Racialist Presidencies; Two of 'em.

Discussion in 'Race Relations/Racism' started by PoliticalChic, Nov 6, 2011.

  1. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,784
    Thanks Received:
    15,651
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,955
    Here we are, exactly one year out, just one more year of an Obama presidency.
    In light of this probability, it’s more than interesting to note that President Obama represents the proximate progressive, with President Woodrow Wilson, the most remote progressive President.

    An interesting connection…or, possibly, a disconnect between the two is their individual view of race.

    1. "As with many intellectuals, he allowed his power worship to alter his analysis, and his sympathies came down on the side of great men who broke with traditional restraints on their power: two of his biggest heroes were Otto von Bismarck and Abraham Lincoln. Odd, in fact, since Wilson believed that giving blacks the right to vote was “the foundation of every evil in this country.”
    Comment for the_green_war_on_children - 1129493

    2. “…in sharp contrast with President Calvin Coolidge’s call for religious and
    racial toleration during the 1924 election campaign,Wilson did much to implement an agenda that socially constructed racial categories, enforced racial disparity, advanced racial stigma, diminished human liberty and ultimately placed a regulatory drag on
    the economy.” http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/publications/working_papers/1128WagingWar.pdf

    3.” Matching this intuition, it was no accident that the resegregation of the U.S. Civil Service was brought about under Wilson’s Progressive regime.” Epstein, “HOW PROGRESSIVES REWROTE THE CONSTITUTION,” p. 102.

    The, as though the coda to progressivism, along comes a President with the very opposite of designs for black Americans.

    4. “As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama sold himself as the antidote to America’s enduring racial infirmities. Many Americans believed Mr. Obama’s election heralded a new era of post-racial political and societal progress. Identity politics would begin to fade into irrelevance; America’s festering race wounds would begin to heal. America, united under its first black president, would now explore new and better frontiers in race relations. They were wrong. Rather than soothe old wounds and diffuse racial tensions by avoiding race-based politics, America’s president is making them worse.” America’s Racial Time Bomb Is Ticking | theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God

    5. Victor Davis Hanson has written of Obama’s emphasis on racial identity, and has knowingly, perhaps intentionally, inflamed racial wounds:

    a. “…. we learned that Obama was not terribly disturbed to hear that his attorney general had lambasted the American people as “cowards” for not engaging in yet more national conversations on race — which in the past have not proven to be honest and painful discussions that touched on black responsibilities as well as civil rights. He tsk-tsked Judge Sotomayor’s racialist comments about the innate superiority of Latina judges over their white counterparts — although the unfortunate remark occurred at least five times, in both written and oral contexts, and was part of a brief speech in which she managed to reference herself as a Latina/Latino dozens of times.” What Happened to Our Postracial President? - Victor Davis Hanson - National Review Online

    b. “From time to time, a voice of near-antipathy in Obama erupted, as in his infamous “clingers” speech about the lower-middle-class supposed know-nothings of Pennsylvania, or in his dismissal of the grandmother who raised him as a “typical white person.” Before Michelle Obama grew silent, she managed to tell America that it was a “downright mean” country,…” Op.cit.

    6. No clearer indication of the racialist notions that this President brought with him than the current Department of Justice. This, from J. Christopher Adams’ book “Injustice:”

    a. If we had that frank, truthful discussion about race, we’d learn that the Obama administration doesn’t believe some civil rights laws protect every American. The Bush Civil Rights Division was willing to protect all Americans from racial discrimination; during the Obama years, the Holder years, only some Americans will be protected. Americans have a right to know and judge the racial policies of the administration they elected in 2008… Hostility pervaded the Voting Section…Some said that unless whites were victims of historic discrimination, they shouldn’t be protected….Because whites were better off than blacks in Mississippi, no lawsuit should be allowed to protect whites, they argued.

    So, the first Progressive President, anti-black. The current one, anti-white. No doubt there will be a future scholarly work comparing these two men, their likes and dislikes….
     
  2. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    41,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,933
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +23,869
    Pity you spend so much of your time exhibiting your ignorance and hate; you’re not a stupid woman, clearly – actually quite intelligent. It’s just sad you waste your efforts and intellect twisting facts and contriving nonsensical conspiracies from discredited sources with a definite rightist bias.

    Sad indeed.
     
  3. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,784
    Thanks Received:
    15,651
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,955
    Well, thanks for the kind words...I think.


    I note that you didn't find any errors in the OP...what do you suppose that means, Jonesy?

    Now, as for "...exhibiting your ignorance and hate;..."
    I don't believe I hate anyone....could you document same?
    And while you're at it....my 'ignorance'? Of what?
    Certainly not of Wilson, or of Obama.....

    ....both are racialist, no?
    And President Obama mislead the electorate as to his being an anodyne...not true?

    ...or did I miss something?

    (Pssst...and even though you disagree with 'em, you know my posts are interesting...c'mon, admit it.)
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2011
  4. zzzz
    Offline

    zzzz Just a regular American

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    Messages:
    3,072
    Thanks Received:
    422
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Yountsville
    Ratings:
    +429
    :offtopic::offtopic:

    I would say, looking at the race for Presidency with a neutral eye, that this is a mere possibility not a probability based on the continued polling that shows Obama leading the Republicans running for his office.

    Speaking of Wilson though, he invaded so many countries during his reign. The one most people are unaware of is that we invaded Russia at one time.
    Ode to Woodrow Wilson | UT Watch on the Web
     
  5. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,784
    Thanks Received:
    15,651
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,955
    1. "Emblematic of Wilson’s approach to race was his advocacy of progressive
    “imperialism ‘in order to subjugate and thereby elevate lesser races.’


    2. Further, Progressives such as Wilson and John Dewey beleived that militarism would drive the individualism out of Americans.

    Not much differenct from the National Socialists of Germany.



    Now, zzzz, if you had to bet today, a year out...would you bet on Obama?
     
  6. zzzz
    Offline

    zzzz Just a regular American

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    Messages:
    3,072
    Thanks Received:
    422
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Yountsville
    Ratings:
    +429
    I was thinking a year ago that the economy would be such a dead-weight on Obama that he would withdraw from the election (Johnson - Vietnam in '68) and Hillary would take the party into the election. Its still not too late for that, remember Johnson did not withdraw till after the primaries started.

    But I also expected the Republicans to have some viable candidates running too. All of them look flawed. Right now I would say its a coin flip. Once the Repubs get one candidate the party faithful will coalesce behind them. The Republicans face a potential Goldwater aspect that some candidates may be too scary for most of the people who do vote.

    Would I bet on any of them? No.
     
  7. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,784
    Thanks Received:
    15,651
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,955
    "Its still not too late for that..."
    This is my greatest fear!
    This guy has not a chance to be reelected, even if the Republicans dig Goldwater up and run him as a write-in....
    ...but if they insert a real candidate, that's a whole new ball-game.
    (But Intrade puts the chance at 6.5%)

    The general rule is, if the incumbent is below 50%, undecided's go for the challenger.

    "...some candidates may be too scary..."
    And, of course, this is a function of the Old Left Media providing air cover for the Democrat, and being 'horrified' by whomsoever the Republicans run.

    But the usual "he's dumb," and "he's a racist," are getting a bit long in the tooth.

    I believe that this time the 'perfect storm' works against the Dems....the economy, the disrepute of the media, the incompetence of the candidate they trumpeted as the second coming, and the growing violence among the OWS fabricated movement....
     

Share This Page