Don’t get any big ideas
The ‘oh sweet jesus Obama is going to talk to little school children and tell them to sniff cocaine and spread their legs and rob banks help help it’s all such a nightmare’ fuss is too much even for some conservatives. Which is good, I suppose, but it ought to be too much for anyone. It ought to be too stupid and too vicious and too evil for anyone.
Let me proffer the following: there is absolutely nothing that could possibly be planned for students next Tuesday that can even begin to approach the pedagogical and personal benefit of hearing the President of the United States tell you that he believes you can change the world.
Quite. And if that ‘you’ who hears the POTUS tell you that is a child who is not lily-white and not rich and not destined for Yale as a legacy and not related to a former president – then that is ten, twenty, fifty times more true. This isn’t just any President of the United States telling you he believes you can change the world, this is one who would have made people’s eyes bug out of their heads if they could have flashed forward to his inauguration day from forty-five years ago. Bug right out, man. Think about that, and what it says to school children now.
I think he’s made a dog’s breakfast of the health care thing, but then his plans were so small even during the campaign that I never did expect much. But when it comes to sending messages to students, especially students of Other Races and of Small Incomes – he’s like a shower of gold, and it just makes my mind go all every which way to see people determined to fuck that up, for no genuine reason but for sheer lunatic fantasy. Or worse – much worse. The real message they are sending is that Obama is not worth listening to, or is worth carefully not listening to, not because he is a Democrat or a “socialist” but because he is a nigger. The real message is that no matter how talented, dedicated, intelligent, thoughtful, eloquent, and principled you are, even if those qualities get you all the way to being the president of the USofA, we will turn our backs on you, because you are a nigger. There’s a message of hope to give to school children!
Evil bastards.
I agree with you that they are evil and racist, but in my opinion, they are scared of Obama, because he is very intelligent (intelligence scares those who are limited in the IQ department), because he is good-looking and charming (penis-envy and repressed homoeroticism and when it’s envy of a black penis, the only defense mechanism is fascism), because he wasn’t born with a silver stone in his mouth and made it on his own (they hate him for that). Expect more.
Quite – because he’s all those things and visibly black.
I think the Obama administration made a mistake in underestimating the power of the far right wing. They don’t have facts or sense on their side, but they excel at making noise. Obama’s team completely failed to anticipate just how aggressive they were going to be.
Veiled endorsements of violence and racism can go a long way with the far right wing. The democrats have not done a good job of counteracting this.
Thank you, thank you, Ophelia, for putting it right out there. The word nigger is exactly right. That’s what it comes down to for so many of these bastards. Thank you for not dancing around it, for not “euphemizing” it.
It was predictable that a post like John’s would show up sooner or later. I’m kinda amazed it lasted 5 posts as it is.
To compare the hate for Obama to the hate for Bush is dishonest. Did you miss the news reports that said that the number of death threats against Obama is 5 times the number of death threats against Bush? They are not in any way comparable.
I don’t think Ophelia tarred all opposition of Obama as racists. However, when you compare the levels of outrage against, say, Bill Clinton, with the outrage that Obama generates, the difference is too large to ascribe to mere policy differences. So what can explain this difference? I don’t think it’s a stretch to blame racism for a large part of this difference.
OMG, I cannot believe someone of Ophelia’s undoubted intelligence is so biased against Obama criticism that she wants to propagate the anti-Obama-talk is disguised racism meme. As someone who claims to understand the scientific method can she not be objective here and see that is merely an untestable smear? Are all the commenters (bar John) really so prejudiced? As someone who looks at the psychology of belief I have to say the way you are all attempting to deal with cognitive dissonance and maintain your ideology is absolutely fascinating. You are right that the Obama/Bush hatred is not comparable. Bush had to put up with this for a lot longer, the anti-Bush loathing was much more virulent, prevalent and vile. And he dealt with it more magnanimously.
‘Did you miss the news reports that said that the number of death threats against Obama is 5 times the number of death threats against Bush?’
I had missed that
‘when you compare the levels of outrage against, say, Bill Clinton, with the outrage that Obama generates, the difference is too large to ascribe to mere policy differences.’
I agree, but I believe the difference can be ascribed to the far greater political polarisation in the last ten years. G W Bush may not have received the same number of death threats as Obama but this is hardly a useful measure of the general opprobrium directed at either president. Or do you think that it is honest to equate the vast majority of President Obama’s critics with a small number of violent fantasists and psychopaths?
