2blowhards.com: Does Obama Actually Like America?

In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff

We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.

CultureBlogs
• Sasha Castel
• AC Douglas
• Out of Lascaux
• The Ambler
• PhilosoBlog
• Modern Art Notes
• Cranky Professor
• Mike Snider on Poetry
• Silliman on Poetry
• Felix Salmon
• Gregdotorg
• BookSlut
• Polly Frost
• Polly and Ray's Forum
• Cronaca
• Plep
• Stumbling Tongue
• Brian's Culture Blog
• Banana Oil
• Scourge of Modernism
• Visible Darkness
• Seablogger
• Thomas Hobbs
• Blog Lodge
• Leibman Theory
• Goliard Dream
• Third Level Digression
• Here Inside
• My Stupid Dog
• W.J. Duquette

Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
• Andrew Sullivan
• The Corner at National Review
• Steve Sailer
• Samizdata
• Junius
• Joanne Jacobs
• CalPundit
• Natalie Solent
• A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
• Rational Parenting
• Public Interest.co.uk
• Colby Cosh
• View from the Right
• Pejman Pundit
• Spleenville
• God of the Machine
• One Good Turn
• CinderellaBloggerfella
• Liberty Log
• Daily Pundit
• InstaPundit
• MindFloss
• Catallaxy Files
• Greatest Jeneration
• Glenn Frazier
• Jane Galt
• Jim Miller
• Limbic Nutrition
• Innocents Abroad
• Chicago Boyz
• James Lileks
• Cybrarian at Large
• Hello Bloggy!
• Setting the World to Rights
• Travelling Shoes

Miscellaneous
• Redwood Dragon
• IMAO
• The Invisible Hand
• ScrappleFace
• Daze Reader
• Lynn Sislo
• The Fat Guy
• Jon Walz

Links

Our Last 50 Referrers

« Zdeno on Fratire | Main | Ideas, Packaging and Comments »

November 04, 2009

Does Obama Actually Like America?

Donald Pittenger writes:

Dear Blowhards --

Given all the nasty things his for-20-years pastor, Rev. Wright, has said about this country, given that he has gone out of his way on numerous occasions to apologize for the history of the United States and given his effort to transform America into something it has never been (a European-style socialist state), I'm pretty sure President Obama is no fan of his own country.

Of course, a number of folks agree with his position. One of them seems to be his wife.

This is not to say one has to like everything about one's own country -- how many people are there who do that? But wanting a major transformation against the grain of the past is a different order of magnitude. In effect, this is creating a new, fundamentally different country; might as well change the name while he's at it.

It's possible I'm mistaken and that Obama is a super-ultra-hyper-times-twenty Patriot of the First Rank. So feel free to have at me in Comments. Extra points for creative use of the 1930s slogan "Communism is 20th century Americanism."

Later,

Donald

posted by Donald at November 4, 2009

Comments

If I want to read wingnut crap like your post, I can aleady go to worldnet daily, townhall.com or newsmax. The world doesn't need another propaganda outlet for conservatives suffering from dissociative disorders.

This blog, as originally conceived by Michael Blowhard, just died. RIP 2Blowhards.

Posted by: Peter L. Winkler on November 4, 2009 3:34 PM

Obama does have the standard list of leftist complaints against America, including the usual black activist viewpoint.

At best, you've got to hope that actually having access to power will cool off the leftist harping of blacks. It's happened to quite a few other groups as they've become assimilated.

At worst, you've got to expect that whites, and one day Asians, will get tired of blacks bitching that they've got more coming to them. Asians are getting the shaft from the quota system, too. One day, they'll stop aligning themselves reflexively with liberal racial cause mongering.

We're about to experience a huge political re-alignment. Blacks have the power and money, and the advantage in the quota system. They've had it for 50 years. Same is true for women. Gays somehow found a way to hop on this boat, too.

The real answer to your question is that the "minorities" who now hold all the cards in the game are the America they purport to despise. You can't pretend that this is not true much longer.

Leftists get a kick out of asserting: "Who would want to be a black man?" as if the answer is self-evident. Let's see: (1) first in line at the quota system, (2) immune from criticism while in positions of power and thus able to engage in gross corruption without fear, (3) dominant in the most profitable team sports, (4) dominant in many of the entertainment forums, and (5) the subject of much consternation if anything gets in the way of their desire to mate with white women.

The tables have turned. If you're white, male and hetero, you're on the bottom of a rigged system. A lot of the kids have figured out that all you have to do to play the system is to pretend, or actually be gay. Then, you also have a step up in the quota system, and you're cool.

So, the "minorities" are the power. They can't pretend otherwise much longer. I doubt that white, hetero males will be willing to play the martyred saints paying for the sins of Jim Crow for much longer. Well, except for Chris Whiter-Than Thou. He'll do that number till the day he dies.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on November 4, 2009 3:43 PM

Comment-bait!

The transformation of America during the civil-rights era was far greater than what is happening now. Would you say that those who were fighting for racial equality disliked/hated America?

America is now a multi-ethnic society. Do people who desire a change back towards its (pretty much imaginary) mono-cultural roots hate America?

"Hating" one's country is an old rhetorical weapon that can be used to beat anyone who doesn't consider the current situation exactly perfect.

In fact, you can always use it, because America has been constantly changing throughout its history. Even if you think what we have now is perfect, then it's obvious that you've hated what America *was* for almost its entire existence.

Dislike slavery? Obviously you hated America since it's inception!

Posted by: Tom West on November 4, 2009 3:50 PM

Peter -- Perhaps it's crap. Or comment-bait. But it's true that I wonder about Obama's commitment to (or even an understanding of) America as many citizens know it.

I invited comments, so what I wrote isn't a one-way communication street.

Why don't you demonstrate why my suspicion is totally ungrounded. Offer proof that government takeovers of car companies are in the spirit of the country. Ditto attempts to eliminate the secret ballot in union votes. Ditto again intimidation of the press despite the first amendment. Ultra-ditto on kissing up to foreign enemies and abandoning foreign friends. There have been some similar problems in the past, but show us why those are core American political practices.

Please make a case. I wanted to provoke thought, never asserting that Obama disliked or hated the USA. Just said I suspected this.

Posted by: Donald Pittenger on November 4, 2009 4:09 PM

Peter Winkler, you keep promising to leave us. Can we hold you to your word? Take Chris White with you.

Posted by: Bob Grier on November 4, 2009 5:19 PM

Comment-bait indeed, but I'm hoping Donald will take that as high praise.

The key to this question (since we probably won't quibble much over the meaning of the words Obama and Like) is your definition of "America."

One definition we could use is 'Murrahcah. 'Murracah is the land of small government, individual liberty, traditional Christian values and NASCAR. Clearly, Barack Obama is no fan of this slice of the American tradition.

But we can also define America as the nation populated by English Radicals in the 17th century, birthed by a revolutionary war of mob violence in the 18th, and then converted into an all-powerful, socialist welfare. I think Obama likes this America quite a bit.

So the question isn't about what Obama likes. We know the answer to that, based on the company he keeps and the policies he would like to enact. The question is, which of these two visions accords more closely with the "real" America? The Radical, dissenting, Leftist tradition? Or the small-government, Libertarian idealized America?

Cheers,

Zdeno

Posted by: Zdeno on November 4, 2009 5:23 PM

If you're going to make an inflammatory comment like "I'm pretty sure President Obama is no fan of his own country" you need a little more support. To me that seems like a self evidently ridiculous statement, on a par with "I'm pretty sure President Obama hates children". The evidence you offer is meaningless - America does not equal GM and Chrysler. And you could well level the same charges against Bush when it comes to the car companies and attempting to intimidate the press (but what President, other than maybe Carter, hasn't tried to intimidate the press? That's how politics is played.) Then tell me what "foreign friends" he has abandoned, then show me where in the Constitution it talks about "foreign friends." I suspect Obama probably has a deeper love for America and a deeper understanding of why America is so special than most Americans. Maybe your issue is that his America just isn't your America. It's a big country. I love the America of Mark Twain, Ben Franklin, Charles Ives, Robert Frost, New England hills and old brick seaports. I love the pioneer spirit of Utah, the adventurousness of Lewis and Clark, the hallowed traditions of baseball and the incomparable spectacle of American Football. The America of independent family farmers, tinkerers, free thinkers and entrepreneurs. On the other hand, I don't really love the America of NASCAR and Fox News, or Paris Hilton and malls, sorry. Even Reverend Wright doesn't really hate America - he loves too small a part of it and in his bitterness he's turned his back on some of the best parts of it. I just don't see Obama as someone that small and petty.

Posted by: vanya on November 4, 2009 6:00 PM

Donald have you read either of his books? If you want to understand him I think you should at least read the first one which is better written then most books by full time writers I have read.

I don't think he believed all of Wright's nonsense. I think he chose what he thought was the best church for ambitious Chicago blacks to attend.

"kissing up to foreign enemies"

I have not seen Obama kiss any foreign leaders. I have seen Bush holding hands with the Saudi leader.

