View Full Version : Obama Says Race a Key Component in Tea Party Protests
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/03/02/obama-says-race-a-key-component-in-tea-party-protests
African-Americans have been an integral part of the White House since it was built in part by slaves. In Family of Freedom: Presidents and African Americans in the White House, veteran U.S. News White House reporter Kenneth T. Walsh traces this sometimes fraught history from its roots all the way to the Barack Obama presidency.
As he began his second year in office, Obama's presidency was not going well. His legislation to overhaul the healthcare system was still bogged down in Congress. The unemployment rate, which polls showed was the top concern of most Americans, remained stubbornly high at about 10 percent, and much worse in many African-American communities. Obama's job-approval ratings had dropped markedly from the astronomical levels of his first few months to below 50 percent.
Adding to his woes, in January 2010 the race issue erupted again in an unusual and unexpected way. Democratic Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader and an Obama ally, was embarrassed because of some racially insensitive comments he had made to John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, the authors of a new book, Game Change, about the Obama campaign. It turned out that Reid had predicted in 2008 that Obama could succeed as an African-American presidential candidate partly because he was "light-skinned" and because he didn't speak with a "Negro dialect."
Reid quickly apologized, and many black leaders, including the president and Attorney General Eric Holder, defended him as a decent man who was not a racist. But Republicans tried to score political points, with party chairman Michael Steele and Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, calling on Reid to resign as majority leader. He refused, but the furor showed how race remained just below the surface of American life. Racial polarization was again on the rise. In January 2010, 96 percent of African-Americans approved Obama's job performance, virtually unchanged from his 100-day mark in April 2009. But whites were losing faith in him, with only 44 percent approving his job performance, compared with 62 percent the previous April, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll in January 2010.
Republican pollster Bill McInturff said, "I don't think you can find a guy who's done more to try to put this issue [of race] off the table." But McInturff added, "I don't think the press really understands how difficult this guy's position is" because his support among whites was so "precarious." This was largely because the economy was in such distress, and most whites, except perhaps for young people, didn't have a close bond with Obama to begin with.
African-Americans' views on achieving racial equality also were growing more negative, even though black voters remained in strong support of Obama. According to McInturff, only 11 percent of blacks said that African-Americans had reached racial equality, down by 9 percentage points in one year, and 32 percent said equality would not be attained in their lifetimes, up by 9 points. Four in ten whites said African-Americans already had reached racial equality, while 31 percent said it would happen soon.
Obama addressed this pessimism among blacks in an address at the Vermont Avenue Baptist Church in Washington on January 17, 2010, to mark the holiday devoted to Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. Calling for patience and pragmatism, the president said, "Sometimes I get a little frustrated when folks just don't want to see that even if we don't get everything, we're getting something. King understood that the desegregation of the armed forces didn't end the civil rights movement, because black and white soldiers still couldn't sit together at the same lunch counter when they came home. But he still insisted on the rightness of desegregating the armed forces. . . . 'Let's take a victory,' he said, 'and then keep on marching.'"
Snip
Tea Party's kind of a complex entity - here's an article worth reading from the current issue of Foreign Affairs.
The rise of the Tea Party movement has been the most controversial and dramatic development in US politics in many years. Supporters have hailed it as a return to core American vaalues; opponents have seen it as a racist, reactionary, and ultimately futile protest against the energing reality of a multicultural, multiracial United States and a new era of government activism.
Richard :munchin
The Tea Party and American Foreign Policy (atchd pdf)
WR Mead, Foreign Affairs, Mar/Apr 2011
WALTER RUSSELL MEAD is James Clarke Chace Professor of Foreign Affairs and the Humanities at Bard College and Editor-at-Large of The American Interest.
Tea Party's kind of a complex entity - here's an article worth reading from the current issue of Foreign Affairs.
The rise of the Tea Party movement has been the most controversial and dramatic development in US politics in many years. Supporters have hailed it as a return to core American vaalues; opponents have seen it as a racist, reactionary, and ultimately futile protest against the energing reality of a multicultural, multiracial United States and a new era of government activism.
Richard :munchin
The Tea Party and American Foreign Policy (atchd pdf)
WR Mead, Foreign Affairs, Mar/Apr 2011
WALTER RUSSELL MEAD is James Clarke Chace Professor of Foreign Affairs and the Humanities at Bard College and Editor-at-Large of The American Interest.
So, voters who deem Obama a failure and want to fundamentally change the situation in which they find themselves now are racist, but those who did the same to Bush aren't?
You can't have it both ways.
So, voters who deem Obama a failure and want to fundamentally change the situation in which they find themselves now are racist, but those who did the same to Bush aren't?
