One Democratic presidential contender has an inherently fascinating family history: Not only does our largest minority group furnish most of his ancestry, but he was also raised in the capital of a foreign country of enormous importance to America.
And yet, little attention is paid to the stalled campaign of Bill Richardson, even though the governor of New Mexico is three-fourths Hispanic and grew up in Mexico City. Instead, Barack Obama, who, as he made sure to tell us in the opening words of his famous keynote address at the 2004 Democratic Convention, is half-Kenyan and half-white, has cornered the market on Ethnic Electricity.
Whether pro or con, white Americans are simply more interested in blacks than in Latinos. And, over the decades, white sentiment has grown increasingly favorable. Indeed, Mr. Obama has a plausible shot at riding strong early showings in virtually all-white Iowa and New Hampshire to the nomination.
Of course, Mr. Obama is also a more intriguing personality than the mundane Mr. Richardson. The senator's 1995 autobiography, "Dreams from my Father," displays more artistic merit than perhaps any other book written by a recent presidential hopeful.
Thus, the timing is perfect for Hoover Institution literary critic Shelby Steele's terse but remarkably insightful "A Bound Man."
The horse-race forecast in the subtitle isn't what's important. Instead, the former English professor, who, like Mr. Obama, has a black father and a white mother, delivers an intimate and authoritative analysis of how the polite Mr. Obama appeals to white Democrats in the same fashion as Sidney Poitier, the gentlemanly 1960s movie star, and why black voters are less enthusiastic.
Many whites assume that the mixed-race and Hawaiian-born Mr. Obama is, in Mr. Steele's words, "indifferent to the whole business of race and identity." According to Mr. Steele, the author of 1990s acclaimed "The Content of Our Character," they see voting for Mr. Obama as proving that they personally aren't guilty of racism.
Mr. Steele suggests that many whites hope electing Mr. Obama president will show blacks that white racism isn't what's holding them back anymore. Numerous white Democrats, I would add, view backing Mr. Obama as confirming their moral and cultural superiority over other whites (those redneck racists). Whites strive for status mostly against other whites, and conceive of minorities primarily as handy props in these intra-racial struggles.
While some whites envisage Mr. Obama as the Cure for White Guilt, blacks are in no hurry to grant the white race absolution for slavery and Jim Crow, since they benefit from compensatory programs like affirmative action.
All the media excitement over how Mr. Obama "transcends race" reveals that most pundits have barely glanced at the candidate's ethnicity-obsessed first memoir, which he aptly subtitled "A Story of Race and Inheritance." Mr. Obama's book, Mr. Steele demonstrates, reveals "a man nothing less than driven by a determination to be black." Many have bought "Dreams," but, despite Mr. Obama's graceful prose style, few have finished it because the Preppie from Paradise's lifelong fixation with proving himself "black enough" makes his tale tediously self-obsessed.
After slogging through "Dreams," Kevin Drum, blogger for the liberal Washington Monthly, complained, "Obama routinely describes himself feeling the deepest, most painful emotions imaginable . . . but these feelings seem to be all out of proportion to the actual events of his life, which are generally pretty pedestrian." Mr. Steele observes, "Obama's racial quest springs from a personal angst, not from an oppression in society."
Although Mr. Obama's mild manner was shaped by his Midwestern mother and grandmother, and by his racially tolerant Honolulu environment, his aspiration was always to be authentically black, and thus liberal. "For Obama, liberalism is blackness," notes Mr. Steele.
That's why Mr. Obama's spiritual mentor for the last two decades has been the Afrocentric and politically radical Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. The night before Mr. Obama's nationally televised campaign kickoff rally in February, the candidate disinvited his pastor from giving the invocation. The New York Times got an explanation from the loose-cannon minister: " 'When [Mr. Obama's] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli to visit Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, Mr. Wright recalled, 'with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell.' "
If Mr. Obama does win the nomination, the Republicans are likely to make the Rev. Wright as famous as Willie Horton was in 1988.
Steve Sailer writes for the American Conservative, as well as VDARE.com and iSteve.blogspot.com.
One Democratic presidential contender has an inherently fascinating family history: Not only does our largest minority group furnish most of his ancestry, but he was also raised in the capital of a foreign country of enormous importance to America.