Hello? I wasn’t talking about all critics of Obama – I was talking about the lunatic opposition to his telling school children to work hard and stay in school, and the message that sends. I don’t think that opposition is rational (to put it mildly), so I think it’s reasonable to look for hidden motivations. But in any case – I didn’t attribute motivations. Look again. I said what message this is sending.
“taking a great moment away”
Exactly. It’s that bit that makes my head go every which way.
That doesn’t really help your credibility in this discussion. But I’ll respond anyway.
While that may definitely be part of it, it still doesn’t explain the imbalance of this polarization. If you were right, wouldn’t Bush and Obama receive about equal amounts of threats? Why is Obama receiving many times more? Is the right wing really 5 times more violent than the left? Then where does that difference come from? Is “racism” really such an unreasonable guess?
I never said that. I only said that the levels of hate against Obama are in no way comparable to the hate levels against Bush, and gave one objective fact that supports this. You have not shown that this difference isn’t real, nor have you given an alternative explanation for its existence.
I agree that the words and actions of the crazy don’t necessarily tell us anything about others who disagree with Obama. However, many of the public figures in the Republican party appear to actively participate in the spreading of false information and fear-mongering. I’m not saying that they themselves are racists, or even that they hate Obama, but they seem to be all too happy to make use of the fear and hatred that are present in society, and quite reluctant to call for calm and reason. That hardly makes them less culpable.
” Is the right wing really 5 times more violent than the left? “
Certainly seems to be the case, yes. Not that that in any way eliminates the racist element of the equation though, it’s not like violence and racism are an either/or proposition
I do not see that the number of death threats a president receives is indicative of the level of hatred that president recieves, but rather is indicative of one type of person who might be likely to hate him. Perhaps the right-wing (not, imo a useful label in this discussion) contains more violent fruitcakes than the left. But it still appears to me, as a foreigner, that G W Bush recieved a far wider level of personal abuse than has President Obama. Of course, President Obama has not yet had the time to build up his fan club. And living in the UK we here very little criticism of the new administration at all, so I may well underestimate the abuse.
And, you may very well point to the things which G W Bush did during his tenure as President to attract such dislike, but then you should recognise that those who dislike Obama may have similar motivation – racism is neither a necessary nor sufficient explanation of such hatred.
But I never said it was, so this discussion is beside the point. Please note: I did not say that racism is the only possible reason for anyone to dislike Obama.
I’d really rather discuss the subject of the post rather than a different subject.
John wrote:
“But tarring all those who object to President Obama by throwing around the racist epithet…”
Since OB was referring only to those who object to the planned speech, it sounds like you think there are some legitimate reasons that some might object to this speech. Can you list some of these reasons? And perhaps explain why these people didn’t object when Bush 1 made the same type of speech? Or when Reagan made the same speech?
Welcome to our planet, Jean K? Er, yes, interesting that you missed the point there – I was saying that the right need to go some way yet to descend to the level of the left these past years. The anti-Obama stuff is nowhere near as vile as the 8 years of anti-Bush rhetoric. Somehow the left was silent when all that was going on (because, like, duh, he’s a Republican and hence wrong and evil and we lefties are correct and moral and everything). As soon as nutty anti-Obama stuff comes in from the right suddenly the left acquires a little moral fibre, thinks it’s a bit nasty and starts screaming racism. As I said, it’s absolutely fascinating to watch the mental processes at work.
I don’t live in the U.S. either. There is a crazy radical leftwing fringe which hated Bush, which thought that Bush planned 9-11 to seize the oil wealth of the Middle East, but that radical leftwing fringe does not have control over school boards and does not have any access to the mass media. Even a radical leftist, who is not crazy, like Chomsky, has no political influence in the U.S.. On the other hand, in the U.S. the radical racist rightwing does control school boards; it does have access to the mass media.
Hello? Hello?
I did not say that all criticism of Obama is insane. Can John and prm stop responding to a claim that I did not make?
No, Ophelia, in fact you criticised him in your commentary!
prm, Don’t be silly. I didn’t miss your point. I responded to it. You’ve got to be extremely out of touch with reality to think there’s any analogy to be made between current right-wing Obama-hating and the hostility Bush earned for himself after 8-years of across the board malfeasance. The connection you’re making is a total fabrication, and really just not worth discussing.
I forgot to mention my son also had to obtain parental permission to watch Pres. Obama’s speech at his school. This would never have happen if Bush had planned a similar speech.
Well Eric let’s not let little details like that stand in the way of a good tantrum!
Ew……neo-nazi newspapers on the doorstep…ewwwwwwwwwwww.
