When Barack Obama was running for President of the United States, there were those who maintained that anyone who is white who did not vote for Obama is, on that account alone, none other than a racist. This was a morally sick view. Unfortunately, there are those who still maintain some version of that morally sick view. They hold that to be white and disagree with Obama is thereby to be racist. What I should like to draw attention to is the simple truth that President Obama has never truly distanced himself from that view.
I hold that insofar as Obama refuses to distance himself from the view that a white is racist if she or he disagrees with him, then he serves as none other than a lightning rod for the Second American Civil War.
I am not here arguing for or against his views. I am not taking a stand on his policies. For whatever his policies might be, the moral and social backdrop against which they are put forward is utterly explosive if that backdrop sits upon the mindset that whites who disagree with Obama are, on that account alone, racist.
Lest I should be egregiously misunderstood: I am not claiming that a civil war would be justified. Unfortunately, all sorts of things happen that are not justified. No murder is ever justified. Yet, murders are a common part of the American landscape.
Further, let me concede for the sake of argument that with white presidents, minorities have never had an ample voice. Needless to say, the corrective to that defect is not to ignore whites entirely. A just presidency is not one where one group is automatically granted more of a voice than others. Rather, it is one where all have an equal voice.
Once more, let me avoid a misunderstanding: I do not hold the silly view that racism has ceased to exist. What I do hold is that there are numerous respects in which things have significantly changed for the better. Racism does not have the standing it once had in American society. One can think that without thinking for a moment that the country is perfect.
Now, I hold that when very intelligent people fail to be responsive to the obvious that is an extremely significant fact. Thus, we cannot have it both ways. We cannot insist that Obama is extraordinarily intelligent and then also insist that it never once crossed his mind that whites are accused of being racist merely on account of not agreeing with him. Nor, again, can we insist that Obama is extraordinarily intelligent and then also insist there is no way for him to address the matter in a subtle but firm manner and—dare I say it—charming manner. The simple truth of the matter is that he could do so if he wanted to do so. And the fact that he has not done so tells us something quite disconcerting about him. If nothing else it tells us that he falls considerably short of being a man of integrity.
Now, of course, people will be quick to point that a lack of integrity hardly applies uniquely to Obama. That is true enough. So what, though? One hardly excuses rape by pointing out that Mr. Opidopo is not the only person who has committed rape or that he is not the only person to have committed rape against Ms. Susie Q. Just as the wrong of rape does not diminish as the number of rapists or rapes increases, the lack of integrity does not become more excusable as the number of people who lack integrity increases.
Mr. Barack Obama has taken the office of the Presidency of the United States at a time when both the reflective powers and the level of self-discipline of the ordinary citizen seem to be in rapidly accelerating downward spiral. In the name of racial promotion, people have attributed essences to racial groups in a way that would make Adolf Hitler proud. Yet, this seems to bother very few individuals. In fact, it does not appear to bother Barack Obama himself; for he supported affirmative action for the New Haven fire department given that the problem, so far as he knew, was none other than that no black had scored high enough to be promoted. Obama had no reason to believe that the test was biased in anyway; and none of the minorities who had taken the test suggested such a thing.
I have watched the commonsense of my students deteriorate to the point that I am left speechless with regard to some of the conclusions that students draw. My favorite example for the moment is the following. While discussing pornography in class, I went on to indicate to the class that I am a staunch supporter of free speech although I am not a strong supporter of pornography as such. I then asked the class, “Why do you think I so strongly support free speech?” The first student upon whom I called responded as follows: “Because your people have suffered!” Obviously, the backdrop against which I was claiming to be for free speech was irrelevant to the student. All that mattered was that I, a black male, claimed to be for free speech; hence, the racial suffering of black people explain my staunch support of free speech. I shall go to my grave without understanding how the person managed that line of thought.
But I ask you what is the difference between that student’s way of thinking and the millions who voted for Obama because he stood for change, though barely a person could say what change he stood for? The answer, most poignantly, is essentially none.
