[ad_1]
In Conservative Shocked to Discover Obama Does not Hate Whites, @ NYMag.com, Jonathan Chait tackles the reaction of a different kind of conservative than the neo-con type whose Boot has always been, similar to Bill Kristol , which sort of illuminates a crucial difference for me.
This guy from Jim Geraghty, "Senior Political Correspondent" at the National Review, appears to be a street-fighting type of politician who has been heavily involved in creating the fake cartoon of Obama for Fox News and conservative radio a liberal bogeyman. And now they are lying that the Obama caricature they made for purposes of political propaganda was not real
The defense of the former president's liberalism included a defense of universalism, unlike a tendency of left to essentialize all thought. by his level of privilege. "Democracy demands that we also be able to enter into the reality of people who are different from us so that we can understand their point of view …" he argued. "And you can not do it if you insist that those who are not like you – because they are white, or because they are men – that they do not understand this. That I feel, that they "
The way for conservatives to recognize the allure of Obama 's speech was to emphasize that it' s only the same. contrasted with his behavior as president
"Of course … it is the president who made Al Sharpton his" go-to man on race "and who said that Latinos had to" punish "their" Enemies, "writes Jim Geraghty of National Review ." It's great that Obama realizes that identity politics can be corrosive to civil society and that they can balkanize a once prosperous and relatively harmonious society. It would have just been good to hear this wisdom from a president instead of an ex-president. "
In fact, Obama said the same things over and over during his presidency. (For examples, see here, here, here and here.)
Geraghty's examples hardly establish that Obama dedicates his presidency to stir up hatred against whites.
I think that serious neo-conservatives like Boot and Kristol have always known Obama has of course integrated universalist themes in his appeal from the very beginning, in beginning with his opening speech to the Democratic Convention 2004, through his 2008 speech on race, to his 2015 speech commemorating the 50th anniversary of the March on Selma, which placed the struggle for civil rights in the heart of American history.The very idea that Obama was elected twice, and left the office with a 60% approval rating, attacking the racial group that accounts for 70% of the electorate is absurd at first sight. would it be for Obama to attack the constituency that provided the majority of his votes in 2008 and 2012?
They simply do not agree with him on some points of foreign policy and perhaps economic policy. IE, Obama says that he's not against all wars, just stupid wars, and they disagreed, they thought some of those wars were not so stupid.
What comes to my mind is one of my favorite topics. It does not really seem to serve our political body properly. It has always seemed to me that real neo-conservatives and neo-liberals have much more in common than neo-conservatives with Fox News / talk radio conservatives. And paleo conservatives like the populist fork Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul have much in common with the Bernie Sanders and other left-handed types. And the first group is proudly elite and the second populist.
I remember how, at the beginning of the TPMCafe, the Bush years, Josh Marshall had a section for neoliberal foreign policy that allowed friends to blog. And how much the leftist part of the public hated them. Who were also the same people who hated the choice between Obama and Hillary … (not to mention the fact that there was a group of these types of people who just loved them forks … some members even invented a fork avatar.)
All I'm saying is that I'm not surprised by the Boot Editorial. And that's because I've always seen a connection between neo-conservative intellectuals like him and neo-liberal types like Obama and Hillary. It has always seemed to me that the two-party divisions of the large natural tent should be "elite globalist world-clbad" vs "populist" American previews.
An unrelated point. I think that it is a true premonitory point to remember for the November 2018 elections:
What would be the logic for Obama to attack the constituency that has provided the majority of his votes in 2008 and 2012?
I do not think that denigrating Whites for voting for Trump is a smart way to go, it 's like a mistake for me. I think that before I was elected, I still loved Obama's potential precisely because he was bi-racial, because he was able to do it. " enter and understand the spirit of suburban whites "overflown" because his grandparents partly elevated him.
Source link
