Skip to main content

Michael Eric Dyson asks, "Is Obama to blame for Trump - and the revival of white supremacist hate?" Mm, no...

In a recent Washington Post article, professor and activist Michael Eric Dyson asked the question, "Is Obama to blame for Trump - and the revival of white supremacist hate?" While I tend to respect Dyson and his viewpoints, I can't disagree more with this one. Here is the jist of what he wrote, to which I'll rebut:

"Yet Obama’s initial reluctance to address race, the outlines of which Baker briefly traces, left an interpretive void that was grievously, and gleefully, filled by his successor, who is all too eager to ply his poisonous perspective. Baker argues that Obama picked up the pace of race talk in his second term, but it may have been far too little, far too late. When it came to race, Obama, as he did in his foreign policy, led from behind.

But Obama’s time in office evoked a unique hatred that undoubtedly rested in race, if not alone, then at least primarily. No amount of ideological dispute or partisan disagreement could account for the relentless assault on his being president and on his being as president — there was an ontological raid on the idea that a body and brain like his should exist and have the nerve to darken the Oval Office. Obama tapped something deep and enduring in the American soul — some positive valve of renewable hopefulness that was improbably pitched against the horizon of American cynicism. By the same token, he pushed racial levers and buttons that seemed to irrationally infuriate and unite masses of white folk in opposition to his cause. Despite the celebrated multiracial coalition he summoned, the majority of white America never cast a vote for Obama.

And yet, as much damage as Trump has wrought, as perilous and vexing as his bitterly ignorant views on race manage to be, Obama must be held to account for failing to sow as widely as he might have the seeds of racial justice. That’s in part because he truly believed he was the smartest man in the room when it came to race — he was high on race-neutral policies that he thought would tame a skeptical public and raise black boats as the nation’s tide of prosperity rose. He kept his own counsel and refused to listen to challenging black voices that attacked his willfully oblivious or naive views.

It is a shame that he failed to engage race with the sensitivity, balance, candor, intricacy, insight and enormous comprehension of which he was capable. There were dire consequences when a man of superior talent failed to talk about race — though, it must be admitted, his supporters did him no favor by saying he was hemmed in and couldn’t speak about such things because it would upset white folk. That ignores how Obama’s very being, his very breath, his very body, upset white folk.

Obama’s refusal to admit that — and therefore, to offer our fatally fractured country the tough wisdom he might have given us had he surrendered the fantasy of massive white support — is a national tragedy. More tragic still is that his unwillingness for much of his term in office to talk about race left a derisive vacuum for a village idiot to slip right in and willingly spew vile unlearnedness. Baker may be right that Obama detested Trump as the 2016 campaign wore on, but the first black president must reckon with the fact that he helped put the greatest threat to his legacy in office."

I, like millions of other people, got sick the night Donald Trump was elected president of this country, and am embarrassed on a regular basis that he's the name and face representing us, but former President Barack Obama wasn't the reason for this.

First thing's first, it's not like Barack Obama broke the seemingly never-ending string of elections where Democrats won the white vote. Including this past year's election, Democrats have lost the white vote in thirteen consecutive elections. The last time they won said demographic was in 1964 when Lyndon B. Johnson defeated Barry Goldwater by the count of 59% to 41%. In the following thirteen elections, Republican nominees have averaged to win 55.5% of the white vote, while Democratic nominees have averaged to win 39.5%, a difference of 16.0%. Obama lost the white vote in the 2008 and 2012 elections by the average of 57.0% to 41.0%, which, at a difference of 16.0%, is par for the course.

Going beyond numbers, Barack Obama didn't prompt racism in this country. It's not like once our first black president gets elected to serve in the Oval Office, non-racists suddenly start blurting out the n-word, place on white hoods, and make it their life's mission to bring back slavery. Yes, closet-racists may have come out once Obama got inaugurated, but make no mistake about it, they had been racist prior to inauguration day.

In Obama's two election day victories, whites comprised between 70% and 75% of the electorate. Let's make no mistake about it, Barack Hussein Obama, the first black president, had an unusually fine line to walk on throughout his 8 years in office. When he tackled the subject of race (and he did at times), he was often derided by whites as being divisive, of playing the race card, and of only representing African-Americans. When he avoided said subject (this happened too at times), he would then get criticized by progressives, black progressives in particular, of lacking courage and strength. As he didn't want to make it seem as though he was ignoring a serious issue or a particular demographic, unlike any president before him, Obama had to find an almost impossible balancing act.

During election season, Barack Obama was one of Hillary Clinton's loudest and most popular cheerleaders. When he exited the Oval Office, his approval rating was near 60%, and what did he say throughout Secretary Clinton's campaign? "Don't boo, vote!" Democrats hold a rather significant advantage over Republicans when it comes to registered voters in this country, so if they come out and vote, they'll win elections, but that didn't happen on November 8th of last year. How could Obama have been faulted for that? Right-wing talk radio and Fox News have insulted the Clintons, Hillary in particular, for 20+ years, which had a significant impact on the public's opinion of the former First Lady. Again, how could Obama have been faulted for that? States led by Republican Governors (and state legislatures) have gerrymandered and suppressed their way to limiting Democratic turnout. Yet again, how could Obama have been faulted for that? Lastly, the mainstream media, which Donald Trump ironically lambasts for reporting "fake news," tended to treat the Republican nominee with kid gloves, while they attempted to consistently deliver the knockout blow on Ms. Clinton. How could Obama have been faulted for that?

Like every other president, Barack Obama wasn't perfect. The man is human, made mistakes, and as avid of a progressive as I may be, there were times I disagreed with his decisions. In saying all that, however, the man didn't help put Donald Trump into office. He's not responsible for a majority of Republican voters believing debunked conspiracy theories spouted by conservatively-biased websites and commentators. He's not responsible for an unpopular Democrat winning the party's nomination. He's not responsible for the media showcasing an almost constant double-standard for the two parties' nominees due to their level of experience in the world of politics (or lack there of). He's not responsible for those who were racist before his election continuing to be racist 8 years later. Donald Trump became president due to oligarchical trends and laws, a flawed system (electoral college), an antipathetic electorate, and an irresponsible media. Barack Obama may be a lot of things, but the man is not a wizard who can work magic at the drop of a hat. He did what he could. As the 44th president continually told liberals, moderates, and Democrats alike, "Don't boo, vote!" Unfortunately, too many did the former without doing the latter, and the end result is Donald Trump.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/08/us/eclipse-photos/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"