You can't have it both ways.
Maybe you ought to read the article before reaching for such a conclusion.
Richard :munchin
Maybe you ought to read the article before reaching for such a conclusion.
Richard :munchin
I did, Richard. The author of that article is biased toward Obama, and the premises are subjective and unproven, as are those of all libs.
The root is the same-Obama is OK, Bush was not.
I did, Richard. The author of that article is biased toward Obama, and the premises are subjective and unproven, as are those of all libs.
The root is the same-Obama is OK, Bush was not.
Hmmmm, I read it also and from my point of view it didn't talk much about Obama at all. Couple of paragraphs near the middle about him trying to change a few things.
The article even appeared to give the Tea Party a left handed complement - in a back handed way - towards the end.
But as the article stated at the beginning - the Tea Party is not a single entity, it is a large collection of individuals and small groups.
And RINO season opens in 2012.
Hmmmm, I read it also and from my point of view it didn't talk much about Obama at all. Couple of paragraphs near the middle about him trying to change a few things.
The article even appeared to give the Tea Party a left handed complement - in a back handed way - towards the end.
But as the article stated at the beginning - the Tea Party is not a single entity, it is a large collection of individuals and small groups.
And RINO season opens in 2012.
The article is a sidetrack from the gist of the OP, but I'll address your concern, Bro.
This quote is pretty much objective...
The Obama administration came into office believing that the Bush administration had been too Jacksonian and that its resulting policy choices were chaotic, incoherent, and self-defeating.
... but segues into this type of biased subjectivity:
Uncritically pro-Israel, unilateralist, indifferent to the requirements of
international law, too quick to respond with force, contemptuous of international institutions and norms, blind to the importance of non-terrorism-related threats such as climate change, and addicted to polarizing, us-against-them rhetoric, the Bush administration...
That part of the article is the author clearly making suppositions for the Democrats, and is his opinion-not a patently objective observation.
It's typical liberal bullshit.
The whole point of the thread is the race card; it appears to be Obama's "ace in the hole" so to speak, since he can conveniently blame his failures on the "prejudice" of the public.
If they're so prejudiced, how'd he get elected?:munchin
The rise of the Tea Party movement has been the most controversial and dramatic development in U.S. politics in many years. Supporters have hailed it as a return to core American values; opponents have seen it as a racist, reactionary, and ultimately futile protest against the emerging reality of a multicultural, multiracial United States and a new era of government activism.
To some degree, this controversy is impossible to resolve. The Tea Party movement is an amorphous collection of individuals and groups that range from center right to the far fringes of American political life. It lacks a central hierarchy that can direct the movement or even declare who belongs to it and who does not. As the Tea Party label became better known, all kinds of people sought to hitch their wagons to this rising star. Affluent suburban libertarians, rural fundamentalists, ambitious pundits, unreconstructed racists, and fiscally conservative housewives all can and do claim to be Tea Party supporters.
I took the above to be the meat of the article, though I would agree the tone especially on Bush and foreign policy might be premature in judgement, particularly the role Iraq may have had on the current secular upheaval in the Middle East.
As for the Tea Party, conceding I live in an exceedingly liberal part of the country, with little direct exposure to the movement, I'm not quite sure what to make of it. I don't think the POTUS should be making divisive comments on racial lines, the Paulite wing of the Tea Party makes sense in theory though seems impractical, and Palin to me is purely decorative, I don't want America to elect another hood ornament.
As someone who wants Obama defeated in 2012, I believe the Tea Party is a political liability. If they gain power, they will split the conservative vote with the Republicans a la Ross Perot in 1992, which only helps the Dims, if they incur negative attention, the Dims will lump them in with conservatives in general, highlighting the fringe elements of the movement.
Hope is not a strategy, but the Republicans had best get going on finding a real candidate, or we risk getting four more years of The Bozo Show.
The article is a sidetrack from the gist of the OP, but I'll address your concern, Bro.
This quote is pretty much objective...
The Obama administration came into office believing that the Bush administration had been too Jacksonian and that its resulting policy choices were chaotic, incoherent, and self-defeating.
... but segues into this type of biased subjectivity:
Uncritically pro-Israel, unilateralist, indifferent to the requirements of
international law, too quick to respond with force, contemptuous of international institutions and norms, blind to the importance of non-terrorism-related threats such as climate change, and addicted to polarizing, us-against-them rhetoric, the Bush administration...
That part of the article is the author clearly making suppositions for the Democrats, and is his opinion-not a patently objective observation.
It's typical liberal bullshit.
