TheAgitator.com
More on Obama
Wednesday, November 5th, 2008Jonathan Blanks, a friend of mine and a black libertarian who disagrees with Obama on just about everything, explains why he wept last night.
I think some of the regular commenters at this site are giving short-shrift to the symbolic importance of this.
Well, he IS half white…
Huh. Wonder if the symbolic importance would have been there if Sarah Palin had become the first woman Vice President.
I know that he’s the first black President. Hell, he was the only black person in the Senate, too. However, I think that it just perpetuates the problem by mentioning, over and over, that he’s the first black to earn such a high position in government, etc.
I felt the same when McCain made his concession speech. Had he left all the remarks about race out of it, it would’ve been a much, much better speech. The reason is that Obama didn’t win BECAUSE he’s black (although he did win DESPITE being black), he won because he spoke to more people on so many levels. By playing up his race we downplay the importance of his views and beliefs.
Some might say that just electing a black person shows how bad it really was (”wow, it was so bad they elected a black person!”), but just like racial jokes and Affirmative Action, they just slow progress instead of letting it come on its own (kind of the way voting FOR a candidate because of his race is just as bad as not voting for him because of his race. They’re both equally racist).
There is no symbolic importance. Sure, he’s black (or rather, half-black), but what does that matter? He’s going to use the force of the state to steal from me to enact his pet programs. Bush did it, Clinton did it, and McCain would have done it, too, if he’d won.
Radley,I’m not selling this short,it’s just, I don’t care what skin color some one has.I think Obama is a pretty nice guy from what I know.I can’t say the same for McCain.I still think he wants to return to a ‘Great Society – New Deal ‘ style of government and his calling health care a right reinforces this belief.We’ve had enough of that in the last 8 years.
I think its pretty awesome. It is important and symbolic. Most of us white folks grew up believing that we really could be anything we wanted when we grew up. I don’t think that has been the case for most black kids — regardless of whether they really could or not. The point is, they didn’t believe that they could. They are more likely to believe that they can now.
Part of me feels like I am too young to fully appreciate the importance of Obama’s being the first black president. But the rest of me feels like it doesn’t actually matter that he’s black, because that doesn’t make him that much different. He’s still a married Christian man with children who wants to coerce and steal from millions of people.
I actually felt pity (and a little anger) this morning as I filled my gas tank. There were two young, black men talking with each other as I filled up and I heard one say “we finally got a ni99er in the white house.” I’m generally not one to care about words, or even how they are used, but I think that shows both a lack of respect and a great deal of ignorance (as well as self doubt/pity).
I believe it shows that these people believe their race to be suppressed / inferior and so long as they don’t see each other as equals then I don’t think they’ll ever act as equals. And that, I believe, is the key to being equal.
Obama winning the Presidency won’t do any good for blacks if he continues the policies that have hurt them. If he expands the black family-destroying welfare programs, he’ll create more fatherless black children who will go on to have the same problems associated with fatherless households. If he doesn’t take real steps toward ending the War on Drugs, many blacks will still have to live with the harassment of the drug cops.
I think there is too much looking at this from a left-wing perspective (focusing on the fact we elected a black man) and not enough scrutinizing of the fact that blacks will probably be a lot worse off if Obama gets his policies carried out. Not saying that McCain would really have been any better, but it’s time to face up to the fact that Obama’s policies will be no friend to the black community.
Radley,
Regular commenters here give short shrift to all forms of symbolism. Results matter, reality matters, symbols. . . not so much.
I suspect I am one of the regular commenters to whom Radley is referring, and I agree: I am giving short shrift to the symbolism because I don’t think it’s particluary meaningful and all of these paeans to the significance of Obama’s election just make it more likely that he will be able to effectuate his policies without any resistance whatsoever, no mater how statist or intrusive.
I hope I am wrong, but does anyone expect that, just as an example, the New York Times will be working as hard to expose secret government programs or other abuses of power by an Obama administration as they laudably did the Bush administration? I do not, and I think they won’t because of the very same stupid sentimentalism that Radley and Mr. Blanks have fallen victim to.