Oh and another thing prm and John – you seem to have overlooked the link to a conservative commentator who thinks this is bullshit. John Podhoretz no less. Why don’t you yell at him about all the Bush-hating?!
” . . . because he wasn’t born with a silver stone in his mouth and made it on his own (they hate him for that).” I find that odd. From my vantage point here in Australia, it seems the message of many films and animations coming out ad nauseum of American studios is that America is the land of opportunity, and that anyone can “make it” if they work hard, have faith in themselves, etc. Or is that just a manufactured myth to propagate the notion that those who are more well-off than others DESERVE their privilege, with the other side of that coin meaning that the poor also DESERVE their lot and therefore don’t deserve health care, welfare etc?
Parrhesia wrote:
“it seems the message of many films and animations coming out ad nauseum of American studios is that America is the land of opportunity, and that anyone can “make it””
Obama is living proof that such a thing is possible. But that doesn’t mean you won’t have to put up with the nastiest vitriol being hurled at you, whether from envy, racism, or whatever.
Parrhesia: I made the remark about Obama not having been born with the silver spoon in his mouth. As Tom says, Obama is living proof that it is possible to make it without having a father who was also president (Bush), but as Tom also points out, that produces envy (never underestimate the role of envy in human affairs), even more envy when the guy who makes it has dark skin. Obama’s making it (not only being elected president, but also his academic credentials, his style, his charm, his cosmopolitan charisma, his eloquence) is read by every small-minded racist as an affront to the order of things. For the record, I am not an Obama fanatic: I would place myself to the left of Obama and to the right of Chomsky, but, as Ophelia points out, the reaction to Obama and to his proposed speech to school-children has nothing to do with a rational criticism of his policies.
I agree with most of what is being said here by the regular commentators, and I agree that one CAN “make it” in America against the odds, but that it is a lot lot LOT harder than the pop culture of America makes out. I think Obama “making it” is obviously an exception to the rule: it was POSSIBLE but not likely (which means all the more kudos for him really).
I recently saw a talk by Alain de Botton on the downside of meritocracy – firstly, a genuine meritocracy would be almost impossible to achieve (although that doesn’t mean it’s not worth aiming for), and secondly, if one believed one was living in a genuine meritocracy than it would seem as though inequalities were deserved. Perhaps Obama’s success is a step closer toward genuine meritocracy, whereas the ultra-conservatives would prefer a faux-meritocracy that only serves to bolster self-conceited conceptions of being deserving of privilege and worthy of status? I don’t think what I’m saying contradicts OB’s “underlying racism hypothesis”, I agree with her. Racism could be justified if one thought inequalities were deserved.
And for the record Amos, I would place myself in a similar position on the political spectrum to you, based on your description above.
I agree that the whole controversy is stupidity, and removes my belief that there was more common sense to be found on the right.
Nevertheless, I have seen more use of the N-word PROJECTED by Obama supporters creating strawman conservative racists than I have actually heard from that lot in my whole life.
“if one believed one was living in a genuine meritocracy than it would seem as though inequalities were deserved.”
Not original to de Botton by the way – see Michael Young, The Rise of the Meritocracy, 1958.
ChrisPer – your last sentence has nothing to do with what I said – so what is your point? Anything? Just picking another random fight like John and prm?
Parrhesia, Given our political coincidence, we should form an online political party or front. Since we started it, we give the orders, o.k.?
OB:”ChrisPer – your last sentence has nothing to do with what I said – so what is your point? Anything? Just picking another random fight like John and prm?”
Ophelia, if you want it in words of one syllable then calling people racists by putting the word NIGGER in their mouths is rhetorical excess. Way excess.
When I use the word projecting, I mean that your hate is being expressed in a construction that other people are even more hateful than a very few of them are.
These people you are criticising do not deserve that you give them a presumption of intellectual good faith, they clearly don’t have any. But you making up hate speech makes you seem… little.
Umm…
OB…
Cough…
Did you just refer to the president of the United States as a golden shower?
Chris god damn it will you learn to read? After all this time, will you please learn to read? If you can’t be bothered to read the post again, just read my second comment above – “But in any case – I didn’t attribute motivations. Look again. I said what message this is sending.”
Every fucking time, this happens – you make some smart-ass comment and it turns out to be based on a misreading of what I said.
“Little,” yourself.
Chris
Since you claim more common sense can be found on the right – maybe you can tell me why anyone making less than $500K would ever vote for a republican? How is it common sense to vote against your best interests on a vague hope that you too can become rich if only the current astronomically wealthy don’t pay their share in taxes? How can buying into the marketing/PR campaigns of big corporations and their republican shills (lots of democrats here also) be an example of common sense? How can falling for fear-mongering (if we can just kill or imprison certain groups we will all be safe) be an example of common sense?