Give me a world in which people no longer think in a reasonable matter and a President of the United States who seems more than a little too willing to play the race card rather than the justice card, then what one has is ever so fertile soil for considerable political unrest. And history shows that considerable political unrest makes for very fertile soil for civil war.
A final comment is this. Let me concede that Obama and wife, Michelle, have experienced racism in their lives. What seems entirely out of the question is that either of them have experienced anything that comes remotely close to what I shall derailing racism. I, too, have experienced racism in my life. And it strikes me as too obvious for words that I have not experienced any form of racism that has derailed me. I mention this because if either of them harbors any deep bitterness owing to their experiences with racism, then we have a serious problem. For one thing this tells us something most disconcerting about their psyche; for another, and more importantly, bitter people invariably have a way of being their own undoing and destroying others along the way. This consideration supports the point of the preceding paragraph.
Again, notice that I have not trivialized the inappropriate racial experiences of Michelle and Barack Obama. I do not trivialize mine, either. Just so, I hold that, for example, the three times that I have been called “nigger” in my life pale in comparison to anyone who has been raped who has lost a limb owing to injustice. The issue here is not whether there have been lives which have been destroyed by racism. The point, rather, is that it is simply not possible for me to make that claim. And if it is utterly implausible for me to make that claim, then it is even more implausible for Michelle and Barack Obama to do so. And to this fact, one must surely add that they have manifestly done much better than most Americans of whatever color. So it could be said even before Mr. Obama attained the oval office. Bitterness on their part, then, bespeaks not righteous anger but vindictiveness.
Laurence,
I’m really appalled at your stance on this issue. I’ll make this quick and simple… when you watch all those angry white people at those town halls across the country screaming “we want our country back” what do you think they want it back from? The answer is they want it back from the black man who is President. These people who are protesting at these town halls are for the most part from my estimation not angry with any particular Obama policy, rather hey are angry that the President of the United States is black. I even heard one townhall where a white Republican yelled out “Get Obama’s government hands of my medicare!”… Are these the people you’re defending in your thesis here? I surely hope not.
On another note, I know you don’t affiliate yourself with a political party but it’s quite obvious that your views align more closely with the Republican party than the Democratic party. I hope you know that you’re really beginning to lose credibility by doing so. This party has essentially become a marginalized group of know nothing red-neck Americans who don’t know anything about any issue but just can’t stand the fact that a black man is president. I find it very odd that you jump to defend this group of ignorant morons. And they are clearly just racist idiots you should be dismissed as such, I’m sure if you polled most of them on any issue you would find they don’t know anything.
Any sort of response would be much appreciated.
Mr. Klein
In RE: Mr. Klien,
Let me ask you: what do you think was the point of Laurence’s post? Is his point defeated, or indeed even addressed, by anything you’ve said? Why the ad hominem? Don’t know what “ad hominem” is try a google search.
Please remember to *think* about what you say in response.
-Erik
Dear Mr. Klein, Sir–
I am hardly denying that there is racism. I can think of numerous instances of racism in the United States and in Syracuse, NY and on the Syracuse University campus. However, I often locate racism where many do not; and there are many times when I do not think things are as bad people claim that they are. The Hill-TV nonsense on the SU campus is a case in point. The Henry Louis Gates matter is another case in point. The move to hyperbole is, I believe, a deep, deep, deep problem in all aspects of life. The “friends” syndrome on Facebook and other social networking sites would be another example of hyperbole.
As to Obama, my claims are very, very carefully articulated. I did not say that there are no racist attitudes towards Obama. I am sure that there are. Rather, my point is that Obama does not help matters at all if he hides behind the prevailing view among so many that to criticize him is to be racist. Health care is an extremely thorny issue. Obama is striking a raw nerve for reasons that have nothing to do with race. I for instance do not want to pay more taxes for his health care system; and I can assure you that I do not have any racist sentiments towards him.
I also claimed that I suspect Obama is a bitter person. And I stand by that claim. And if you were affiliated with a KKK organization for 20 years, I would hold that you have racist and self-hating sentiments. We rightly judge people by what they repeatedly do over time. Obama does not get to be the exception to that rule.