I feel like I can’t argue with this. Because it’s true. I have no idea what it’s like. People who remember civil rights and being intimidated and killed for who they were especially must be over the moon at the change in 40 years.
I can’t know what it’s like. And I wish I could actually feel happy for people. But I’m worried about Obama for all the obvious libertarian reasons, and I am worried about him because people are smitten. They love him. My fellow college students were screaming in the streets last night. He’s either going to disappoint people, or worse still, they are going to keep loving him even while he does the same old shit that presidents do. And I don’t see him ending the dangerous racist policies that harm so many black people — the drug war most of all.
I wish I could be happy and be satisfied that this means something, but I guess I can’t honestly.
“I have no idea what it’s like. People who remember civil rights and being intimidated and killed for who they were especially must be over the moon at the change in 40 years.”
I think that’s a much better indicator of racial progress than Obama running a successful campaign.
I would be more impressed with the symbolism if I thought it would mean an end to all the racial politics that go on in this country every day, from the street all the way up to the government. If I thought it would stop the suspicion on both sides. If I thought it would stop things like affirmative action, racial quotas, and talk of reparations.
Without that, it is nothing more than a footnote in history, gee, this was the day that a man with darker-than-average skin was elected to the presidency. If the claim is that there are still barriers in place because of race, then it really doesn’t mean much, does it?
I just got back from NE Ohio, where I worked on election law issues (a/k/a voter protection) for the campaign. I recognize the difficulty some white people have in understanding the significance of Obama’s election– for white people who are not prejudiced, the actual achievement of a black man’s election merely confirms what they personally believe: that race doesn’t matter.
I wouldn’t have classified myself as thinking “so what?” prior to working on the campaign (this attitude kind of reminds me of Steven Colbert’s “I don’t see color” schtick), but I don’t think I came even close to appreciating the significance of this moment until I worked on the campaign, in a blue-collar area.
I’ll just give a few examples. I led a young mother to early vote; she held the hand of her 7- or 8-year old son. It was 7:00 on a cold morning, and they were lining up to vote outside a polling place that opened at 8:30. I asked her if her son was going to watch, and she began to cry, saying she wanted him to watch history being made. He just beamed. In the early vote line through which I passed four or five times a day for business with the Board of Elections, I saw many, many young black men of 18 or 19 happily standing for over an hour; local political people said that this demographic group never before turned out in significant numbers.
Maybe you haven’t seen the Obama t-shirts some black people wear proudly. One has a picture of Martin Luther King and the words: “The Dreamer”, below which is a picture of Obama and the words “The Dream”. A lot of folks have bumper stickers or t-shirts that say: “I want to be like Barack” (a lot of kids have t-shirts with this slogan). For them, these aren’t maudlin sentiments.
At Obama’s speech in the area, and again at the local victory party, black and white people mingled, hugged and celebrated in a way that I’ve never seen before and at which locals marveled, which brings me to a final point about the campaign’s effect.
For some (many?) black people, the commitment of white volunteers to the Obama campaign has come as a surprise. Certainly some believe that white people volunteered only because they jumped on the bandwagon, but I also dealt with many people who seemed almost shocked at the admiration and devotion of the white volunteers for a black man.
To get from Jim Crow to a society free of racism (to use Radley’s phrase), we not only must rid white people of prejudice in thought and deed, but also black persons’ suspicions that they will be forever denied equality and respect. Even unprejudiced white people can’t expect to dictate the pace at which black distrust will dissipate– not because we have no moral right to do so (since our white forebears created the problem), but because doing so ignores continuing prejudice by other whites and the natural human instinct to distrust that which has caused oppression. Concluding that Obama’s election is not a big deal ignores the critical perspective of black people. Electing Barack Obama as President is a significant step in that journey for them, so it is for us, too.
Anyway, that’s what I saw at the revolution.
Excellent post, the other Ben.
Doug
I like to think that no one here has given shorter shrift to the entire system than I.
Lysander Spooner said, “I believe women should have the same right to vote as men — NONE!”
The only thing the gentleman who wept for Obama’s achievement displayed was race-based catharsis.