Obama has just been on RTE Irish News (Nine O Clock) giving part of his speech to American students. The so called indoctrination aspect of it was the reason for it being televised.
Amos: OK . . . but I’m the boss of you, alright? What shall we call our party?
OB, thanks for the reading tip. I really need to broaden my knowledge base! :-)
P, welcome! It was a hugely influential book and idea in the UK, so worth knowing about.
OB, first let me apolgise for writing that you were tarring all those who object to President Obama’s speech as racist – that was my mistake. I inferred, incorrectly it seems, from you post, that opponents to Obamas speech to schools had ‘no genuine reason but for sheer lunatic fantasy’ except perhaps racism. You were ,as you state, ‘talking about the lunatic opposition to his telling school children to work hard and stay in school’. I’m not sure who those people were, but I agree with you 100%, they must be lunatics. As for my overlooking a conservative commentator – what makes you think I read conservative commentators or attribute authority to them?
Tom wrote: “it sounds like you think there are some legitimate reasons that some might object to this speech. Can you list some of these reasons?” I don’t have to think peoples reasons are justified or legitimate, merely to point out that people have stated their own reasons for objecting, which include the constitutionality of providing lesson plans or making political capital from such a speech. To dismiss these reasons as lunatic or mere cover for racism without actually engaging with them is, well, not really cricket. And, it is not up to OB’s usual standard.
Tomh also wrote: “And perhaps explain why these people didn’t object when Bush 1 made the same type of speech?” But people did object when Bush made the same speech – there was an investigation of the cost and legality of the speech by the General Accounting Office, ordered by Democratic representative William Ford, then chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, as well as criticism from the Washington Post, Democratic House Majority leader and The National Education Association.
John, that’s crap. The objections are typical right-wing-loony screamer stuff, Limbaugh-Fox-Beck stuff. I don’t need to “engage with” them for the same reason I don’t need to “engage with” 9/11 truthers or acolytes of Lyndon LaRouche.
Michael Fubar,sorry -gate, thanks for noticing. Unfortunately your first comment is misdirected, because I said that the right-wing loonies had CURED me of the notion that common sense was more common on the right.
For the rest, it seems you have adopted a fantasy idea of the benefits people might see for voting against the darlings of the left.
For just one instance, in several countries something called a ‘stimulus’ has resulted in about 15 years of hard work reducing government debt being wiped out in a few short months. This has costs to people who are not middle-class rent-seekers glued to the government tit, especially working lower-income people.
As for your characterising rightish ideas “falling for fear-mongering (if we can just kill or imprison certain groups we will all be safe)” that is just rhetorical masturbation. Its hard to see why a level-headed person would wish to even vote on the same side as people who take such nonsense serioously. Are you saying seeking to kill or imprison actual terrorists is fear-mongering? I think spreading lunatic ideas about the opposition is fear-mongering whether by right-wing hatemongers or left wing lunatics.
But since the fracas over the President’s speech has cured me of thinking common sense is the preserve of the right, I cordially invite you to similarly grow up.
But why would you ever believe common sense was a characteristic of the right? I certainly never said it was a characteristic of the left – hell, I never even mentioned the left. I simply asked why anyone would vote for republicans.
8 years of republican rule destroyed the reduction of the debt, but I agree that the current administration is falling into the same trap throwing money at the rich and at invasions of foreign countries.
Declaring a “war on terrorism” is silly and you know it. We have more people in prison than any other democracy and we are no safer.
As Ophelia has pointed out you simply can’t read.
| ChrisPer | 2009-09-10 – 00:10:12 |
It has cost the lower income bracket what exactly?
Without the stimulus the knock on effect from the banking crisis would have shut down manufacturing – as the people who buy the stuff the working class makes wouldn’t have had the money to buy it.
In the early days of the crisis you saw this happening with General Motors going bankrupt, and the move towards more basic, and cheaper small tech like what has been observed in cellphones.
At the same time as this, the knock on from the microlenders on the depositories would have meant a few banks going under – taking the lower working class’ savings with them.
Tax-money? The lower your income bracket the less taxes you pay – it is the whole point of the progressive tax system.
As lousy a plan the stimulus was (I personally thought nationalisation and sacking the morons who made the mess made more sense) it was still better than not having any stimulus at all – that would have spelled total economic meltdown as opposed to recession.