March 04, 2011
Everybody's a Racist Now
I have, from time to time, written about the nature of Socialism. It is a non-falsifiable belief system. No socialist policy can possible be wrong, therefore whenever any problem crops up--and they do--it cannot possibly be a fault in the policy. Such problems are the result of the existence of conservatives who oppose the self-evidently flawless policies of socialists. Therefore the only solution is the elimination of all conservative opposition, or failing that--probably even accompanying that--even more, and more fervent, socialism.
The inestimable Roger Simon, writing at Pajamas Media, where Bob and I are fortunate and pleased to publish from time to time, has written an interesting article (here) that touches on socialist reality in the form of racism. Simon writes:
“In an an excerpt (linked in red on Drudge) from his new book, ‘Family and Freedom: Presidents and African Americans in the White House,’ US News journalist Kenneth T. Walsh writes:
But Obama, in his most candid moments, acknowledged that race was still a problem. In May 2010, he told guests at a private White House dinner that race was probably a key component in the rising opposition to his presidency from conservatives, especially right-wing activists in the anti-incumbent ‘Tea Party’ movement that was then surging across the country. Many middle-class and working-class whites felt aggrieved and resentful that the federal government was helping other groups, including bankers, automakers, irresponsible people who had defaulted on their mortgages, and the poor, but wasn’t helping them nearly enough, he said.
A guest suggested that when Tea Party activists said they wanted to ‘take back’ their country, their real motivation was to stir up anger and anxiety at having a black president, and Obama didn’t dispute the idea. He agreed that there was a ‘subterranean agenda’ in the anti-Obama movement—a racially biased one—that was unfortunate. But he sadly conceded that there was little he could do about it.”
Well. This is of a piece with standard socialist, class and race warfare doctrine, and is, with a great many other examples--they are legion--additional evidence that Mr. Obama is himself a socialist. In the same way that socialist doctrine and policy cannot possibly be in error, those holding such beliefs and making such policies cannot be in error. This is particularly true for maximum socialist leaders who are commonly worshipped in cults of personality not unlike those of North Korean Communists. Doubt me? Google “Obama halos” if you have the stomach for it.
Mr. Obama cannot, therefore, be in error. His policies must be flawless and none of the premises upon which they are based can possibly be falsified. Therefore, any opposition to Mr. Obama cannot be well-intentioned, cannot be pursued in good faith by honorable people, because no well-intentioned, honorable person acting in good faith would ever think to oppose Mr. Obama’s policies, let alone actually oppose them.
But Mr. Obama is the most brilliant human being alive, is he not? One need not look farther than his own advisor, Valerie Jarret. Ed Driscoll writes at Pajamas Media (here):
“While I was away last week, Jonathan Last’s brilliant essay, ‘American Narcissus’ appeared at the ‘Weekly Standard’. Last assembles an extensive catalog of the two sides of Obama: extreme narcissism — and its flipside, extreme boredom with every aspect of life that doesn’t immediately advance the career of Barack Obama.
Let’s look at a few instances of the latter:
David Remnick delivers a number of insights about Obama in his book The Bridge. For instance, Valerie Jarrett—think of her as the president’s Karen Hughes—tells Remnick that Obama is often bored with the world around him. ‘I think that he has never really been challenged intellectually,’ Jarrett says. “So what I sensed in him was not just a restless spirit but somebody with such extraordinary talents that they had to be really taxed in order for him to be happy.’ Jarrett concludes, ‘He’s been bored to death his whole life.’”
Anyone in opposition to the policies of Barack Obama therefore, cannot be actually opposed to his polices, which are perfect, having been established by a perfect maximum leader. Their opposition cannot be based on policy, it must be personal. And because Mr. Obama is black (by self-identified choice), any opposition must be racist. As unhinged as this sort of thinking may seem to rational Americans, it is one of two inescapable alternatives. The other is that Mr. Obama--and a great many of his supporters--actually believe that at least half of America is irredeemably racist.
That the very fact of Barack Obama’s election as President of the United States is the most compelling possible evidence of America’s lack of racism matters not to the faithful. That even those who voted against Mr. Obama observed at least a moment of pride in the election of a black man, matters even less. That the Civil Rights Movement won, that anyone displaying racist tendencies is, and has for decades been, beyond the pale, shunned in polite society, matters not at all. To the elect, the mere existence of the Tea Party Movement is proof positive of racism, all evidence to the contrary.
As Mr. Simon’s essay notes, Mr. Obama and his sycophants are careful to keep his real beliefs and attitudes under wraps, bringing them out only among friends. More’s the pity. It’s hard to make informed choices in a representative democracy when candidates conceal their true nature and deranged beliefs.
