Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
A different, unexpected racial argument has taken shape. Race, always the deepest and most volatile fault line in American history, has now become the primal grievance in our politics, the source of a narrative of persecution each side uses to make sense of the world. Liberals dwell in a world of paranoia of a white racism that has seeped out of American history in the Obama years and lurks everywhere, mostly undetectable. Conservatives dwell in a paranoia of their own, in which racism is used as a cudgel to delegitimize their core beliefs. And the horrible thing is that both of these forms of paranoia are right.
By the outset of Obamas presidency, they found, the gap in approval of the president between those with strongly liberal views on race and those with strongly conservative views on race was at least twice as large as it had been under any of the previous four administrations. As Tesler delved further into the numbers, he saw that race was bleeding into everything. Peoples views on race predicted their views on health-care reform far more closely in 2009 than they did in 1993, when the president trying to reform health care was Bill Clinton. Tesler called what he saw unfurling before him a hyperracialized era.
In recent history, racial liberals have sometimes had conservative views on other matters, and racial conservatives have sometimes had liberal views. Consider another measure, called anti-black affect, a kind of thermometer that registers coldness toward African-Americans. Prior to 2009, anti-black affect did not predict an individuals political identification (when factoring out that persons economic, moral, and foreign-policy conservatism). Since Obama has taken office, the correlation between anti-black affect and Republican partisanship has shot up. Even peoples beliefs about whether the unemployment rate was rising or falling in 2012which, in previous years, had stood independent of racial baggagewere now closely linked with their racial beliefs.
No, it wasn't. And that is how I know you didn't read the article.
FACT= 95% of blacks that voted cast their vote for Obama.
The vast majority did it for one reason- because he is black.
If whites did the same would that be racist?
This has been Obama’s M.O.: focus on “the more important things.” He’s had to deal explicitly with race in a few excruciating instances, like the 2009 “beer summit” with the black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, a friend of Obama’s, and James Crowley, the police sergeant responsible for Gates’s controversial arrest. (Obama’s response to the incident was telling: He positioned himself not as an ally of Gates but as a mediator between the two, as equally capable of relating to the white man’s perspective as the black man’s.)
I agree with what iamwhatiseems says about "predetermined study".
A passage from that article:
This has been Obamas M.O.: focus on the more important things. Hes had to deal explicitly with race in a few excruciating instances, like the 2009 beer summit with the black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, a friend of Obamas, and James Crowley, the police sergeant responsible for Gatess controversial arrest. (Obamas response to the incident was telling: He positioned himself not as an ally of Gates but as a mediator between the two, as equally capable of relating to the white mans perspective as the black mans.)
Obama's response was to admit that he didn't know the facts of the event, which should lead someone with Obama's responsibility and understanding the law to not comment further, but instead Obama felt comfortable declaring that the police officer acted stupidly.
Obama's response was telling indeed, and not what the author claims.
There are other passages in the article which made me go WTF, but this one stands out as the most demonstrably revisionist and biased.
I agree with what iamwhatiseem says about "predetermined study".
A passage from that article:
This has been Obamas M.O.: focus on the more important things. Hes had to deal explicitly with race in a few excruciating instances, like the 2009 beer summit with the black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, a friend of Obamas, and James Crowley, the police sergeant responsible for Gatess controversial arrest. (Obamas response to the incident was telling: He positioned himself not as an ally of Gates but as a mediator between the two, as equally capable of relating to the white mans perspective as the black mans.)
Obama's response was to admit that he didn't know the facts of the event, which should lead someone with Obama's responsibility and understanding of the law to not comment further, but instead Obama felt comfortable declaring that the police officer acted stupidly.
Obama's response was telling indeed, and not what the author claims.
There are other passages in the article which made me go WTF, but this one stands out as the most demonstrably revisionist and biased.
Why Race Has Been the Real Story of Obama's Presidency All Along -- New York Magazine
A different, unexpected racial argument has taken shape. Race, always the deepest and most volatile fault line in American history, has now become the primal grievance in our politics, the source of a narrative of persecution each side uses to make sense of the world. Liberals dwell in a world of paranoia of a white racism that has seeped out of American history in the Obama years and lurks everywhere, mostly undetectable. Conservatives dwell in a paranoia of their own, in which racism is used as a cudgel to delegitimize their core beliefs. And the horrible thing is that both of these forms of paranoia are right.
Excellent article, but it's seven pages long so if you're interested, you'll need to set aside some time.
By the outset of Obamas presidency, they found, the gap in approval of the president between those with strongly liberal views on race and those with strongly conservative views on race was at least twice as large as it had been under any of the previous four administrations. As Tesler delved further into the numbers, he saw that race was bleeding into everything. Peoples views on race predicted their views on health-care reform far more closely in 2009 than they did in 1993, when the president trying to reform health care was Bill Clinton. Tesler called what he saw unfurling before him a hyperracialized era.
In recent history, racial liberals have sometimes had conservative views on other matters, and racial conservatives have sometimes had liberal views. Consider another measure, called anti-black affect, a kind of thermometer that registers coldness toward African-Americans. Prior to 2009, anti-black affect did not predict an individuals political identification (when factoring out that persons economic, moral, and foreign-policy conservatism). Since Obama has taken office, the correlation between anti-black affect and Republican partisanship has shot up. Even peoples beliefs about whether the unemployment rate was rising or falling in 2012which, in previous years, had stood independent of racial baggagewere now closely linked with their racial beliefs.