"major transformation against the grain of the past is a different order of magnitude. In effect, this is creating a new, fundamentally different country"

We having been getting a steadily bigger government ever since the 1930s. If we are to have more government spending I would rather it be spent on health care for average Americans then enriching Wall Street - which started under Bush - or trying to transform the Muslim world.

I can't read his mind but after reading his books I think he likes America. He want blacks to get a bigger piece of the pie.

Posted by: Mercer on November 4, 2009 6:20 PM

Obama is as patriotic and committed to America and American Values as Rush Limbaugh, Ron Paul, Ted Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, John Wayne, Studs Terkel, FDR, JFK, and so on, so on, so forth. The caveat being, of course, that modifier you offered ...as many citizens know it." There are a plethora of different, often conflicting, takes on America and patriotism, nearly all of them honest, genuine, and with as much claim to being part of a political/philosophical chain with links going back to the Founders.

"Many citizens" believe in a white, Christian, America. "Many citizens" believe in a color-blind, 'separation of church & state, America. "Many citizens" believe in a vision of America that has virtually no central government. "Many citizens" have a vision of America in which the government is the ultimate guarantor of their individual rights and freedoms.

Comment-bait indeed; it appears you want to get the likes JV, Peter Winkler, or (more likely) me to react to this nonsense with a too quickly dashed off comment that pushes Shouting Thomas's buttons (although I now seem capable of getting ST to attack me before I make a comment). Having been savaged more than once for being "mealy-mouthed" here, if you want to make the case that Obama hates the USA, which you suspect, then make your case.

Posted by: Chris White on November 4, 2009 6:47 PM

Donald,

I think you're doing a fine job.

I miss Michael Blowhard, too. He was a real pro at provoking controversy and eliciting comment.

The real difference here is that Michael was once a standard literary leftist of the Manhattan variety, and over time, he became more pragmatic. This viewpoint is much more palatable, obviously, to many of your readers than a man who's clearly been conservative all his life. Michael was a convert.

You're taking a lot of heat for not replacing what was clearly a very unique point of view. I'd suggest that our dear readers remember that you aren't get paid for this, and you've been dealt a very tough hand. Writers with a unique point of view, like Michael, are very rare. Writers with that far reaching curiosity about the arts, sexuality and culture are hard to find. Years ago, I had a lot more interest in these things. I'm a tired old man now, and I don't care as much as I used to care.

The Obamas have, indeed, expressed some very nasty views about the history and character of America. As I said, I think that a drastic reordering of the political spoils system is about to transpire, as blacks and whites realize that the old formulation, based on guilt tripping whites for Jim Crow, is dead. How much longer does the quota system hand out the goodies to blacks, women and gays? When do white, hetero men get a fair shake again? The existential guilt of white, hetero men is the bedrock of contemporary political discourse.

You can see the angst that the shattering of this theme provokes in the anger Peter Winkler expresses. Letting go of the old order always makes people angry. Blaming and punishing white, hetero men... that's the dominant cultural theme of the past 50 years. What will replace it?

Chris White states the liberal answer repeatedly and dogmatically: If we cease damning white, hereto men, they'll just go out and reform the Klan. It's genetic, or something.

The blog hasn't died. It's being transformed, with a new personality. I wish somebody would step up to take Michael's role. I don't blame him for retiring. What a grind! For no pay! And a lot of aggravation.

Is there somebody out there who shares his passion for the arts, sexuality and culture, who's willing to do all that work for nothing, and who will put up with the abuse that comes with it?

I am not the right person to fill M. Blowhard's big shoes, but I will start to contribute a post here and there if you will have me.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on November 4, 2009 6:49 PM

Obama definitely doesn't hate America, because he doesn't hate anything. He probably doesn't love America either, certainly not in any fervent or heated way, and that's because he doesn't love anything or anyone with fervor or heat. Barry Obama is a mild-tempered, emotionally cool, deracinated, denatured international white man with conveniently dark skin. He's really part of a new class of over-educated transnationalists, and that, combined with his essentially low-key, even bland personality, means he's not going to be heart-on-sleeve patriotic. Or viscerally anti-American. He's not heart-on-sleeve visceral anything.

That's why Barry could sit and listen to Jeremiah Wright rant and scream about the evils of America, and be utterly unaffected. It was water off the duck's back.

Barry is authentically shallow, not fake shallow like John Edwards. He is probably going to be driven by pressures and events to a pragmatic, centrist, perhaps somewhat technocratic set of policies, pretty well a continuation of most of Bush. He's going to change next to nothing from the Bush legacy in foreign policy...he doesn't care enough about the world to get worked up about it. Domestically, he's going to centralize things a lot, but that was happening under Bush, as it has happened under every President since at least Woodrow Wilson (with the possible exception of Calvin Coolidge).

Health care will only pass to the extent that it doesn't negatively affect the interests of Americans with effective private health coverage. The other stuff like cap-and-trade is just a tax grab.

Barry continued to bail out the financial system to keep things from blowing sky high. That accords with his bland, unemotional, get-along-to-go-along personality. He's not only not the Messiah, he's not the Antichrist either. I suspect he'll be remembered as a not particularly active or innovative mediocrity whose sole accomplishment was being elected America's first black President...without being black in any way other than by a percentage of his DNA.

In other words, he's no big deal. A likeable enough, mild-mannered, popular, shallow, rather unanchored international white man.

Hussein. Shriek! Obama. Huh? Barry. Ho hum.

Guess which of the three is his True Name.

Posted by: PatrickH on November 4, 2009 6:51 PM

Peter, what's wrong with comment-bait? Unless it's holding a position that is completely false to the poster.

I'd say Michael's posting on immigration were a *lot* closer to the deep end than this one. (And to be honest, I found them fair, even as I completely disagreed with them.)

You've reached the wingnut end when the posters start abusing those they disagree with, and I've never seen any evidence of this with any Blowhard, new or old.

But it's true that I wonder about Obama's commitment to (or even an understanding of) America as many citizens know it.

Well, democratically, the assumption is that he represent what the majority of what Americans want. In other words, those opposing him obviously hate Americans :-).

Can love or hatred of America be separated from love or hatred of Americans? I remember an odd comment on some board that said, more or less, "The majority of Americans aren't loyal to America anymore". In other words, what America stood for was immutable, and the people had left it behind. Personally, I suspect that it was the commenter who disliked America, as it had changed, leaving *him* behind.

Posted by: Tom West on November 4, 2009 6:51 PM

Consider that most politicians and their bureaucratic masters, admire the Euro-model and always have, for the most part, since around 1790.

There are exceptions, like Reagan, who were comfortable with America as it was, but ever since America took its place on the world stage at the beginning of the 20th century, it has done its best to emulate every political meme from England, and to a lesser extent, the Continent.

So while it is inaccurate to say that Obama is the first president to 'hate American' in its current form, it is true that as a racialist, he doesn't have much use for the majority of Americans. But neither did George Bush who was certainly not a racialist, in any sense of the word.

So, in the last analysis, Obama's racialism is incidental, and he is simply carrying out the policies set forth by Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, ect...and their bureaucratic overlords.

Posted by: Savrola on November 4, 2009 6:54 PM

Does Donald actually like 2Blowhards? Given his effort to transform 2Blowhards into something it has never been (a typical reactionary website), I'm pretty sure Donald is no fan of his own blog.

All kidding aside, do you actually suspect Obama hates America? How about FDR? Did he hate America? I'm almost certain FDR will end up having changed America far more than Obama will or wants to. So far, aside from health care and doing the smart thing by opening a dialogue with a few of our enemies, he hasn't done squat to separate himself much from the previous occupant of the Oval Office. I wish he'd do more, and I certainly don't hate America. How about the people who coted for him? Do they hate America?

Posted by: JV on November 4, 2009 7:29 PM

Tom West,

The Civil Rights movement wasn't about equality for blacks, but supremacy. Of course, it wasn't blacks that organized or ran it, but the white power structure, or white elite. They have successfully rigged the system so that white men are universally discrimnated against in all areas you can imagine--culture, business, government, etc. And the discrimination against white men is far more widespread than it was against blacks during the pre-Civil Rights era.

That's because the white power structure is all about monopoly and oligarchy. The rich don't want to compete and keep competing. They want to compete and win. They don't really want capitalism--they want cartel capitalism and socialism. And that's what we have. They are scared to death that regualr white men will tear that system down. Thus, white men are the enemy.

BTW, America was built on white slavery. You might want to educate yourself about that, since you and Chris White seem to be so grossly ignorant of any kind of real history. And if you don't like racial discrimnation, you might say so to your liberal friends regarding anti-white discrimnation. Hypocrite.

Peter Winkler,

Grow up.

Posted by: B on November 4, 2009 7:33 PM

Obama has already escalated the war in Afghanistan and will probably escalate it further. He also has quietly expanded the war into Pakistan. That hardly constitutes "kissing up" to anyone. I'm sure you'd only be happy if he nuked Iran, though.

Obama hasn't intimdated any segment of the press or anything close to it. Fux News runs a 24/7 propaganda ministry for Republicans and has turned it into an Obama-bashing machine. Obama's press secretary has called them on it. Did Fux shutter their offices and collapse?

