had thoughts that part of the problem is that the GOP is frantic about the fact that they have little to offer anyone under 70 and suffer a serious “coolness” deficit, hence their rabid hysteria over a political movement that includes young people.  Why, Hitler made appeals to young people!  That said, I hadn’t really thought of normalcy angle and you are definitely hitting on something big there.  After all the rending of garments about the ferriner who has usurped the Presidency to being about the Islamosocialfascist apocalypse, it’s got to be hard to square that with the guy giving the same old stay in school kids speech.  Why it makes the adults looks quite foolish.

Comment #3: pennylane  on  09/08  at  11:05 AM

You know, the thing about conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists is that everything - EVERYTHING - is seen to reinforce the conspiracy.  Obama talks to Iran?  PROOF!  Obama doesn’t talk to Iran?  PROOF HE’S SECRETLY TALKING TO THEM.  Obama talks to school children about abortion and drug use and voting Communist?  PROOF!  Obama talks to school children about Mom, apple pie, stay in school, and wave the flag?  PROOF HE’S SECRETLY UNDERMINING THOSE VALUES BY SOMEHOW MOCKING THEM.

We’re in a no-win situation with a lot of these people.

Comment #4: tannenburg  on  09/08  at  11:11 AM

That’s why home schooling is becoming a more popular option for wingnuts.  You have to build that wall.

My sister has just begun some sort of “Christian Home Schooling” program with my three year old niece. It was weird enough when she was just learning to speak in sentences and they were teaching her to recite prayers she couldn’t possibly understand, but watching her get cut off from the world is seriously freaking me out.

It’s funny you should connect this to rock music since, just last night, I was talking with my girlfriend about finding some way to undermine my niece’s (and infant nephew’s) indoctrination, and my best bet was enticing them with great music. Although I wasn’t home schooled, my parents raised us to be Christian, and have all the usual unfortunate beliefs, and I can definitely trace my first stirrings of awareness of a larger, more interesting world to the time my father brought home a Buddy Holly tape. I became an obsessive fan (prior to that, we mostly listened to christian artists like Sandi Patty and Amy Grant), which led to more 50’s rock and then my mother’s 60’s era protest music (Beatles and Simon & Garfunkel, who utterly blew my mind by daring to declare in song that they had some major disagreements with god.), then to 70’s Pink Floyd, 80’s R.E.M. and so on. Rock music definitely helped make me who I am.

So, now I’m contemplating the day I can send my young relatives a copy of Frankenchrist or Fresh Fruit for Rotting Vegetables and say, “Here’s a band that was angry at a crazy Republican who died years before you were born. Study it well.”

Comment #5: Egnu Cledge  on  09/08  at  11:14 AM

do do do do, da da da da, that’s all I got to say to you

Comment #6: Ms Kate  on  09/08  at  11:49 AM

Note: it isn’t a problem when Megachurches are staffed and run by Charismatic Fearless Pastors.  When an actual Democrat has actual Charisma?  OH NOES!

Maybe it is the only explanation their feeble brains can muster for why in the world the majority of US voters voted for Scary Black Man.  He cast a mojo!

Comment #7: Ms Kate  on  09/08  at  11:50 AM

I’ve felt that this argument was about having a black man telling your children to stay in school & work hard. Its hard enough for most wingnuts to let a female teacher have authority over their male children, but a black man is the last straw.

Comment #8: Mark  on  09/08  at  11:53 AM

What was that great line from Molly Ivins?  Something along the lines of, “Once you figure out they’re lying to you about race, you start to wonder what else they’re lying to you about.”

Comment #9: Mnemosyne  on  09/08  at  11:57 AM

Another thing to keep in mind is that the wingnuts have successfully gotten schools and mainstream media outlets to tacitly agree that Obama addressing schoolchildren is somehow legitimately controversial.  My local paper had a big front-page story about which local schools are not showing the speech, and what the schools that are showing it are doing to make sure that parents are aware that they can opt out*.  The article made brief mention of the speech itself, but the manufactured controversy was the real story. 

I am getting absolutely sick of the way that every time the wingnuteria pretends to be afraid of something, those who live in reality-land fall all over themseves to crate a safe space for their craziness. 

*I originally said “aware of their right to opt out,” but I looked at the article again and found that they quote a state-level official saying that schools do not actually *have* to let students opt out; the schools are just doing so anyway.

Comment #10: A.  on  09/08  at  12:01 PM

I have that book and many others among my collections of odds and ends that I should place into either a dumpster, a garage sale, or a time capsule.  The history of the 50s and 60s involves a lot of bizarre literature from hippies, yippies, beatniks, Communists, radicals, Birchers, Christians, and every random lunatic who could figure out how to type.  It didn’t stop in the 70s or 80s, either.  And now it’s on the web.

Paranoia is always insane.  Their fears, however, are not.  Their loss of power is real, may very well be lasting, and it undermines their assumptions about not only this country but their fellow countrymen.  The question is whether I give a crap about their fears of a black President, liberals, socialism, and the rest.  And the answer is generally that I don’t.

Comment #11: 3letterjon  on  09/08  at  12:01 PM

I work at a university so I can back you up on college republicans. They are all white. They all look and dress remarkably alike. They do things like grab signs for a republican candidate and say, “I’m taking this because it will annoy my roommates. They’re both Democrats.”

But here is the ray of hope. When asked for a show of hands of who in the crowd of about 200 (out of a school of 25,000) is a freshman, 90% of the room raised their hands. I think this is a good thing because it backs up the theory that being around people who aren’t exactly like you broadens your horizons. If that weren’t true, 90% of the students there would have been seniors. This is why republicans hate college. Their kids start to think for themselves after they’ve been there a while and risk becoming tolerant, thoughtful people instead of hatemongers.

Comment #12: DC Fem  on  09/08  at  12:07 PM

Thought of something else to say, just as I hit post—I am OK with schools allowing parents to opt out of things, provided that option provided fairly (for example, if there is a short list of things that parents are allowed to opt out of, that is decided through some open and equal process, and that is not changed on a whim.  Or if parents are allowed to opt out of anything they please, for any reason, that would also be fair, if potentially problematic in other ways).  If, however, special opting-out provisions are invented on the fly every time Faux News decides something is controversial, that is not OK. 

But in my area at least, schools are bending over backwards to inform parents that they can opt out, which just lends further credence to the idea that the president speaking to schoolchildren is somehow something that a normal person of average sensibilities might have a problem with.  And that is not even remotely OK.  If parents want to opt out of something that sane people consider normal and unobjectionble, the onus should be on them to ask for that option.

Comment #13: A.  on  09/08  at  12:11 PM

We’re in a no-win situation with a lot of these people.

Quasi-solipsistic McCarthyism. And this is why they’re so opposed to critical thinking—-you can never lock someone up, mentally or physically, quite so effectively as when you convince them to defend the lock from the key themselves.

Comment #14: Kyra  on  09/08  at  12:16 PM

I think Amanda (and others) have it exactly right. The parents are yammering about how Obama is the SuperScaryMoslemCommieSocialist and oh by the way he’s blackity black black BLACK and don’t you forget it….and the kids will see a charismatic, pleasant-voiced man give a nice anodyne speech about studying hard and staying in school and they’ll think, Gee, he seems like a good guy, what are Mom and Dad going on about?

Seconding the College Republicans; nearly all I knew where white (maybe an Asian or two), mostly male, and some of the most embittered, self-pitying whiners I’d ever met. Healthy dose of misogynism, too; I remember eating lunch early in my freshman year with a couple of them and they were going on and on how most of the women at my alma mater were ugly, except this one lady one of them wanted to get with and he said, (and this is an exact quote), “I want to own that bitch.” Yeecccch.

Comment #15: Norsecats  on  09/08  at  12:19 PM

Meh. I think Amanda’s giving some of them too much credit here. I am an unfortunate denizen of wingnut territory and the vibe I’ve been getting has been more of a simple in-group vs. out-group affiliation thing. We are Good, They are Bad. Obama is one of Them, therefore he is Bad and We Must Oppose Everything He Does For The Greater Good.

I mean, I’m not saying that there aren’t all the usual stupid reasons behind hating Obama in the first place but I feel like this incident in particular is mainly just reflexive hatred of anyone not on the Home Team, as it were. 

But crazy tends to come in a lot of subtly different flavors so it’s entirely possible that there’s more going on beneath the surface in places where hatred of anything and everything not Republican isn’t quite so ingrained in the local mindset.

Comment #16: Ira Wyatt  on  09/08  at  12:27 PM

So, now I’m contemplating the day I can send my young relatives a copy of Frankenchrist or Fresh Fruit for Rotting Vegetables and say, “Here’s a band that was angry at a crazy Republican who died years before you were born. Study it well.”

Not sure the album with the song “I Kill Children” is the best way to break through the wingnuttia. wink

Comment #17: BlackBloc  on  09/08  at  12:36 PM

There’s a point I hadn’t considered. Thanks for the perspective.

Comment #18: aftercancer  on  09/08  at  12:44 PM

This tendency dovetails with a rather perverse practice within cultural christianity: sacredization of media. Take a pop song, add Jesus, and sell it to the churchgoers. I remember a T-shirt I saw in elementary that had a dozen comercial slogans used to express various sentiments about god (“God is like Coke—He’s the real thing.”). No other—well, for lack of a better term—genre of experience seemed to do this with such zeal.

Rightwingers in general have a similar reaction. They need to create “their” rock, “their” intellectual books, and so on, with the bizarre side effect that everything else on planet Earth becomes the Other (a.k.a., liberal).

There’s a saying in churches that Christians need to be in the world but not of it. Though it’s not exactly scripture, fundies, and, by extention, rightwingers, are consistent: they have to pervert that, too.