And yet, little attention is paid to the stalled campaign of Bill Richardson, even though the governor of New Mexico is three-fourths Hispanic and grew up in Mexico City. Instead, Barack Obama, who, as he made sure to tell us in the opening words of his famous keynote address at the 2004 Democratic Convention, is half-Kenyan and half-white, has cornered the market on Ethnic Electricity.
Whether pro or con, white Americans are simply more interested in blacks than in Latinos. And, over the decades, white sentiment has grown increasingly favorable. Indeed, Mr. Obama has a plausible shot at riding strong early showings in virtually all-white Iowa and New Hampshire to the nomination.
Of course, Mr. Obama is also a more intriguing personality than the mundane Mr. Richardson. The senator's 1995 autobiography, "Dreams from my Father," displays more artistic merit than perhaps any other book written by a recent presidential hopeful.
Thus, the timing is perfect for Hoover Institution literary critic Shelby Steele's terse but remarkably insightful "A Bound Man."
The horse-race forecast in the subtitle isn't what's important. Instead, the former English professor, who, like Mr. Obama, has a black father and a white mother, delivers an intimate and authoritative analysis of how the polite Mr. Obama appeals to white Democrats in the same fashion as Sidney Poitier, the gentlemanly 1960s movie star, and why black voters are less enthusiastic.
Many whites assume that the mixed-race and Hawaiian-born Mr. Obama is, in Mr. Steele's words, "indifferent to the whole business of race and identity." According to Mr. Steele, the author of 1990s acclaimed "The Content of Our Character," they see voting for Mr. Obama as proving that they personally aren't guilty of racism.
Mr. Steele suggests that many whites hope electing Mr. Obama president will show blacks that white racism isn't what's holding them back anymore. Numerous white Democrats, I would add, view backing Mr. Obama as confirming their moral and cultural superiority over other whites (those redneck racists). Whites strive for status mostly against other whites, and conceive of minorities primarily as handy props in these intra-racial struggles.
While some whites envisage Mr. Obama as the Cure for White Guilt, blacks are in no hurry to grant the white race absolution for slavery and Jim Crow, since they benefit from compensatory programs like affirmative action.
All the media excitement over how Mr. Obama "transcends race" reveals that most pundits have barely glanced at the candidate's ethnicity-obsessed first memoir, which he aptly subtitled "A Story of Race and Inheritance." Mr. Obama's book, Mr. Steele demonstrates, reveals "a man nothing less than driven by a determination to be black." Many have bought "Dreams," but, despite Mr. Obama's graceful prose style, few have finished it because the Preppie from Paradise's lifelong fixation with proving himself "black enough" makes his tale tediously self-obsessed.
After slogging through "Dreams," Kevin Drum, blogger for the liberal Washington Monthly, complained, "Obama routinely describes himself feeling the deepest, most painful emotions imaginable . . . but these feelings seem to be all out of proportion to the actual events of his life, which are generally pretty pedestrian." Mr. Steele observes, "Obama's racial quest springs from a personal angst, not from an oppression in society."
Although Mr. Obama's mild manner was shaped by his Midwestern mother and grandmother, and by his racially tolerant Honolulu environment, his aspiration was always to be authentically black, and thus liberal. "For Obama, liberalism is blackness," notes Mr. Steele.
That's why Mr. Obama's spiritual mentor for the last two decades has been the Afrocentric and politically radical Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. The night before Mr. Obama's nationally televised campaign kickoff rally in February, the candidate disinvited his pastor from giving the invocation. The New York Times got an explanation from the loose-cannon minister: " 'When [Mr. Obama's] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli to visit Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, Mr. Wright recalled, 'with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell.' "
If Mr. Obama does win the nomination, the Republicans are likely to make the Rev. Wright as famous as Willie Horton was in 1988.
Steve Sailer writes for the American Conservative, as well as VDARE.com and iSteve.blogspot.com.
If Obama truly was into "liberalism", he'd have my vote in November 2008 in a heartbeat. Heck, I'd switch parties and vote for him in the primary, too. What many people in the U.S. call "liberalism" today is a code word or rather a hijacked word used to describe SOCIALISM. What about Obama's (or Hillary's, for that matter) platforms are "liberal"?