The subject header for your post reveals your bias. I don't particularly like Obama and didn't vote for him, but I find the proposition that anyone - not just Obama - who invests his life in aspiring to the presidency while having no fondness for America to be highly illogical.

Posted by: Peter L. Winkler on November 4, 2009 7:59 PM

Obama hates liberty and single-mindedly schemes to end it. This puts him at loggerheads with the essence of America. He doesn't need to be understood. He needs to be opposed. Fiercely.

Posted by: ricpic on November 4, 2009 8:21 PM

Tom West: America is now a multi-ethnic society. Do people who desire a change back towards its (pretty much imaginary) mono-cultural roots hate America?

"Pretty much imaginary"? This is the line that the progressives will be taking henceforward: America was never really a white country.

Of course, if you went back to the Senate debate in 1965 over the throw-open-the-doors immigration bill that Ted Kennedy was trying to get passed, I don't think you'd even get the 1965 Ted Kennedy to dispute that this was a white country. I say that because he is on the record during the debate as assuring the opposition that there was no reason to think the immigration bill would change the ethnic composition of the country. I.e., don't worry, white people, we won't take your country away from you....at least until we have the numbers to do it.

So there was never any debate, any question, that this was a white man's country - just look at who the Founders were, 100% white men - until recently. And now, the new Orwellian down-the-memory-hole meme we're going to be taught is that it was *never* a white man's country, so white men have nothing to complain about losing control of it.

It's the same kind of progressive lies we were fed during the civil rights legislation era. "All we want is to be judged on our character instead of the color of our skin." Right...until you get THAT legislation passed, and move on to explicit racial quotas favoring blacks because of the color of their skin.

And it will be the same with homosexual "marriage", if that ever passes. For now it's all "this doesn't hurt heterosexuals, we're not taking anything away from them, we're just expanding marriage to more people." Then once they get that, it will turn into a campaign to socially and legally outlaw any actions, sentiments, or speech that suggests there's any difference at all between any sort of sexuality at all. This has already started to happen - a couple I knew signed up for salsa lessons. A pair of homosexual men were in the class as well, and insisted on participating in the partner dances, which meant that the other men in the class were forced to either dance the salsa with a homosexual male partner, or forgo that part of the class.

We have to speak up when these kinds of lies get started, before they spread. It is not "imaginary" that this was a white man's country.

Posted by: Mark on November 4, 2009 9:09 PM

I have to say honestly that this sentiment "given his effort to transform America into something it has never been (a European-style socialist state)" strikes me as the ravings of a crazy person. Do you sincerely believe that's what Obama's doing? And if so, why? The tepid health care reform? The bailouts that were a continuation of Bush's policies? The continuation of the war in Afghanistan? Exactly where has Obama made any fundamental breaks with the general policies of the last 30 years? Seriously - how on earth do you look at Obama and see a European socialist?

Posted by: Peter A on November 4, 2009 9:12 PM

This is hysterical and absurd.

Posted by: MQ on November 4, 2009 9:18 PM

Donald,

By the standards you used in your last comment, Bush would be the one who dislikes America the most. The crisis that hit your country last year had a lot to do with his economic policies. America was hit with the worst terrorist attack in History under Bush's watch. And what's this thing about "abandoning foreign friends"? Has any president in recent history (ie, after World War II) distanced America from its European friends like Bush did? And regarding the alleged damage to America's "core values", do you think that taking over GM in the midst of an unprecedented economic crisis is wrost than setting up Guantánamo and trying to legalize torture the way Bush did?

I'm not American, and I might be wrong in my judgement about its "core values". But after eight years of president Bush, Obama appears to be a president much more in tune with what made America the great country it once was - and, of course, still is.

Posted by: Márcio Guilherme. on November 4, 2009 9:39 PM

It strikes me that many these comments about Obama: Not liking this country, a Socialist, etc would not have been made by his detractors if Obama was not Black. Hey guys/gals, get over it. This is a multi racial, multi religous country.

And Donald: Why and what does his wife have to do with all of this?

Posted by: phil snyder on November 5, 2009 5:43 AM

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Call 'em out for the racist nonsense they're spewing and get hammered as Whiter-than-thou; ignore it and be taunted as unable to articulate the argument that bigotry is about as un-American as it gets.

Laced through the comments runs a thread that seems to equate America and patriotism with hetero, Christian, white men who do whatever they want anywhere in the world while flying the flag. The actual debates among the Founders that assured the adoption of the Bill of Rights amendments, including the separation of church and state, are forgotten or ignored, instead the demography of the signers is offered as "proof" that we were founded as a white Christian nation and should therefore remain one. This fails to pass the test of logic, reason, or historical accuracy.

Some of the other comments from those of us who do not believe that neo-cons and hard right libertarians have a greater grasp of truth than the rest of us have expressed well enough the case that if bullet points like "kissing up to foreign enemies and abandoning foreign friends" or "intimidation of the press despite the first amendment" are among the hallmarks of disliking or hating the USA, then perhaps it was the previous administration that should be under discussion. Unfortunately this line of reasoning tends to elicit whining from the "W is ancient history, get over it!" brigade.

We are a pluralistic nation of immigrants and always have been. The majority of citizens have historically been of white, European, ancestry. Asians, Africans, Native Americans, and other "Others' have variously been forcibly imported, urged to immigrate, thwarted from immigration, deported, rounded up onto reservations and granted or denied rights since the founding. The shifting needs of the moneyed elite, the shifting balance between fear and (the very American) sense of compassion and justice among the greater populace have influenced the ebb and flow of these conflicting impulses. The two and a half century arc of American history has, however, moved toward inclusion rather than exclusion in a two-steps-forward, one-step-back dance. The abolition of slavery, granting women the right to vote, striking down Jim Crow and segregation ... this is the America many of us are proud of and revere.

Posted by: Chris White on November 5, 2009 9:03 AM

Donald,

I think your fear is making your see what you want to see.

What has he done (not said in the past) so far that makes people think he hates America? Spend some tax-payer money? America has a consumption-based economy. Who spends money better than the government? Consumer confidence is at an all-time low. Give people tax breaks now, and they'll shove the money into the mattresses. That won't fix the economy.

Obama is a master politician. He will do what it takes to get re-elected. In the end, he's not going to shake things up too much. Don't worry. He knows people are watching.

If anything he might be a bit naive and definitely indecisive. But it was smart for him to try and be aggressive early. Quicker learning that way. :)

Posted by: Steve-O on November 5, 2009 9:22 AM

Phil Snyder levels the usual, idiot racism accusation and Chris Whiter-Than-Thou recites the Zinn hate America litany.

This shit is just disgusting.

Given this predictable BS line, you've got to wonder why leftists keep telling us how smart they are.

Rhetoric 101 dopes.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on November 5, 2009 10:29 AM

America was never founded as a pluralistic or multi-ethnic nation. It was founded as a white Protestant nation, period. It has been changed from that to a multi-ethnic and multi-religious cesspool by the enemies of white Protestantism. Guess who that is?

Chris White, once again, puts his gross ignorance of history on display for all to see, with absolutely no circumspection in doing so. There is no level of distortion or dissembly to which he will not stoop to try and pass himself off as holier-than-thou. It's shameful.

Posted by: B on November 5, 2009 10:38 AM

If you think Obama hates America, you're definitely not the kind of person who's going to be swayed by reason. So why bother?

But I can't help myself. God, are you that stupid? He hates America because he apologized for some of its sins? He hates America because he's pushing for universal health care just as Democrats have been doing for a century? Did they all hate America? He hates America because he continued Bush's bailouts? He hates America because he's more Keynesian than Chicago-schooler?

Posted by: JewishAtheist on November 5, 2009 11:25 AM

Oh good grief - why all the pursed lips and well-I-nevers at the suggestion that some modern Western leader - a typical product of typical elite educational institutions and typical political organizations - probably isn't all shiny-eyed and mystic-chords-of-memory about the people and nation he purports to be representing? Does Gordon Brown like Britain, lol?

PatrickH pretty much nails it: Obama is just another sample of the type of Transnational Man who populate the current reigning class in the West. As were his predecessors. (Yes, even George Bush, who if he did not display the same overt contempt for lower and middling class Americans as the rest of this kind, was as indifferent to their interests.) So it is absurd to debate the "patriotism" of people for whom the very concept is out-dated, irrelevant, and, really, fundamentally immoral, as it is by its nature exclusive and discriminatory, and puts duty to one's co-nationals above that of the welfare of foreigners. (Thus one of the more poignantly Orwellian features of these latter days is observing deracinated transnationals torturing the vocabulary of patriotism into the service of the universalist farrago.) But the project is already straining at the seams, and their day, too, will pass.

Tom West: The transformation of America during the civil-rights era was far greater than what is happening now.

Bollocks.

phil snyder: It strikes me that many these comments about Obama: Not liking this country, a Socialist, etc would not have been made by his detractors if Obama was not Black. Hey guys/gals, get over it. This is a multi racial, multi religous country.

