Excuses, Excuses

Here’s another chorus of the liberals’ racism refrain, this time bleated by Jacob Weisberg of SLATE. “If Obama loses,” he wails, “racism is the only reason….” If Obama loses, he repeats, he will do so “for a simple reason: the color of his skin.”

Refuting this myopia by pointing to all the reasons millions of people, of all hues, will vote against Obama that have nothing to do with “the color of his skin” would be about as fruitful as pointing out the various hues in a vista of brilliant Fall foliage to a blind man.

But I do think one point is worth making. This liberal excuse for what might be simply the latest example of the Democrats snatching defeat from the jaws of victory is already so widespread that it may have an unintended but wholly beneficial effect on the outcome of the election. (Have you noticed that liberals often engage in behavior that has unintended but wholly predictable consequences?)

The argument that white (and Asian? Hispanic?) racism is the only reason Obama can lose amounts to saying that the only way to show you are not a racist is to vote for Obama. Some voters will no doubt be cowed by this threat into voting for Obama (or more likely, simply telling pollsters that they’re voting for Obama), but I suspect that it will send many more to the polls to vote against him simply as a way of expressing their justified resentment of this smug, supercilious, elitist attack on their intelligence and character.

UPDATE [25 August]

Maybe I better rethink the argument presented here. After all, how could it be right if virtually the same argument has appeared in a New York Times OpEd?

… there’s plenty of reason to think that Mr. Obama’s race is not the insurmountable detriment to his candidacy that a lot of anxious observers believe it is….

…. While it’s entirely possible that Mr. Obama’s race is costing him some support, it’s also true that the electorate that voted in the last two presidential elections was almost symmetrically divided between the two parties. It would defy the laws of politics if, at this early stage of the campaign, moderate Republicans and conservative independents were to reject Mr. McCain (a candidate many of them preferred back in 2000) simply because they don’t like George W. Bush.

Second, Mr. Obama faces genuine obstacles that are more salient than skin color….

Ever since 2000, a lot of so-called progressives have proudly displayed a healthy contempt for less-educated white voters who cast ballots in defiance of their “economic self-interest,” as Thomas Frank argued in “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” (The widespread acceptance of Mr. Frank’s thesis is how John Kerry largely escaped the scorn that is ritually visited upon losing Democratic presidential nominees; the members of his party directed their exasperation at the voters instead.) [I noted that Obama’s bitter/clinging put-down of small town American was pure Frank here.] But surely caricaturing a large subset of voters as ignorant has made those voters even less inclined to pull the lever for the Democrats this time around. All this talk about racism isn’t likely to help.

No, it isn’t. Calling voters racist if they don’t agree with you is not likely to earn their affection, or votes.

Say What? (8)

  1. revisionist August 24, 2008 at 10:17 am | | Reply

    I think whites should simply say, “Yes, we’re racists, now go solve your own problems, as you cannot expect racists to help you.”

    As to what the future holds for the U.S. under Obama, one should look at California, which is looking more and more like Malaysia. In the former case, a soon-to-be Latino majority (now 50% of K-12 students) will demand higher and higher taxes (both monetary and via AA) from a white and increasingly Asian minority. California mirrors Malaysia, in which the race-based Bumiputra majority, claiming historic entitlement to the land, exploits the ethnic Chinese minority under a rigid preference scheme.

    People like Weisberg should ask themselves if any racial group will truly benefit under a Malaysian-style preference and taxation scheme based on blood rights. Furthermore, Blacks who are only 6% of the California population are not even part of the redistribution equation. Obama will only hasten racist demands from our own version of the “Sons of the Soil,” i.e. La Raza.

  2. revisionist August 24, 2008 at 10:54 am | | Reply

    Also, I would point out that although I am a racist, I will not vote for Obama for the exact same reasons I will not vote for McCain. Both candidates favor mass immigration without assimilation, bilingualism and racial preferences.

    McCain has recently changed is position on preferences, but his previous opposition to Prop. 209 style initiatives betrays his true stance. And how convenient for McCain that the Arizona initiative will not be on the ballot.

  3. Anita August 25, 2008 at 9:51 am | | Reply

    what revisionist is talking about is the likely end of liberal democracy. There is absolutely no indication that nonwhites will be able to maintain this job creating, entitlement creating, rights creating machinery that whites have created. when the US is majority minority, it will have a third world economy, bad, and third world human rights, bad. And the situation will be dire for black americans. Is there any way to avoid this catastrophe?