Comment #19: No One of Consequence  on  09/08  at  12:49 PM

Rightwingers in general have a similar reaction. They need to create “their” rock, “their” intellectual books, and so on, with the bizarre side effect that everything else on planet Earth becomes the Other (a.k.a., liberal).

That’s why you have “conservative commentators” and “mainstream commentators.” You don’t have “liberal commentators.” The wingnuts will say “that’s because the mainstream media IS liberal,” but in fact it’s because their crybaby hissy fits are loud enough that they get their own special category, whereas in sports media you’d never have someone calling themselves “Red Sox fan color analyst.”

I think Amanda (and others) have it exactly right. The parents are yammering about how Obama is the SuperScaryMoslemCommieSocialist and oh by the way he’s blackity black black BLACK and don’t you forget it….and the kids will see a charismatic, pleasant-voiced man give a nice anodyne speech about studying hard and staying in school and they’ll think, Gee, he seems like a good guy, what are Mom and Dad going on about?

Like I said last week, reality’s a gateway drug. Next up would be, “Hey, Mom? Dad? Explain to me again why some people don’t deserve to go to the doctor?”

Comment #20: RickMassimo  on  09/08  at  12:58 PM

“Malleus Maleficarum”, one of the most damaging right-wing books ever (it resulted in millions of deaths, at a time when you had to murder people individually, without advanced technological support) said that the worst witches of all were the ones who only did good to their neighbors with their magics, because that tended to encourage people to accept the Other in their midst.

I have been thinking for some time that there has to be some way to address the fears of these people, whose fear is genuine even though what they fear is imaginary, but I am frustrated in figuring out how to do that.  Not as though we can address it directly, any more than Sigmund Freud could say, during his first consultation with a patient, “Maybe your problem, Colonel, is a buried desire to kill your father and fuck your mother.”

Comment #21: Dr. Psycho  on  09/08  at  01:02 PM

This whole thing kind of reminds of the dumb comment by then-Senator Joe Biden during the primaries:

“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

I don’t really care to rehash that whole thing, and while I believe it was a ridiculously stupid thing to say, I really don’t believe Biden was speaking from an intentionally racist stance or with malice when he said it.  I think it was more a case of his own unexamined white privilege that he wasn’t even aware of - something the vast majority of white straight men above 60 have.  I think he genuinely was trying to pay a compliment to Obama, it just came out really bad.  Stupid, stupid comment, but not in any way meant to be mean-spirited.

But that’s it in a nutshell.  It isn’t just that Obama is the first “cool” politician we’ve had, he’s the first nationally-recognized African-American politician who has made it completely impossible to demagogue him on race issues.  It isn’t that the wingnuts didn’t try, or even that they don’t still try, but they have never been able to pin a single thing on him that would indicate that he in any way, shape or form has any sort of chip on his shoulder towards white people.  They’ve always had to resort to the guilt-by-association game to try to throw out the patently racist “he’s playing the race card” meme.  Whether it was Reverend Wright’s impolitik (but quite valid) comments on race in America, Michelle’s “proud of my country” comment, or the latest, Van Jones pointing out the fact that black schoolkids don’t go around shooting up their whole school, they have never been able to find one single thing that Obama has ever personally said which indicates any degree of animosity towards white people whatsoever.  President Obama has never once levelled accusations of racism at his opponents (though he would be well within his rights to do so), and he has never once said anything to indicate that he believes he is being maligned because of his race (even though he is being maligned because of his race).

He’s following the Jackie Robinson playbook to a tee, because sadly, he has no choice in this country that is still a lot more racist than it cares to admit about itself.  When Brooklyn Dodgers GM Branch Rickey extended his contract offer to Robinson in the mid-1940s, he warned Jackie up front that by taking the job, he would be facing an endless onslaught of racist epithets and invective and perhaps even death threats from other ballplayers and fans who did not want to accept a black man in Major League Baseball.  And sure enough, he regularly had to endure opposing ballplayers yelling vile things like, “Go back to the cotton fields, you nigger!” in his career.  They had to book separate hotels for him when they travelled.  But Robinson kept his head up and stayed above it all.  He didn’t fight back by firing hateful words back at them (even though they deserved it), he just played the game with an amazing degree of grace and dignity that wound up making him one of the most beloved players to ever take the field by the end of his career.  Because of what Jackie did - not just his talents at the game, but the tremendous class in which he did not allow the hate he faced to make him a hateful person, he is revered today with an honor that no other player in the game has ever been given.  Throughout all 30 Major League Baseball teams, Jackie’s #42 will never again be worn by any player, and it is the only number that has been retired and honored throughout the game - even the legendary Babe Ruth has not been bestowed that honor.

I imagine President Obama, a baseball fan himself, has probably read up about Jackie Robinson, because just like Robinson broke the color barrier in one of our nation’s most hallowed cultural institutions - baseball - and by default ALL pro sports, Obama has broken the barrier to the highest office in our land.  And to some degree, pioneers like Jackie Robinson helped pave the path for Obama to get there.

Whatever claims anyone has made about Obama’s election making us a post-racial society have been absolutely shattered in the 7 months since he took office.  And it isn’t that I necessarily think that we have become a more racist nation in that time, but rather that the racists are having a harder time hiding their racist beliefs in the face of an African-American president who DOES speak articulately, who doesn’t exude any of the worst stereotypes racists have about black politicians, and never, ever, ever displays any sort of resentment towards white America (even though he deserves to have that resentment).

(MORE)

Comment #22: DTG in STL  on  09/08  at  01:11 PM

Dr. Psycho:

I’m at a loss, myself.  My in-laws are retired, without health insurance beyond what the Government provides, on a low fixed income, and have serious health issues.  Yet their fear of a Democratic-controlled government is so visceral and deep that they cannot be reached by reason, even if their own specific condition is placed plainly before their eyes.  Access to health care through reform would aid them beyond estimation but they refuse it.  No, instead their concern is that the Obama administration will confiscate their firearms and strip away their 2nd Amendment rights.  Oh, and I believe they have Birther tendencies.

Therefore reason won’t work; examples relevant to their own lives won’t work; documentation proving that their fears are unfounded won’t work.

There’s nothing more immovable than a belief system.  One shapes the world to conform to that belief.  I fear that the best we can do is to work around them and stop trying to conciliate the hardliners.

Comment #23: tannenburg  on  09/08  at  01:11 PM

(CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST)

You are right, the real reason they don’t want their kids to see Obama ISN’T because they are afraid that he will pollute their minds with socialist propaganda… the real reason they don’t want them to see him is because they are terrified that it will completely shatter the malicious racist myth they have created about who he is in their children’s minds.  The wool will be pulled back from their eyes, and they’ll see who he really is - a good, smart, humble, kind, cool (in a geeky sort of way), empathetic, bright, non-threatening, loving, concerned, truly decent human being.  And deep down, I think most of the wingnuts realize that is who he really is, if they have ever actually bothered to watch him speak for more than 5 minutes without the filter of rightwing media hate telling them what to think.  How can you not see these things about this man?  Even if you don’t agree on all of his policies, how can you see this man side by side with his family and NOT see the epitome of the nostalgic American Dream?

This is a fantastic post, Amanda.

They are trying to shield their kids from him because deep, deep down, they know that maybe, just maybe, their kids will actually like him… because they know deep down that he’s truly a damn likeable human being.  And that freaks the hell out of them, because it truly shatters all of their deeply held beliefs about just who our nation’s first black president really is.

I know that some get tired of hearing just how much about race this all is… but let’s not kid ourselves.  The absolute biggest hurdle Barack Obama will have to face in his presidency isn’t the economic problems that we face, it isn’t the foreign policy we need to fix - it is having to be able to shoulder the weight of having to shatter stereotypes about exactly who black politicians are in America.  He HAS to be Jackie Robinson, except this isn’t just baseball, and the fate of the entire planet is to some degree in his hands, so the task is a billion times bigger.  The second he becomes the racist stereotype they have of him, the second he has a so-called “Sharpton moment” (a man who has been cruelly demonized for not being able to be Jackie Robinson himself), they are gonna try to destroy him with it.  He can’t, not even for one second, ever express the sentiment, “Goddamn, you fucking white racist assholes are making me CRAZY!  Shut the fuck up already!!!”  Because at that exact moment, the Becks, Hannitys, O’Reillys, and Limbaughs will be all over it, and they’ll destroy him, as people flee in droves.  Shit, we just witnessed a supremely qualified black man lose his job in the White House because he dared to keep it fucking real for 2 minutes speaking about school shootings.

So to anybody who thinks Obama is a sell-out to his own community for not being more vocal in the face of the racism he faces, understand this - he has absolutely no choice but to be a lot more Martin than Malcolm.  Malcolm Obama can’t and won’t get re-elected, and sure as hell can’t get any agenda items pushed through a chickenshit Congress while he’s here.  We ain’t “post-racial” enough for that level of reality yet.  Sad… but undeniably true.  But Martin Obama just might be able to do these things.  And if he can serve to effective terms, he could one day be as revered in American history the same way Jackie Robinson is revered in baseball history.  But he’s got a keep it cool 100% of the time, and I don’t envy him in the slightest for that.

Comment #24: DTG in STL  on  09/08  at  01:12 PM

You have to build that wall.

Whenever I hear or read about how prejudice/bigotry/racism are perpetuated, I think about a song by Oscar Hammerstein:

You’ve got to be taught before its too late, before you are 6 or 7 or 8; to hate all the people your relatives hate, you’ve got to be carefully taught, you’ve got to be carefully taught.

(Oscar Hammerstein, South Pacific)

Comment #25: PurpleGirl  on  09/08  at  01:13 PM

never, ever, ever displays any sort of resentment towards white America (even though he deserves to have that resentment).

This is due to one of the things that drives the bigots crazy: Obama is both black and white in racial and cultural terms.  He appears black, but was raised by his white mother and that makes it hard to cast all whites into a faceless, nameless mass of “White America”. 

