Harris-Perry is right in little ways, and wrong in a big way

[jpgray]

She's right that Obama is being held to a higher standard than Clinton. She's also correct that Obama is better than Clinton on any number of issues. Being different from Clinton, he is also worse on a few issues, and about the same on the rest. There is always going to be a racial component to criticism of a black president from whites, and if there's anything easier than painting white liberal intellectuals as a bunch of pajama-wearing effete cocktail-sipping children out of touch with the black experience, I don't know what that would be.

She's wrong, though, that any of the above is necessary for harsh criticism of Obama, or damaging to it. More is asked of Obama than Clinton because these times demand more than the typical conservative Democratic dithering. Obama is no worse than Clinton, but so much worse than what we need that harsh criticism needs no racial impetus. You can be at once better than Clinton and bad--hard to believe for some, but true. The standard for good presidents is not a set containing Bill Clinton, least of all now.

A marginally more liberal Clinton isn't anything like what is necessary. The rich can't save jobs or anything worth saving if it does not generate a profit. Demand is so low that the opportunity to profit by investment and hiring, or even maintaining current employment and capacity, is almost nonexistent. So the rich hoard cash, bonds, securities, empty factories, offices, homes--they do not hoard employees. Yet here we have a president who, like Clinton, believes that job creation comes from the confident rich flush with resources. Though they are even now flush with resources and still remain incapable of saving anything worth saving, he wishes to give them yet more resources. That's no worse than Clinton, but it is catastrophically worse than what we need right now.

The worst argument I've ever heard goes something like this: You can't demand anything much of a president faced with terroristic opposition, a divided party, unfair media, careless industry, expensive campaigns, captured regulators and a nation full of the miserable and suffering.

Isn't that precisely the time to demand more? When what we have falls so far short of what we require? If we can't demand heroic efforts when times are miserable and getting worse, how do we stop things from getting worse still?

By this logic, every future group of Democrats we elect (after 2016, if you like) will have less expected of them, presumably, so long as we are in worse shape than we are today. So long as we need more and more effort from our leaders, we should demand less and less of it.

This has never made sense to me.

[villager]

1. very well articulated, indeed

:thumbsup:

[ProSense]

2. Problem

She's right that Obama is being held to a higher standard than Clinton. She's also correct that Obama is better than Clinton on any number of issues. Being different from Clinton, he is also worse on a few issues, and about the same on the rest. There is always going to be a racial component to criticism of a black president from whites, and if there's anything easier than painting white liberal intellectuals as a bunch of pajama-wearing effete cocktail-sipping children out of touch with the black experience, I don't know what that would be.

She's wrong, though, that any of the above is necessary for harsh criticism of Obama, or damaging to it...

Perry didn't say anything about what's necessary for harsh criticism of Obama. She simply pointed out a double standard.

It seems everyone trying to dismiss her argument is trying to make it about a generalization when she was very specific in criticizing those who hold Obama to a higher standard than Clinton.

[jpgray]

3. There is a perfectly fair double standard available which has nothing to do with race

Namely that these times are far worse and more miserable than Clinton's. Herbert Hoover was held to a far higher standard than Coolidge, but would anyone argue there weren't perfectly fair reasons for doing so?

I don't know whether critics are motivated by a racial double standard, but the temporal one suffices for shrill criticism. If standards don't change between a time of lazy complacency and one of total crisis and misery, that would be very strange.

[ProSense]

5. Also, this

from the OP is false.

Yet here we have a president who, like Clinton, believes that job creation comes from the confident rich flush with resources. Though they are even now flush with resources and still remain incapable of saving anything worth saving, he wishes to give them yet more resources. That's no worse than Clinton, but it is catastrophically worse than what we need right now.

Still, after reading this:

Namely that these times are far worse and more miserable than Clinton's. Herbert Hoover was held to a far higher standard than Coolidge, but would anyone argue there weren't perfectly fair reasons for doing so?

...it appears you're mischaracterizing Perry's point to further your own argument.

[jpgray]

6. It would help if you pointed out what was specifically false or mischaracterized

I'm going in the above post on your characterization, that Harris-Perry was simply pointing out a double standard. My point is that a double standard can exist that is at once fair and not at all based on race.