That was a stunningly original and illuminating observation, phil. Please contribute more. I don't think I've been offered such a feast for thought since my last visit to the comments sections at Huffington Post. But kudos also to Peter to for his iconoclastic take on Fux News, from which I'm sure Donald has heretofore derived all his opinions.

Posted by: Moira Breen on November 5, 2009 11:28 AM

I categorically reject the defamatory lie that I "hate America". This has been a favored cudgel of the right for decades and it has festered so far beyond merely stale that it has reached a level of decomposition that renders it toxic waste. If you don't like someone's views, call them a traitor. What a tired, intellectually vacuous, steaming pile of dogma doo.

Criticism of "W" by the left is/was met with cries from the wing-nut right as un-patriotic and un-American. Those with different views were supposed to "rally around the Commander-in-Chief when we have boots on the ground". But now that the President is a bi-racial Good Cop anyone suggesting he is NOT an un-American socialist (and perhaps even the anti-Christ) for bailing out Wall Street and the American auto manufacturing sector ... perversely enough the very centers of, respectively, the corporate elite's power base and those hard working, mid-west, middle Americans beloved by the right as NASCAR nation ... is accused of being anti-American. "He won, get over it!" as the right has said for eight years.

While I make no claims to being an academic historian, I will happily go head to head with "B" on an American history exam any day. Can "B' offer ONE quote from the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution that shows it to be a "white, Protestant" nation? "Endowed by their Creator..." scarcely qualifies as proof America was founded as "a white, Protestant, nation". Are there any Jews, Catholics, agnostics, atheists, Asians, African-Americans, Hispanics, Russian Orthodox, Buddhists, Muslims, Native Americans, and so on out there worthy of claiming the mantle of "True American"? Or is the lure of the pre-Civil War south so strong that only by returning to that supposed Eden where white Protestant men held all the power, including that of life and death, over all others will America be great again? I reject THAT as un-American.

"B" seems to want to ignore the historical record ... all of the Constitutional Amendments, Supreme Court decisions, and laws enacted by the Congress ... the history of America that brought us to our present greatness ... as misguided or worse. I say to "B", who seems to think America is a "cesspool", the same catch phrase the right was so fond of back in the Viet Nam era, "If you don't love it, leave it."

Posted by: Chris White on November 5, 2009 12:18 PM

Barry Obama is a mild-tempered, emotionally cool, deracinated, denatured international white man with conveniently dark skin. He's really part of a new class of over-educated transnationalists, and that, combined with his essentially low-key, even bland personality, means he's not going to be heart-on-sleeve patriotic. Or viscerally anti-American. He's not heart-on-sleeve visceral anything.

I think this comment from PatrickH is extremely perceptive, both psychologically and politically. If you look at Obama's circle of advisors and appointees -- not the people he might have gone to a cocktail party with in Chicago once, but the people he actually appointed to key positions -- they are almost all drawn from the centrist Clinton establishment of the 1990s. (Despite the way subsequent events have IMO discredited Clinton's economic policy). Or from centrist Republicans like the first GW Bush (Robert Gates).

Just to look back at previous American history for a moment:

--nationalization of companies in emergencies: Chrysler, Conrail.

--Federal support of private companies: entire aerospace industry post-WWII driven by Defense Department contracting. Relationship between railroads and government in 19th century.

--Government interference in economy in peacetime: too numerous to count, but note Nixon's wage and price controls in the 1970s, more radical than anything Obama has done. Roosevelt's Reconstruction Finance Corporation. Entire agricultural policy dating from 1930s has set prices for the entire farm sector.

--health reform: Medicare/Medicaid was a bigger government interference in the health sector than the current health reform bill.

--"intimidation of the press despite the first amendment." What the hell is Donald talking about here? Perhaps a reference to Obama's jackbooted stormtroopers dragging Fox personalities off the air...no, wait. Anyway, there are actually numerous examples of government intimidation of the press in the U.S., dating back over 200 years, but since Obama has not done this at all it's hardly worth engaging with.

Posted by: MQ on November 5, 2009 1:21 PM

Gee I wonder where anybody ever got the crazy idea that the wildly disproportionate hatred many on the right have for Obama has something to do with the color of his skin. It's funny, every Republican/right-leaning blog I read from time to time adamantly insists that the hatred for Obama has nothing to do with skin color AND every Republican/right-leaning blog I read gets a bunch of comments just like that one that are not just racist, but completely matter-of-fact about their racism.

If you want to argue that there's nothing wrong with racism, make that argument. But don't be racist (or ally yourself with racists) and then complain when people point out the obvious truth.

Posted by: JewishAtheist on November 5, 2009 2:11 PM

Lots of comments here: thanks!

A few random responses. I never said I thought Obama "hates" America (re-read the post). I do not watch Fox or any other news channel except by happenstance or when really important breaking news is happening; consider the possibility that I get my political views by being possessed by the devil -- it's a stronger case. I am not afraid of Obama, but find his actions worrisome in their potential to hurt the US. No doubt many readers had similar thoughts regarding George Bush; so why get agitated about doubting Obama? -- that's politics, folks. Obama being black has nothing to do with my perspective on him; this if-you-don't-like-Obama-you-must-be-a-racist business is both tiresome and wrong in most cases. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to have doubts about the man.

Posted by: Donald Pittenger on November 5, 2009 2:53 PM

Donald, you said this in one of your comments:

"I wanted to provoke thought, never asserting that Obama disliked or hated the USA. Just said I suspected this."

So you suspect that Obama dislikes or hates the USA based on what? His politics? His politics are not as liberal as mine. Do I hate the USA?

Posted by: JV on November 5, 2009 3:12 PM

Chris White,

If you don't like America, you can leave it Chris. You already have by moving to an almost completely white leftist rural enclave. You know how to leave a cesspool when you see it.

As far as being as the US being Protestant, all you have to do is look at the separation of Church from affairs of state and that in itself is uniquely a Protestant idea, completely separate from Roman Catholicism and its Canon Law, Islam and its Sharia, Hinduism and its Caste System, etc etc etc. Go read a book, for crying out loud.

As for the US being a white nation, that is beyond dispute. Every single one of the framers was white, and their opinions about blacks were well known. They wanted to repatriate blacks back to Africa. It doesn't matter whether you like it or not, that's history. The framers wanted to create a Protestant white nation. And the Constitution only applies to the States in relation to the Federal Government, not individual people. We are given priveledges by the States--we don't have guaranteed rights. Go talk to a lawyer.

Once again you prove that you know basically nothing about history. Keep reading the newspaper, reading leftist magazines, and getting your history from PBS and NPR. That'll keep anybody completely ignorant.

Posted by: B on November 5, 2009 3:13 PM

I think what you're missing is that Obama and (more than) half the country don't see Obama's health care reform proposal (or stimulus packages or whatever) as "a major transformation against the grain of the past." It's a freakin' $90 billion increase in spending per year. We spend over a trillion a year on the military. By any sane measure, the public option is less socialist than medicare, medicaid, and the VA.

Health care reform has nothing to do with disliking America and everything to do with wanting to make health care more available and affordable to Americans. That you see it as some sort of fundamental attack on the very essence of America has more to do with what you see as "America" than it does with Obama.

Now the racism discussion comes up when people like me try to understand how you can turn what is essentially a minor upgrade of the health care system into an attack on the very nature of America. Racism seems at first to be a quite plausible explanation. We see comments like B's or Pat Buchannan's about how this used to be a white nation and we see how passionately some people are to make sure that no free health care coverage is ever, ever given to an illegal immigrant, and we say, okay, if you just hate blacks and Latinos and you think that this health care reform is just a way to take your money and give it to them, well, that would explain your behavior.

But I guess there is another explanation. Some of you are not necessarily racists (or if you are, it's not particularly relevant to this point) but are merely some sort of fundamentalist fiscal "conservatives" in the Ron Paul mode. America to you necessarily means pure, bloody free-marketism where the rich get great health care and the poor die in the streets or make due with the scraps voluntarily thrown to them by the rich. So any movement away from that at all is opposed with the passion that religious fundamentalists display when their most cherished beliefs are challenged.

Other than that I don't have any explanation for the rhetoric. Being simply concerned about the cost could lead one to oppose this particular health care reform proposal, but it wouldn't explain questioning whether Obama even likes America or the socialist rhetoric.

Posted by: JewishAtheist on November 5, 2009 3:14 PM

Jewish Atheist,

I couldn't care less about Obama. He is a puppet, just like George Bush is.

Once again, the US was founded as a white Protestant nation. That's a FACT. It will never cease being a fact simply because you don't like it. And the US is a cesspool now. If its not, please direct me to the rising standards of culture, morality, goodwill, and industry of our nation. We are a grossly indebted, immoral, uneducated, and divided society than we have ever been. And its going to get worse.

Posted by: B on November 5, 2009 3:19 PM

I well remember when millions of conservatives donned white sheets and marched on Washington when an unmarried black woman was appointed Secretary of State.

