Real Talk on Obama, Individualism and Being Fooled

If you take a position on the Iraq war or health care, you will attract reaction from people who say you’re crazy, but they will be responding to what you actually said and, more or less, to how you actually meant it. The same is not true of race. Text that deals with a difficult racial issue is like a Rorschach ink blot. People project onto that text—project their own experiences, anxieties, angers; all the emotions that go into thinking about race, which means all the emotions that exist. You can weigh every word of your text. You can rewrite it until you think there is absolutely no way that a fair-minded person can fail to understand what you said. And they will not only fail to understand it, they will accuse you of saying exactly the opposite of what you said.

--Charles Murray, co-author of The Bell Curve

It’s a concept that is applied equally and leads in multiple directions.

Warning: when reading the following, please note the use of words and phrase like 'some,' 'sometimes,' 'not all,' etc. Warning Two: if the rock didn't hit you, don't yelp.

Ever since some previously somnambulant people began to notice truths which were self-evident to the awake about presidential candidate Barack Obama, his mentor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright and their adherence to Black Liberation Theology (in addition to the candidate's faithful adherence to classic socialism/communism, elitism and Identity Politics), one can notice the sense of blind outrage in the tone of some white observers, most curiously in the tone of those who are conservative. Sometimes that outrage is not only directed at the candidate, but at all black Americans. It’s as if black Americans had collectively sworn some Oath to forgive all white Americans--as if they needed forgiving--but because Obama, Wright and their ilk exist, that phantom Oath has been violated. To some, this ilk somehow represents all black Americans and in order for us—all black Americans, that is—to be trusted again, we must repudiate the haters and their ideology.

All over the conservative Internet, I’ve seen comments like this one:

I'm not giving [black Americans] a pass any more on anything. They have to rise up and demand Obama's refutation of the evil preacher. [SNIP]

I will demand they act like adults and clean their own house of the hatred that we don't tolerate. If they don't dissociate themselves from Obama, the Apologist of hate, then they are throwing their lot in with him, and for that they will have lost my good-will.

Why was that individual giving any racial group of Americans as a single entity a pass on anything in the first place? And who died and made this individual or anybody else the giver of passes? That went out in 1863.

My citizenship is a right, not some privilege issued by anyone. I am allowed to love and hate whom I please as long as I don't step on another's toes. And I don't have to answer for anyone to whom I did not give birth. Tolerate this.

In turn, however, neither I nor any other person/group has the right to offer another person/group any absolution for the sins of their fathers--if those sins exist--nor make anyone feel guilty about sins not their own.

Someone asked what my rant on principles was about; this was it. Some conservatives talk about individualism but when it comes time to apply the concept under adversity—under conditions where the concept of individualism isn’t reciprocated--it’s too damn hard. So when the Obamas and Wright and James Cone--who aren’t even conservatives--espouse Black Liberation Theology; when the relatively few other black supremacists, narcissists and conspiracy theorists spout their hatred, such people automatically become the responsibility of 30 million other Americans who happen to be black also. Why? Nobody serious asks white people to repudiate the darlings at places like Stormfront and Loose Change nor should they. (It's as if some of you thought that white people had a lock on lunacy. On the contrary, Crazy and Evil are equal opportunity employers.)

Haven’t conservatives been telling liberals to dispense with the Group Identity Politics, to embrace Individualism? Well, Conservatives, heal thyself!

People who didn’t really buy into individualism or who found it easier to treat blacks as a monolith because most blacks themselves do so, bought Obama’s cover—the “good looks,” the stentorian, MLKish voice, the Harvard education, the Hope, the Change, the Post-Racial narrative—even when his autobiography told a different story. Those who believed the hype included a goodly portion of white conservatives, who “wouldn’t vote for him, but could hang out with the guy.” Hah! Obama wore Shelby Steele's mask of good guy; a black dude who didn’t seem to be angry at white people—if one was looking at the accouterments and not reading and listening too closely. But scratch his purty surface and he's all hugged-up with the bad guys.

His dissembling suggests the difference is only between the blacks who hate you and show it and the blacks who hate you and lie about it. Of course that's not the case, but the question then becomes how, exactly, do you tell which blacks hate you and which do not? If Obama is lying, then who isn't?

My answer:

You trust individuals after they have proven themselves. Anyone who trusted Obama--or trusts any other human--on faith is a fool.

(Sorry, WO. I'm not trying to pick on you, but your question was instructive and I think that you're getting it.)

Too many people used a different standard to judge Obama's character--perhaps a messianic one. To some Obama represented Group forgiveness. But not only does this demigod have Play-Dough feet, he's allied with the other side. That’s why the anger is so fierce in some of these quarters; it’s the anger of betrayal.

Error is spread around equally. As I said, a good deal of the black population views itself—and whites--as a monolith and will get mad at you and hurl epithets at you if you don't subscribe to this point of view. :::cough::: (And the odd thing with some of the black supporters of Obama is this: some behave as though no other black American will get a shot at the White House for a hundred years if Obama loses. I contend that the same could be true if Obama wins, but that's beside the point.) But if the principle of Group Innocence or Group Guilt is wrong, it’s wrong, no matter if it’s a majority view or not. Let them get mad. Do you conservatives believe in conservative principles? Then apply them to everyone without apology. Group Innocence and Group Guilt are not conservative concepts.