[ProSense]

7. Hmmmm?

"My point is that a double standard can exist that is at once fair and not at all based on race."

A "fair" double standard? Really?

[jpgray]

8. Yes. The standards of action in a peaceful house and one burning down are different

Actions are expected in one case that are not expected in the other. A fair difference in expectations, I think.

[ProSense]

9. Do

"Yes. The standards of action in a peaceful house and one burning down are different Actions are expected in one case that are not expected in the other."

...you understand what a double standard is? It's not about different situations requiring different actions.

[jpgray]

10. If that's true, it is impossible for there to be a double standard as Harris Perry suggests

Obama and Clinton were elected president in "different situations, requiring different actions." You say there can be no double standard in that scenario?

I don't agree. There can be a racial double standard where Obama and Clinton find themselves in comparable situations.

There is no comparison, however, between today and the Clinton years regarding our crisis of employment, which demands urgent economic reforms more than ever. Obama will be blamed more than Clinton for proposing Clinton-style economic policy that fails to address the core problems, precisely for that reason.

The core problems existed for Clinton, but were not yet harming so many people so badly. When so many more are suffering so much more, it is no wonder that a failure to act attracts more blame than similar failures in the past.

There could still be a racial double standard there--you would have to argue Clinton would have attracted less blame than Obama had he done the same things in Obama's circumstances. You can make that argument, I think. But that Clinton was held to a lower standard than Obama is today can be explained quite simply by the fact that far more is required of Obama today than was ever required of Clinton.

[ProSense]

11. Thanks

"If that's true, it is impossible for there to be a double standard as Harris Perry suggests"

...for proving that you don't understand what a double standard is have no idea what Perry was talking about.

"I don't agree. There can be a racial double standard where Obama and Clinton find themselves in comparable situations."

Is this supposed to be your proof of a "fair" double standard?

[jpgray]

15. You're a bit confused

...you understand what a double standard is? It's not about different situations requiring different actions.

Obama and Clinton were elected in different situations requiring different actions. By your definition, it is impossible for there to be a double standard in this case.

But you're wrong, of course. If Clinton would be blamed less in Obama's circumstances doing what Obama is doing, then there would be a double standard. That isn't Harry Perry's argument. Her argument is that Clinton was blamed less than Obama, even though Obama is no worse than Clinton.

But so much more is required of Obama than was required of Clinton. So many more people are suffering and angry. Times are so much more desperate. Obama could be a hundred times the president Clinton was and still be blamed far more than Clinton, simply because the lazy complacency of the Clinton years was less inexcusable for people then than it is now.

Had Clinton himself been magically elected in '08, far more would be required of him than was required of him in '93-'01. For the same weak policy, he would receive more blame, simply because times are more desperate and far more is required. That isn't a double standard, or if it is, it's a fair one.

[ProSense]

16. This

Obama and Clinton were elected in different situations requiring different actions. By your definition, it is impossible for there to be a double standard in this case.

But you're wrong, of course. If Clinton would be blamed less in Obama's circumstances doing what Obama is doing, then there would be a double standard. That isn't Harry Perry's argument. Her argument is that Clinton was blamed less than Obama, even though Obama is no worse than Clinton.

But so much more is required of Obama than was required of Clinton. So many more people are suffering and angry. Times are so much more desperate. Obama could be a hundred times the president Clinton was and still be blamed far more than Clinton, simply because the lazy complacency of the Clinton years was less inexcusable for people then than it is now.

Had Clinton himself been magically elected in '08, far more would be required of him than was required of him in '93-'01. For the same weak policy, he would receive more blame, simply because times are more desperate and far more is required. That isn't a double standard, or if it is, it's a fair one.

...makes no sense, and I suggest you read Perry's commentary, which isn't about expectations, it's about criticism using a double standard.

[ProSense]

13. And to your other point

"The core problems existed for Clinton, but were not yet harming so many people so badly. When so many more are suffering so much more, it is no wonder that a failure to act attracts more blame than similar failures in the past."

Perry's commentary has nothing to do with what people thought of Clinton during his Presidency.