One additional possibility exists: Mr. Obama is playing the race card--and have no doubt that it will be prominently and publicly played in the next two years, particularly if he is lagging in the polls--as a matter of cynical political calculation, a sort of political reverse psychology. Branding as racist people and movements that are manifestly not racist may tend to make them want to prove that they are not racist, particularly by voting for Mr. Obama. But it may also tend to enrage such people and movements and inspire them to redouble their efforts to eject lunatic socialists and race hustlers from Washington.
Americans concerned about liberty, democracy, the Constitution, national security, financial security and the rule of law may well have to silently bear the racist label and vote for America instead of a President narcissistic and clueless enough to brand half and more of America with a contemporary scarlet letter. It is a sign of how far Mr. Obama has lowered our expectations that it is hardly distressing to observe that voting for virtually any Republican would be an order of magnitude improvement. And that, dear reader, is also a great pity, brought to you by the most brilliant, bored, racist man on the planet.
Bravo. Personally, it is hard not to talk about individual experience these days, everything is becoming relevant. It is my belief that tea party and "wi unions" could share some affirmative ground.
Posted by: CurleyUS at March 4, 2011 01:45 AMFrom the Princess Bride:
Vizzini: HE DIDN'T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE.
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
This is exactly the type of post a racist would write.
Posted by: Halleck at March 4, 2011 03:13 PMMaximum fail.
("Hmmm... he's black, so it looks silly when I call him a racist too often... I KNOW! We'll just replace the word with 'socialist,' and it'll all be better!")
You've got a beautiful logical circle there. "You can't argue with me, because he's a socialist. And I know he's a socialist, so I must be right."
("Plus, we gots us a negro in the White House! Cain't be no more racism nohow!")
It's all or nothing with you, isn't it? One black president, and the whole history of race relations is turned around. One offhand mention that there might possibly be racism in the unbridled hatred of everything he does, and the president must hate the whole KKKountry.
I think that the definition of irony would be that you see the whole world in black and white.
Posted by: Nameless Cynic at March 4, 2011 03:33 PMI don't have a problem with him because he's black.
I have a problem with him because he's Red.
Just met a young black guy. Nicest guy you'd ever meet. He told me about how his family moved out to the Midwest because the land was cheaper. He was the only black guy in his high school, in a town of 1000.
One day he and his family returned to their house from a trip, and found it burned to the ground.
Guess what? Racism still exists.
Posted by: jim x at March 4, 2011 06:28 PMAnd Larry, if you think Obama is Red after all the giveaways he's worked with the GOP to give Wall Street...wow.
You know, sometimes I wish Obama really was a socialist, so you guys would really have something to cry about.
Posted by: jim x at March 4, 2011 06:30 PMWhat the heck, fixed your opening paragraph for you.
"I have, from time to time, written about the nature of [Free Market Fundamentalism]. It is a non-falsifiable belief system. No [Free Market Fundamentalist] policy can possible be wrong, therefore whenever any problem crops up--and they do--it cannot possibly be a fault in the policy. Such problems are the result of the existence of [liberals] who oppose the self-evidently flawless policies of [Free Market Fundamentalists]. Therefore the only solution is the elimination of all [liberal] opposition, or failing that--probably even accompanying that--even more, and more fervent, [Free Market Fundamentalism]."
See how easy and factless that was?
If the shoe doesn't fit, next time actually discuss the specific policies. There's a danger there, though - you might learn something Fox, Rush or Beck tells you is wrong.
Posted by: jim x at March 4, 2011 06:35 PMIt's the Tinkerbell Defense. Remember that scene in Peter Pan when you're supposed to clap your hands and believe really hard and Tinkerbell will be ok?
Well, every time socialism goes wrong, it's blamed on people just not believing hard enough. (We didn't spend enough, tax enough, regulate enough...)
Dear Nameless Cynic and jim x:
Logical circle? I'm afraid not. There is more than sufficient evidence to conclude that Mr. Obama is a socialist, and I've come to that conclusion after two years of serious study. Race doesn't enter into that calculation. Remember that it was Mr. Obama who was to be the "post-racial President," but who has often injected race into the national discourse. As for the "whole history of race relations' being turned around, I made no such assertion. Racism exists, but not remotely to the degree suggested by Mr. Obama himself, and not in the Tea Party Movement, which has gone to great pains to reject anyone who appears to be in the least bit racist. Were this not so, it would surely be NYT front page news.
And as to seeing the world in white and black, I do see that there is right and wrong, but I follow Martin Luther King's admonition to judge people on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, or their membership in a politically useful and/or favored victim group.