Posted by: Robert Townshend on November 5, 2009 3:22 PM

Obama's parson, the Rev.Wright, is, by his own words a pretty ugly piece of anti-Americanism.

Obama's wife, in her own words in a very ugly piece of anti-Americanism.

Obama's intimacy with Ayres, both, is in itself an ugly piece of anti-Americanism.

Obama's conduct as President and Senator exceed all previous boundaries of hypocritical American opportunism, although to some extent it is in the American tradition. This tradition reaches past Tom Hayden to Aaron Burr. But, as Burr's relative Gore Vidal once remarked, Tom Hayden gives opportunism a bad name.

Despising our nation while profiting off of it is very American.

Posted by: Larry on November 5, 2009 4:30 PM

JewishAtheist, the Jewish religion itself is the most flagrant statement of the desirability and existence of racism known to humanity. I mean, the entire "religion" is based on the unique historical experiences of one ethnic group "favored by God". Can't get much more exceptional than that, can we? When do the rest of us get a piece of that action?

Posted by: Bob Grier on November 5, 2009 5:50 PM

I'm pretty sure President Obama is no fan of his own country.

... wanting a major transformation against the grain of the past is a different order of magnitude. In effect, this is creating a new, fundamentally different country...

... it's true that I wonder about Obama's commitment to (or even an understanding of) America as many citizens know it.

... never asserting that Obama disliked or hated the USA. Just said I suspected this.

Donald

Obama hates liberty and single-mindedly schemes to end it. This puts him at loggerheads with the essence of America. He doesn't need to be understood. He needs to be opposed. Fiercely.

ricpic

...don't worry, white people, we won't take your country away from you....at least until we have the numbers to do it.

It is not "imaginary" that this was a white man's country.

Mark

Donald – Why would anyone get the idea that you think Obama "hates" America? Could it have anything to do with you saying you suspect that to be the case? As B and Mark demonstrate, while there are indeed plenty of reasons to have doubts about the man's policies, race is hardly absent from the consideration as evidenced by comments here. It turns logic on it's head to set in motion a thread with a post that questions whether the President dislikes or even hates America, then ignore those comments that seem to agree, but that also overtly make the case that America is a "white man's country" that has been overrun, while then castigating those who take issue with the racist overtones of in these comments as "both tiresome and wrong."

You want to make a case for Obama pursuing the wrong course of action in the bailout of Wall Street (by continuing down the path begun by the Bush administration, with many of the same players) ... go for it. I am likely to agree with you, if for somewhat different reasons. You want to attempt to make the case for using only military means to pressure those nations we think may be acting against American interests rather than diplomatic engagement ... go for it. I will probably disagree. To instead get your toe on a line just shy of saying the President of the United States hates America and then act perplexed when some of us find this a bit over-the-top is disingenuous at best.

Posted by: Chris White on November 5, 2009 7:34 PM

I must have struck Shouting Thomas' sore point. Why then his vitrolic viturprative response to my comments?

Thank you Ms Breen, for your "positive critique" to my comments. I didn't realize you were the Two Blowhard's chief critic to the Comments Page. As sort of Simon Cowell for the 2 Blowhards Comment Page. Its also pleasing to discover you are so democratic in your tastes that you too read the Huffington report.

Posted by: phil snyder on November 5, 2009 8:43 PM

Mark: "Pretty much imaginary"? This is the line that the progressives will be taking henceforward: America was never really a white country.

Ah, white culture. Eating white food, speaking the white language,...

For crying out loud, white is a skin colour.

Go back a ways, and America had English, Irish, Scottish, Italian, German, French, Sicilian, cultures etc., etc.

A little more recently, you have Northern and Southern and Western US cultures.

Sorry Mark, America was *never* mono-cultural.

Moira: Bollocks

Moira, you *honestly* believe that the bank and auto bail-outs are more culturally significant than the social change that allowed hundreds of thousands if not millions to become active participants in a democracy?

Wow. Just wow.

B: They have successfully rigged the system so that white men are universally discrimnated against in all areas you can imagine--culture, business, government, etc. And the discrimination against white men is far more widespread than it was against blacks during the pre-Civil Rights era.

Indeed, that's why whites have a higher unemployment rate than blacks, earn less than blacks, can be killed for trying to vote, are banned from most of the better quality schools and generally forced to ride at the back of the bus.

B, if you want to mock white bigots by pretending to be one, you have to use *some* subtlety. I appreciate your attempt to ridicule bigots, but as it is, it's *so* obvious your a leftist trolling as a white supremacist that you're giving your fellow leftists a bad name.

Posted by: Tom West on November 6, 2009 1:43 AM

Ugliest comment thread ever on 2Blowhards. Bye bye.

Posted by: JV on November 6, 2009 1:56 AM

Tom West,

It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever if whites are doing better on average than blacks. The law and policies of all government, corporate, and cultural entities in this country is to show blacks and other non-white people illegal favoritism and to racially discriminate against whites.

I challenged you before on this issue, and I'll do it again. You say that blacks are discriminated against in the US. I say that whites are discriminated against in the US for the benefit of blacks. You pony up the evidence for your assertion, and I'll pony up for mine. And I'll win.

In your ridiculous analysis of race in the US, morality and the actions of indivuduals plays no part whatsoever, nor do racial differences that we all know exist. That means that your entire worldview on race is immoral. See Tom West the bigot. See Tom West, the cowardly bigot, who is only able to be a bigot against white people, because if he isn't, he won't be popular with his leftist buddies. See Tom West never take a moral stand on equality under the law. See Tom West knuckle under. What a batch of lies you tell!

And your lame attempts at humor show that not only are you a hypocrite and a bigot, but dull as well. Nice combo.

Take my challenge up, Tom. Prove your case. Put your money where your mouth is. You'll never do it, but dance away, 'cause you know that you'll lose.

Tom West, the pasty-colored race bigot.

Isn't it funny how you become what you hate?

Chris White,

Once again you run away from the easily proved fact that the US was indeed founded as a white Protestant nation. And it has been intentionally overrun by those who hate whites and Protestant Christianity.

I couldn't give less of a crap if you think that's racist or not. It's simply the truth. It's an historical fact that will never change.

The decline of the US can be directly correlated with the non-whiteness and non-Christian-ness that is being forced upon us. Again, if its not then pony up the evidence to the contrary.

Stop polishing your non-existent halo. Nobody here or anywhere else thinks you're holy. And we're all sick of the false moral posturing you use in lieu of factual evidence. Cut it out already.

Posted by: B on November 6, 2009 11:27 AM

Heh. Latest outburst that this is the "ugliest comments thread ever", followed by the inevitable slamming of the door.

There have been far more vitriolic threads before, and lots of threads where far more hardcore right-wing opinions were expressed.

If this level of "ugliness" is enough to drive various liberals away, then, well, I think you all have made the right decision...or maybe not.

Crikey. Man up, lefties! After a gripe or two, Chris White seems to have girded his cojones and waded back into the fight--not that I'm saying anything nice about him, mind you. If he can do it, why can't you?

Posted by: PatrickH on November 6, 2009 11:32 AM

Well, yeah, JV... it is pretty ugly, but I can remember worse.

The post did provoke comment.

Any attempt by white men to assert the right to self-advancement is now condemned, not only by the crazy left, but by other white men as "racist."

We white men have a very serious Uncle Tom problem. We've got a whole bunch of morons trying to prove how liberal they are by stabbing other white men in the back, i.e., Tom West, Christ Whiter-Than-Thou, Phil Synder. These men learned this tactic in their teens, when it earned them points in college and got them laid by no good women. Sensitivity, right?

Tom West inadvertently puts his finger on the problem. So what if black men have a higher unemployment rate than white men? That's their problem. The quota system puts them first in line. Criminal behavior and a refusal to perform in school means that most of them can't make anything out of that advantage. This is not a reason to continue to employ a quota system to punish white men. The quota system is there for black men. They just need to stop committing crimes and take school seriously. Quite a few are.

This is, indeed, a very ugly issue. Vitually every black in America voted for Obama... precisely because they knew he would put them first in line for the swag. He's delivering on that promise. If white men assert their self interest in the same way, our chorus of Uncle Toms screams "racism."

I don't give a fuck what the Uncle Toms say. I'm not on this earth to weep over the problems of blacks. They can take care of their own problems. As you can see, they're trying to do that by employing the government as a weapon at their disposal. They've got a right to do that.

So do I. Our sordid, self-hating Uncle Toms can call me racist all they want. So be it. Screw them.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on November 6, 2009 11:37 AM

JA:...and we see how passionately some people are to make sure that no free health care coverage is ever, ever given to an illegal immigrant, and we say, okay, if you just hate blacks and Latinos and you think that this health care reform is just a way to take your money and give it to them, well, that would explain your behavior.

Wow, JA, you think "blacks and Latinos" are all "illegal immigrants", or at least your mental categories are such that they can be lumped together in an undifferentiated mass for the purposes of this debate? Damn, your notions of what constitutes "American-ness" are so Brahminically exclusive they would probably make even ol' B blush. That little elision from "illegal immigrant" to "blacks and Latinos"...most interesting JA. Maybe you and B are really in agreement about some fundamental things, you're just coming at them from opposite sides and seeking different ends.