[jpgray]

17. Now I'm convinced you haven't even read the article

Actions of Obama compared to actions of Clinton's during his presidency:

The relevant comparison here is with the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton. Today many progressives complain that Obama’s healthcare reform was inadequate because it did not include a public option; but Clinton failed to pass any kind of meaningful healthcare reform whatsoever. Others argue that Obama has been slow to push for equal rights for gay Americans; but it was Clinton who established the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy Obama helped repeal. Still others are angry about appalling unemployment rates for black Americans; but while overall unemployment was lower under Clinton, black unemployment was double that of whites during his term, as it is now. And, of course, Clinton supported and signed welfare “reform,” cutting off America’s neediest despite the nation’s economic growth.

Direct comparison of what people thought of Clinton at the time of his presidency, and what people think of Obama at the time of his:

In 1996 President Clinton was re-elected with a coalition more robust and a general election result more favorable than his first win. His vote share among women increased from 46 to 53 percent, among blacks from 83 to 84 percent, among independents from 38 to 42 percent, and among whites from 39 to 43 percent.

President Obama has experienced a swift and steep decline in support among white Americans—from 61 percent in 2009 to 33 percent now. I believe much of that decline can be attributed to their disappointment that choosing a black man for president did not prove to be salvific for them or the nation. His record is, at the very least, comparable to that of President Clinton, who was enthusiastically re-elected. The 2012 election is a test of whether Obama will be held to standards never before imposed on an incumbent. If he is, it may be possible to read that result as the triumph of a more subtle form of racism.

How does this have nothing to do with what people thought of Clinton during his presidency?

[ProSense]

19. Do

The relevant comparison here is with the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton. Today many progressives complain that Obama’s healthcare reform was inadequate because it did not include a public option; but Clinton failed to pass any kind of meaningful healthcare reform whatsoever. Others argue that Obama has been slow to push for equal rights for gay Americans; but it was Clinton who established the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy Obama helped repeal. Still others are angry about appalling unemployment rates for black Americans; but while overall unemployment was lower under Clinton, black unemployment was double that of whites during his term, as it is now. And, of course, Clinton supported and signed welfare “reform,” cutting off America’s neediest despite the nation’s economic growth.

...you understand that is specifically the double standard? And this is simply background information related to re-election:

In 1996 President Clinton was re-elected with a coalition more robust and a general election result more favorable than his first win. His vote share among women increased from 46 to 53 percent, among blacks from 83 to 84 percent, among independents from 38 to 42 percent, and among whites from 39 to 43 percent.

President Obama has experienced a swift and steep decline in support among white Americans—from 61 percent in 2009 to 33 percent now. I believe much of that decline can be attributed to their disappointment that choosing a black man for president did not prove to be salvific for them or the nation. His record is, at the very least, comparable to that of President Clinton, who was enthusiastically re-elected. The 2012 election is a test of whether Obama will be held to standards never before imposed on an incumbent. If he is, it may be possible to read that result as the triumph of a more subtle form of racism.

[jpgray]

20. Man, she explicitly says the test will be whether Obama is re-elected as Clinton was!

It's impossible for you to be so obtuse that you would say Harris Perry bases her argument not at all on what people thought of Clinton at the time of his presidency, and yet also be talking about an article that includes these lines:

His record is, at the very least, comparable to that of President Clinton, who was enthusiastically re-elected. The 2012 election is a test of whether Obama will be held to standards never before imposed on an incumbent. If he is, it may be possible to read that result as the triumph of a more subtle form of racism.

Harris Perry misses the obvious answer to this--that Obama may be held to standards never before imposed on an incumbent, but it needn't be due to racism. There is also the fact that he is faced with a unique crisis never before imposed on an incumbent, demanding more from an incumbent than we have in the last seventy years.

[ProSense]

21. OK

It's impossible for you to be so obtuse that you would say Harris Perry bases her argument not at all on what people thought of Clinton at the time of his presidency, and yet also be talking about an article that includes these lines:

His record is, at the very least, comparable to that of President Clinton, who was enthusiastically re-elected. The 2012 election is a test of whether Obama will be held to standards never before imposed on an incumbent. If he is, it may be possible to read that result as the triumph of a more subtle form of racism.