He also embodies the worst fears of miscegenation, while refusing to self-hate.

Comment #26: Ms Kate  on  09/08  at  01:16 PM

He’s following the Jackie Robinson playbook to a tee, because sadly, he has no choice in this country that is still a lot more racist than it cares to admit about itself.  When Brooklyn Dodgers GM Branch Rickey extended his contract offer to Robinson in the mid-1940s, he warned Jackie up front that by taking the job, he would be facing an endless onslaught of racist epithets and invective and perhaps even death threats from other ballplayers and fans who did not want to accept a black man in Major League Baseball.  And sure enough, he regularly had to endure opposing ballplayers yelling vile things like, “Go back to the cotton fields, you nigger!” in his career.  They had to book separate hotels for him when they travelled.  But Robinson kept his head up and stayed above it all.  He didn’t fight back by firing hateful words back at them (even though they deserved it), he just played the game with an amazing degree of grace and dignity that wound up making him one of the most beloved players to ever take the field by the end of his career.

I remember reading that when Branch Rickey signed him, he told Robinson that he was not to fight back in any way for his first three years (one in the minors, two in the majors) and that after that he was on his own. For three years he took all the abuse silently. Opening Day of his fourth season in organized ball (third in the major leagues), he was running out a grounder and the first baseman gave him the usual treatment - a “tag” that was more of a body block.

Robinson reportedly got up and decked him. And that was the end of that bullshit.

Can anyone verify this?

Comment #27: RickMassimo  on  09/08  at  01:28 PM

This is the first explanation I’ve read anywhere that perfectly jibes with all the observable facts. 
It’s the Grand Unified Theorem of Wingnutism.
Ms M, you deserve a Nobel for this.

Now if only there were a cure.

Comment #28: smartalek  on  09/08  at  01:31 PM

But Robinson kept his head up and stayed above it all.  He didn’t fight back by firing hateful words back at them (even though they deserved it), he just played the game with an amazing degree of grace and dignity that wound up making him one of the most beloved players to ever take the field by the end of his career.

Rickey made the comment about Robinson not fighting back only for his first year or two.  Which he did.  Starting in the 1949 season, Robinson opened up and would argue with umpires, and call bullshit on teammates and opposition players when they needed it.

Comment #29: KeithM  on  09/08  at  01:38 PM

I’ve been a student and/or faculty at seven different universities now, so I think I have a statistically valid sample, and the one thing I’ve noticed is true about College Republicans across the board is that on the average they are 40 or 50 pounds heavier than the average student of the same height. It’s eerie. Make of it what you will.

Comment #30: felagund  on  09/08  at  01:39 PM

The Beatles are threatening because the Beatles aren’t threatening.  They’re wearing suits and are all sweet smiles, particularly in the early 60s.

Oh, sure - it starts off as sweet smiles and innocent lyrics, and then it turns to the Starry Wisdom cult and invocations to the Opener of Ways, and before you know it you’re having to call in the combat necromancers and massed artillery fire.  I’m getting tired of it.

No, the wingnuts are right - we never should have allowed music with any lyrics whatsoever.

Comment #31: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  09/08  at  01:47 PM

The wool will be pulled back from their eyes, and they’ll see who he really is - a good, smart, humble, kind, cool (in a geeky sort of way), empathetic, bright, non-threatening, loving, concerned, truly decent human being.

It is becoming obvious that a tad more of the ability to be an asshole and considerably more backbone would also be useful.

Comment #32: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  09/08  at  01:50 PM

WOW.

Joe Watkins (who is a Republican African-American… and a colossal douchenozzle) just said on MSNBC that the president’s speech was putting our children on a slippery slope because of his charisma.  And Chuck Todd responded almost mockingly, “Joe, it sounds like you are actually saying that Obama speaking to kids is a bad thing because… he might be popular with them?  Really?”

And then Watkins responded by saying that Obama is so charismatic and popular that parents may not be able to compete with that, and that’s “dangerous”.

He really just said that the fact that Obama is likeable is the reason why giving this speech was a bad thing in the minds of Republicans.  He admitted it, on national television.

WOW.  He just completely confirmed the entire premise of this diary - everything said here about the paranoia just got verbally confirmed by a Republican shill.

That’s fucking hilarious.  And kind of pathetic, at the same time.

Comment #33: DTG in STL  on  09/08  at  01:56 PM

DTG in STL is correct about rightwingers in this context. When it comes to Obama, I should point something out that distinguishes him from Jackie Robinson: Obama really doesn’t care about black people. Of course, he doesn’t really care about white people either. He treats us all with the same contempt.

This is why Obama shrugged off the murder of Sean Bell but, when one of his own (rich person of color) was merely hassled by cops, he invites the guy to the White House. Think about that. Bell was fucking murdered. Gates was harrassed—and wasn’t even gracious while being harrassed. (BTW, yes, Gates was treaed with bigotry, but keep in mind that Gates has worked for rightwing causes helping bigotry with “bootstrap” rhetoric and bad scholarship for decades. What goes around. . .)

Obama’s election was a staggering non-event. I was disgusted to see black people convinced that “one of their own” had been put into power and whites convinced that racism was over. I suppose one can take solace in the fact that both groups embraced similar delusions, and now shall suffer similar pains.

I could take solace in that, but I don’t.

On Obama and Gates:
http://blackagendareport.com/?q=content/peculiar-class-solidarity-barack-obama-and-“skip”-gates

http://blackagendareport.com/?q=content/“skip”-gates-curious-martyr-struggle-against-racism

http://blackagendareport.com/?q=content/how-henry-louis-gates-got-ordained-nations-leading-black-intellectual

Comment #34: No One of Consequence  on  09/08  at  01:58 PM

And this is another reason why free and open sex is so threatening.

Guys will do what they have to in order to get laid. Even dress nice and exfolliate, if that’s what it takes.

If getting laid means being open minded and not blathering on about how poor blacks are stupid and lazy to a potential pick-up, that stuff has a way of seeping into one’s sub-conscious. If guys have to accept premises about the gender unfairness of our culture to get that alternative chick’s attention, so be it.

I believe that’s called letting the camel put it’s nose in the tent, in sales lore.

Comment #35: I Heart Puppies  on  09/08  at  02:00 PM

DTG in STL is correct about rightwingers in this context. When it comes to Obama, I should point something out that distinguishes him from Jackie Robinson: Obama really doesn’t care about black people. Of course, he doesn’t really care about white people either. He treats us all with the same contempt.

Welcome to Wingnuts and Projection 101.  This afternoon, we will be studying the above case study…

Comment #36: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  09/08  at  02:02 PM

Rickey made the comment about Robinson not fighting back only for his first year or two.  Which he did.  Starting in the 1949 season, Robinson opened up and would argue with umpires, and call bullshit on teammates and opposition players when they needed it.

Yeah, I couldn’t find anything about him actually fighting back physically, but I did read some anecdotes about him making fun of catcher Joe Garagiola’s weight problems when Garagiola would relentlessly taunt him at the plate.  Robinson definitely did start firing back verbally at some of his abusers as he gained tenure in the game and developed loyalty and protection from his fellow Dodgers.

So maybe… that means that if Obama gets re-elected and is no longer encumbered by having to worry about a future campaign, he can start firing back harder?

I do think that a second-term Obama could be a lot different than the first-term Obama, and moreso than is typically the case with presidents in their second terms.  It always seems as though President Obama is walking on eggshells to some degree, like he has an extremely keen awareness that anything even slightly controversial he says regarding race can be twisted and used against him.  Which is probably why he almost never touches the subject.

Comment #37: DTG in STL  on  09/08  at  02:09 PM

He really just said that the fact that Obama is likeable is the reason why giving this speech was a bad thing in the minds of Republicans.  He admitted it, on national television.

And yet they ADORED Reagan because???

Comment #38: Ms Kate  on  09/08  at  02:19 PM

No one of consequence, I think you are the one having delusions of others’ delusions.

Comment #39: Ms Kate  on  09/08  at  02:21 PM

I too had thoughts that part of the problem is that the GOP is frantic about the fact that they have little to offer anyone under 70 and suffer a serious “coolness” deficit, hence their rabid hysteria over a political movement that includes young people.

Sure. Remember that “terrorist fist jab” nonsense on Fox?

Comment #40: Bitter Scribe  on  09/08  at  02:25 PM

I’m sure something called “Black Agenda Report” is totally on the level, fair and balanced, and all.

I just don’t know why No One of Consequence gets all jackbooted PC police on us by saying “black”.

Comment #41: I Heart Puppies  on  09/08  at  02:26 PM

This is why Obama shrugged off the murder of Sean Bell but, when one of his own (rich person of color) was merely hassled by cops, he invites the guy to the White House. Think about that. Bell was fucking murdered. Gates was harrassed—and wasn’t even gracious while being harrassed. (BTW, yes, Gates was treaed with bigotry, but keep in mind that Gates has worked for rightwing causes helping bigotry with “bootstrap” rhetoric and bad scholarship for decades. What goes around. . .)

As a U.S. Senator representing the state of Illinois in 2006, what exactly is it that you think he was supposed to do about a tragic murder that took place halfway across the country in New York City?

I mean… what was his role in that tragedy supposed to have been in your opinion?  Oh wait, because he was the one black U.S. Senator in 2006, it was his job to address every instance of racial injustice that happened anywhere in America during his time in the Senate.  Drop whatever legislation you are working on, Senator Obama, a black man was gunned down by racist cops in New York and YOU MUST ADDRESS IT NOW!!!!!

I get that you aren’t much of a fan of President Obama, but at some point, your contempt for the man starts to become… contemptible.

Are you white?  Because if you are, I’m not sure it is really your place to tell President Obama what exactly his role is supposed to be within the African-American community and what his job is supposed to be in addressing civil rights injustices.  I might even say that it’s “mighty white of you” to all but call the man an Uncle Tom, which is pretty much what you just did.