From m-w.com:
Quote:
Main Entry:
lib·er·al·ism
Pronunciation:
\ˈli-b(ə-)rə-ˌli-zəm\
Function:
noun
Date:
1819
1: the quality or state of being liberal2 aoften capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties dcapitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party
To me, liberalism is often at odds with socialism, but it is socialism that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are pushing for.
(If this kind of post is not allowed in this forum, Maya, will you please delete it? Thanks.)
...but it is socialism that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are pushing for.
I don't think Obama is pushing for socialism anymore than a Republican candidate is pushing for fascism. The truth is that the United States is not a purely capitalist system.
Nationalized health care isn't much different from Social Security. Do we have a socialist form of government because we have Social Security and government regulation of some industries and the stock market?
What Obama and Clinton advocate for is very much in line with liberalism and not so much with socialism:
Wikipedia wrote:
Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal.[1] Liberalism has its roots in the Western Age of Enlightenment.
Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government.[2] All liberals – as well as some adherents of other political ideologies – support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.[3]
Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Social progressivism, the belief that traditions do not carry any inherent value and social practices ought to be continuously adjusted for the greater benefit of humanity, is a common component of liberal ideology. Liberalism is also strongly associated with the belief that human society should be organized in accordance with certain unchangeable and inviolable rights. Different schools of liberalism are based on different conceptions of human rights, but there are some rights that all liberals support to some extent, including rights to life, liberty, and property.
Within liberalism, there are two major currents of thought that often compete over the use of the term "liberal" and have been known to clash on many issues. Classical liberals emphasize free private enterprise, individual property rights, laissez-faire economic policy, and freedom of contract, and oppose the welfare state. Classical liberals support equality before the law, and hold that economic inequality, arising from competition in the free market, does not justify wealth redistribution by governments. [4] Social liberals advocate a greater degree of government influence to protect positive rights, often in the form of anti-discrimination laws. Social liberals support universal education, and many also support the provision of welfare, including benefits for the unemployed, housing for the homeless, and universal health care, all supported by progressive taxation.
Obama's positions on education, gay marriage, civil rights, corporate responsibility and healthcare are very much in line with liberalism as defined above. Obama does not advocate the expansion of goverment to redistribute private property nor is his intent to march us toward communism, as socialism is seen as a stepping stone to the ultimate goal of communism:
Wikipedia wrote:
Socialism is a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation.[1] This control may be either direct, exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils, or indirect, exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state or community ownership of the means of production.
The modern socialist movement largely originated in the late-19th century working class movement. In this period, the term socialism was first used in connection with European social critics who criticized capitalism and private property. For Karl Marx, who helped establish and define the modern socialist movement, socialism would be the socioeconomic system that arises after the proletarian revolution, in which the means of production are owned collectively. This society would then progress into communism.
Since the 19th century, socialists have not agreed on a common doctrine or program. Various adherents of socialist movements are split into differing and sometimes opposing branches, particularly between reformists and revolutionaries. Some socialists have championed the complete nationalization of the means of production, while social democrats have proposed selective nationalization of key industries within the framework of mixed economies.
Some Marxists, including those inspired by the Soviet model of economic development, have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production. Others, including self-titled Communists in Yugoslavia and Hungary in the 1970s and 1980s, Chinese Communists since the reform era, and some Western economists, have proposed various forms of market socialism, attempting to reconcile the presumed advantages of cooperative or state ownership of the means of production with letting market forces, rather than central planners, guide production and exchange.[2] Anarcho-syndicalists, Luxemburgists (such as those in the Socialist Party USA) and some elements of the United States New Left favor decentralized collective ownership in the form of cooperatives or workers' councils.
I might move this to Dean's forum. I don't think the content or the direction of the conversation is relevant to biracial issues.
...but it is socialism that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are pushing for.
I don't think Obama is pushing for socialism anymore than a Republican candidate is pushing for fascism.
Some have! Maybe not the current crop, but just as I see that some Socialists have infiltrated the Democrat Party, I see that some Fascists have infiltrated the Republican Party.
Nationalized health care isn't much different from Social Security. Do we have a socialist form of government because we have Social Security and government regulation of some industries and the stock market?