Me? All I - as someone who is not in principle opposed to some universal health care system - see in the "health care reforms" in their present form is insurance companies, Pharma,etc. getting their snouts even deeper into the trough, which means that there is no way in hell that health care is going to get "more affordable". And as a matter of fact, yes, I do resent getting the pointy end of the screw on the "privatize the profit, socialize the cost" subsidy-program that is uncontrolled immigration, health care costs for "cheap" labor being probably the largest of the extorted subsidies. But I'm no longer surprised to see "leftists" (for want of a more accurate and handier label) being such eager lickspittles for kleptocratic interests. So go on screeching "RAAAAACIST!" at anybody who concludes that Obamacare is gong to be just another screw job, JA. It's fun, it takes no thought, and it makes the fat cats smile.

Posted by: Moira Breen on November 6, 2009 11:43 AM

Tom West: Moira, you *honestly* believe that the bank and auto bail-outs are more culturally significant than the social change that allowed hundreds of thousands if not millions to become active participants in a democracy?

Tom, if I *honestly* had any idea that your understanding of current affairs was so restricted that for you "what is happening now" and "culturally significant" comprise solely "bank and auto-bailouts", I would not have bothered to characterize your comment as even so much as "bollocks".

Sorry Mark, America was *never* mono-cultural.

Before I start in here, give me a sec to absorb your startling newsflash that coherent nations have regional cultural variations. OK, I think I've managed to absorb that, weltanschauung-shattering revelation though it is. Now, where was I -

It was never "no consciously understood originating and unifying culture" either - splitting hairs about "monoculture" is a straw-man. Whether you think it fine and dandy or an abomination, the U.S. until recently was an overwhelmingly white nation with a distinct-from-Europe but overwhelmingly European-derived culture, perceived itself as a "white man's nation" (just ask the non-whites if they hadn't noticed) and was perceived as such by others. If you wish to insist that this isn't so, you are going to have to re-examine, re-arrange, and probably ditch a large percentage of your treasured beliefs about European conquest, racism, and the general hegemonic horror that is whitey in North America (that is, if you care about consistency).

These are simple statements of fact, and no one but an idiot would infer that one who states these simples fact must be ignorant of the existence and influence of non-Europeans in American culture. Why allegedly educated people feel the need to eternally jump up and down and flap their wrists in these tedious little "bet you didn't know!" games - "bet you didn't know about jazz!", "bet you didn't know about pre-Anglo Hispanics in the Southwest!", "bet you didn't know about the Chinese in the West!", "bet you didn't know about the Know-Nothings!", "bet you didn't know anything about American Indians!", "bet you didn't know America has always had regional cultural variations!" - I have long pondered, but am coming to the conclusion that they do it because that's all they got. If you admit to yourself that it is highly unlikely that people don't know what you "bet they didn't!", ya got nothin'. Well, "RAAAACIST!", but jeebus that must bore even dullards after a while.

Interesting thing about non-existent "white culture", though, is how assiduously whites tend move away from areas that are becoming non-white, and to self-segregate in areas where they give the oddest impression of feeling more at ease and "at home", exactly if there were some familiar, I dunno, culture prevailing that made them feel that way - exactly the way other groups that have, ya know, cultures that they prefer to live in, tend to do. Inexplicable, really.

phil snyder: Unfortunately, I couldn't fully appreciate your killing rejoinder, as I don't know who Simon Cowell is. I'm pretty old, so you may have to adjust the references in your stinging repartée accordingly. Sorry about making you waste your mot like that.

Posted by: Moira Breen on November 6, 2009 12:08 PM

I was perhaps feeling a bit sensitive last night. I agree there have been far uglier threads. Anyways...

I'm not with CW on the multi-cultural foundations of the USA. Sure, multiple cultures were exploited to bring into fruition the vision of the exclusively white founders, and those who were exploited brought much to the cultural/arts aspects of the country, but lets face it; the system of government and law/order was founded exclusively on a Judeo-Christian, and specifically white European, value system.

However, what baffles me about this comment thread is the feeling I get that the election of Barack Obama is somehow a tipping point, wherein the founding values of the USA are jettisoned in favor of an insidious and evil...I don't know what. Otherness. I don't see in Obama anything but your typical waffling politician. His race is absolutely newsworthy due to the obvious fact he's our first black President. But his actions since becoming a politician are not those of an activist. At all. I might be missing something, but I can't think of a single thing he's actually done since becoming President that even hints at activism. Health care reform? That's been debated about since FDR. Bailouts? Started with the Bush administration (and FWIW, I'm totally against the bailouts). Opening up dialog with some of our enemies. Absolutely not unprecedented, and for my money, the smart thing to do.

And now I have to run to a meeting. Crap. More later, maybe.

Posted by: JV on November 6, 2009 1:14 PM

Moira, just what earth-shattering changes has Obama had a chance to make outside of Auto and Bank bailouts? You can argue there are far greater changes over the long run, but since the topic is how *Obama* is changing the country, I'd argue those are the only really significant changes.

Moira, I agree that people tend to separate into cultural enclaves. But how is that relevant to race (unless you believe your race determines your culture)? Is there anyone who seriously considers any *race* to have a single identifiable culture? Classifying a culture by the color of one's skin rather than the actual cultural markers (usually one's location and social class) is just ludicrous.

His "white culture" term would indicate that I have a greater common cultural heritage with Southern good-ole-boys than I have with my Asian peers.

Using terms like 'white' culture when what is meant is 'suburban American middle-class' culture makes it clear that the speaker considers how you *look* like to be far more important than how you *act*.

And that is an attitude that I find contemptible.

Do you?

Posted by: Tom West on November 6, 2009 2:17 PM

stabbing other white men in the back, i.e., Tom West, Christ Whiter-Than-Thou, Phil Synder. These men learned this tactic in their teens, when it earned them points in college and got them laid by no good women. Sensitivity, right?

First, I don't know about Chris and Phil, but I can assure you that politics didn't score points (or women) in Computer Science. In fact, it never came up at all except when debating other men. So let's drop the allegations of bad motives, shall we?

Let's get to the meat of the matter. Why would you consider race to be the only basis of loyalty?

Frankly, my loyalty lies with my family, my friends, and my country, in that order. Race isn't in it.

Moreover, like most people, I consider my ethos (middle class + with greater tolerance for superficial cultural differences in my case) to be superior to everyone elses' (I'm not a moral relativist.)

However, my idea of victory isn't to have one group of citizens make it big over another group of citizens, it's to try and get as many people as possible to adopt my ethos.

In other words, I don't care if you're white, black or green. I care about inculcating a respect for hard work, compassion for the less fortunate, an understanding of the importance of education, etc., etc.

Given the current social situation, I believe that the best way to accomplish that is to espouse certain policies and programs that you would no doubt consider unfair.

And you'd be right.

But then, *every* policy has winners and losers. You can't get away from that. My desired policies do make it more difficult for certain members of society in order to obtain the larger goal of (eventually) greater adherence to my ethos and I hope greater happiness for everyone.

That's a trade-off I am willing to make, and living in a democracy, if I can persuade others to the vote the same, then it happens.

You obviously believe rather differently :-), and guess what, you're doing the same thing to persuade people to vote in a way that will cause a different set of trade-offs with a different set of winners and losers.

May the most persuasive argument win...

(Of course, realistically, we're *really* doing this because we like a good argument (or, as I have more recently found out, we like being outraged. After all, are we really making a difference in anybody's vote? However, the occasional political cat-fight keeps us from hanging around street corners.)

Posted by: Tom West on November 6, 2009 3:01 PM

Let's recap shall we?

Donald offers a comment-baiting post in which he says he suspects Obama hates America. And Obama's wife hates America.

An initial flurry of back and forth comments builds momentum among the Righter-than-Thou agreeing that Obama, as a black man, does indeed hate the real America, which was (and if God has His way, will again be) the Land of the Free White Protestant Men.

Those of us who hew to a more "progressive" line politically argue back saying; (a) the examples offered as indicators for Obama's anti-American attitudes surely apply to nearly every Administration from Nixon forward to today; and (b) that those commenting who want to make the case against Obama should try to do so without resorting to the simple equation that his race means he is anti-American ... by definition, because America is supposed to be a white, Protestant, nation ... or else "man-up" to the fact that saying the President of the United States hates America because he is black is the very essence of racism.

The result seems to be that even thoughtful, articulate, commenters such as Moira and Patrick cannot resist the lure of the wingnut echo chamber and pile on to give us silly Woodstock hippies a verbal drubbing for finding some of the comments unpatriotic and racist rather than attempt to (a) make the case without using race; or (b) chiding the likes of "B" for blatant misrepresentation of American history.

FWIW - I am skeptical about Obamacare. A curious term for the legislative sausage coming out of the Congress; a plan penned mostly on K Street by the insurance, pharmaceutical, and medical provider industries, but, hey, let's not let those facts get in the way of a good wingnut whine about that black guy in the WHITE House.