You know who literally called Barack Obama an Uncle Tom?  Progressive darling Ralph Nader, on the very night that Obama was elected as the first African-American President of the United States.  It was pretty fucking disgusting and insensitive, and a pretty gross display of white privilege on Nader’s part.  There’s the grand illusion among many white progressives who care about social justice issues that it is their place to dictate to black Democratic leaders what exactly their role is supposed to be in how they treat racial justice issues.  And when they fall short of the white progressive person’s ideal, they berate the black Democrat relentlessly.

Do you know exactly WHY Barack Obama isn’t Jesse Jackson?  Because the reality is, Jesse Jackson can’t win the the fucking presidency in this country.  Not in 1988, not in 2008, not in 2009, and probably not for quite some time.  We ain’t there yet.  Not because of Jackson’s own failings so much as the still prevalent racism in America.  And if Jackie Robinson had decked all the ballplayers who called him the “N” word in 1947, he would have been out of the game and black people would have been set further back in breaking that barrier.  And it would have been characterized as all Robinson’s fault, and a mark against the entire African-American community.

You know GODDAMN well that if Obama were to use his position in the White House to go out and elevate a case like Sean Bell to national prominence, he would be fucking crucified for it by the national media.  They would all scream and shout, “Why is this black president making me uncomfortable by talking about racism?”  They flipped shit over his Race in America speech during the primaries a year and a half ago, which was about as conciliatory a speech on race as one could give.

I’m not telling you to kiss Obama’s ass and agree with all of his policies or his approach.  Hell, I’m not telling you to do anything.  But this Obama-hate emanating from you on an increasing basis is making you more and more PUMA-esque everyday.  Did you arrive here from No Quarter?  Hillaryis44.org?

No, the man is not above criticism, and yes, I think it’s fair to say that he hasn’t done his best at fleshing out a healthcare reform vision.  I have no problems with criticisms about things Obama isn’t doing that he reasonably could be doing.  But America is not a social justice utopia (nor has it ever been one), and no one president is going to get us there.  We are too fucked a nation to right all of our wrongs in 4 or even 8 years.  And blaming Obama for the fact that he’s not a God is pretty fucking despicable.

You hate the man.  I get it.  We all get it.  You think Barack Obama = George Bush, III.  Fine.  Just like assholes, everybody gets to have an opinion.  But your constant incessant whining and negativity about this president is getting tired.  You really aren’t a whole lot better than the assholes on the right who constantly whine about the man.  There is nothing Obama can ever do right in your mind.  Whatever.  Vote for someone else in 2012, it’s a free country.  But this relentless assholish condescending holier-than-thou “I’m am progressivism epitomized” arrogance is getting real old.

Comment #42: DTG in STL  on  09/08  at  02:39 PM

Do you know exactly WHY Barack Obama isn’t Jesse Jackson?

Um, because he had a white mother, and african father, and was raised in Indonesia and Hawaii by white people, for starters.  That isn’t exactly the “typical black experience” that Michelle Robinson Obama came of age in.

I seem to remember this being a problem with an exceptionally jealous and petty Jesse Jackson during the campaign.  Jesse seems to have gotten over that, with stunned tears at the announcement that Obama would be the next POTUS.

Comment #43: Ms Kate  on  09/08  at  02:47 PM

Do you know exactly WHY Barack Obama isn’t Jesse Jackson?

I believe this is easiest answered using Occam’s razor.

Probably for the same reason I’m not Jesse Jackson. I’m somebody else. Totally. Really.

Jesse Jackson poured his life into his causes, and into running for the presidency. I can forgive some pettiness for all the good he’s done.

Comment #44: I Heart Puppies  on  09/08  at  02:54 PM

Just watched Obama’s speech to American schoolchildren. I don’t have the stomach to monitor right wing hate sights but someone please update when they start going off over one of the examples he used of a person who faced rejection and didn’t give up—J. K. Rowling. You just know they are going to say he’s trying to get the kids indoctrinated in witchcraft.

Comment #45: DC Fem  on  09/08  at  02:56 PM

Not to mention the effect the welfare state can have on supporting an unwed mother who has been ostracized by her family!

Comment #46: Ms Kate  on  09/08  at  03:06 PM

Amanda:

this new generation of kids especially reject homophobia and racism

And the ones that don’t are almost exclusively white.

I’m sure that comes as a big shock to everyone.

Comment #47: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  09/08  at  03:16 PM

I AM shocked, Dan! I learned this spring and summer that non-white people are the ONLY racists!

Comment #48: RickMassimo  on  09/08  at  03:21 PM

Comment #41: JohnGor0  on  09/08  at  01:26 PM
I’m sure something called “Black Agenda Report” is totally on the level, fair and balanced, and all.

Riiiiight, so “black studies” are an academically bankrupt institution because they have the term “black” in them. If you seriously believe that blacks cannot be studied as a subset of the population of the U.S., you know bupkis about the U.S.

I do adore how John condemns the site without actually visiting it.

DTG in STL  on  09/08  at  01:39 PM
As a U.S. Senator representing the state of Illinois in 2006, what exactly is it that you think he was supposed to do about a tragic murder that took place halfway across the country in New York City?

Express concern for the shootings of black men that were occuring not just in NYC, but nationwide. Instead, he implicitly supported the persons who committed the murder. Gee, I’d kinda like it if holders of public office favored citizens over criminals. I suppose that’s too much to ask.

Oh wait, because he was the one black U.S. Senator in 2006—

—and that one gets you a fuck you. Obama chose to address the issue and he said something awful. We’re talking about it right now because he’s the president. If he wasn’t, we wouldn’t be. You can take your bigotry accusation and shove it. That’s YOUR projection. I’m critical of Obama’s policies towards whites and blacks (the latter of which support a racist system) and you accuse me of bigotry? Seriously, how are you any different from a rightwinger at this point?

I get that you aren’t much of a fan of President Obama, but at some point, your contempt for the man starts to become… contemptible.

Right, so I’m supposed to hold Obama to a different standard of ethics than Bush.

Continued below:

Comment #49: No One of Consequence  on  09/08  at  03:29 PM

Continued from the above:

Are you white?

Are you? It sounds to me like you’re happily giving Obama a pass on unjust behavior because he’s being attacked by bigots.

Because if you are, I’m not sure it is really your place to tell President Obama what exactly his role is supposed to be within the African-American community and what his job is supposed to be in addressing civil rights injustices.  I might even say that it’s “mighty white of you” to all but call the man an Uncle Tom, which is pretty much what you just did.

It’s “mighty white of you” to imply that I’m white. Further, I didn’t say anything about civil rights of blacks; I pointed out that his actions hurt blacks AND whites. Now, Obama has done things that hurt blacks in particular, but that’s not due to any particular animus, but because the U.S. is a classist, racist system and the socially disadvantaged are attacked to benefit the powerful—and blacks happen to be disadvantaged by said system. Racism does not require bigotry to operate.

Your accusations of bigotry are nothing short of projection. I call bullshit on Obama’s practices, you scream “racist.” Me and mine have to live with the horrible decisions he (and his predecessor, and his predecessor) make, decisions which are, as a practical result, racist—and you back them. What makes you different from a rightwinger in this, claiming racism against someone who’s actually suffered from it? Hell, you’re even hoping that I’m white so your racism charge can stick.

Comment #50: No One of Consequence  on  09/08  at  03:30 PM

Last bit:

You know GODDAMN well that if Obama were to use his position in the White House to go out and elevate a case like Sean Bell to national prominence, he would be fucking crucified for it by the national media.

And you know goddamn well that Obama couldn’t give a rat’s about black males being shot in this country by cops but cared about Gates because he was like himself—so much so that Obama caused himself political damage in order to inject himself into the Gates controversy. You claim Obama’s just being a politician when it comes to Bell, but note that I’m not claiming Obama should have started a crusade about Bell. I said Obama said something horrible about Bell back after he got shot. You’re conflating the issues and you know it.

I’m not telling you to kiss Obama’s ass and agree with all of his policies or his approach.

Yes you fucking are and fuck you for doing it. Your claim here is disengenuous. I have to sit here and pretend that Obama isn’t continuing a fine tradition of economic savagery to the weakest in our society because some white supremacists are having a field day—that’s your upshot here.

But this Obama-hate emanating from you on an increasing basis is making you more and more PUMA-esque everyday.  Did you arrive here from No Quarter?  Hillaryis44.org?

Brilliant. I can’t stand unjust policies, therefore I must have loved Clinton. No, as a matter of fact, I was attacked by Clinton obsessives in the primary, just as I’m fielding attacks from Obama obsessives then and now. I do like that your response to points is to try to shoehorn me into a group as odious as your own. It’s precious.

No, the man is not above criticism, and yes, I think it’s fair to say that he hasn’t done his best at fleshing out a healthcare reform vision.

And there it is. DTG is incorrect. Obama is doing his best. He’s working for a small group of very rich people and doing a damn good job. DTG seems very pleased with that, the same way the Clinton backers would’ve been pleased if she had won and sold worked hard to bring the insurance companies vision of greater rapine to America. Plenty of progressives were against the election of either of them and were pilloried as a result.

In private discussions with rightwingers irl, I would be accused of being “obsessed” with Bush (as would many progressives) because I was critical of his amoral policies. Obama picks up on the same policies and now so-called liberals level the same charge.

And by the way, pretending that Jesse Jackson would somehow be a wonderful replacement for Obama vis-a-vis blacks is somewhere between bizarre and clueless. I have no idea if that fallacy is coming from the blinkered view of a white dude looking at black issues or is just random.

There is nothing Obama can ever do right in your mind.

Sure there is, and there has. But hey, thanks for rendering me into a strawman. This 3-dimensional stuff was getting old.

If you want to compare Obama to black people who challenged a racist system, you go on ahead: but I will call bullshit on you. If you want to avoid my posts, stop saying things that aren’t true.