Well, I agree with you and I DISAGREE with Social Security and excessive government regulation just as much as I disagree with nationalized medicine. We have way too many socialist programs and policies in this country that, if you REALLY think about it, are unconstitutional.
sagascend wrote:
What Obama and Clinton advocate for is very much in line with liberalism and not so much with socialism:
Wikipedia wrote:
Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal.[1] Liberalism has its roots in the Western Age of Enlightenment.
Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government.[2] All liberals – as well as some adherents of other political ideologies – support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.[3]
Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Social progressivism, the belief that traditions do not carry any inherent value and social practices ought to be continuously adjusted for the greater benefit of humanity, is a common component of liberal ideology. Liberalism is also strongly associated with the belief that human society should be organized in accordance with certain unchangeable and inviolable rights. Different schools of liberalism are based on different conceptions of human rights, but there are some rights that all liberals support to some extent, including rights to life, liberty, and property.
Within liberalism, there are two major currents of thought that often compete over the use of the term "liberal" and have been known to clash on many issues. Classical liberals emphasize free private enterprise, individual property rights, laissez-faire economic policy, and freedom of contract, and oppose the welfare state. Classical liberals support equality before the law, and hold that economic inequality, arising from competition in the free market, does not justify wealth redistribution by governments. [4] Social liberals advocate a greater degree of government influence to protect positive rights, often in the form of anti-discrimination laws. Social liberals support universal education, and many also support the provision of welfare, including benefits for the unemployed, housing for the homeless, and universal health care, all supported by progressive taxation.
Right. And by "social liberals" they mean socialists. I mean, seriously, how does championing "individual liberty" lead one to progressive taxation? Ummmm, no.
I mean, seriously, how does championing "individual liberty" lead one to progressive taxation? Ummmm, no.
The same way that championing individual liberty leads to law enforcement paid for by the collective, or to universal education. There is a constant balance to be struck for a liberal society between the restrictions of conservatism and the expansion of progressivsm. Social liberals still wish to preserve individual rights and equal opportunity. I'd argue that they focus more on life and the pursuit of happiness rather than property. Socialists want to increase economic equality or get rid of any economic inequality/ownership of property.
I don't think Obama is pushing for socialism anymore than a Republican candidate is pushing for fascism.
Fascism is a modern, secular statist ideology. It has much in common with socialism but very little with what most Republicans advocate.
Fascism is a broad as socialism or liberalism. The secular applications (Nazi Germany, Spain under Franco, Italy under Mussolini) were narrower, however, making it seem more straightforward than it is. Fascism is compatible with religiousity. A religious fascist state would simply declare a national religion that all citizens would follow.
Consider the following:
Wikipedia wrote:
Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and social interests subordinate to the interests of the state or party. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to political and economic liberalism
...
Fascism also operated from a Social Darwinist view of human relations. Their aim was to promote "superior" individuals and weed out the weak.[35] In terms of economic practice, this meant promoting the interests of successful businessmen while destroying trade unions and other organizations of the working class.[36] Lawrence Britt suggests that protection of corporate power is an essential part of fascism.[37] Historian Gaetano Salvemini argued in 1936 that fascism makes taxpayers responsible to private enterprise, because "the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise... Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social."
Now is it correct to say that pro-business/pro-corporate and agricultural welfare Republicans are really fascists? I'd say no because of their underlying capitalist intent. Rabidly hawkish neo-cons and those pursuing a Christian nation-state? There I'm not so sure because they have lost focus on a cornerstone of liberalism: individual rights. Even many classical liberals and traditional conservatives are wary of the fascist undertones in neo-conservative ideology. Similarly, the socialist bent of Kucinich's platform (he comes the closest to a socialist IMO) is much different than Obama's or Clinton's social liberalist policies.
Both fascism and socialism focus on enriching and empowering the state or nation rather than promoting freedom and equal opportunity for individuals. To different ends, surely, but their focus is the same.
I mean, seriously, how does championing "individual liberty" lead one to progressive taxation? Ummmm, no.
The same way that championing individual liberty leads to law enforcement paid for by the collective, or to universal education. There is a constant balance to be struck for a liberal society between the restrictions of conservatism and the expansion of progressivsm. Social liberals still wish to preserve individual rights and equal opportunity. I'd argue that they focus more on life and the pursuit of happiness rather than property. Socialists want to increase economic equality or get rid of any economic inequality/ownership of property.