Actually, Mr. Obama hasn't worked with the GOP to do much of anything, and the giveaways he has made to Wall Street have been in the furtherance of progressive policies and/or in the support of his or other democrats--or their constituencies or cronies-fortunes.
There is no such thing as "free market fundamentalism," but there are certainly socialists and socialist doctrine and policies. Conservatism is, in general, characterized by doing what works and making necessary revisions when appropriate. Even the European and Scandinavian socialist democracies are beginning to admit that many of their policies have been a disaster and are taking steps to abandon them in favor of free market reforms. Simultaneously, Mr. Obama is determined to implement the same failed policies, and to drive America into the socialist pit they are working to crawl out of.
The choices remain. Either Mr. Obama and his supporters actually believe that half or more of America is racist and opposes his policies primarily on that basis, his political philosophy makes it impossible for him to admit error, forcing him to assume that opposition is prima facie racism, or playing the race card is a cynical political ploy. That he does it--for the time being--only among sycophants, indicates that he knows it to be unwise to publicize. Calling millions of people racist without cause or evidence is reprehensible. When the person making the smear is the POTUS, it is unconscionable and arguably indicative of racism.
Or do you believe that calling attention to what Mr. Obama has actually said and done, and proposing potential reasons therefore, is somehow not a legitimate topic for debate?
Posted by: mikemc at March 4, 2011 10:40 PMPretty sure the Secret Service would be shocked to know how "post-racist" America is now, given that they've never had a POTUS who's faced even half the serious death-threats that Obama does every day.
"Non-falsifiable belief system" is a redundancy ... & socialists who bail out banks & kill a public option for Health Insurance - let alone a single-payer public system - get to have their Red Star Klub Kard revoked. If Obama is a socialist then so is Mitt Romney.
PROTIP: stop seeking the socialism you want to see (because you will find "evidence" for ANYTHING you want to find) & actually just look at what Obama DOES - he's well to the right of Reagan (who RAISED taxes seven times, pulled the Marines out of Beirut after a single attack, & passed a law against torture - while Obama ignored the many calls for nationalization so he could bail out the big banks Reagan would've likely left to fail, cut taxes, ramped up AfPak, & gave the Bush torture crew a free pass).
"Actually, Mr. Obama hasn't worked with the GOP to do much of anything" because either (A) the GOP steadfastly refuses to support ANY move he makes, right down to mundane appointments, or (B) he's been so eager to co-opt GOP policies wholesale that they don't need to lift a finger. Patriot Act? RomneyCare? TARP? Offshore drilling? Increasing a Pentagon budget that's already hypertrophied beyond any sane rationale?
Too bad he's already nationalized everything, proclaimed martial law, taken away all your guns & put conservatives into his infamous FEMA death-camps, just as so many brave voices on the right warned in 2008.
Posted by: jim at March 5, 2011 12:04 AMDear Jim:
You're not seriously suggesting that Barack Obama, a man steeped in leftist doctrine his entire life, whose mentors and associates were and are among the most prominent, self avowed socialists and communists in America, whose voting record has been uniformly leftist, and who justly earned the title of the most far left Senator in the US Senate, a man even to the left of the only self-acknowledged socialist in the Senate, is to the right of Ronald Reagan? And surely you realize that Mr. Obama has, for example, nationalized 2/3 of the American auto industry and the entire student loan industry? The other items you raise indicate only that Mr. Obama is enough of a conventional politician to realize that there are some things any president must do if he wishes to retain any credibility and/or have a chance at reelection. By the way, Mitt Romney is obviously not a socialist, but he did champion a health care system that does encompass many socialistic aspects. That he did this in Mass. indicates, again, political pragmatism. Let's not forget that it is his refusal to distance himself from RomneyCare that may very well doom his presidential chances among Republicans.
Dear "-1":
Your comment has be deleted. At CY we invite civil debate. Name calling, particularly obscene name calling, is rude and unacceptable.
Posted by: mikemc at March 5, 2011 05:18 PMThere is no such thing as "free market fundamentalism,"
Yes there is. It's the basic view that all the Free Market needs to run great is to be left alone.
In this worldview, government regulation or intervention in the market is automatically and uniformly bad, AKA socialism.
Speaking of socialism - yes, the Obama administration bailed out GM. Three decades ago, Ronald Reagan bailed out Chrysler. Does that make Reagan a Socialist?
If your answer is no, then bailing out GM can't make Obama a socialist either.
Posted by: jim x at March 5, 2011 09:42 PMConservatism is, in general, characterized by doing what works and making necessary revisions when appropriate.