You really aren’t a whole lot better than the assholes on the right who constantly whine about the man.

That’s funny. I was going to say the same thing about you. Of course, the difference is you actually imitate them by accusing people of being bigots when they undermine your arguments.

Comment #51: No One of Consequence  on  09/08  at  03:30 PM

No One Of Consequence, explain how, exactly, your Dream Black President would think, act, and, moreover, represent the interests and issues of the 85-87% of the non-black populace enough to be elected?

Comment #52: Ms Kate  on  09/08  at  03:36 PM

And you know goddamn well that Obama couldn’t give a rat’s about black males being shot in this country by cops but cared about Gates because he was like himself—so much so that Obama caused himself political damage in order to inject himself into the Gates controversy.

So you admit that Obama damaged himself politically by coming down on the side of an upper-class man who was arrested in his own home for talking back to the cops but insist that he would have suffered no political downsides if he got involved in the Sean Bell case so he should have jumped in with both feet?

On what planet do you spend most of your time?

Comment #53: Mnemosyne  on  09/08  at  03:37 PM

Ah, the Dead Kennedys comments upthread:  when my now-college freshman son was a sophomore in high school, for his first concert/live music show, I took him to the then-current touring version of the Dead Kennedys at the TLA.  The lead singer told us that his parents were present for only the second time when he was performing.  The first time, he had dedicated “Too Drunk To Fuck” to his mother, which, he said, did not go over well.  This time, he blasted into “I Kill Children” as a dedication.  The crowd went wild(er).  My son and I still talk about it.  Awesome!

Comment #54: Iam138  on  09/08  at  03:39 PM

And by the way, pretending that Jesse Jackson would somehow be a wonderful replacement for Obama vis-a-vis blacks is somewhere between bizarre and clueless. I have no idea if that fallacy is coming from the blinkered view of a white dude looking at black issues or is just random.

Who was the only African-American prior to Obama to run a credible national campaign for president?  We’ll wait here while you look it up.  Hint:  it wasn’t Al Sharpton.

Comment #55: Mnemosyne  on  09/08  at  03:40 PM

Wingnuts, particularly the Christian right, have always seen the appealing normality of the “secular” culture as its main threat.

You see this also in wingnuts dealing with people of other religions, life-style choices as well.  Whereas when JFK ran for president he needed to prove himself to be independent of the Pope and not the “Papist” feared by the fundies, Kerry had (and failed) to prove himself to be in lockstep with the Church.  And this wasn’t just about abortion—it was about being a stereotype with which fundies could be comfortable rather than confronting people with the fact that their stereotypes aren’t always true.

I call it the “Homer Simpson Stereotypophilia” phenomenon after his remarks about gays: essentially that he has no problem with gays as long as they correspond to his stereotype of homosexuals.

Comment #56: DAS  on  09/08  at  03:47 PM

Jesse Jackson poured his life into his causes, and into running for the presidency. I can forgive some pettiness for all the good he’s done.

There’s that, but that’s not really the point I was trying to make.

Jesse Jackson poured his life into his causes, and into running for the presidency. I can forgive some pettiness for all the good he’s done.

I don’t think Jackson needs to be forgiven for much of anything.  Sure, he’s got flaws, as most of us do, but his fiery passion for civil rights injustice isn’t anything he should ever apologize for.

A word often used to describe Jackson is “polarizing”.  While people like Bill O’Reilly go out of their way to find any scandal they can to demean the man, that isn’t really why they consider him to be “polarizing”.  They consider him polarizing because he forces white people to take that very uncomfortable look at their own privilege.  And it IS an uncomfortable thing to do if you are a white person.  The whole “white guilt” phenomenon is something that I think a lot of white people experience when they first become aware of just how lucky they are to not have to deal with the bullshit that African-Americans STILL have to endure in America today.  A not insignificant number of white people - including a decent number of Obama’s own voters - really want to believe that we are close to being a post-racial society.

But we aren’t there.  And people like Jesse Jackson remind us of that fact.  But many of us still don’t want to see it.  Because we don’t like feeling any sense of guilt over white privilege.  Now, for what it’s worth, I think it is misguided to feel guilty for how you were born, because it isn’t something any of us chose.  I am a white heterosexual male.  I didn’t choose to be any one of those things.  It just worked out that way.  I could choose to feel guilty about it, or I could choose to reach a more mature attitude in which I am aware of the fact that I enjoy many privileges because of those immutable characteristics that others do not enjoy, and work to fight against the forces of misogyny, racism, and homophobia that still plague our society.

I don’t feel guilty for being a white, male, heterosexual.  Because I can’t help it that I am those things, so why should I feel guilty about it?  But I do feel a sense of shame about what many people who also share those characteristics with me have done to oppress others who aren’t those things.  And I do feel a duty to call it out when I see it happening, and to try to live my life in a way in which I practice love and tolerance to others who aren’t white, male, and heterosexual and take actions to help eradicate those vile forms of bigotry from our society.

I used to feel guilty.  And Jesse Jackson used to make me really uncomfortable.  It was unexamined white, male, straight privilege.  And I’d be full of shit if I tried to claim that I don’t still regress into some of that privilege.  I’m not a saint, by a long shot.  I am still capable of having racist thoughts, sexist thoughts, homophobic thoughts.  And if I don’t check them, they can evolve into actions.  And probably have at times.  But I try my best to fight that privilege, even if I still fall short sometimes, and I still do.

—MORE—

Comment #57: DTG in STL  on  09/08  at  03:50 PM

—CONTINUED—

Barack Obama is not Jesse Jackson, because Barack Obama is keenly aware that much of white America is not yet ready to fully face their own privilege.  And he doesn’t pressure them to.  Yes, Obama didn’t grow up in the traditional black urban environment, but his skin was still darker than that of his peers, his hair was still a different texture than that of his peers, and he still knew on some level that he wasn’t completely “one of them” in his High School Basketball picture.  And he talks in his writing about experiencing resentment towards white people and white culture, and the awareness that regardless of what race his mother was, most people would look at him and see a black man.  Do mixed race people in downtown New York have an easier time hailing a cab because they are half-white?  Do they only get passed by half as frequently as people who have two African-American parents?  No.  Not by a mile.  And virulent racists don’t give Obama anymore leeway than they would a man who had two black parents - they see a black man, they don’t see a half-white, half-black man.  It doesn’t matter if that is what he is… that isn’t what most people see.  Sure, if they think about it, they can see it.  But they have to actively think about it.

The default assumption when most people see Obama is “first black president”, not “first half-black, half-white president”.  Even his own daughter sees him as “first black president”, when she told him at the Lincoln Memorial the day before his inauguration how important his speech would be.

So anyway, my main point is that America is not yet at a place in which a black president has the luxury of being able to speak to our still-present racial divide as forcefully as Jesse Jackson does.  And that is why Barack Obama can’t be Jesse Jackson.  That is why Obama has to be Jackie Robinson.  Robinson had the guts to not fight back - as Rickey told him he needed to do - because Robinson knew that fighting back, in the beginning, would have been more counterproductive to the black community than just playing the game with his head held high and not even dignifying the racists’ vile spew with a response.

Obama does not talk forcefully about racial injustice… because he CAN’T.  Too many white Americans are still way too uncomfortable for all of us to face our demons.  And that isn’t to say that I think most white Americans are racists, but I do think most white Americans want to deny the fact that they are in a privileged class.  And if Obama did talk as forcefully about racial injustice as Jesse Jackson does, it would almost certainly destroy any hope for re-election, and could put his life in even more danger than it probably already is in.  He’s got two daughters… and I imagine as much as he wants to be a great president and a great leader, there is just no way in hell that he’s going to take the chance of making his children fatherless by going Malcolm X on America from the Oval Office.  And I can’t blame him for even one second.  If I were in his shoes, I wouldn’t either.  Nobody should be expected to set themselves up for martyrdom.

Comment #58: DTG in STL  on  09/08  at  03:50 PM

Great analysis, AM.  A question, though - when one looks at the hierarchy through which right-wing ideas are disseminated, at what point in the chain does this sort of rational basis for hyperbole break down?  At what message level does this sort of fear-mongering lose its cynicism?  While I tend to think Limbaugh employs the reasoning you describe, do you think your fellow Texans are doing the same?  Even on a subconscious level?  I mean, some folks have to be operating on pure amygdala, wouldn’t you think?

Comment #59: Tommy Deelite  on  09/08  at  03:57 PM

Dr. Psycho - No doubt *Malleus maleficarum* was an awful book that gave intellectual justification to the Witch Craze of Early Modern Europe, but calling it “right-wing” is anachronistic—there’s no simple mapping of fifteenth-century central European religion and politics onto 21st century North American politics and religion.

Actually, what’s tragic about the MM is precisely that it appropriated the sophisticated Aristotelian philosophy of the universities to augment and transform folk beliefs about sorcery toward the end of “reform” (read: more power to the rich, to royal absolutism, and to patriarchy). That is, it represents a horrendous application of some of the most advanced thinking of its time, and played an important role in the creation of the modern European state. The rash of witchcraft books that came out a century later made the connection between strong, centralized, bureaucratic monarchy and witch hunting far more explicit. MM was just the grand-daddy of an Early Modern literary genre.)

So-called conservatives have the their idiot equation, evil = liberal. Let’s not fall into the same well of stupid.

Comment #60: wapsie  on  09/08  at  03:59 PM

It’s “mighty white of you” to imply that I’m white.

Yup, if I had done that, it would indeed have been mighty white of me.

Too bad I didn’t do that.

Are you white?  <u>Because if you are</u>, I’m not sure it is really your place to tell President Obama what exactly his role is supposed to be within the African-American community and what his job is supposed to be in addressing civil rights injustices.  I might even say that it’s “mighty white of you” to all but call the man an Uncle Tom, which is pretty much what you just did.