Race is among the most pernicious forms of collectivism. Identification with race, whether as a member of or a detractor of, negates the individual. That is the essence of racism, of all collectivism — the negation of the individual. I heard A LOT of collectivist speech last night, qu’elle surprise.
If Obama were the “Messiah” his race would be irrelevant. Since his race in fact matters, that’s proof that he’s just a man, one of us imperfect slobs, an imperfect slob with a gun pointed at the head of every American, and everyone in the world.
(((Most of us white folks grew up believing that we really could be anything we wanted when we grew up. I don’t think that has been the case for most black kids — regardless of whether they really could or not. The point is, they didn’t believe that they could. They are more likely to believe that they can now.)))
Word.
What got me is when CBS showed the students at Howard University and a Professor who was so moved that she couldn’t stop crying.
I’m with the other Ben. This is a really important time.
CC
I think nicole’s comment is telling. She writes “…the rest of me feels like it doesn’t actually matter that he’s black, because that doesn’t make him that much different. He’s still a married Christian man with children…” I would guess that nicole is a white, single non-Christian without children. As such, his being black isn’t a big deal because she can’t relate to his struggles. On the other hand, if he were a woman, single or non-Christian, it would impact her because she could relate. I think that many readers here, like nicole, don’t really understand because we can’t really relate. And that’s not bad; it’s human nature. I’ll certainly admit to having similar feelings. When I was watching people celebrating in Grant Park, I had the same response I had watching Phillies fans celebrate their World Series win… I guess I was happy for them, but I’m not one of them so I couldn’t really share in their joy (and as a Cubs fan, I’m not sure if I’ll ever experience such joy).
Anyway, I think the value of reading Jonathan’s experience is that it helps me to understand such a response intellectually, even if I still can’t fully relate emotionally. I may be disappointed in four years of increased federal debt and government intrusion, but I can look to the cultural and racial significance of the election as a significant silver lining.
I’m beginning to think I’m not seeing the whole picture. My never-lived-a-day-as-a-black-person self is shutting up regarding the race issues.
I’m gonna go find a swat raid to be up in arms about…
Look, I am opposed to a whole lot of Obama’s policies, and I don’t expect that things are going to follow what I prefer in most cases.
But I find it pretty offensive that people here, and elsewhere, are boiling Obama down to nothing but “He’s going to steal from me” as though it was certain that he was going to steal from you in a manner quantitatively different than any other candidate who could actually become elected President in our system in the current state of affairs in our country.
But there is something that this country needs more of right now, and as corny and silly and stupid as it sounds, it’s what Obama offered — hope. We’ve had 8 years of nothing but fear, of pitting American against American, of giving up our identities and our rights as people. Maybe “hope” is just a rhetorical device, but it can have power to do some healing regardless.
We now have, for all his other faults, a man who listens to others, who may be able to inspire Americans to work together, and one who may make other countries want to work with us rather than against us.
I also was very inspired by his victory last night even though he wasn’t my choice. And I’m hoping that there are good things for this country that can happen with him as President. I really want to give that hope a chance. (And I find the “my taxes” single-issue folks as baffling as the “abortion is murder” single-issue folks.)
And yes, Barack is black. While that will not end racism overnight, the repeated vision of a black family in the White House for the next four years will do a lot toward changing America’s consciousness. And that’s a good thing.
All right, I will confess that I am not going to change anyone’s mind here, but I reject the transcendant view of this election (because politics is emphatically not transcendant). My premises are these:
1. Obama is a politician.
2. All politicians are scoundrels.
3. Therefore Obama is a soundrel.
I don’t understand why I should ever be happy, proud, or whatever to have just watched the election of a scoundrel.
If, however, you have some belief in Obama’s transcendance, then I can see how it would be a great moment for you, I just think you’re wrong. I don’t believe in the transcendance of politics, and have vastly more respect and admiration for, say, Robert Johnson, than I ever will for Barack Obama.
Are you denying that he wants to tax and spend more than McCain? Quantitatively, I think you’re off the mark here. Rather, he’s mere qualitatively similar to McCain in that neither of them support a dramatic decrease in spending and taxes.
