2008 May 10 Saturday
Blacks Grow More Protective Of Barack Obama

Bill Clinton is a white guy and he can't get any credit for acting black since he prefers a white woman for President.

Bill Clinton is no longer revered as the "first black president." Tavis Smiley's rapid-fire commentaries on a popular radio show have been silenced. And the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., self-described defender of the black church, has been derided by many on the Web as an old man who needs to "step off."

They all landed in the black community's doghouse after being viewed as endangering Sen. Barack Obama's chances of being elected president. And the community's desire to protect the first African American ever to be in this position may only grow with his win in North Carolina and his close loss in Indiana this week.

Once Obama is in the White House race relations in America will get really interesting. Will blacks stay as protective toward Obama as they are now? Or will they shift their focus toward criticism of Obama when Obama fails to substantially raise up their status and living standards? How is this going to play out? Does anyone have a guess?

More generally, will the Obama presidency increase or decrease inter-racial animosity? Will the debate over racial preferences intensify? Will Obama manage to increase racial preferences enforcement actions in the courts?

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2008 May 10 10:05 AM  Politics Identity


Comments
Bob Badour said at May 10, 2008 10:26 AM:

I don't know whether it's delusional, but one can always hope an Obama presidency will lead to greater race realism. Just as only Nixon could have gone to China, only a black president could roll back racially preferential policies.

If he wins, I hope it works out that way.

Ziel said at May 10, 2008 11:05 AM:

Read this article - "EEOC Audits seek to root out discrimination" - and consider how easy it will be for the Obama administration to increase enforcement of preferences without anybody really even knowing about it. Of course a McCain administration could just as easily do the same thing.

HellKaiserRyo said at May 10, 2008 11:10 AM:

Obama will expand the nanny state or at least try to. If he succeeds living standards for them will rise. However, most blacks are for border control, and Obama will unfortunately not deliver on that issues.

HellKaiserRyo said at May 10, 2008 11:46 AM:

I never intensely liked Barack Obama (but I currently support him because he is way better than McCain), but does anyone think that McCain's economic policies will help the blacks? Does anyone think that McCain will improve race relations. I do not care about race relations, but I want to limit the damage caused by immigration. I do not think McCain will use his veto power to stymie pro-immigration legislation by the democratic senate (the southern democrats (they are not liberals) may prevent it from going through though), so he will just go with the flow on that issue.

Well, Obama will help the poor. Best way to help them is the loving nanny state. Only the proprietary class uses the rhetoric that the nanny state is a loss of freedom, but it is the best way to help the poor.

Anonymous said at May 10, 2008 3:15 PM:

HellKaiserRyo,
You are seem to be a bright guy, but I'm having serious doubts after reading shit like this:

"If he succeeds living standards for them will rise."

"Well, Obama will help the poor. Best way to help them is the loving nanny state. Only the proprietary class uses the rhetoric that the nanny state is a loss of freedom, but it is the best way to help the poor."

This is so utterly wrong, I don't know where to start.

Big Bill said at May 11, 2008 7:23 AM:

Now that we are eliminating the jobs they could do and stay economically afloat, the nanny state is the best way to help the very poor (i.e. the very ignorant, very impulsive, but it must be coupled with strong eugenics.

The new principle should be "if you are incapable of taking care of yourself we will support you, but you will not be permitted to reproduce your poverty, nor will you be permitted to sit on your b*tt." Perhaps Norplant or getting their tubes tied as a condition for government services.

I really do not expect the 15% of Americans who are below 81 IQ to be able to take care of themselves without significant government support.

They will never be net contributors to America society now that we are eliminating all the unskilled jobs they might be able to do and are transferring them to Mexico, China and other poverty-stricken countries.

Me? I would like to get the factory jobs back. if for nothing else than giving them something constructive to do and make them feel like they are making a contribution. From my perspective, I would rather pay more for American goods than pay more for American welfare. Unfortunately, the international merchants have decided otherwise.

John Savage said at May 11, 2008 7:57 AM:

"Will blacks stay as protective toward Obama as they are now? Or will they shift their focus toward criticism of Obama when Obama fails to substantially raise up their status and living standards?"

They will blame whitey, as usual. Since when have leftists, especially blacks, blamed blacks for failure? They will become even more protective of Obama, who will have been brought down (in their eyes) by the evil white Republicans.