It’s called a caveat.  Thanks for playing.

By the way, maybe you are white, maybe you aren’t, I don’t know.  You didn’t say either way.  I’ve said several times on this blog that I’m a white, male heterosexual.  I’m neither proud of that, nor ashamed of it.  But I try to be aware of my white, straight, male privilege.

If you are white, you wouldn’t be the first arrogant progressive white asshole I’ve seen lecture black Democratic leaders on what they need to do to better serve the black community.

Again… I say that if you are a white person.

—and that one gets you a fuck you. Obama chose to address the issue and he said something awful. We’re talking about it right now because he’s the president. If he wasn’t, we wouldn’t be. You can take your bigotry accusation and shove it. That’s YOUR projection. I’m critical of Obama’s policies towards whites and blacks (the latter of which support a racist system) and you accuse me of bigotry? Seriously, how are you any different from a rightwinger at this point?

I’m assuming this is the awful thing you believe Obama said about the verdict of the officers involved in the Sean Bell tragedy:

Sen. Barack Obama weighed in today on the acquittals of New York City police detectives charged in fatally shooting an unarmed black Queens man, Sean Bell, saying he believed that the verdict needed to be respected and urging those who disagreed with it not to resort to violence. That would be “completely unacceptable and counterproductive,” Obama said.

“Well, look, obviously there was a tragedy in New York. I said at the time, without benefit of all the facts before me, that it looked like a possible case of excessive force. The judge has made his ruling, and we’re a nation of laws, so we respect the verdict that came down,” he said in response to a question at a gas station in Indianapolis, where he was holding a news conference.

“The most important thing for people who are concerned about that shooting is to figure out how do we come together and assure those kinds of tragedies don’t happen again,” he continued. ... “Resorting to violence to express displeasure over a verdict is something that is completely unacceptable and counterproductive.”

He told people to not resort to violence in their outrage.  The horror!!  He must be one of those rightwing pigs, like Bobby Kennedy who urged people not to resort to violence in the aftermath of Dr. King’s assassination.  Maybe he should have emulated Dr. King’s message of street violence.

Oh, wait…

And that one gets you a great big fuck you.

You’re an unhinged angry lunatic.  Life isn’t a Rage Against The Machine video.  Great band, support their core political beliefs, but their proposed tactics are counterproductive and useless.  Guess that makes me “The Man”.  Sorry.

Comment #61: DTG in STL  on  09/08  at  04:16 PM

Comment #53: Mnemosyne  on  09/08  at  02:37 PM
[You]. . .insist that he would have suffered no political downsides if he got involved in the Sean Bell case so he should have jumped in with both feet?

I insist no such thing. You are putting words in my mouth. I state that Obama took it upon himself to not merely make a neutral statement or no statement, but to side with murderers in a highly controversial case that was indicia of a larger societal problem. The point Mnemosyne missed is which person Obama thought was deserving of political losses, and the cases are comparable because Obama needn’t have injected himself in either case.

Comment #52: Ms Kate  on  09/08  at  02:36 PM
No One Of Consequence, explain how, exactly, your Dream Black President would think, act, and, moreover, represent the interests and issues of the 85-87% of the non-black populace enough to be elected?

I will do so shortly after you express how a Dream Progressive President would think, act, and, moreover, represent the interests and issues of the portion of the U.S. that does not control most of its wealth.

The point isn’t that Obama is bad on black issues, and I’m amazed that so many people here seem obsessed with this. He’s bad on anything having to do with anyone outside of his economic class which is—zounds!—pretty much where every president in our lifetimes has been. That he’s aggravated problems, including racism, for blacks, is grimly ironic, but it’s no source of tremendous insight. Blacks get every bad policy hit first and worst (with some possible exceptions). The irony goes both ways: an actual progressive populist in office would probably end up undermining racist structures in our society even if the goal wasn’t civil rights in particular.

Comment #62: No One of Consequence  on  09/08  at  04:21 PM

Comment #61: DTG in STL  on  09/08  at  03:16 PM
Yup, if I had done that, it would indeed have been mighty white of me.

Uh, you did, by asking and drawing a conclusion relying on the premise that I am white.

It’s called a caveat.  Thanks for playing.

Oh please. You’re backing off an arrogant statement. You threw it out for rhetorical points.

He told people to not resort to violence in their outrage.

He told the people that a clearly unjust verdict, part of a pattern of unjust verdicts, was something they should accept. He creates a false dichotomy: the only options available to victims are violence or mute acceptance.

Thanks for playing.

He must be one of those rightwing pigs, like Bobby Kennedy who urged people not to resort to violence in the aftermath of Dr. King’s assassination.  Maybe he should have emulated Dr. King’s message of street violence.

That’s your bullshit, not mine.

You’re an unhinged angry lunatic.  Life isn’t a Rage Against The Machine video.

This is hilarious. You accuse me of bigotry and I’m the Rage Against the Machine fan? But hey, you’ve adopted rightwing rhetorical tricks well enough—don’t let me slow you down. After all, you’ve accused me of being bad because of something I am, even though you have no idea who I am. I’ve pointed out the wrongness in some of the things you say, which justifies condemnation.

And, btw, in the face of your claim that Nader was a bigot for calling Obama an Uncle Tom because his policies were racist, your “that’s mighty white of you” claim to a complete stranger whose face you haven’t seen and whose life you know nothing about is a simply brilliant combination of bigotry and irony. Privileged white kid (by his own magnanimous admission) accuses complete stranger of being too white. Which makes this:

. . .relentless assholish condescending holier-than-thou “I’m am progressivism epitomized” arrogance. . .

. . . a rather interesting inverse of of the “pot, meet kettle” adage. The proud white guy telling me I’m too white because I don’t like Obama’s policies towards white people. I’ve actually met white supremacists that were less obnoxius (though, admittedly, I probably didn’t give them enough time).

Comment #63: No One of Consequence  on  09/08  at  04:36 PM

The proud white guy telling me I’m too white because I don’t like Obama’s policies towards <strike>white</strike> black people.

Typing white and black over and over can be a bit much.

Comment #64: No One of Consequence  on  09/08  at  04:42 PM

No One of Consequence:

I clicked on the link, and it died. My comments go more to the way you presented your original argument. Sorry, but you sounded like a crazed right-winger, using un-nuanced readings of issues to throw race in Obama’s face. I could only imagine that a site I couldn’t get to from work was the way you sounded.

I, too, am a straight, white, middle-aged, pot-bellied, and most times wrong - male. My perception is that there isn’t a “gay” agenda outside of total equality. I harbor the same notion about a “black” agenda. That doesn’t sound like a term an educated black man would use, or even a naive, 20-year-old white college student.

I stand corrected.

Comment #65: I Heart Puppies  on  09/08  at  04:57 PM

DTG - I love Jesse Jackson. Voted for him in 2 primaries. I did not vote for Al Sharpton, even though I hold him in mostly high regard.

I pretty much agree with your whole double-post. Yes, Jesse Jackson spoke more forcefully about racial divisions, and about attitudes white racists are not able to deal with. Obama does kind of cop a conservative, white attitude of don’t ask don’t tell. When he strayed from that, he got slimed.

Comment #66: I Heart Puppies  on  09/08  at  05:10 PM

I state that Obama took it upon himself to not merely make a neutral statement or no statement, but to side with murderers in a highly controversial case that was indicia of a larger societal problem. The point Mnemosyne missed is which person Obama thought was deserving of political losses, and the cases are comparable because Obama needn’t have injected himself in either case.

And since he’s making a comment about a verdict that’s been handed down and not making a statement directly after the incident, your ideal statement from him would be .... what, again?  Did you want him to denounce the criminal justice system?  Call for the judge to be picketed at his house for making a bad ruling?  What was your plan for what he should have said?

The point isn’t that Obama is bad on black issues, and I’m amazed that so many people here seem obsessed with this.

Yes, I can’t imagine why people commenting on a post about Obama, race, and racism would concentrate on the race aspects of your post.  How silly of us not to completely ignore the subject of the post and take the conversation in the direction you prefer instead of trying to stick to the subject.

Comment #67: Mnemosyne  on  09/08  at  05:11 PM

As happens quite often, DougJ at Balloon Juice says what I was thinking:

One of the things I find most fascinating about Barack Obama is ability to do extremely difficult things while being criticized (especially from the left) for not doing them better. I didn’t think we’d see a black man elected president in my lifetime, but if you recall, a huge amount of the discussion in August and September wasn’t about the fact the fact that he was ahead of McCain in the polls but about why he wasn’t ahead by more. Likewise, I had thought there was no way anyone was going to beat Hillary, but from May on, the focus was on how he wasn’t winning more decisively—“limping towards victory” was a phrase that I recall. And then he managed to get a good-sized stimulus passed; well, the story was that it wasn’t big enough (I agree that it wasn’t big enough, personally). Now, we’re closer to some kind of health care reform than we’ve ever been before and Obama is portrayed as an ineffectual sell-out.

Barack Obama is not our perfect fantasy progressive president, so he must be DESTROYED!!11!!!1!!1!

Comment #68: Mnemosyne  on  09/08  at  05:19 PM

JohnGor0: I’m not a huge fan of the term “agenda,” but that’s only because rightwingers have made it into a nasty one. Pretty much anyone can have an agenda without malice. Just because a gay agenda means “total equality,” as you put it, doesn’t mean that we wouldn’t have to perform discrete, real-world actions to create it. We must make marriage a constitutional right for all people, make sexual orientation a protected class nationwide, and so on. Guees what John? If you’re for either of those two things, you have an agenda. Is that bad? If it is, then I’m evil to the bone.

And since he’s making a comment about a verdict that’s been handed down and not making a statement directly after the incident, your ideal statement from him would be .... what, again? 