I really don’t get the “Bu-bu-but at least he’s black!” line of thinking. I just don’t. Guess I don’t appreciate the symbolism properly.
On the other hand, I do want to see black people better off in this country. And I know the radical collectivist policies Obama has offered, if implemented, will be an unmitigated disaster for them. My firmly middle class self will probably muddle through fine. Minorities who have disproportionately lower incomes and wealth, on the other hand, will feel the brunt of the consequences of “spreading the wealth around.”
Hey, but we can all hug ourselves for giving them a “symbolic” victory.
Longtime reader here.
It’s definately a good sign that black folks in America are so thouroughly enfranchised that a black man can become president. He might be a socialist but so were Hillary, Edwards, Kerry ect…
IMO the only real “change” that is more then just campaign rhetoric is that today it’s reality, not a punch line that we will have a black president. That’s nice to see.
Cynical in CA is right. There is far more variation among the individuals than there is variation among the groups.
I find it frustrating that we are willing to declare “Mission Accomplished” after his victory when many African Americans’ situations are rather dire. It’s more frustrating still that 95% of African Americans chose him despite his seeming willingness to continue funding and supporting a broken public education monopoly which limits their opportunities and to continue incarcerating them for consensual crimes at draconian rates.
Was Obama elected because he is black? In some limited sense, absolutely. But you have to have this experience when on the path to true enlightenment.
When a person is elected President, and no one bothers to mention race/gender/sexual orientation because it doesn’t even occur to them that it is in any way relevent, we will likely not even realize that we have arrived.
Radley. Fix the time on your server. ;)
On the contrary, it’s precisely the fact that he won’t be quantitatively different (on meaningful issues) from any other candidate who could possibly become king of the free world that makes this “moment” so hollow.
Symbolism is a distraction form the real issues and problems. The country is facing a very serious fiscal crisis and we are to get all doey-eyed over this symbolism? I’m sorry, this is the guy who completely side-stepped the question on the problem with Medicare, who then went on the babble about taxing the rich, and who wants to expand government’s role in the health care market.
Is it good that a black man has been elected from a racism standpoint? Sure. Is it good that this particular black man has been elected President? No. If anything it is a bad thing, a very very bad thing. To me the latter by far trumps the former.
But don’t let me ruin your feel-good moment with the fact that the current fiscal crisis is nothing compared to what our government, and leaders like Barack Obama have lead us too.
Obama is the first US President “of African-American” descent. He’s as much white as he is African-American. That’s as uniting as you can get! Luckily, “race” soon won’t mean piddle-squat to anyone under 90 years old.
Yes, we all know he isn’t a change agent and government will grow bigger and more intrusive–that was going to happen anyway (and will continue until real disaster occurs). But at least there is ONE thing to be proud of: America isn’t as racist as we used to be. And, I won $5 from Lupe since we elected a black man before a woman as President.
Anyone remember when Tiger Woods kept correcting people when they called him black (”Hey, I’m Asian.”).
Lupe just bet me double-or-nothing that the US will elect a cocker spaniel as President before a Libertarian. Damn. I thought we’d have made more progress by now.
At which point it will get bigger and more intrusive at an accelerated rate.
Again, have your feel good moment. In about a decade or so you wont feel so good irrespective of who is President and what their race is.
Here is Richard Fisher, President and CEO of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank on the Medicare/Social Security issue,
Now, fast forward 70 or so years and ask this question: What is the mathematical predicament of Social Security today? Answer: The amount of money the Social Security system would need today to cover all unfunded liabilities from now on—what fiscal economists call the “infinite horizon discounted value” of what has already been promised recipients but has no funding mechanism currently in place—is $13.6 trillion, an amount slightly less than the annual gross domestic product of the United States.
[...]
Please sit tight while I walk you through the math of Medicare. As you may know, the program comes in three parts: Medicare Part A, which covers hospital stays; Medicare B, which covers doctor visits; and Medicare D, the drug benefit that went into effect just 29 months ago. The infinite-horizon present discounted value of the unfunded liability for Medicare A is $34.4 trillion. The unfunded liability of Medicare B is an additional $34 trillion. The shortfall for Medicare D adds another $17.2 trillion. The total? If you wanted to cover the unfunded liability of all three programs today, you would be stuck with an $85.6 trillion bill. That is more than six times as large as the bill for Social Security. It is more than six times the annual output of the entire U.S. economy.
[...]
Add together the unfunded liabilities from Medicare and Social Security, and it comes to $99.2 trillion over the infinite horizon. Traditional Medicare composes about 69 percent, the new drug benefit roughly 17 percent and Social Security the remaining 14 percent.
[...]
I want to remind you that I am only talking about the unfunded portions of Social Security and Medicare. It is what the current payment scheme of Social Security payroll taxes, Medicare payroll taxes, membership fees for Medicare B, copays, deductibles and all other revenue currently channeled to our entitlement system will not cover under current rules. These existing revenue streams must remain in place in perpetuity to handle the “funded” entitlement liabilities. Reduce or eliminate this income and the unfunded liability grows. Increase benefits and the liability grows as well.
Let’s say you and I and Bruce Ericson and every U.S. citizen who is alive today decided to fully address this unfunded liability through lump-sum payments from our own pocketbooks, so that all of us and all future generations could be secure in the knowledge that we and they would receive promised benefits in perpetuity. How much would we have to pay if we split the tab? Again, the math is painful. With a total population of 304 million, from infants to the elderly, the per-person payment to the federal treasury would come to $330,000. This comes to $1.3 million per family of four—over 25 times the average household’s income.
Clearly, once-and-for-all contributions would be an unbearable burden. Alternatively, we could address the entitlement shortfall through policy changes that would affect ourselves and future generations. For example, a permanent 68 percent increase in federal income tax revenue—from individual and corporate taxpayers—would suffice to fully fund our entitlement programs. Or we could instead divert 68 percent of current income-tax revenues from their intended uses to the entitlement system, which would accomplish the same thing.
Suppose we decided to tackle the issue solely on the spending side. It turns out that total discretionary spending in the federal budget, if maintained at its current share of GDP in perpetuity, is 3 percent larger than the entitlement shortfall. So all we would have to do to fully fund our nation’s entitlement programs would be to cut discretionary spending by 97 percent. But hold on. That discretionary spending includes defense and national security, education, the environment and many other areas, not just those controversial earmarks that make the evening news. All of them would have to be cut—almost eliminated, really—to tackle this problem through discretionary spending.
I hope that gives you some idea of just how large the problem is. And just to drive an important point home, these spending cuts or tax increases would need to be made immediately and maintained in perpetuity to solve the entitlement deficit problem. Discretionary spending would have to be reduced by 97 percent not only for our generation, but for our children and their children and every generation of children to come. And similarly on the taxation side, income tax revenue would have to rise 68 percent and remain that high forever. Remember, though, I said tax revenue, not tax rates. Who knows how much individual and corporate tax rates would have to change to increase revenue by 68 percent?
You can read the whole thing here. Note that what he is talking about in terms of taxes is a 68% increase in revenues, not rates. The increase in rates would likely have to be higher, permanent and start RIGHT NOW.
Now you know why Obama and McCain were such cowards when it came to the question dealing with Medicare. They both knew that if they answered honestly they’d never win election.
Go ahead and feel good about electing one venal coward over another. I don’t.
Symbolic schmymbolic.
By the way, Radley hasn’t noted that the Democrats are already looking at mucking around with your 401ks people. Buh-bye pre-tax contributions. Hellow government run retirement fund. Higher taxes. If you are still in your chair at work, get used to it, you’ll die in it.
I’d feel good about Obama if he were going to bring all of the troops home from Iraq. He won’t. Or if he would repeal the patriot act. He won’t. Doubt he’ll allow gays the same marriage rights as everyone else. Won’t cut taxes. Might cut spending only because he has too. It would be nice if was going to adopt a non-interventionist foreign policy, but he will surely increase foreign aid and send troops on various peace keeping missions. If he voted for one bailout, he’ll probably vote for another one. I’m sure he’ll take away more states rights, make a more intrusive government, and push hard for his version of national service. Not to mention that he’ll keep funding the drug war.