Uh-huh. Except for:
1. segregation
2. the draft
3. trickle-down economics - which no nonpartisan economists support, nor ever did, and which has been confirmed by study and recent history to simply not work
4. abstinence-only education
5. inserting democracy in foreign countries at gunpoint
Dear Jim x:
You do recall that it was the Democrat party--which was at that time solidly in control of the South--that defended segregation? Regarding the draft, it was ended when its necessity--the Vietnam War--ended, and no Republican administration has resurrected it, preferring instead an all volunteer force. The nature of our military and technology has changed so much that it is unlikely that a draft will ever again be necessary. Recall, too, please, that it has been only liberals who have called for its reimposition in recent years (yes, I know that was to make cynical political points). As a part of the free market, with reasonable and constitutional oversight by government, what you describe as "trickle-down economics" has in fact worked quite well, and a great many economists have so acknowledged. As to abstinence-only education, I suspect we are, to at least some degree, in agreement, but fortunately, it has been applied as the only option in relatively few places. I didn't say the conservatism is perfect or always absolutely consistent, only that it tends to do what works and making making necessary revisions when appropriate. As to inserting democracy into other countries at gunpoint, we are the only superpower in history that has never used that position for the looting of other nations. As Colin Powell once said, all we've ever asked of the nations we've liberated, is a place to bury our dead. Besides, I suspect that many nations--Cuba comes immediately to mind--would be more than happy for us to insert a bit of democracy at gunpoint, as would their relatives who have fled to America to obtain its blessing.
Be well, and thanks for the engagement!
PS: Chrysler was saved by loans, loans in much smaller amounts than those extended to GM and Chrysler. In addition, Chrysler paid those loans back in full--early--and was never taken over by the Government, which never assumed any ownership stake in the company. A bit of a different situation from our current public ownership of 2/3 of the domestic industry. You do recall GM's President claiming to have paid back substantial monies by merely paying one loan with the proceeds from other government loans?
MikeM,
what annoys me most is that all these years while I was judging people based on the content of their character,they were judging me based on the color of my skin.
You know, funny thing. Just a few months ago, GM had that big initial offering and paid off a lot of their debt. The shares held by the U.S. Treasury department were reduced from 61% to about 26%.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/g-m-shares-big-day/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-12/gm-s-ipo-said-likely-to-price-at-high-end-or-above-with-saic-seeking-stake.html
Gee, Mike, for somebody as interested in the market as you seem to be, how did you miss that?
Or do you just ignore any inconvenient facts that don't meet your narrative?
Posted by: Nameless Cynic at March 6, 2011 07:15 PMDear Nameless Cynic:
Thanks for the comment. And yes, I have been aware of what's going on, though I don't generally follow markets nearly as closely as some. And I did read the articles you cited back in November when they were posted, as well as several others. Thanks, by the way, for the URLs. They made refreshing my memory much easier.
From the Nov. 2010 NYT article you cited:
"The Treasury Department sold about half of its stake, and will reap about $13.6 billion once the overallotment is completed. The total overall government stake in the company will shrink to about 26 percent, including preferred shares."
From the Nov. 2010 Bloomberg article you cited:
"Without exercising the greenshoe, the Treasury Department’s stake would fall to 43 percent from 61 percent now, according to a regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. If the overallotment option is used, the stake would drop to 41 percent, according to the filing."
As you can see, both sources are suggesting that if "X" or "Y" happens, the government's share of GM could drop from 61% to 43%, or possibly 41% or possibly "about 26%." As I mentioned earlier, I don't follow the market on an intense, daily basis, so I have not seen anything indicating that the taxpayer share of GM has in fact dropped from 61% to any lower percentage. Therefore, I stuck with the number I knew was correct, and correct not long ago. And no, as you can see, I didn't ignore any "inconvenient facts," primarily because I knew of only a variety of potential possibilities, certainly not facts.
But if you have the time and interest to dig through the financial pages, so to speak, and can find a firm, factual number that is current today, I'll be glad to know it and glad to make the correction. That's also one of our policies here, not only because it's honest, but my co-bloggers and I all have very taxing professions, so blogging is our hobby. We enjoy it, and strive to be as accurate as possible, but because we don't pursue it for a living, we have less time than a reporter might. Even so, I think we do reasonably well in fact checking, and much better in making rapid corrections brought to our attention by our alert readers, for whom we are grateful.
Thanks for your help!
Posted by: mikemc at March 6, 2011 11:25 PMWell, golly. I'd like to apologize. Apparently, 26% was the most optimistic reading: it seems that we're actually talking about the government holding an interest of about 33%
http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/18/news/companies/gm_ipo_akerson/?iid=EL
My mistake. I apologize.
(Meanwhile, what was that about "socialism"?)
Posted by: Nameless Cynic at March 7, 2011 03:20 AM