Why Race Has Been the Real Story of Obama's Presidency All Along -- New York Magazine
A different, unexpected racial argument has taken shape. Race, always the deepest and most volatile fault line in American history, has now become the primal grievance in our politics, the source of a narrative of persecution each side uses to make sense of the world. Liberals dwell in a world of paranoia of a white racism that has seeped out of American history in the Obama years and lurks everywhere, mostly undetectable. Conservatives dwell in a paranoia of their own, in which racism is used as a cudgel to delegitimize their core beliefs. And the horrible thing is that both of these forms of paranoia are right.
Excellent article, but it's seven pages long so if you're interested, you'll need to set aside some time.
By the outset of Obamas presidency, they found, the gap in approval of the president between those with strongly liberal views on race and those with strongly conservative views on race was at least twice as large as it had been under any of the previous four administrations. As Tesler delved further into the numbers, he saw that race was bleeding into everything. Peoples views on race predicted their views on health-care reform far more closely in 2009 than they did in 1993, when the president trying to reform health care was Bill Clinton. Tesler called what he saw unfurling before him a hyperracialized era.
In recent history, racial liberals have sometimes had conservative views on other matters, and racial conservatives have sometimes had liberal views. Consider another measure, called anti-black affect, a kind of thermometer that registers coldness toward African-Americans. Prior to 2009, anti-black affect did not predict an individuals political identification (when factoring out that persons economic, moral, and foreign-policy conservatism). Since Obama has taken office, the correlation between anti-black affect and Republican partisanship has shot up. Even peoples beliefs about whether the unemployment rate was rising or falling in 2012which, in previous years, had stood independent of racial baggagewere now closely linked with their racial beliefs.
What about this article did you find to be "excellent?"
I read the article- it is poorly written trash.
Obama is incompetent. His policies do not work. He is a liar.
I don't care that Obama is half black.
Yet here is the point where, for all its breadth and analytic power, the liberal racial analysis collapses onto itself. It may be true that, at the level of electoral campaign messaging, conservatism and white racial resentment are functionally identical. It would follow that any conservative argument is an appeal to white racism. That is, indeed, the all-but-explicit conclusion of the ubiquitous Atwater Rosetta-stone confession: Republican politics is fundamentally racist, and even its use of the most abstract economic appeal is a sinister, coded missive.
Impressive though the historical, sociological, and psychological evidence undergirding this analysis may be, it also happens to be completely insane. Whatever Lee Atwater said, or meant to say, advocating tax cuts is not in any meaningful sense racist.
I read the article- it is poorly written trash.
Obama is incompetent. His policies do not work. He is a liar.
I don't care that Obama is half black.
Most of the article had nothing to do with Obama. Having read the article, I can't help wondering how you could ignore all the information I found interesting. For example.
Yet here is the point where, for all its breadth and analytic power, the liberal racial analysis collapses onto itself. It may be true that, at the level of electoral campaign messaging, conservatism and white racial resentment are functionally identical. It would follow that any conservative argument is an appeal to white racism. That is, indeed, the all-but-explicit conclusion of the ubiquitous Atwater Rosetta-stone confession: Republican politics is fundamentally racist, and even its use of the most abstract economic appeal is a sinister, coded missive.
Impressive though the historical, sociological, and psychological evidence undergirding this analysis may be, it also happens to be completely insane. Whatever Lee Atwater said, or meant to say, advocating tax cuts is not in any meaningful sense racist.
I think it would be a bit silly to think that the first black president who had tremendous support from the black vote would not make racial issues and important part of his presidency.Why Race Has Been the Real Story of Obama's Presidency All Along -- New York Magazine
A different, unexpected racial argument has taken shape. Race, always the deepest and most volatile fault line in American history, has now become the primal grievance in our politics, the source of a narrative of persecution each side uses to make sense of the world. Liberals dwell in a world of paranoia of a white racism that has seeped out of American history in the Obama years and lurks everywhere, mostly undetectable. Conservatives dwell in a paranoia of their own, in which racism is used as a cudgel to delegitimize their core beliefs. And the horrible thing is that both of these forms of paranoia are right.
Excellent article, but it's seven pages long so if you're interested, you'll need to set aside some time.
By the outset of Obama’s presidency, they found, the gap in approval of the president between those with strongly liberal views on race and those with strongly conservative views on race was at least twice as large as it had been under any of the previous four administrations. As Tesler delved further into the numbers, he saw that race was bleeding into everything. People’s views on race predicted their views on health-care reform far more closely in 2009 than they did in 1993, when the president trying to reform health care was Bill Clinton. Tesler called what he saw unfurling before him a “hyperracialized era.”
In recent history, racial liberals have sometimes had conservative views on other matters, and racial conservatives have sometimes had liberal views. Consider another measure, called “anti-black affect,” a kind of thermometer that registers coldness toward African-Americans. Prior to 2009, anti-black affect did not predict an individual’s political identification (when factoring out that person’s economic, moral, and foreign-policy conservatism). Since Obama has taken office, the correlation between anti-black affect and Republican partisanship has shot up. Even people’s beliefs about whether the unemployment rate was rising or falling in 2012—which, in previous years, had stood independent of racial baggage—were now closely linked with their racial beliefs.