Harris Perry misses the obvious answer to this--that Obama may be held to standards never before imposed on an incumbent, but it needn't be due to racism. There is also the fact that he is faced with a unique crisis never before imposed on an incumbent, demanding more from an incumbent than we have in the last seventy years.

What does pointing out that criticism employing a double standard shouldn't be used to justify abandoning Obama have to do with the fact that there is a double standard?

That's the whole point of shining a light on the hypocrisy. Did you expect her to bring up this point for no particular reason?

[Bake]

28. In that case, it's NOT a "double standard" and Harris-Perry is wrong to call it that.

YOu want to see a double standard. Some of us see a radically different historical context, one that demands much much more from a Democratic President.

I contend it's NOT a double standard.

Bake

[Ignis]

23. "It seems everyone ... is trying to make it about a generalization"

I'll take Unintentional Irony for $500, Alex.

[ProSense]

25. Um

It seems everyone ... is trying to make it about a generalization"

I'll take Unintentional Irony for $500, Alex.

...where's the irony in my statement:

"It seems everyone trying to dismiss her argument is trying to make it about a generalization when she was very specific in criticizing those who hold Obama to a higher standard than Clinton."

Are you implying that everyone dismissing her statement isn't accusing her of attacking all "white liberal" critics? If there is anyone rejecting that premise, and the OP does not (completely inaccurate characterization of Perry's point: "She's wrong, though, that any of the above is necessary for harsh criticism of Obama, or damaging to it."), on the basis that there is simply no double standard among "white liberal" critics, that too is a generalization dimisses the evidence to the contrary.

[Ignis]

29. Oh my. What strangely stilted sentence aggregation.

I'm ... flattered, Eliza, but I'm not yet willing to risk the Singularity by responding to the bait.

:dilemma:

If I say I'll vote for PBO in 2012, will you invoke the less aggressive subroutines?

:hi:

[Peregrine Took]

4. 'Couldnt disagree more. I used to really like her, now, due to her weird

view on things (liberal whites holding Obama to a higher standard) I can't stand her. Just paranoid.

I liked Clinton pre-election and was sorely disappointed in him as president. Same thing with Obama. Race was never a factor.

Besides, I'm a progressive and not a liberal in that I don't hold typical knee jerk liberal principles.

[dennis4868]

12. she's way smarter than us...

she's right IN EVERYWAY! :-)

[BeyondGeography]

14. Agreed...These are desperate times

Conservatives, or whatever you want to call these game players on the Right, brought us here and need to be discredited and defeated. Until a few weeks ago, Obama did not govern and/or use the power of the White House accordingly. That's where the criticism comes from.

[bullwinkle428]

18. K&R for some extremely well-made points.

[Supersedeas]

24. I'll second that.

[Tarheel_Dem]

22. Unrec.

:hi:

[Marnie]

26. Fact free.

"She's right that Obama is being held to a higher standard than Clinton."
Facts to substantiate are strangely lacking.

Clinton's poll numbers sank steadily and were down in the low forties and I think even into the 30's for a while. When Ken Starr and and the Republicans showed themselves to be major league bullies, Clinton's numbers began to rise and continued to rise pretty much till the end of his second term.

Obama keeps pushing his base away, that is his choice, and the result is that he has pushed us away.
It's just that simple, it was his decision and Perry should honor his decision.

She needs to remember that we Whities chose to vote for Obama. If we had bee racist we would have voted for McCain or a third party candidate of just stayed home.
All she is doing is pushing us further away by continuing the insults.

Hey fine. If we are no longer invited to your party we won't come, but don't expect a present from us.

[yardwork]

27. Very good points. I cut Harris-Perry slack because she's an academic

and their role is to analyze things to the nth degree. Her column was in many ways not about Obama or this election. It was about a much bigger issue.

In terms of the election, Harris-Perry's column is not a good blueprint for a campaign strategy, and I hope that Obama's reelection team understands that. Unfortunately, there's quite a bit of evidence that this IS Obama's campaign strategy, not limited just to accusing people of racism but pretty much accusing the entire Democratic spectrum of being wrong. "Eat your peas" is lousy politics. Letting your spokespeople tell your base that their ideas are "fucking retarded" is even worse.

Will Obama turn this around? I hope so, because I really don't want President Romney.