So when I tell some of you white conservatives that you haven't been following your conservative principles when judging this man, Barack Obama, could you do me a favor and not twist what I’m saying, not turning it into some cudgel of White Guilt that I’m allegedly beating you over the head with? I'm not looking for your apology because you don't have anything to apologize for. You've fallen short and missed your own mark. Welcome to the human race.

Now that you’ve been rudely awakened, perhaps those of you conservatives who actually have principles—rather than commodities—will revert to using them and start leading with your eyes open. That’s not a Black Thing or a White Thing. It’s called the Law of All Jungles. (Heh.)

And be thankful that you are awake. Some aren’t so lucky.

AFTERTHOUGHT: To those who thought Obama was a crypto-Muslim, I'm not all that mad at you anymore. You knew that some type of game was being played. You just didn't have enough experience to sniff out which one.

(Thanks to brotherbrown)

Comments

[AJ]

Right on, 'locks.

[Maggie45]

Thank you!

[AH·C]

some behave as though no other black American will ever get a shot at the White House in a hundred years if Obama loses. I contend that the same could be true if Obama wins

EXACTLY! The adage, never send a boy to do a man's job is applicable here, more so a socialist youth.

[brotherbrown]

Well, we do have to get over the hump the first time to see what happens, so now is a grand time to see it happen.

No way Obama will be a worse president than GWBush, and he certainly brings more class to the White House than the Clinton years. And I just don't see McCain having a vision for the future.

[notropis]

I think you probably have a higher ratio of lurker:poster on your site than about anywhere else, since most people are like me, and don't feel like just continually saying:

Wow. That's excellent. I'm going to have to take some time to digest it all.

But once in a while, I've just got to say:

Wow. That's excellent. I'm going to have to take some time to digest it all.

Thanks, as always. I'd say, "I agree," but that would make it sound like I'd thought of these things myself. A few I had, but not most.

[section9]

Ah, but brotherbrown, it's the little things that speak volumes, such as the Ed Schultz affair, that tell me what Obama is actually made of.

Obama ramps up an huge rally in North Dakota by using Ed Schultz to gin up the local Dems. In his undercard speech, Ed (that Ed, Air America Ed) called John McCain a warmonger.

Obama came on and gave his speech to the Masses, then departed. The McCain people went ballistic, and about 12 hours later the Obama campaign issued a perfunctory denial that McCain was a warmonger followed by an accusation that McCain supported Bush's 100 year war in Iraq.

Ed Schultz came on and repeated his charge that McCain was a warmonger for supporting Petraeus' Campaign in Iraq. He was never, ever reprimanded by the Obama Campaign and Barack personally never issued an apology to McCain.

I've been around campaigns long enough to know that what Schultz was doing was done deliberately, by the Obama people, to throw chum in the water to have it churn around in the water for 48-72 hours. That's how things work over there. The fact that McCain spent two years in the Hilton and got both his arms broken by the PAVN means nothing to Barack. All they wanted to do was test the reaction of the McCain campaign for future reference.

Contrast this with how McCain handled a similar issue with a right wing talker who kept trying to imply that BHO was a Muslim. McCain apologized to the crowd and to Obama, took responsibilty, and said it wouldn't happen again.

The point being? McCain stood up and accepted responsibility for what was going on around him, in his name. Obama did not, and continues not to do so. As we go forward, I predict that ordinary registered voters are going to notice that Obama continues to argue his way out of accepting responsibility for taking the blame for anything. Whether it is earmarks, or pork, or signing on to public financing with McCain, then breaking his written word, people are going to start wondering if Barack means what he says. This will become fatal to Obama's campaign.

This fact is a window into the characters of the two man. I strongly suspect that most voters will find that what McCain learned at Annapolis, at Paxtuxtent River, and in Hanoi, will stand him in good stead with most voters in the fall.

[Paul Jané]

You know full well just how strongly I feel about just how thoughtful, well reasoned, and thought-provoking your writing usually is, so I don't think that there is much that I can add to that, as you're definitely living up to those standards.

I'd be surprised if you took any flak for this (but, then again, strange things do happen out on teh interwebs), it's very hard to attack anyone with the truth on their side (even more so when that truth is as plain as day).

Nicely done, Juliette. :)

[Donna B.]

I'm pretty much like notropis, I've lurked here for years, very seldom commenting, almost always agreeing.

I've got one small quibble, but it really doesn't have anything to do with your main point.

You write, "You trust individuals after they have proven themselves. Anyone who trusted Obama--or trusts any other human--on faith is a fool."

That's the reverse of why my father taught me - to trust until you had a reason not to. He wasn't a fool, he said sometimes the reason not to trust was pretty apparent right up front.

He also got burned several times. My mother asked him once, why are doing the same thing again when the last person let you down. His response was that the next guy hadn't let him down yet.

It's worked out well for him in his 80+ years and I'm trying to live up to his ideals. I just have a bit of my mother in me too.