The whole point of the thread is the race card; it appears to be Obama's "ace in the hole" so to speak, since he can conveniently blame his failures on the "prejudice" of the public.
If they're so prejudiced, how'd he get elected?:munchin
Context can sometimes be important to an argument when making one's case.
The Obama administration came into office believing that the Bush administration had been too Jacksonian and that its resulting policy choices were chaotic, incoherent, and self-defeating. Uncritically pro-Israel, unilateralist, indifferent to the requirements of international law, too quick to respond with force, contemptuous of international institutions and norms, blind to the importance of non-terrorism-related threats such as climate change, and addicted to polarizing, us-against-them rhetoric, the Bush administration was, the incoming Democrats believed, a textbook case of Jacksonianism run wild. Recognizing the enduring power of Jacksonians in U.S. politics but convinced that their ideas were
wrong-headed and outdated, the Obama administration decided that it would make what it believed were the minimum necessary concessions to Jacksonian sentiments while committing itself to a set of policies intended to build a world order on a largely Wilsonian basis. Rather than embracing the "global war on terror" as an overarching strategic umbrella under which it could position a range of aid, trade, and institution-building initiatives, it has repositioned the terrorism threat as one among many threats the United States faces and has separated its world-order-building activities from its vigorous work to combat terrorism.
And the issues of the Tea Party - from all sides of the political aisles and in policy initiatives, both inside and outside the US - are, as Mead argues, a far older, more complex, and historically intrinsic matter for America than we seem to either be able to recognize or want to admit. Personally, I found the article's arguments of worth and an aid to better understanding what's being said, implied, and inferred by politicians, voters, pundits, and bloggers, and do not see it is a 'sidetrack' to understanding the broader context of why someone like BHO (or an opponent) might think or say some of the things being said...whether I agree with them or not.
Richard :munchin
Richard, the author of that article made subjective, opinionated points for the Democrats, which you just reiterated by underlining that part of the quote.
As for "making a case"-I'm not trying to do that. I'm not the person who says the Tea Party is racist.
What the Tea Party is saying is, "Obama's leadership sucks." Not, "Obama's leadership sucks because he's black."
The article in the OP spends very little time talking about the Tea Party and yet the editors go with the Tea Party for the story's headline. It seems like they are more interesting in selling books and getting hits on search engines than in giving folks an accurate thumbnail of the article they're about to read.
As for the piece from Foreign Affairs, I like Mead's discussion of the diversity within the Tea Party movement (TPM) as well as his political analysis of its impact on American politics in the last election cycle. [I agree with him because he agrees with me. See how that works?]
I do find some of Mead's historical generalizations problematic. While use of categories like "Jacksonian" (which he details in Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World [2002]) let readers focus on the "forest," my concern is that this focus comes at the expense of understanding the diversity of the "trees." [Then again, does a tree-oriented approach to the history of American foreign relations get one on the CFR? No, I'm not bitter.]
The article in the OP spends very little time talking about the Tea Party and yet the editors go with the Tea Party for the story's headline. It seems like they are more interesting in selling books and getting hits on search engines than in giving folks an accurate thumbnail of the article they're about to read.
As for the piece from Foreign Affairs, I like Mead's discussion of the diversity within the Tea Party movement (TPM) as well as his political analysis of its impact on American politics in the last election cycle. [I agree with him because he agrees with me. See how that works?]
I do find some of Mead's historical generalizations problematic. While use of categories like "Jacksonian" (which he details in Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World [2002]) let readers focus on the "forest," my concern is that this focus comes at the expense of understanding the diversity of the "trees." [Then again, does a tree-oriented approach to the history of American foreign relations get one on the CFR? No, I'm not bitter.]
Bush can be Jacksonian as long as everyone agrees Obama is Carterian.
Richard, the author of that article made subjective, opinionated points for the Democrats, which you just reiterated by underlining that part of the quote.Dusty--
IMO, Mead is merely summarizing the current administration's initial criticisms of Bush the Younger's approach to national security. In my reading, he wasn't making points for the democrats or against the republicans in that paragraph.
MOO, Mead's criticism of the Bush administration comes in the previous paragraphs.September 11, 2001, changed this. The high level of perceived threat after the attacks put U.S. foreign policy back to the position it had enjoyed in 1947-48: convinced that an external threat was immediate and real, the public was ready to support enormous expenditures of treasure and blood to counter it. Jacksonians cared about foreign policy again, and the George W. Bush administration had an opportunity to repeat the accomplishment of the Truman administration by using public concern about a genuine security threat to energize public support for a far-reaching program of building a liberal world order.
Historians will be discussing for years to come why the Bush administration missed this opportunity. It may be that in the years after 9/11, the administration was so determined to satisfy domestic Jacksonian opinion that it constructed a response to terrorism -- the kind of no-holds-barred total war preferred by Jacksonians -- that would inevitably undercut its ability to engage with key partners at home and abroad. In any case, by January 2009, the United States was engaged in two wars and a variety of counterterrorism activities around the world but lacked anything like a domestic consensus on even the broadest outlines of foreign policy.By my reading, Mead's criticisms center around his interpretation that Bush the Younger paid too much heed to the domestic political environment. Mead is not arguing pro-democrat or anti-republican. Instead, he's suggesting that national security strategy should be formed by elites. By doing so, he's assuming that these elites, regardless of party lines, would use American power to shape a world order based upon liberalism.
Richard, the author of that article made subjective, opinionated points for the Democrats, which you just reiterated by underlining that part of the quote.
As for "making a case"-I'm not trying to do that. I'm not the person who says the Tea Party is racist.
I think the author made the case that that is what the Dems believed and which has influenced their actions because of it - and I think he made a good argument for his position.
As far as the Tea Party being racist - I interpreted what BHO is claimed to have said as not meaning the entire Tea Party is racist, but that there are right-wing activists in it that are.
...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...
But then again, I may be misreading it, too.
Richard :munchin
IMO, Mead is merely summarizing the current administration's initial criticisms of Bush the Younger's approach to national security. In my reading, he wasn't making points for the democrats or against the republicans in that paragraph.
For a professional writer and scholar, I think he could have worded the passage better to remove any chance of confusion. As it was written, I also initially understood it as being the author's analysis of the Bush administration. Only after reading the paragraph a second time did I see that he was trying to characterize the democrats' view of Bush and his policies (see "Bush Derangement Syndrome"). With the two simple words "perceived as" at the start of the sentence, Mead could have gone far in preventing potential misunderstanding. Of course, later going on to bemoan the lost opportunity for "building a liberal world order", and couching it in terms of a failure rather than a desired outcome doesn't help do much to help the reader believe he isn't interjecting personal bias against the Bush admin, assuming of course that it wasn't his intent.
For a professional writer and scholar, I think he could have worded the passage better to remove any chance of confusion. As it was written, I also initially understood it as being the author's analysis of the Bush administration. Only after reading the paragraph a second time did I see that he was trying to characterize the democrats' view of Bush and his policies (see "Bush Derangement Syndrome"). With the two simple words "perceived as" at the start of the sentence, Mead could have gone far in preventing potential misunderstanding. Of course, later going on to bemoan the lost opportunity for "building a liberal world order", and couching it in terms of a failure rather than a desired outcome doesn't help do much to help the reader believe he isn't interjecting personal bias against the Bush admin, assuming of course that it wasn't his intent.QP Razor--
You raise an interesting point. In academic historical writing, the first sentence of a paragraph frequently serves as a summary of the rest of the paragraph. This convention allows eggheads to plow quickly through densely written monographs after reading the bibliography, skimming through the endnotes, and reading the introduction and acknowledgments.
As Mead is an academic historian--and I knew that before I read the article--I took that the paragraph was about the current administration's perceptions of the Bush administration.*
______________________________________
* Mead's bio is here (http://www.politico.com/arena/bio/walter_russell_mead.html). I am defining him as an "academic historian" less because of his formal training but rather because of how he approaches history. IMO, his academic/professional background is compelling. What did he do between the time he earned his B.A. at Yale and when he started his rise to prominence as a commentator/student on American foreign policy?
I think the author made the case that that is what the Dems believed and which has influenced their actions because of it - and I think he made a good argument for his position.
As far as the Tea Party being racist - I interpreted what BHO is claimed to have said as not meaning the entire Tea Party is racist, but that there are right-wing activists in it that are.
But then again, I may be misreading it, too.
Richard :munchin
The guy isn't arguing, because nobody's offering another opinion. It's a monologue.
There are right wing activists across the board-Democrats are scared to death of the Tea Party-and should be, because the House was decimated of Dems because of it-so they will do everything possible from now 'til '12 to 'denigrate' it (to borrow an Obama term).
Originally Posted by Richard
...and I think he made a good argument for his position.
Originally Posted by Dusty
The guy isn't arguing, because nobody's offering another opinion. It's a monologue.
He is presenting an argument:
ar·gu·ment (ärˈgyə-mənt)
noun
2.a. A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood: presented a careful argument for extraterrestrial life.
b. A fact or statement put forth as proof or evidence; a reason: The current low mortgage rates are an argument for buying a house now.
c. A set of statements in which one follows logically as a conclusion from the others.
Richard :munchin