"More generally, will the Obama presidency increase or decrease inter-racial animosity?"

Increase, I hope. If not, that means whites have just rolled over and totally refused to stand up for themselves.

"Will the debate over racial preferences intensify?"

Probably not. Racial preferences are getting to be a fact of the landscape, which many whites oppose but don't expect to ever be able to reverse. Whites will have to be mobilized by some issue that is more of an immediate threat to them -- their response to racial preferences has not been all that impressive.

John Savage said at May 11, 2008 8:02 AM:

Bob Badour wrote:

"I don't know whether it's delusional, but one can always hope an Obama presidency will lead to greater race realism. Just as only Nixon could have gone to China, only a black president could roll back racially preferential policies."

The first sentence is good. Hopefully whites will start to see how much we are under siege. But there's no way Obama would be the one to roll back racial preferences. Obviously he thinks it's a good tool for achieving his goals in the way of equality, which is what I tend to conclude from his comments about expanding it.

Also, even if preferences were done in the future on the basis of economic status rather than race, still a substantial majority of the beneficiaries would be nonwhite.

Dragon Horse said at May 11, 2008 6:12 PM:

Actually Obama has not talked about expanding racial preferences. He said several times he felt his kids (and other wealthy blacks) don't need preferences. He did say he was open to looking at class based preferences (which in the aggregate would help more whites since most poor people are white in this country although blacks are poorer as a percentage of the population). I heard him say this, I believe at the Ohio or Texas debates.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/14/AR2007051401233.html

Anonymous said at May 11, 2008 7:53 PM:

"...the nanny state is the best way to help the very poor (i.e. the very ignorant, very impulsive, but it must be coupled with strong eugenics."

If that was to actually happen, I would be all for it. The money would be well spent and there would be less low IQ types, especially minorities. But it won't happen, I'm afraid. And anyway, it isn't really helping the poor, but helping the rest of us. It would be like a form of insurance or pest control really.

John Savage said at May 12, 2008 6:14 AM:

Dragon Horse wrote:

"Actually Obama has not talked about expanding racial preferences. He said several times he felt his kids (and other wealthy blacks) don't need preferences. He did say he was open to looking at class based preferences."

Sorry, it does look like I said Obama would expand racial preferences; I meant that he would expand preferences in general. It's hard to give much credence to his stated intention to roll back preferences in any area. His talk about non-racial preferences was the "head fake" that led people to think Obama is more-or-less race-blind. But the evidence shows that the interpretation that he just belonged to Jeremiah Wright's church for the sake of credibility among blacks doesn't hold water. His overall worldview is pretty much in tune with Wright's, if you've been reading the commentary at View from the Right and VDare. Obama thinks the whole system is racist and therefore class-based preferences should be in addition to race-based ones. If anything, he would repeal race-based preferences only for a tiny handful of successful nonwhites.

Anyway, it wouldn't help my opinion of preferences to expand them to include poor whites. That would just mean more incompetent people in high positions. It would also increase the number of people with a vested interest in keeping them around forever. A lot of poor whites who are currently on the side of eliminating preferences would turn in favor of them.

Dragon Horse said at May 12, 2008 9:25 AM:

John:

Instead of reading commentary read Ohama's book.

I have read it and much of the commentary is hyperbole and most of the people opining about the commentary have not read the source material themselves, which I believe is more than a tad intellectually lazy.

John Savage said at May 12, 2008 11:07 AM:

"read Ohama's [sic] book"

Uh, I think most of us would rather not waste our time reading such trash. But do you really think Steve Sailer is lying when he says he actually read the book? Or is he just cherry-picking quotes that contradict the rest of the book?

Would you care to quote something else from the book that demonstrates that Sailer is being prone to hyperbole?

anon said at May 12, 2008 11:19 AM:

Settle down Mr. Savage,
Dragon Horse was just defending a Brother. The black "community" always rallies around their criminals, liars and hustlers like Sharpton, OJ, the Jena 6 and now Obama. It is what they do.

Dragon Horse said at May 13, 2008 9:31 AM:

I guess reading is not fundamental after all. It is always better to be told the opinion you should have instead of developing it on your own from source source material right? Hmmm...my thesis adviser didn't teach me that in grad school, but whatever makes you happy.

Dragon Horse said at May 16, 2008 12:13 PM:

Randall's worst nightmare...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/16/white.valedictorian/index.html

haha


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright