Racism and President Obama

Got a thought fer y'all to ponder.

Assumption- the next president, regardless of Obama/McCain, is inheriting a turd and will probably have a very frustrating (aka few accomplishments, mostly unpopular) term trying to polish said diamond-in-the-roughage.

That assumption may nor may not be true (I tend to think so, but it doesn't matter), but you've got to go with it for the question that follows.

If Obama wins the election, I fully expect the black community will go orgasmic (not without some justification) and shout about it being a huge step against racism. If his presidency then goes in the toilet (even thru no fault of his own), does that end up actually being a net step backwards for the black community? The open racists will obviously trumpet some "told ya dem blacks wuz too stupidlike to run this here country" babble and the politically correct will mumble about America not being ready for "true equality".

So, should the black community be worried? I'm particularly interested in Elkston's thoughts if he happens to swing by.

That's something I've been talking about for months. IMO, whoever gets elected in 2008 won't get re-elected in 2012. It doesn't matter who caused what, the American population has ADD and will blame it on the sitting admin. This is one reason I want Obama to win somewhat. If he loses, it will be Clinton in 2012, and she will be virtually guaranteed a win.

The open racists are going to say nasty things regardless. If someone how the economy rebounds and goes on a run, it will be because of Congress, not Obama. If it's in the toilet, it's because Obama wasn't smart enough to fix it. He can't win.

I'd say the only difference in those two scenarios is that in the latter, some of the people that might lean towards the prejudiced attitudes, but have gotten past them in 2008, will be more likely to listen to that rhetoric in 2012. Now will that mean they'll never vote for a black man again? For the majority, I'd say not. Like I said, we have ADD. So I don't think that there will be long term lasting damage to the possibility of another black man becoming President down the line.

But who knows. The mob is finicky.

It's quite easy to polish a turd. Just freeze it first.

Also, I think there's a good chance that the economy will be in full recovery mode by 2012. The longest post-war recession was the 1973 to 1975 one, which lasted 17 months -- a year and a half. I'm fairly certain that you're already about 3-6 months into one; by the inauguration, that'll be 6-9 months. That means that if you just manage to avoid the Japan scenario, things will be looking up by 2010-2011 at the latest.

That's certainly a big "if," because it requires good governance and some rather tough political decisions. If Obama and the Dems win sufficiently big to get significant majorities in both houses of Congress, they will be in a position to pull it off -- they'll have the political power, and they have access to plenty of people who, if anyone, are competent enough to sort it out.

If they don't and the economy is still spinning its wheels in 2012, they deserve to lose.

The same applies to McCain, naturally -- although he'll have a much tougher job of it, since his economic advisers are so uniformly terrible and he's much less likely to have solid support in Congress.

blatantninja said:

That's something I've been talking about for months. IMO, whoever gets elected in 2008 won't get re-elected in 2012. It doesn't matter who caused what, the American population has ADD and will blame it on the sitting admin. This is one reason I want Obama to win somewhat. If he loses, it will be Clinton in 2012, and she will be virtually guaranteed a win.

Click to expand...

You just had to go and molest my thread with mention of the Ice Queen...

edit- @PJ--yada yada yada, now what about the racial question???

If I had any sense, I wouldn't comment on this question, since I really don't know. This racial stuff is so fraught with deep undercurrents in the American psyche that have to be experienced to be understood, and I have next to no experience of them. So I really shouldn't say anything about it.

But what the hell. I have a feeling you guys will get so used to seeing his smiling mug on the boob tube that most of you will quickly forget the color of his epithelium. AFAICT you have no problems with black people on TV as long as they wear nice suits and don't overdo the gold chains; he'll be just another one of those.

Prime Junta said:

Also, I think there's a good chance that the economy will be in full recovery mode by 2012. The longest post-war recession was the 1973 to 1975 one, which lasted 17 months -- a year and a half. I'm fairly certain that you're already about 3-6 months into one; by the inauguration, that'll be 6-9 months. That means that if you just manage to avoid the Japan scenario, things will be looking up by 2010-2011 at the latest.

Click to expand...

I hope your right, but given the credit contraction I see happening and still coming, I think at best we will have flat economic growth over the next 4 years. And I think the chance of that are minimal.

Prime Junta said:

But what the hell. I have a feeling you guys will get so used to seeing his smiling mug on the boob tube that most of you will quickly forget the color of his epithelium. AFAICT you have no problems with black people on TV as long as they wear nice suits and don't overdo the gold chains; he'll be just another one of those.

Click to expand...

We're ok with the over done gold chains, so long as they rap well.

Interesting thought, dte. I think whether Obama now wins or loses, is a great, abysmal or even non-president, he's already changed the racial dynamic dramatically. My take on the black community (as a white outsider) is that they will not expect the moon of Obama if he wins or be disappointed at criticism of him if he fails in some goals once elected. (Neither will I, though I will be somewhat disappointed by a failure., but let's face it, this is a terrible time to inherit the presidency.) I think just the achievement will be a positive thing. Of course, being a great esteemed leader who fixes this ongoing trainwreck would be icing on the cake.

As for white racism, Obama getting this far has to some extent begun marginilizing it; being elected shoves it further in a corner. Failure? Might cause some "I told you so's." But I don't think it negates what's already happened.

As a non-American, I do not understand the concept of "black community".

Just a way to refer to African-Americans as a population group separate from other ethnic identities. Emphasizing they share some communal viewpoints, etc. Make sense?

I just find it weird to separate people by ethnicity. Like it means something. It probably does in American culture.

Perhaps if I localized the concept for you a bit? The linked report is a bit dated, but perhaps it will give you a reference point for our backward American culture.

JemyM said:

I just find it weird to separate people by ethnicity. Like it means something. It probably does in American culture.

Click to expand...

Sadly it does. Obviously there are black people that identify with other socioeconomic classifications, but as a voting block, there certainly is a bit of a community that represents a large portion of that ethnicity.

Prime Junta said:

The longest post-war recession was the 1973 to 1975 one, which lasted 17 months -- a year and a half.

Click to expand...

I know that is true in econimist terms, but in real 'rubber meets the road' terms they last much longer - and if you are involved in multiple sectors of the economy you feel the pinch for years ... I know I have more than a few times over the last couple decades or so.

JemyM said:

I just find it weird to separate people by ethnicity. Like it means something. It probably does in American culture.

Click to expand...

Oh come on, JemyM -- people are separated into groups by ethnicity everywhere. Did you ever see the movie Yalla? That gives a pretty good idea of how Sweden looks from the point of view of someone of Arab origin.

I've noticed one interesting pattern about the "we get along jes' fine" sentiment you're expressing here, by the way. I've only ever heard it expressed by someone from the overwhelmingly dominant ethnicity in a country. Like, a Turk from Turkey about Kurds, a Russian from Russia about Estonians (when referring to the Soviet period), or a Han Chinese from China about Tibetans. Why d'you reckon that is?

txa1265 said:

I know that is true in econimist terms, but in real 'rubber meets the road' terms they last much longer - and if you are involved in multiple sectors of the economy you feel the pinch for years ... I know I have more than a few times over the last couple decades or so.

Click to expand...

That happens if the recovery is a weak one -- the economy never gets any proper traction and stuff like job growth is anemic and so on. That's certainly happened on a quite a few occasions; during Carter due to the inflationary spiral and again during Bush Jr. The Japan scenario is a classic example of this.

Again, I'm not saying by any means that the economy *will* inevitably recover by 2010-2011 -- in fact, I'm more inclined to think it won't, if left to itself and/or if the government takes the path of least resistance as it's so prone to do -- but I think that there is a *good chance* that it will be in recovery by then. As I said, this won't be easy, and it will require some courageous and intelligent economic policy, but if the Dems and Obama win with a strong enough mandate, they will be in a position to give it a try -- and if they fail, it'll be their failure.

I'm also pretty certain that the Republican mantra of lower taxes and less regulation won't cut it. That'll just drive the economy even deeper into debt and prolong the uncertainty that's driving the credit contraction.

JemyM said:

I just find it weird to separate people by ethnicity. Like it means something. It probably does in American culture.

Click to expand...

Yes, America is the ONLY country that seperates people by ethnicity.

dteowner said:

If Obama wins the election, I fully expect the black community will go orgasmic (not without some justification) by.

Click to expand...

The black community is already orgasmic in some parts. You should see all the Obama t-shirts, hats, and buttons in Detroit. I have no problem with it, except for the fact that a lot of the people I've talked to don't seem to know anything about politics other than "a black man is running for president!".

Don't really understand the justification comment either. Was a black candidate previously cheated in some way?

Prime Junta said:

Oh come on, JemyM -- people are separated into groups by ethnicity everywhere. Did you ever see the movie Yalla? That gives a pretty good idea of how Sweden looks from the point of view of someone of Arab origin.

Click to expand...

Jalla Jalla is about an immigrant and deals with culture conflict, not about a "arabic community". While Sweden have had problems with integrating the recent flood of arab immigrants, it is debated in Sweden as a major problem, a topic discussed in media, an important question in politics, researched by universities etc. The common idea is that strong concentration of ethnic groups in isolated places (suburbs) is a failure that needs to be solved. Even the right-wing party have invested money in dealing with that problem.

Sweden we do not refer to ethnic subgroups as "communities". The only event where immigrants are discussed as a group of voters is when people want to keep the right-wing extremists "The Swedish Democrats" out of the government.

Having said that; strong immigration of arab origin is a recent thing. The US have been multi ethnic since the land was founded.

JemyM said:

Sweden we do not refer to ethnic subgroups as "communities". The only event where immigrants are discussed as a group of voters is when people want to keep the right-wing extremists "The Swedish Democrats" out of the government.

Click to expand...

I know, you don't. Neither do the French. Nor did the Soviets.

There's an interesting paradox there. On the face of it, refusing to categorize people by race, religion, or creed seems like a great idea. Equality, fraternity, and all that commotion. However, in practice it almost always simply means that any problems caused by friction between groups with different races, religions, or creeds become impossible to address -- if you can't even speak of them, then how can you possibly try to fix them?

The practical upshot is that it makes it even easier for the dominant ethnicity to marginalize the minority ones. I know from people who live there that this is very much the reality in Sweden; what drives them particularly up the wall is precisely that Swedish discourse makes it impossible for them to even express their concerns, let alone address them. If there is no "Finnish community" or "Arab community," then what possible problems could such a community have?

There's an old Soviet wisecrack about this that expresses it rather well. The USSR, you'll remember, was officially completely internationalist -- even the country name had no reference to geography or ethnicity; just the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that welcomes all and sundry:

Q: "What are you if you speak two languages?"
A: "A nationalist."
Q: "Fine. So, what are you if you speak three languages?"
A: "A Zionist."
Q: "What about if you speak one language?"
A: "An internationalist."

I studied Russian from a Soviet-era textbook, and it quite cheerfully referred to it as "the language of international communication."