Norbook's Blog: Not Racist? You’re protesting too much!

[dennis4868]

One of the things that I took away from my time in the military was a strong distaste for ascribing statements or behavior to racism or bigotry. While the military is by no means perfect, in general as an institution it was one of the more merit-based and color/ethnic blind organizations. In my experience, a charge of prejudice was more often used as an excuse, not a reason. A number of years in that environment, and you come away with an unwillingness to think “racism” or “bigoted” at first. But, reluctantly, based on the evidence, I’ve come to the conclusion that the core of a lot of the criticism of the President, from both the Left and the Right is indeed motivated by racism.

I’ve already detailed what I’ve seen from the Right. The major difference there is that it’s much more blatant. But yes, it’s there on the Left as well. One has only to look at how African-Americans are treated on various “progressive” blogs. Constant attacks, dismissal of concerns, choices of language which often lurch into unacceptable territory. The constant attacks on the President, all couched in “concern” about a “progressive agenda” which, remarkably, doesn’t seem to be coherent agenda. In fact, they often turn around and attack him for doing something they themselves have called for. The constant, unrelenting look for things they can be angry with him about, and even the use of of various “dog whistles,” all lead to me to one conclusion: It’s based on his race.

I know that a lot of the frustrati and the “professional left” are going to go ballistic reading this because I’m calling them racists. That’s right, I’m saying that their reason for attacking this President is because of his race. They’re going to scream bloody blue murder about it. But you know why I think that? The Republicans are working to roll back women’s rights, unions, environmental protections, social programs, and education. Social Security and Medicare are being targeted. The programs and protections that progressives spent decades getting into place are being removed or weakened with startling speed. Do you see a real focus on this from the Professional Left and the Frustrati? Have they decided to spend most of their time going after Republicans? No, they’re still spending most of their time attacking the black President.

The rest is here...http://cendax.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/not-racist-youre-protesting-too-much/#more-2181

[DevonRex]

1. ICAM. Nt

[ReggieVeggie]

2. Validation!

Now EVERYbody who disagrees with Obama for any reason is a racist! WOo hoo!!

[jpgray]

3. Obama to Harry Belafonte: "Why don't you and Cornel West cut me some slack?"

Belafonte: "What makes you think we didn’t already?"

The left is only suspiciously hateful toward Obama to those incurious souls that never followed politics until his election, or those who have an agenda of some kind. Where's Obama's Seattle? Nowhere. Where is Obama on unions, environmental protection, social programs, education? Nowhere. Quite similar to Clinton in those respects--nibbling at, ignoring or exacerbating the endemic problems of that sort, his chief virtue being that he is immeasurably superior to the GOP.

Racism isn't necessary to explain even the more unhinged criticism from the left, as it hasn't risen anywhere near Clinton-era leftist protest, even in the midst of the all-fronts disaster in which we find ourselves. Might racism play a role? Sure. For some it undoubtedly does, even as for others it undoubtedly doesn't. The only explanation for leftist hate toward Obama? Please.

[Igel]

4. In other words...

When all the reasons that the writer can think of have been ruled out, racism is the default reason.

It assumes that the writer has considered all the possible reasons people might have for disagreeing with Obama, and that anti-black racism really is an underlying unifying motive on right and left, presumably not just on the part of white people but on the part of everybody that doesn't support Obama.

How's this: A lot of people had very high expectations of Obama, higher than they had for * or even Clinton. He failed to live up to his expectations, either because they had unreasonably high expectations in the first place or because he developed clay feet and failed to completely live up to reasonable expectations. This would allow him to do 90% of what they wanted and *still* have them bash him for failing to live up to their expectations.

This the writer would probably cast as the "hard bigotry of high expectations." Personally, I think it undermines his entire premise.