I am skeptical about the Wall Street bail out and the chance for re-imagining our role in the Middle East and any number of other areas that the administration is involved with. My critique, however, tends to be that Obama is offering too little change from the previous administration, not a revolutionary break with the past.

It would be quite possible to find any number of ways to debate the relative merits of a different approach to healthcare, or whether the situation in Afghanistan would be better improved by massive carpet bombing or sending in hordes of aid workers. When instead the conservative commenters see a couple of their number sling racist crap in lieu of substantive arguments ... and then gang up on anyone calling said racist crap racist crap ... then it is a sad day for one of the few blogs that has been capable of attracting regular lurkers and commenters from across the right/left spectrum and from around the world.

Posted by: Chris White on November 6, 2009 3:29 PM

I've read and enjoyed this blog for some years now, and usually appreciated the intelligent take on a political position other than my own, but this really strikes me as quite childish. Criticizing the U.S. President for how well he fulfills his enormous responsibilities is one thing, but implying that his failings arise out of wishing ill for his fellow citizens and his country as a whole is quite another. As much as I disliked Bush, I don't think he was actively trying to cause harm to America, I just think his policies tended to do more harm than good. I certainly don't regard Obama as above criticism, but the right's brand of it seems fixated on proving him illegitimate to hold at all, and to imputing covert motives to whatever programs he might bring forth. Are such "suspicions" really worth discussing seriously?

Posted by: Everett on November 6, 2009 4:13 PM

In all fairness, I have to say I suspect the number of people who thought that Bush was eeeevil (as opposed to incompetent) is probably *higher* than the number of people who think Obama is eeeevil.

Posted by: Tom West on November 6, 2009 9:31 PM

Tom West,

That must be why you support race quotas where the guy who is the least educated and hardworking gets the job based on his skin color.

You mistake bad outcomes with bad circumstances, and the two are not identical. Once again you prove that your stance on race is completely immoral.

my idea of victory isn't to have one group of citizens make it big over another group of citizens, it's to try and get as many people as possible to adopt my ethos

First of all, race quotas aren't your ethos. They were put in place a long time ago, and you had nothing to do with it.

This has to do with you getting along swell with your uber-leftist cronies in academia. Basically, you're a wimp.

Second, you're not getting anybody to adopt anything. You're sitting on a couch while the government enforces race discrimination at the point of a gun. You think its charity, but when its forced its not charity, its extortion. If I shoved a gun in your face and got you to "donate" to my charity, that's called "armed robbery", not charity.

See, you're the kind of despicable freeloader who has a big heart and mouth, but never backs it up by making the a sacrifice yourself. You sacrifice other people to make yourself feel good. So you are a hypocrite and a user. Wonderful personality you have, Tom!

You put absolutely nothing of yourself out on the line at all. Not your money, not your job (tenured academic), not your effort, or your reputation. Tom West is all about keeping himself safe while everybody else hangs. That's not morality, it's cowardice.

You are exactly the oppposite of what you say you claim to be--you are racist and immoral.

I know you don't care at all about that. Because if you actually cared about fairness, hard work, and learning, you would be appalled at race quotas. So again, more lies. You are a liar. And I didn't prove that--you did.

Posted by: B on November 7, 2009 11:56 AM

Chris White,

Here's just part of the voluminous evidence that the US was founded as a white Protestant Christian nation (not that you'll admit you are wrong, but for others who like facts and not posturing):

At the time of the writing of the States' constitutions and the U.S. Constitution, nearly all Colonies embraced an “official church”. The First Amendment prohibits the federal government from dealing with religion partially since the States saw that as their own choice. King George tried to shove the Church of England down their throats, helping lead to the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War. The following is a list of the Colonies' official Denomination, chosen by the people of that Colony. Official Churches of the colonies:

Connecticut Congregational
Delaware none
Georgia Anglican
Maryland Anglican
Massachusetts Congregational
New Hampshire Congregational
New Jersey none
New York Anglican/Dutch Reformed
North Carolina Anglican
Pennsylvania none
Rhode Island none
South Carolina Anglican
Virginia Anglican

Delaware Constitution (1776)
Article 22:
"Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust...shall...also make and subscribe the following declaration, to whit:
"I, _____, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration"

Maryland Constitution (1776)
Article XXXV:
"That no other test or qualification ought to be required...than such oath of support and fidelity to this State...and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion."

Massachusetts Constitution (1776):
"All persons elected to office must make the following declaration: "I do declare that I believe the Christian religion, and have firm persuasion of its truth"

New Jersey Constitution (1776)
Article XIX:
"No Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right...all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect...shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the Legislature."
Pennsylvania Constitution (1776)
Section 10:
"And each member [of the legislature], before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz: "I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked, and I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine Inspiration."

North Carolina Constitution (1776)
Article XXXII
"That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State."

Vermont Constitution (1777)
Declaration of Rights, III:
"Nor can any man who professes the protestant religion, be justly deprived or abridged of any civil rights, as a citizen, on account of his religious sentiment...nevertheless, every sect of denomination of people ought to observe the Sabbath, or the Lord's day..."
South Carolina Constitution (1778)
Article XXXVIII:
"That all persons and religious societies who acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshipped, shall be freely tolerated... That all denominations of Christian[s]...shall enjoy equal religious and civil privileges."

New Hampshire Constitution (1784)
Part 2:
"[Provides that no person be elected governor, senator, representative or member of the Council] who is not of the protestant religion."

Tennessee Constitution (1796)
Article VIII, Section 2:
"No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall old any office in the civil department of this State."

John Adams
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.

John Quincy Adams
My hopes of a future life are all founded upon the Gospel of Christ and I cannot cavil or quibble away [evade or object to]. . . . the whole tenor of His conduct by which He sometimes positively asserted and at others countenances [permits] His disciples in asserting that He was God.

Samuel Adams
I conceive we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world . . . that the confusions that are and have been among the nations may be overruled by the promoting and speedily bringing in the holy and happy period when the kingdoms of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and the people willingly bow to the scepter of Him who is the Prince of Peace.

Daniel Webster
[T]he Christian religion – its general principles – must ever be regarded among us as the foundation of civil society.

Whatever makes men good Christians, makes them good citizens.

George Washington
It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.

What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.

Roger Sherman
[I]t is the duty of all to acknowledge that the Divine Law which requires us to love God with all our heart and our neighbor as ourselves, on pain of eternal damnation, is Holy, just, and good. . . . The revealed law of God is the rule of our duty.

Benjamin Rush
The Gospel of Jesus Christ prescribes the wisest rules for just conduct in every situation of life. Happy they who are enabled to obey them in all situations! . . . My only hope of salvation is in the infinite tran¬scendent love of God manifested to the world by the death of His Son upon the Cross. Noth¬ing but His blood will wash away my sins [Acts 22:16]. I rely exclusively upon it. Come, Lord Jesus! Come quickly!

I do not believe that the Constitution was the offspring of inspiration, but I am as satisfied that it is as much the work of a Divine Providence as any of the miracles recorded in the Old and New Testament

Thomas Jefferson
The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.

The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses.

James Madison
A watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest, while we are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here, we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven.

I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way.

George Mason
I give and bequeath my soul to Almighty God that gave it me, hoping that through the meritorious death and passion of our Savior and Redeemer Jesus Christ to receive absolution and remission for all my sins.

John Jay
Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers

ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC.

Go read a book, Chris!

Posted by: B on November 7, 2009 12:32 PM

His "white culture" term would indicate that I have a greater common
cultural heritage with Southern good-ole-boys than I have with my Asian peers.

Well, Tom, as horrifying as the prospect appears to be to you (ick! filthy unclean rednecks!), it is probably true. Unless your 'Asian peers' have lived in your community for a generation or more, I'm not sure how you can say that your cultural affiliations with them are closer than they are with some random North American anglo, assuming you, too, are a North American anglo. (Maybe you can, but I'd like to see you try.)

Having re-read your comment several times, I can't tell what you think 'culture' is.
You seem to be conflating it with socioeconomic status. You also seem to think that 'culture' is something you can put on and take off like a change of clothes.

Posted by: David Fleck on November 7, 2009 2:22 PM

There certainly was (and is) a lot of heated rhetoric about Bush being "eeevil," but I don't recall much of it focusing on the idea that he actually hated America and its citizens. It was more that the conception of this country that he and his supporters held was myopic and self-serving, and that their exercise of a sense of patriotism thus did more harm than good.

Posted by: Everett on November 7, 2009 3:53 PM

Tom West: Using terms like 'white' culture when what is meant is 'suburban American middle-class' culture makes it clear that the speaker considers how you *look* like to be far more important than how you *act*.

And that is an attitude that I find contemptible.

Do you?

Tom, you're always good for a Pauli moment - "not even wrong". The statement above is entirely a projection of your own prejudices, not anybody else's. You should find better uses for your contempt than straw-men. People do not make choices about association from the foundation of your (got that, *your*) belief that "what people look like", aka "skin color", is an entirely arbitrary attribute that has no correlations in the real world with cultural affinities. You're confusing proxies for culture with culture, and deluding yourself that everyone else is, too.