    I read an article by Linda Chavez. She is a conservative but she is totally in favor of latino immigration. I’m black but I’m not arguing that 10 million ghanians stream across the border. But it all seems to be about race and being on the side of one’s own kind. Conservative principles or even genuinely liberal principles go out the window. Not that such principles ever existed for anyone but western europeans and their descendants anyway. And to narrow it down more, if Spain had colonized the north, it would be like the south. It is the english culture that made all the difference,that gave rise to prosperity and rights.

    Chavez says that hispanics will intermarry with whites and continue on with what we call american, that is, western european anglo american, culture in that matter. I don’t know.

  4. Cobra August 26, 2008 at 1:50 am | | Reply

    Revisionist writes:

    >>>”I think whites should simply say, “Yes, we’re racists, now go solve your own problems, as you cannot expect racists to help you.”


    >>>”Also, I would point out that although I am a racist…”

    Readers, I’ve made some provocative posts on this blog every now and then. I freely admit I’m not the king of terse, subtle, between the lines commentary. I do try to get to the underlying truth.

    I am also accused of seeing the “worst” in people. So to belay that accusation, Revisionist…

    You ARE being sarcastic, right?

    Anita writes:

    >>>”There is absolutely no indication that nonwhites will be able to maintain this job creating, entitlement creating, rights creating machinery that whites have created. when the US is majority minority, it will have a third world economy, bad, and third world human rights, bad. And the situation will be dire for black americans. Is there any way to avoid this catastrophe?”

    You do realize, that as a Black person, you’re making a self-deprecating comment. Your very existance is adding to the “majority-minority” situation in America. Do you really feel that you are incapable supporting American society simply because you are Black?

    You’ve done this far too often for me to give you the benefit of the doubt, or a sarcasm question.

    What leads you to make these statements, Anita?


  5. revisionist August 26, 2008 at 9:47 am | | Reply

    By the definition of academic and corporate elites, including the McCain/Graham Republicans, if one is opposed to racial preferences and large-scale immigration, then one is a racist. If one believes that people have equal rights as individuals, even if they are white males, then one is a racist. If one believes that equal rights do not equal equal outcomes, then one is a racist. I accept the above definitions of racism and have decided to accept that I am a racist.

  6. Mott August 26, 2008 at 9:49 am | | Reply

    “What leads you to make these statements, Anita?”

    Maybe places like Africa(see South Africa and Zimbabwe for really good examples) Haiti and Detroit.

  7. revisionist August 26, 2008 at 10:11 am | | Reply

    I promise this is the last point. Regarding large-scale immigration, I agree with Linda Chavez that there is no inherent (i.e. racial) reason that Latinos cannot assimilate into American society. Indeed, as Victor Davis Hanson, who grew up in the Fresno area pointed out, such assimilation was routine in the 1950s. Hanson explains in his book “Mexifornia” that two factors led to separatism (political and cultural) of Mexican-Americans. (a) Public schools, which emphasized rigorous assimilation and patriotism in the 50s now are owned by multiculturalists, and (b) high levels of illegal and legal immigration changed the population balance of many California towns from 50% to over 90% Latino. There are many parts of California, e.g. Santa Ana in Orange County, where one can work and live without having to speak English.

    Assimilation happened when “immigrants were lost in a sea of natives.” But now, natives are lost in a sea of immigrants in places like Los Angeles. The assimilation that Chavez wants simply can not happen at the levels of immigration that she supports.

  8. Anita August 28, 2008 at 9:59 am | | Reply


    I base my statements on the world. I see that immigrants can come here and suceed and fit into the structure already existing, but they can’t make that structure themselves. And that structure is built by white western europeans. It’s a hard thing to talk about. But it is one reason that most black americans are not in favor of unrestricted immigration from any group of people, including africans. to put it baldly it comes to this: prosperous liberal democracy comes out of western culture. when westerners are no longer there to create and maintain it, will it continue? I fear not. if non westerners said we want to be western, we want to do what they do, we will adopt that culture, maybe there would be a chance it would survive. But we are not saying that. The japanese did something like that, but they do not extend the benefits to other races. There is no immigration to Japan and the few Koreans that are there have no chance of being japanized, like people here become americanized. the whole idea of americanization is again, something that is the outgrowth of western culture. what it comes to is that when they are most of the population, the rest of us can get our rights and jobs and everything else. But I really don’t see all this continuing when non westerns are in the majority. I hope this is wrong. I say all this based on what I see people around the world actually doing.

    The NYT had an article about how if obama wins, white people will no longer give credence to cries of racism and victimization. I never liked this kind of thinking. and in any case, it is not about us and white people any more. It is about us and many other non westerners who do not appear to be liberal or anti racist.

Say What?