I don’t know if you were in NY at the time or recall the context, but at the point Obama gave his statement, many people in NY were pretty much convinced the trial was a farce. The prosecutor put on a deliberately bad case. Obama’s statement—given the correct context—backed what seemed to be an obvious case of prosecutorial misconduct, at a minimum. Obama went out of his way to say something that was terrible; how on Earth am I therefore obliged to say exactly what he should have said, if anything at all?

But I can throw that back at you: tell me, what should have Obama said given that context? My question to you is no more inappropriate than your question to me.

Mnemosyne  on  09/08  at  04:11 PM
Yes, I can’t imagine why people commenting on a post about Obama, race, and racism would concentrate on the race aspects of your post.  How silly of us not to completely ignore the subject of the post and take the conversation in the direction you prefer instead of trying to stick to the subject.

Last time I checked, “white” is a race, and the point was that Obama’s treatment of blacks isn’t egregiously more malicious than his treatment of whites, despite his insults to blacks in the past (e.g., criticizing black fathers, thereby enforcing a racist idea, even though white fathers are more likely to leave the home than black fathers—once you control for the disproportionate number of blacks put in prison). He’s not doing anything a white politician hasn’t done. And that’s sticking to the subject—as opposed to snidely dodging the issue. You can employ both snark and logic in a post—it doesn’t have to be either/or.

Comment #69: No One of Consequence  on  09/08  at  05:26 PM

Comment #68: Mnemosyne  on  09/08  at  04:19 PM
Barack Obama is not our perfect fantasy progressive president. . .

So just keep repeating to yourself: “Barack Obama is a progressive, Barack Obama is a progressive,” over and over again, and it’ll be true! Clapping worked so well for rightwingers.

Obama is a run-of-the-mill imperialist, and was since before the primary. His ideology and morals are no different from his melanin-challenged associates. But, hey, I get it. I can criticize anyone else for being an imperialist or similar—but he’s off-limits. This was the same attitude Hillary Clinton’s online gaurdians maintained.

Comment #70: No One of Consequence  on  09/08  at  05:54 PM

I will do so shortly after you express how a Dream Progressive President would think, act, and, moreover, represent the interests and issues of the portion of the U.S. that does not control most of its wealth.

A dream progressive president would be isolated and ineffective.  Period.  Full Stop.  Etc.  That’s because you would need a dream senate and house to back a dream president up.

Reality is a female dog.

Comment #71: Ms Kate  on  09/08  at  06:10 PM

Obama is a run-of-the-mill imperialist

Just when I thought it was not possible for NOOC to get more childish ...

Gonna stomp your foot and scream “I HATE YOU” while you are at it?

Comment #72: Ms Kate  on  09/08  at  06:13 PM

N1oC (19):

This tendency dovetails with a rather perverse practice within cultural christianity: sacredization of media. Take a pop song, add Jesus, and sell it to the churchgoers. I remember a T-shirt I saw in elementary that had a dozen comercial slogans used to express various sentiments about god (“God is like Coke—He’s the real thing.”). No other—well, for lack of a better term—genre of experience seemed to do this with such zeal.

I was a little surprised to be told that a band I liked was making music with Satanic messages, as I hadn’t noticed any. Further questioning indicated the person meant the band wasn’t a (specifically) Christian band, and therefore ...

This is why so much Christian rock sucks, incidentally. If anything that isn’t specifically Christian is of the Devil, no subtlety or inference or allegory is to be permitted, so it’s all heavy-handed and insipid (because you’re not allowed to so much as give the appearance of sounding like you’re going off-message for even a syllable).

tannenberg (23):

Access to health care through reform would aid them beyond estimation but they refuse it.  No, instead their concern is that the Obama administration will confiscate their firearms and strip away their 2nd Amendment rights.  Oh, and I believe they have Birther tendencies.

I wonder if there’s a sort of foot-in-the-door thing going on from the other side: they couldn’t allow themselves to accept “Obamacare” for fear that when he comes to take their guns away, they’ve lost their moral right to refuse, or because it would involve admitting at least to themselves that Obama is really the president.

Mnem (68):

Barack Obama is not our perfect fantasy progressive president, so he must be DESTROYED!!11!!!1!!1!

Well, I’m unwilling to say that it’s so hard for a black candidate to get elected that he’s absolved of having to achieve anything for the rest of his term. I hardly think I’m being ridiculously demanding if I expect the President of the United States to do a decent job, and I hardly think I’m being ridiculously demanding if I expect a president who sought my vote by promising to address my concerns to address my concerns.

Even though none have yet.

Comment #73: Hershele Ostropoler  on  09/08  at  06:28 PM

Having read the remarks now, I think I know what scares them the most.  You see, there’s a long section where the President openly talks about class mobility through hard work.  Whitey Righties eat that shit up when it comes from white people, because it reinforces their world view of everything they have coming from their own hard work.  But let a black man stand up and say that anyone can have class mobility through effort, then you have white conservatives running scared.  “If black people can aspire to the same social status, why, something must be wrong with the system! We can’t let him indoctrinate our children into believing that everyone deserves to reap the same rewards for their efforts.”

Maybe that’s why they keep screaming socialism, they find something distasteful in the idea that people who put in equal efforts should be equally rewarded.

Comment #74: Godless Heathen  on  09/08  at  06:51 PM

Actually Hershele, the reason most Christian Rock, and modern Christian art of any kind sucks is because it is Christian first, and art a distant second.

Comment #75: Bruce from Missouri  on  09/08  at  06:59 PM

Ms Kate  on  09/08  at  05:10 PM
A dream progressive president would be isolated and ineffective. 

Okaaaaay, so you admit your question was pointless and loaded.

Gonna stomp your foot and scream “I HATE YOU” while you are at it?

Um, you asked me a loaded, pointless question that has nothing to do with the topic at hand and I’m childish? Denial, river, etc. I suppose all those criticisms of Bush Ms. Kate made over the last eight years were her stomping her foot and screaming—by her lights, not mine.

Bruce and Hershele:
Modern worship music, growing out of black gospel tradition and finding a place in white churches (and diverse churches) can have examples of rock and rock influences. That stuff cannot be sold mainstream, however, because it’s decidedly worship music, no secular sugarcoating included. You’re right, though: I’ve never seen anything close to an honest, artistic Christian rock movement. How could they break through, though? Country western artists complain that Nashville dominates everything. Political, non-gangsta rap has its work cut out for it when it comes to getting on a major label. Would a Christian rock musician get very far without Disneyification?

Comment #76: No One of Consequence  on  09/08  at  07:14 PM

I work at a university so I can back you up on college republicans. They are all white. They all look and dress remarkably alike. They do things like grab signs for a republican candidate and say, “I’m taking this because it will annoy my roommates. They’re both Democrats.”

Not so fast.  I’m not certain what type of university you are at, but the most obnoxious, in your face, chip on shoulder far, far right reactionary/libertarian type of student in my recent experience was also an earring wearing, torn jeans wearing fairly normal guy.  Until he opened his mouth.

Comment #77: phylosopher  on  09/08  at  07:58 PM

So just keep repeating to yourself: “Barack Obama is a progressive, Barack Obama is a progressive,” over and over again, and it’ll be true!

Who ever said he was a progressive?  I’m assuming that Obama is what he ran as:  a middle-of-the-road centrist politician.  I still can’t figure out where some people got this idea that he was a great progressive hero.  If we’re lucky, he’s the very start of getting the ship of state to turn very slightly back to the left after the hard right we took for the last 30 years.

I knew from Day One that he would have to be constantly pushed to support a progressive agenda, because he is not a progressive.  Sorry that you were off in la-la land and thought he was something else despite all of his words and actions that showed otherwise.  Perhaps you should look at politicians for what they are instead of projecting all of your hopes and dreams onto them and then exploding with anger when they’re not your vision of perfection.

Comment #78: Mnemosyne  on  09/08  at  09:33 PM

I don’t know if you were in NY at the time or recall the context, but at the point Obama gave his statement, many people in NY were pretty much convinced the trial was a farce. The prosecutor put on a deliberately bad case. Obama’s statement—given the correct context—backed what seemed to be an obvious case of prosecutorial misconduct, at a minimum. Obama went out of his way to say something that was terrible; how on Earth am I therefore obliged to say exactly what he should have said, if anything at all?

Hypocrite, much?  You can toss all of the stink bombs you want, but if you don’t actually have anything constructive to say—like, say, how Obama could have expressed his dislike of the verdict without encouraging riots—then you become just another whiny baby who has plenty of complaints but zero solutions.  Frankly, I’m tired of people who spend their day complaining but don’t actually have any constructive solutions for what they’re complaining about.  No one is going to come and fix your problems for you.  What’s your plan, genius?

But I can throw that back at you: tell me, what should have Obama said given that context? My question to you is no more inappropriate than your question to me.

Here’s the thing—I don’t think he said anything wrong.  You’re the one who’s insisting that what he said was The Worst Insult Ever.  Why am I supposed to come up with what you wanted Obama to say?  I’m not a psychic, I have no idea what it is you really wanted.  At this point, I’m pretty sure you don’t, either.  All you know is that <strike>Daddy</strike> Obama let you down and he’s going to PAY!

Comment #79: Mnemosyne  on  09/08  at  09:41 PM

Not so fast.  I’m not certain what type of university you are at, but the most obnoxious, in your face, chip on shoulder far, far right reactionary/libertarian type of student in my recent experience was also an earring wearing, torn jeans wearing fairly normal guy.  Until he opened his mouth.

Though there were campus Republicans at my undergrad, I’ve never seen them because few avowed Republicans or even right leaning independents would consider applying, much less attending my undergrad considering the radical progressive left reputation it had along with justifiable fears of harassment from classmates if the torn Dole ‘96 campaign poster and progressive activist friends from Amnesty Intl being heckled and yelled at by other progressive activist groups for saying “Genocide Sucks” are any indications…

They were far more visible on more mainstream campuses such as a certain Cambridge, Mass institution and moreso at a certain Hamiltonian school on the Upper West Side.  IME, most tended to be White or Asian, dress more formally than the rest of the campus, and invariably major in economics, poli-sci with US specialization, or to a limited extent history* or technical sciences.  With the latter two fields, however, the campus Republicans tended to be matched by an equally large number of DFHs. 