His "white culture" term would indicate that I have a greater common cultural heritage with Southern good-ole-boys than I have with my Asian peers.

(Aside: you introduced the term "white culture" into the discussion, so I'm not sure who "his" refers to here.)

If by "Asian" peers you mean Asian, not "Canadians whose ancestors came from somewhere in Asia", it is vanishingly unlikely that you share with them a "common cultural heritage". In fact, it's pretty damned arrogant of you to stake a claim to a cultural heritage that isn't yours, or, more insulting yet, reduce an entire culture to merely the activities common to curious and intelligent people everywhere, who have always been eager to befriend and share with like-minded people from other traditions. If by "Asian peer" you mean a Canadian of Asian background, then you have a common cultural heritage because one or both of you have assimilated to a common cultural heritage that arose from a specific place among a specific, yes, genetically affiliated, people.

I may like my Chinese friend better, and be more intellectually sympatico with her, than with other people who do share my cultural background, and would certainly rather hang with her than watch football or NASCAR - but we do not, as a matter of fact, have a common cultural heritage. I cannot "share" a world of culture that I wasn't raised in and haven't experienced for the length of time that would give an outsider even the most rudimentary insight. (If all the decent and interesting people in the world "shared a culture" I'm not sure what would be the point of traveling or taking any interest in foreigners.)

You are confusing "culture" with "class" and quite a few other things beside. A culture's ethos is a thousand things besides an abstract set of principles, it is a habit of being; it cannot be picked up out of a book or a citizenship exam. Race doesn't have a culture, but culture is correlated with race, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone that gives a minute's thought to what a human culture is and how it arises and develops. That the boundaries are fuzzy and permeable does not make that untrue, anymore than the fuzzy and changing boundaries of biological race make that concept meaningless in the genetic sense.

Now there are certainly "cultureless" human beings who do not feel any bonds with any but their own small class of co-cosmopolites. But most human beings don't live in that space, and wouldn't want to if they could.

Posted by: Moira Breen on November 7, 2009 4:42 PM

To clarify: Not even a Woodstock-type hippie like me is blind to the reality that the dominant power structure and culture at the time of the founding was white, Protestant, and predominantly English. However, those WASP men who sat in Philadelphia (that City of Brotherly Love), debating and arguing about the proper language to use as they drafted the documents on which their new nation would be founded, in the end chose to express their ideals and aspirations, not the reality of their situation at that moment. Those ideals and aspirations, embodied in the Declaration of Independence and especially the Constitution, have survived and guided the progress we have made since 1776. The separation of church and state, the rights of individuals, and an injunction to strive toward "a more perfect union" are built into these documents.

The Framers wrote a flexible Constitution, capable both of accommodating new interpretations as to how its language might be understood in a changing world, and of being amended, should it need be, to clarify the will of the people. These features and the structure set forth for governance, the three balancing branches, have survived and served admirably to this day.

The nearly two and half centuries from then until now has seen our nation grow from a handful of colonies along the eastern coast of the continent, fearful of being overrun by European powers or native tribes, into the dominant world power. That progress has been achieved, in part, by ever evolving interpretations and modifications through legislative, judicial, and executive decisions, as well as amendments to the Constitution (and to state constitutions) that have explicitly recognized the inclusion of women, blacks, Jews, Catholics, and all the other "minorities" as full citizens, entitled to the same rights and responsibilities as those white, Protestant, men who set the wheels in motion.

So, here we are, with some arguing, essentially, that America has been in a downward spiral at least since the Emancipation Proclamation, and that the President, as a bi-racial man who self-identifies as black, hates (or dislikes) America, in part because he is black and in part because he is a "liberal". These pessimistic voices appear to believe that only by restoring white Protestant men to an elevated status will we regain the greatness they think we lost along the way. Others of us argue that America is doing just fine, thank you very much. The expansion of rights and cultural inclusion of all of these "Others" has made us greater, stronger, and has more fully realized the aspirations of the Founders.

In the end it seems to boil down to whether one honors the Founders primarily for what they did and wrote or for being white Protestant men. I'm firmly on the side of those who honor and revere their actions, ideas, and ideals. As a WASP man, I am proud of and identify with them, more closely no doubt than can someone whose ancestors were slaves at the time of the founding. Nevertheless, my way of honoring, respecting, and furthering their good works is not to seek a return to a time when women and minorities were denied their rights, but to keep moving forward.

Posted by: Chris White on November 7, 2009 4:49 PM

I don't think Obama hates America as a place, but I do think he hates America as an idea. Obama and the class he belongs to(which is composed of mainly of liberal Whites and some Blacks) wants to remake America according to their image of the Promised land. Their image of course is the ideas that make up American Socialism.

Don't get me wrong, the current Righties also hate the traditional idea of America. To them America is reduced to a business, and whatever gives greater profit is going to be good for America. If GDP rises by 50% they're happy, no questions asked. If one percent of the population are the sole recipients of that rise they're happy. If flooding the country with immigrants will boost the economy, they have no problem with it, despite the fact that it will probably destroy the social fabric of the nation. To them America is a balance sheet.

Look guys, I don't have a horse in this race, but from where I stand across the big ocean both parties hate America, and both of them have done all they can to remake it into their respective images. No one gives a damn about the ideas of the founding fathers.

The old Bastards had certain idea's, but the big idea was that the government will not last if the people lacked character. Character as understood in the biblical sense. Liars, fornicators, idol worshipers, homosexuals, thieves and adulterers had no place in the kingdom of Heaven, nor according to the founding fathers, place in the Government of America. The problem is that you have elected rogues who reflect the national temperement, your government is a government of the people. The question is not "Does Obama hate America?" but "Why do Americans hate America and keep electing morons into Govermnet?"

Posted by: slumlord on November 7, 2009 5:41 PM

Obama likes America in a paternalistic, quasi-colonialist, "aren't-they-quaint" sort of way.

I don't think he identifies as an American; he's a "citizen of the world" who happens to live in America.

He regards most Americans as culturally backward - vulgar, mired in the racism/sexism/religion that have led to all the American crimes I'm sure he can recite at the drop of a hat.

Given his parentage, childhood, education that's only to be expected.

He probably prides himself on being able to "get past" that and appreciate barbecue, bluegrass, or basketball.

He does not admire America, and he is uncomfortable with American primacy. He does not want to champion America or assert America in the world. He would much rather see America aligned with the "transnational progressive" enterprise, much the way bien-pensant Eurocrats want to see their countries merged into the EU. (I don't mean the UN as a world government; there is no formal vehicle for the tranzi project. There is instead a web of agreements, conventions, and NGOs, often UN-moderated.)

As to domestic policy: what he's doing is what all the right-thinking people want, or what benefits his political allies. The auto-industry takeover is a misguided and extremely wasteful attempt to preserve a flagship American industry in its old form for the benefit of his political allies.

Donald: I'd prefer to see this blog free of contentious politicking. In the past there were some politically charged posts, but they were comments on the broad condition of things, and the failures of the entire political class to address important issues.

Until the blog and its audience find a new consensus, anything likely to provoke flamage should be avoided IMO. There are lots of other topics.

Posted by: Rich Rostrom on November 9, 2009 11:11 PM

Moira:

Who are you kidding? You claim "I'm old" thus you don't know who Simon Cowell is. Well you can't be that old, since you're very knowledgable about computer blogs, see your remark about (Huffington,where Cowell is a frequent story) and thus have a computer. I imagine that you also have a TV set and from time to time watch it. So I have to believe you know Cowell, but I'll take your word for it. Long story short, Cowell is the acerbic panalist on "American Idol" and thus I dub you the Cowell of 2 Blowhards, a know it all who takes pleasure in putting down people as he does "Idol" performers no matter their logic about the discussion In short your an intellectual snob trying to prove to others and yourself you superioity

By the way: I'm old too: 76

Cheers,

Phil

Posted by: phil snyder on November 12, 2009 11:08 AM

People pretending not to know about major celebrities like Simon Cowell are the same people who, when you ask them if they've every watched a certain TV program, proclaim, "I don't watch (or own a) TV" instead of answering the question asked.

Posted by: JV on November 12, 2009 12:33 PM

The question is moot, since there is no such "thing" as American has not been since the time that the US moved into the state of mass society. The Constitution, as written, is only intelligible in the social context of a population that is largely self-employed, or employed by their direct social circle. Instead of asking whether or not Obama hates America, you need to ask what it is, exactly, that Obama wants.

A preponderance of circumstantial evidence, I submit, suggests that Obama's only goal in life is to take as much social resource away from white people, as is politically feasible, and reapportion it to "oppressed" peoples, namely, blacks and Hispanics. Obama did write a book titled "Dreams from my Father". And what, explicitly, was his father's only goal in life? Why to take as much as possible from white people collectively and give it to black people collectively.

Classic third-worldism. Why is it any mystery to people when Obama pretty much lays it all out there for anyone to discern.

Posted by: Asher on November 13, 2009 10:59 PM