Two final comments: 1) I have noticed that most people–be they black or white or green or yellow or red or whatever– don’t know much about anything. This is why I mentioned the Arrested Intelligence site. What one would have thought is none other than basic common knowledge turns out not to be not commonly known at all. That is, ignorance abounds on all fronts. And I am extremely even-handed here. I do not think that one ethnic group is more or less ignorant than the others. As far as I can see, basic ignorance abounds across the board. 2) Your response serves as an instance of the very point I wish to be making. You have offered a criticism of something that I have written. It has simply ***not*** crossed my mind that you are motivated by racism. Once more: It has ***not*** crossed my mind that you are motivated by racism. And if nothing I say convinces you, I still will ***not*** think that you are racist. What I will think is none other than that we–dare I say it– disagree. And we can disagree without either one of us having some untoward racial sentiments towards the other.
Let me assume for the sake of argument that your criticizing me is none other than a sign of respect. Well, if that can hold for me it can also hold for Obama.
Laurence,
Thank you for the response. First of all I would like to address Erik’s comment, after which I will proceed to an intelligent discussion on the topic. Erik, you completely contradict yourself and prove to be a huge hypocrite. My response to Laurence was partially to this particular post but mainly to the theme of his on-going criticism of President Obama. So yes I am presenting an argument against his general point of view on this issue however I never attacked him personally. You on the other hand didn’t address any part of my response rather you just attacked me personally. I am however very impressed with your profile picture, copying and pasting a philosophers picture next to your name gives you more credibility than I could ever hope for (see what I did there, I attacked the man instead of his argument or in this case, lack thereof).
Apologies for the distraction Laurence, in essence though, I’ve just been a bit off put by your posts for the past year. I know you like to avoid politics but you’ve opened yourself up to criticism with you’re constant critiques of President Obama. I’ve known you and read you’re writing for five years now and I cannot remember you ever criticizing President Bush. An unbiased observer can rationally assume from you’re numerous posts during the past year that have scrutinized President Obama’s moral integrity to the finest details, that you hold the President’s behavior and actions as it relates to his morality to be quite important. Following this line of reasoning, one would assume you would have at the very least analyzed or presented some insight on President Bush’s moral character in a similar manner. As a former student and consistent reader of this blog, I can safely say that you rarely if ever even touched on the subject of a man whose life and presidency was defined by moral ambiguity (this is pretty safe to say whether you supported him or not). Where was your outrage when a form of pseudo-McCarthyism existed under President Bush that resulted in the questioning of any American’s patriotism for disagreeing with the administrations policies? (Iraq, Patriot Act, Wire Tapping, Torture). Furthermore, you defended Sarah Palin twice in recent months and she is the epitome of the very ignorance and know-thing culture that you so often (accurately) deride in this country.
Bringing this all back to your original thesis in the post, maybe I just haven’t encountered the same people as you but I’ve not once heard a white person be accused of being a racist for not supporting Obama. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that this sentiment does exist in this country and people are viewed as racist if they don’t support Obama and his policies. What do you honestly expect Obama to do about this? The fact is that the palin supporting/gun totting/ubber-patriotic crowd in this country likely doesn’t support Obama simply because he’s black. This isn’t to say that all American’s who don’t support Obama are racist, it’s just acknowledging the frankly obvious reality of the situation.
I don’t view you as being racist in the least bit and I apologize if it came off that way in my last post. I just don’t think you’re being even-handed or even rationale with your on-going criticisms of Obama. This criticism appears to be rooted in your opposition of his political policies but that shouldn’t turn into criticism of his moral character, which it clearly has. I look forward to hearing your response.
Respectfully,
Mr. Klein
Just wanted to say that I work at a large biotherapeutic corporation in Clayton NC and I endroce Barack Obama with all my being. I would love for all my friends and colleagues to re-elect Obama in 2012!! I LOVE YOU OBAMA