Obama aroused some suspicion in me from the first (too good to be true), but I tried very hard to take him at his word (the ones I heard, at least) until those words confirmed the suspicions.

[Tully]

I've always followed what my late father taught me about politicians. Forget what they SAY, watch what they DO. Thus I've never thought of Obama as anything but a sweet-talkin' "promise 'em everything, and a pony!" politician.

After a couple of decades in hands-on local/state politics myself, I've seen "Messiah" candidates before. Always--always--they had feet of clay.

[Enoch_Root]

Baldi - good work. I guess this flows with what I tell my kids about the adage "blood is thicker than water" ... which is a very damaging adage. I tell them to stick up for the person who is right... and not to defend/agree with one another just because of "blood".

[waltj]

I'm a conservative who never believed in BHO's promise of "change" and "hope". To me, it was always the same socialist b.s. that the Left has been peddling for the last 60 years, only this time all tarted up with a new poster child as its salesman. And I don't believe in condemning other African-Americans for not "taking responsibility" for this turkey. He's an adult, he's made his own decisions in life, so he gets to live with the consequences, good and bad. Nobody should be held accountable for those decisions other than BHO himself.

[doubleplusundead]

Interesting piece, I would say this though, I think some of the people reacting out of a sense of betrayal do so not out of hurt over the BS of Obama's post-racial rhetoric, but because they bought his post-partisan rhetoric. I think they bought it enough to think they could be on civil terms with the guy.

As for me, I've said it here before, the guy is a Marxist, that's all I've ever needed. He can still get bent for trashing my state and home, though.

[Phelps]

To some, this ilk somehow represents all black Americans and in order for us—all black Americans, that is—to be trusted again, we must repudiate the haters and their ideology.

I have already confessed to having almost fallen into this mentality. The reason that it was happening with me was because the response was so monolithic that it really did seem like there was no dissent. When 100% of the group thinks one way, then it does represent the group.

There might have been a time for a black identity. I can see where someone could feel like there is no hope for help from anywhere but within (even though I don't believe this has ever been the case in North America. There have been white abolitionists since the first slave ship landed.) But that time has long since passed.

Everyone of every color is human. Human nature being what it is, the majority of America will not see Black America as anything but separate until Black America stops acting like it is separate. Black people are not going to be treated as individuals by the majority of America until black people in general stop acting in unison.

[Ben-David]

Conservatives - and others - still relate to blacks as a group because race is still used to grab/assign money, places in college classrooms, and other public/private goodies.

The reaction you cite can be seen as yet another example of the negative fallout and antagonism/mistrust that these "affirmative" programs have in fact generated.

The anger is directed at the most visible - if self-appointed - representatives of "the black community" who espouse the race-baiting gimme game, and most definitely present themselves as representative of the majority of black Americans.

These statements are not intended to hold the Thomas Sowells - who are all to few, far between, and stifled by the media - responsible for the hypocrisy of anti-white vitriol.

But the pereption is that most black people are on the side of the greivance-mongers.

And however swimmingly we get on at work or on PTA commitees, as long as Thomas Sowell's child is be able to leapfrog my white kid into college, there will be a lingering sense that all black people are acquiesing to the culture of victimology and identity politics.

This has nothing to do with the white person's general belief in Conservative ideals like individual responsiblity - because that's not what is happening between "the races", in practice.

[baldilocks]

But the perception is that most black people are on the side of the grievance-mongers.

I'm glad you used that word.

[Ralph Phelan]

This may sound like a digression but it's not:

Following the Duke lacrosse rape hoax case, one of the things that astounded me was the open, enthusiastic anti-white racism of many blacks. I expected blacks' reaction to white kids getting railroaded by a corrupt DA to be an unsympathetic "now you see what it's like," possibly accompanied by the classic mime of "playing the world's tiniest violin." What I did not expect was roaring enthusiasm to join a lynch mob - an enthusiasm demonstrated by the majority of the city's elected officials, the NC NAACP, many black preachers, the local "black press," some fairly large crowds, and the majority of the county's black electorate when they reelected Nifong.

I had never previously been aware of the degree to which open, unapologetic racism is socially acceptable among many black Americans.

Having been made aware of the above, the Reverend Wright came as no surprise to me.

But to many white people who hadn't followed the Duke story as closely as I did, Jeremiah Wright must have come as a hell of a shock. Not the fact that he's a ranting lunatic, but the fact that a ranting lunatic has such a large following, including many of the movers and shakers of black Chicago politics, and that in that community such a nut is *not* shunned by "decent" folk the way David Duke is, but is treated as a normal and legitimate part of the political landscape.

Thanks to Obama, some whites have been introduced to some ugly realities of black America they had previously been unaware of. It's quite understandable that their reaction to blacks as a group is going to change in response to significant new information. Learning that a substantial fraction of black people attend churches that hold anti-white hate rallies is naturally going to affect white peoples' risk-benefit analysis of interacting with black people they don't already know well.

It also makes black preachers' and politicians' moralistic pronouncements about white racism a lot harder for them to take seriously, or to respond to with anything other than "go clean up your own house already."

[Ben-David]

... and thanks for fixing my spelling!