I understand why people are excited and I can respect the fact that this is a historic event. Its good to know that Americans will vote for a black man to be president. But on wave of populist emotion, a lot of things I vehemently disagree with are going to happen. The same thing happened after 9/11. This isn’t just about the advancement of black americans, this is also about the continued erosion of economic freedom, civic liberty, and personal responsibility. Just because my concern about the latter outweighs my appreciation for the former doesn’t mean that I’m dick. It means that I think that everyone’s individual liberty is more important than feeling good about a false prophet of a politician.
If you can’t respect that and still think we’re all a bunch of heartless white surbanites who just don’t get it, then I’m afraid that its you who fails to get it. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
I’m a white guy, my child is biracial. On Monday, if I said she could be anything, including President, I couldn’t have pointed to anyone to prove it. On Wednesday, I could. That feels great. I mean, it is awesome.
So you guys can poo-poo the symbolism all you want, but symbols matter.
But I find it pretty offensive that people here, and elsewhere, are boiling Obama down to nothing but “He’s going to steal from me” as though it was certain that he was going to steal from you in a manner quantitatively different than any other candidate who could actually become elected President in our system in the current state of affairs in our country.
I’ll come out and state that I’m a “Short Shrifter” here.
Pete, I think he’s going to steal from us in essentially the same manner as previous presidents. His race isn’t important. What is important is that people will be reluctant to make valid criticisms of him for fear of being labeled racist (The racism smear seems to be flying freely around this board already). And as most politicians in a similar situation would do, he will take full advantage of that.
“I’m a white guy, my child is biracial. On Monday, if I said she could be anything, including President, I couldn’t have pointed to anyone to prove it.”
Nonsense. You could have pointed to any number of black Americans who have been astonishingly successful. Even Barack Obama himself (one of 100 U.S. Senators at the time). You are needlessly narrowing of the field (I must point to a black PRESIDENT) doesn’t mean anything.
In any event, your statement doesn’t require that someone ELSE have already done it. That’s the point. Nothing changed yesterday, except possibly the perceptions of some people, BUT those people were WRONG in their perceptions (as the outcome of the day showed).
Put another way, the fact that a black man was elected president, in no way increases the a priori probability that a black man could have been elected president (for obvious reasons). I absolutely cannot understand why this is a problem to understand.
So is it racist of me to refer to the election as “Black Tuesday”?
I never knew libertarians were so depressing.
I never knew libertarians were so depressing.
No doubt. Who knew that libertarians were the Emo clique of the political world?
Pete Guither,
I glad you find it offensive. Perhaps that will encourage you to look at the nature of government with an empirical eye and logical mind rather than your feelings. A group of individuals calling themselves “the government” claim a moral right to steal from you and I to fund their moral crusades. You’ll note that I drew no distinction between Clinton, Bush II, Obama, or McCain. They all either have done it, will do it, or would have if they’d had the chance. There is some minor quantitative difference in how much they’d steal from me (differing tax rates and all), but, most importantly, there is no qualitative difference in how they would steal from me. Theft is theft, whether it’s perpetrated by a mugger with a .38 special or the policemen who eventually serve an arrest warrant for failure to pay my taxes. The methods are slightly different, but who cares? I’d prefer the mugger because at least he’s not pretending he’s doing you a favor by stealing from you.
I call nonsense. This country needs liberty. It needs freedom.
Why? Unpack this a little.
Probabilistic reasoning is actually highly counter intuitive for most people John, that is why it is hard to understand. Once you become adept at thinking of things probabilistically it ceases to be such a mystery.
thomasblair, I guess what I was referring to is the brand of libertarian that is one-note on opposing tax increases and favoring tax reductions regardless of context (and as though all other freedoms are secondary or perhaps even unimportant).
When I say “regardless of context,” I mean that they’ll favor a tax reduction paired with a spending increase, or oppose a tax increase paired with a greater tax reduction elsewhere, simply because of what it is, not because of its impact.
I want lower taxes. Even more importantly, I want lower taxes with lower spending. And even more importantly than that, I want government that doesn’t spy on me, that doesn’t tell me what I can smoke, or eat, or read, or say, or wear, or watch.