And then there’s the myth of Obama the racial healer
This is in some sense a companion piece to the post below it, continuing the theme of “how could they have ever thought this?” Ann Althouse writes about a Camille Paglia interview in which Paglia says she’s not voting for Obama again (she’s not voting for Romney either, by the way) because [emphasis mine]:
I was very excited about him. I thought he was a moderate. I thought that his election would promote racial healing in the country…
And instead: one thing after another. Not least: I consider him, now, one of the most racially divisive and polarizing figures ever. I think it’s going to take years to undo the damage to relationships between the races.
I’m glad she came to her senses, but the fact that Paglia initially thought Obama would promote racial healing is but another example of supposedly smart people believing really dumb things about Obama. Althouse shared Paglia’s belief to a lesser extent; she says she hoped for moderation in attitudes about race.
But the catch is that there was absolutely nothing in Obama’s background that indicated he would have some magical ability to do this—unless you count (as perhaps Paglia and Althouse counted) his very existence as a black person who had been elected president. That would be a sign of how far America had come, though, not a mechanism for racial healing but evidence that it had already occurred.
Obama’s actual behavior (as opposed to his rhetoric) was something else entirely. During the 2008 campaign he was actively and vigorously playing the race card, calling opponents racists in various not-so-subtle ways (see this). How could anybody paying attention not have noticed—and seen the significance of—this 2008 statement by Obama himself?:
We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?
And this at a time when no one in the Republican Party or the McCain campaign had done any such thing, nor would they. Back then I referred to Obama’s tactic as “playing the pre-emptive race card,” and it certainly couldn’t be called an example of a propensity for racial harmony and healing. Nor, of course, would Obama’s long-term veneration of “mentor” Reverend Wright. This did not portend a lack of racial divisiveness; Wright stood for racial divisiveness.
The whole thing probably comes down once again to seeing what we want to see, and especially the overvaluation of words over actions among so many of those who deal with words for a living. I noticed the phenomenon back in June of 2008 and even wrote a post about it, but I guess I’m still having trouble accepting and understanding how widespread it is. The principle of the importance of actions over words seems so basic that I simply cannot understand the propensity to ignore it among so many.
And too many of those people (although not Paglia, and perhaps not Althouse) are still supporting Obama despite everything they’ve learned in the past four years. If Obama is re-elected, it will be due to their continuing hope that somehow Obama is the man he says he is rather than the man he had been proven to be.
Good point Neo. A lot of NPR type voters thought they could end the race issue (for them) by explicitly championing it. Similar to “diversity”, this cannot succeed. But the Democrats (and I mean this as a Political Party not shorthand for the left) would not accept any black candidate, only an acceptable grievance qualified candidate. No Clarence Thomas’s need apply
“If Obama is re-elected, it will be due to their continuing hope that somehow Obama is the man he says he is rather than the man he had been proven to be.”
Such people simply fail to recognize that the three most dfficult words in the English languare are :
“The principle of the importance of actions over words . . . .”
Actually, it was words which first tuned me on to Obama’s charade.
In the speech in which Obama references the words of Martin Luther King, Jr. et. al. and follows their recitation with the phrase “just words” I was struck by the fact that his oration contradicted the content of the speech.
The speech was written ironically, to demonstrate that these well known phrases were not just words but had a real-world content beyond simple rhetoric. Instead, if you listen to Obama closely, he delivers these lines, and the ironic criticism “just words” as if he’s reaffirming the fact that these words are, indeed, only rhetoric.
It was from that point onward that I considered him to be a fraud and not a very skilled fraud at that. I marveled at the fact that no one else seemed to hear this distinction but me. And by “no one else” I specifically mean the supposed articulate “wordsmiths” of the media who make their living in a supposed communications industry. That last was sarcasm, not irony.
Some years back, somebody (I wish I remember who) made a very perceptive remark about race: liberals treat African-Americans like children; conservatives treat African-Americans like fellow citizens. Obama simply continues in the liberal tradition of condescension–indeed, is there anybody better at condescension?–so white liberals thought he was a great healer.
From the beginning – 2007, or even the 2004 Dem Convention – I have said that Obama WOULD promote racial healing,
except it WOULD NOT be the type of racial healing to which leftist narrative pointed, which “racial healing” would actually amount to conservative America waking up one day and self realizing: “We were WRONG!! An African American CAN be an effective President!! To all other (i.e. sane) Americans: we are sorry; we were wrong”.
Instead, Obama’s election would create the type of racial healing which occurs when Americans, en mass, decide it is not racist to criticize a black man; to SEVERELY criticize a black man; to OPENLY MOCK a black man; to laugh at a black man; to call a black man ignorant and incapable; to say a black man has less talent than a hillbilly governor from Alaska.
THAT type of open criticism, ridicule, and mocking, was not possible in 2007, or in 2004. But, I knew, and said: if Obama is elected, that type of criticism and mocking will soon become possible, and will constitute true racial healing. True racial healing. True good for the nation. And true good for black Americans. It’s about time. Black Americans have suffered, horribly, from a double standard which prevented their being criticized as equals. In this matter, Barack’s election was the BEST thing which could have happened for every black child in America. Our nation HAD to grow past that silliness which was damaging every black child and person in America. And now we have. And Nov 6 will be decisive proof.
Remember, many WANT to believe, enough so that they will overlook or dismiss anything that might contradict or impair that belief.
My respect for Paglia has grown over the years. In 2008 she was the only feminist of note to recognize that the left’s treatment of Palin was a slap in the face to those who had fought earnestly for womens’ rights and opportunities. She even dared to say as much at salon.com, for which she was called every name in the book.
And even though I wish she were perceptive or honest enough to admit how Obama has swindled this nation on so many other levels, I appreciate her unwillingness either to keep quiet or blindly follow the progressive herd.
“…. to say a black man has less talent than a hillbilly governor from Alaska.”
How true and how truly refreshing it would be to take the race card out of the deck. Its the best thing that could happen to the black community.
BTW, I enjoy reading Paglia. I put her in the same league as the late Christopher Hitchens. She can be witty and wry. So although I often think she is on the wrong side of an issue, I think she is a straight shooter and makes an effort to see the other side.
My moment of truth with Obama came very early in his 2008 campaign. He gave a speech in Selma Alabama in which he left any reasonable listener with the impression that the Selma movement and march accounted for his parents being able to marry, mate etc etc. In other words, but for Selma, no Barack Obama Jr.
Except for one tiny problem, the Selma march took place in March 1965. Mr Obama was born in August 1961.
And even the Democrats cannot change the law that cause must precede effect.
I’m searching for the description to use:
Boorish Behavior, Criminal Propensity, so many to choose from,
but they all know no racial barrier.
One positive effect of the Obama election has been a surge in Black Republican candidates for office. From the NYT in May 2010:
By primary time, the 32 Black Republican candidates got whttled down to 14. Tim Scott defeated Strom Thurmond’s son in the SC-1 primary, which says a lot. Two Black Republicans were elected to Congress in the 2010 election: Tim Scott [SC-1], and Allen West [FL-22]. West won in a district that was 3.8% black. Tim Scott won in a district that was 21.1% black. Scott and West have won support not only among blacks, but among all races.
This year, Mia Love is a Republican candidate for Congress in Utah. In the heart of Mormon country! Whooda thunkit?