* Mostly US specialists.

Comment #80: exholt  on  09/08  at  09:41 PM

Bruce (75):

Actually Hershele, the reason most Christian Rock, and modern Christian art of any kind sucks is because it is Christian first, and art a distant second.

Same idea, different phrasing.

Comment #81: Hershele Ostropoler  on  09/08  at  10:35 PM

Not so fast.  I’m not certain what type of university you are at, but the most obnoxious, in your face, chip on shoulder far, far right reactionary/libertarian type of student in my recent experience was also an earring wearing, torn jeans wearing fairly normal guy.  Until he opened his mouth.

Tis’ true, you can’t always judge the book by its cover.  I know plenty of glibertarian types who dress like hipsters.  Ann Coulter and Tucker Carlson - both reactionary rightwing douchecornets - are huge fans of The Grateful Dead - the same band that has been beloved by patchouli-wearing dirty hippies for 40 years.

Comment #82: DTG in STL  on  09/08  at  10:38 PM

“Ann Coulter and Tucker Carlson - both reactionary rightwing douchecornets - are huge fans of The Grateful Dead…”

I bet that is purely an affectation they use to claim they are somehow more than just ordinary Reichwing douches… or they are two more of these “a Libertarian is a Conservative who likes to smoke pot” creatures…

Comment #83: MikeEss  on  09/08  at  10:48 PM

Who ever said he was a progressive?  I’m assuming that Obama is what he ran as:  a middle-of-the-road centrist politician.  I still can’t figure out where some people got this idea that he was a great progressive hero.

All that AND he was NOT John McCain.

In other words, I didn’t expect much other than I got: a leftish, pro-choice politician who resided at the conflux of electable and liberal.

Comment #84: Ms Kate  on  09/09  at  12:31 AM

Comment #79: Mnemosyne  on  09/08  at  08:41 PM
I knew from Day One that he would have to be constantly pushed to support a progressive agenda, because he is not a progressive.  Sorry that you were off in la-la land and thought he was something else despite all of his words and actions that showed otherwise

Actually, I concluded that was you. Your actions here make no sense otherwise. How can you criticize someone for criticizing Obama’s supporters and not believe that he is progressive? Your behavior here makes no sense. I was arguing against Obama’s policies during the primary (and critical of his decisions before that) as I’ve said before. Did you miss that or not read that?

Perhaps you should look at politicians for what they are instead of projecting all of your hopes and dreams onto them and then exploding with anger when they’re not your vision of perfection.

Uh, that’s pretty much what I concluded about you. You’re sniping at me with unsubstantive bullshit comments because I’m undermining the notion that Obama “betrayed” anyone. From what I can tell, you’re the one who believed in that “hope” bullshit, and you’re resorting to irrational, childish behavior to cover your hurt feelings. You voted for an awful person, my posts remind you of that, and you’re acting like a five-year-old. If that conclusion is wrong, feel free to use, well, logic and facts and I’ll happily reverse the position.

Hypocrite, much?

Um, I just pointed out that you were a hypocrite for throwing out loaded, noncontextual hypothticals. You’re-rubber-I’m-glue stopped working in first grade, iirc.

As I pointed out, Obama could have simply said nothing. And he could have expressed his dislike of the verdict without encouraging riots by, well, expressing his dislike of the verdict without encouraging riots. There’s nothing particularly complex about the notion.

Why the hell would pointing out that NY should work hard to see that justice was done spur riots? Do you seriously think so little of black people? What is with you?

What’s your plan, genius?

Wait, what? There’s that bullshit question again. I could ask you the same question: what’s your plan, genius? Go on. Answer.

Personally, on the confines of a couple of blogs, many of whom got wrapped up in the Clinton-Obama struggle, I’d hope to undermine the support for non-progressives in the future, especially with the unholy vehemence that primary contained.

Here’s the thing—I don’t think he said anything wrong.

So, it’s okay when prosecutors protect criminals. Okay, fine, I see what you are.

All you know is that Daddy Obama let you down and he’s going to PAY!

Uh, no, you’re just assholishly accusing me of it without evidence. I mean, that’s you’re gig, right? Rightwingers, in person, accuse me of bigotry when I read a statistic showing disproportionate sentencing against black males; you’re is employing a more obtuse version of the technique. You backed Obama and now you’re miffed that I’m saying progressives shouldn’t have backed him (or Clinton) in the primary, right? I mean, that’s the only thing that explains your childishness here. Sure, I can play, too: do you want a hankie? Maybe an instruction booklet to help you vote next time?

Comment #85: No One of Consequence  on  09/09  at  12:33 AM

To come at this from a slightly different angle - Greta Christina has written about providing people with a safe place to land http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2008/11/a-safe-place-to-land.html - now, in her case, she’s talking about supporting folks who are deconverting (or already have), and letting them know that atheism isn’t scary.  But I think this works just as well in terms of thinking about what we can do for folks who are peeking out from behind that wall, and wondering what life is like on the side with the good music and cool president. 

And think of what we have to offer (along with good music) - hope, and the reassurance that you don’t have to be afraid all of the time.  Angry, sometimes, worried, upset, annoyed, afraid sometimes, sure - there are monsters, after all . . . but they’re not all hiding under our bed, or in our closet. 

Really, I’m not even thinking about a safe place to land in liberalism (although I definitely wouldn’t mind) so much as an escape route from Wingnut Nation, for those who might be lucky enough to find it.

(See also, for example, Sara Robinson’s post, over at Orcinus, on Cracks in the Wall, Part III: Escape Ladders http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2006/08/cracks-in-wall-part-iii-escape-ladders.html  from back in ‘06, and others in the Cracks/Tunnels and Bridges series . . .)

Comment #86: Dan S  on  09/09  at  12:54 AM

the second he has a so-called “Sharpton moment” (a man who has been cruelly demonized for not being able to be Jackie Robinson himself)

Uh… Tawana Brawley?

Sharpton has in large measure raised his stature a great deal, but he has yet to publicly admit that Brawley was a fraud. He will never be a credible politician until he admits that.

Comment #87: BrianX  on  09/09  at  02:26 AM

If Sharpton were white and right-wing, he’d have his own talk radio show by now. 

Fortunately, the Left isn’t so quick to embrace and follow it’s own lunatics.

Comment #88: Ms Kate  on  09/09  at  12:06 PM

How can you criticize someone for criticizing Obama’s supporters and not believe that he is progressive?

The more you talk, the less sense you make.  Why can’t I criticize people who criticize Obama’s supporters even if I don’t think he’s a progressive?  Again, I don’t support him because I think he’s a progressive.  I support him because I think he’s a damn sight better than the Republicans who, you may have noticed,  have spent the summer screaming about how health care reform is just like Communism and that Obama is going to have your grandma murdered by his death panels.

The whole Nader bullshit about how the Republicans and the Democrats are exactly alike so it doesn’t matter who’s in charge was pretty definitely disproven by the past 8 years.  Are you actually convinced that New Orleans would have been left to drown if President Gore had been in charge?  Would we have automatically turned around and invaded Iraq after 9/11?  Would we have pissed off the entire world to the point that they didn’t want to work with us on terrorism even after they suffered terrorist attacks?  If so, you’re incredibly naive.

Is Obama perfect?  Of course not.  Has he pissed me off multiple times already?  Of course he has.  Is he still better than having the Republicans in charge?  Hell, yes.  I just can’t go along with the kind of anarchy and civil war that you’re calling for.  Go peddle it somewhere else.

Comment #89: Mnemosyne  on  09/09  at  02:35 PM

Why the hell would pointing out that NY should work hard to see that justice was done spur riots? Do you seriously think so little of black people? What is with you?

I’ve lived in Los Angeles since 1988.  That means I was living here in 1992.  If you really think that people aren’t more prone to riot when we’re in a recession and already have political problems, you need to get out more.

And, no, I don’t just mean black people.  It’s a myth that only black people rioted in Los Angeles.  I saw yeshiva boys breaking windows during the riots.  But when people are pissed off and despairing and losing their jobs and losing their homes, rioting looks to them like a way to release some of those feelings.  I don’t blame them, but I can’t say I really want to see National Guardsmen patrolling my street with rifles again anytime soon.

Comment #90: Mnemosyne  on  09/09  at  02:41 PM

Mnemosyne  on  09/09  at  01:35 PM
I just can’t go along with the kind of anarchy and civil war that you’re calling for.

I haven’t called for either. You’re arguing with a strawman. I discuss Democratic primaries, you argue I’m claiming a pox on both houses. Either you know you don’t have shit to say or you are just using the forum as a form of intellectual masturbation. Over and over, you simply make up whatever viewpoint you like and insert it into my posts.

I’ve lived in Los Angeles since 1988.  That means I was living here in 1992.  If you really think that people aren’t more prone to riot when we’re in a recession and already have political problems, you need to get out more.

There it is again. You change the subject. The point was that Obama’s statement need not have encouraged violence and could have discouraged violence, either without cost. You’re arguing, in effect, that this COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED without also endorsing prosecutorial abuse, an implicit slur against blacks. E.g., either blacks just suck up and accept the verdict OR they riot. That’s a false dichotomy and it’s bigoted in its implications, as I explained above, but instead of dealing with it, you simply reiterate the dichotomy.

The rest of humanity is not limited by your lack of rhetorical imagination—that includes Obama. Perhaps you’ve saddled him with both your hopes and your limitations.

Comment #91: No One of Consequence  on  09/09  at  03:05 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.