By forcibly taking someone's hard-earned money and spending it on someone else, usually while wasting WAY TOO MUCH OF IT on government red tape sinkholes. I feel the same way about "universal education" as I do about Social Security. I mean, do we REALLY have a public education system reflective of the scads of tax dollars taken from our citizenry? And, if a parent pays into the system but lives near horrible public schools, can they take their money back in order to home school? send their kids to private school? No and no. You cannot increase economic equality by getting rid of ownership of property. This concept is so bizarre to me. You can help people economically by LIMITING their economic opportunities???
As for law enforcement (and the military, for that matter) THAT is THE "prime directive", if you will, of the U.S. government, to protect us. We have adopted a lot of socialist ways that directly go against the intent of the U.S. Constitution. I consider these socialist policies and programs to be un-American, quite frankly.
sagascend,
I'm not sure if you were saying that Nazis were fascist or socialist or in a grey area, but I just wanted to point out that Nazi is short for Nationalsozialismus, National Socialism.
I mean, seriously, how does championing "individual liberty" lead one to progressive taxation? Ummmm, no.
The same way that championing individual liberty leads to law enforcement paid for by the collective, or to universal education. There is a constant balance to be struck for a liberal society between the restrictions of conservatism and the expansion of progressivsm. Social liberals still wish to preserve individual rights and equal opportunity. I'd argue that they focus more on life and the pursuit of happiness rather than property. Socialists want to increase economic equality or get rid of any economic inequality/ownership of property.
By forcibly taking someone's hard-earned money and spending it on someone else, usually while wasting WAY TOO MUCH OF IT on government red tape sinkholes. I feel the same way about "universal education" as I do about Social Security. I mean, do we REALLY have a public education system reflective of the scads of tax dollars taken from our citizenry? And, if a parent pays into the system but lives near horrible public schools, can they take their money back in order to home school? send their kids to private school? No and no. You cannot increase economic equality by getting rid of ownership of property. This concept is so bizarre to me. You can help people economically by LIMITING their economic opportunities???
As for law enforcement (and the military, for that matter) THAT is THE "prime directive", if you will, of the U.S. government, to protect us. We have adopted a lot of socialist ways that directly go against the intent of the U.S. Constitution. I consider these socialist policies and programs to be un-American, quite frankly.
The military does not protect its citizens, at least the peacetime standing military that costs citizens more than any social program that could be conceived of short of giving every citizen $100,000 a year for life. It protects the interest of the state and carries out the order issued by the executive branch (Commander-in-Chief). If that isn't anti-liberalism I don't know what is. Our Constitution also doesn't speak of paying for a standing military, but of supporting local militias tasked with protecting their citizens directly.
There is little discussion of a "prime directive" of protection in liberalism or in our Constitution for that matter. The focus is on individual rights and the tenets of our representative government. The representative goverment by the way, is who is responsible for taxation. We give up our right to directly control certain aspects of goverment in a representative democracy. Citizens will always have to bear a loss of individual rights and freedom to live in any society. Since taxation with representation is what is occuring in the U.S. (even with earmarks, which are truly reprehensible in my view), what is unconstitutional about it? Now the Patriot Act? That's unconstitutional.
Saying that public education as currently administered doesn't work is different than saying that public education isn't something that citizens should pay for with tax dollars. Each state does fund public education according to it own taxation system (usually property taxes). What's clear to me is that it is cheaper to pay for compulsory education than incarceration. Education also has the upside of increasing productivity. So I'd rather pay for a good education system that produces more productive and capable citizens less apt to commit crime than a large police force to contain the ignorant malcontents and ne'er do wells that lack the skills or the motivation to produce. Right now our education system isn't getting the job done as it should, but I don't see a large post-industrial society anywhere that doesn't fund public education that is safer and more productive than one that does.
Getting back to Obama, one of his key focus areas is reforming the education system so that it does what it is supposed to do.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
Maybe not the current crop, but just as I see that some Socialists have infiltrated the Democrat Party, I see that some Fascists have infiltrated the Republican Party.
I mean, seriously, how does championing "individual liberty" lead one to progressive taxation? Ummmm, no.