I would like to start by saying that I will have to confirm what Mrs. Bloghorn said. I have been too busy to participate, but it has been fun to watch the lively debate. Although I did google some of Chuckles’ comments and every single one of them appears to be comment spam. Chuckles, can you please start offering some real comments?
Anyway, since the comment thread from Attack of the Clones is going in several different directions, I figured I would do a series of small posts and schedule them to publish periodically to stay focused on specific points.
I am going to start by writing about the boycott of Whole Foods Market that Chuckles mentioned, because I was going to write about this when the story broke.
In short, I read Mackey’s op-ed and I thought it was decent in that it actually proposed solutions, which is something liberals are expecting conservatives to do despite the fact that they spent 8 years whining (redundant I know) about Bush without offering solutions themselves. Now they belittle conservatives for deploying the same tactics that they use. Whether Mackey’s ideas would really solve any problems is debatable, however, one thing is not debatable: that politically motivated business boycotts are stupid.
Assumption alert: Chuckles seems to be tacitly condoning these boycotts – if not participating in them – and I have to wonder what thought processes motivate this behavior. It seems kind of like playground activism to me. It also seems like this form of activism is about as mindless and childish as people getting in a shouting match with their elected representatives. It certainly does little to encourage informed or educated debate.
I don’t really care for Whole Foods much. I don’t shop there. I think the whole organic food movement is just a successful marketing campaign, so I have nothing at stake in ridiculing this boycott. I have a hard time imagining an argument for participating in these kinds of boycotts that ever makes it out of the realm of reactions to base emotions to a realm of reflective reason.
on 
on 
Dear Mr. Bloghorn,
Sorry for the delay in replying. It took a long time to find just the right comment spam to post below your thread. It’s like picking out the right Hallmark card: too generic and it’s no fun, too specific and it has to be right on point.
And an apology for the frequency of my posts these last few days. My longtime girlfriend is traveling, and I have had more free time on my hands than I know what to do with. Any commenting here beats the old past time fallbacks of hookers and binge drinking. My activity here will likely subside in the near future.
*****Now they belittle conservatives for deploying the same tactics that they use. Whether Mackey’s ideas would really solve any problems is debatable, however, one thing is not debatable: that politically motivated business boycotts are stupid.*****
By “stupid” do you mean ineffective? Or do you mean unnecessary or an overreaction? b/c there is plenty of evidence that they can be plenty effective. Ask the Birmingham city bus system circa 1960.
******In short, I read Mackey’s op-ed and I thought it was decent in that it actually proposed solutions, which is something liberals are expecting conservatives to do despite the fact that they spent 8 years whining (redundant I know) about Bush without offering solutions themselves.******
Here’s my problem with it. The health care reform debate is about substantially helping lower-income people receive health care. And while not all of his ideas are laugh out loud funny (like the voluntary contribution facilitation so that those who wish to pay for the poor may do so), I see NOTHING in his 8 pt proposal that would substantially help poor people. Just like Blogdor on the other thread. I am wholly sympathetic to his healthy lifestyles argument. I just don’t see it as a solution to the problem posed by people not having access to health care.
The Star Wars franchise had some fantastic names. But none better than the Gold Leader from episode 4. Commander Porkins (and just the sound of that name makes me happy, memories of the movie as a lad, screaming “NOOOO! PORKINS!!! after he was shot down) had a catch phrase, and he said it about 4x too many: “stay on target”. And that’s the advice I’d give those wishing to address health care for low income people. A lot of these are great suggestions, some not great, but make sure they’re addressing the heart of the issue.
Here’s how I understand the boycott. Whole Foods ask you to pay upwards of 3x the price you would pay somewhere else for “Fair trade” coffee and chocolate, or locally grown and chemical-free farmers. Shoppers willingly hand over their disposable income with the knowledge that their extra money is helping peasants who hand pick coffee beans, or the local pesticide-free family farms. We all know these are liberal causes, and it made the shoppers feel good about their purchase. And they now feel duped. Like they’ve been enabling donations to the RNC. Bottom line: WF presents itself as an ideological statement (left-wing, progressive, etc). And we now know this statement is a lie. John Mackey invoked that brand for his op-ed to call Obama’s plan “socialised medicine” which is beyond nutty.
Most people in the policy field don’t even consider Single-payer socialised medicine, and Obama’s proposal’s a long way from that.
I saw an op-ed saying that Mackey had “shot his investors in the face”. And hasn’t he? I personally think that any CEO of a major corporation has an obligation to his/her shareholders to basically shut the f**k up about politics. Because any position they take will alienate either the majority of shoppers or a very large minority. Why would you risk antagonising half of your potential consumers? (or in this case about 2/3). Think about that with your business. Take a position that is opposite them on something they feel strongly about. Do you think they might start considering some of your competition more favourbly?
John Mackey is the Dixie Chicks on the Left. Remember when they came out and said they were ashamed Bush was from Texas? The Right, who always thought of them as their own, had CD steamrollering parties, picketed their shows, and threatened them wherever/however they could. (I’m no Dixie Chicks fan, but “Shut Up and Sing” was a worthwhile documentary). But the difference is Dix Chix do not have shareholders that can fire them. Liberals started going to their shows. I don’t see conservatives shopping at WF. Too expensive and too “feel-good” for most conservatives I know.
How does it not make sense to you that liberals wouldn’t want to support financially somebody who will take their money and turn it into material support for policies they disagree with? They are voting with their feet and wallets.
We all have the freedom of speech. We have the freedom from government punishing us for our speech. We don’t have the freedom from consequences by those who legally, and lawfully disagree with us. If this gets bigger than it is, my guess is that his shareholders will find somebody else to run their company. I personally walk an extra six blocks to the Trader Joes. Food is cheaper (selection is less) and I know I’m not supporting the RNC.
So, that’s my take on it.
Cheers,
Chuck
Back in 2008, this Whole Foods, CEO John Mackey (how old is this kid?), was caught posting negative comments (trash talk) about a competitor on Yahoo Finance message boards in an effort to push down the stock price. So now I am suppose to take this loser seriously? Please, snore, snore.
Paul? Are you the same comment spam Paul from my previous post? Or are you an imposter?
****By “stupid” do you mean ineffective? Or do you mean unnecessary or an overreaction? b/c there is plenty of evidence that they can be plenty effective. Ask the Birmingham city bus system circa 1960.
Or you could ask Jewish business owners the day after Kristalnacht – I know excessive, but still these kinds of boycotts seem to be growing more out of a vindictive brand of primitive tribalism. I know that these are loaded words, but I am not the only one guilty of using loaded words.
What evidence do you have that Mackey is donating any portion of his $1 salary to the RNC? You might disagree with his proposal. I agree that it was pretty stupid for him to even get close to this toxic issue. However, his company provides great health insurance to people who would otherwise be “poor” if they weren’t employed. So despite your disagreements with his proposals, he is successfully accomplishing something that Barack Obama and the democrats are not: through experience and executive ability he is managing the resources of an institution to provide sustainable healthcare benefits to a group that needs it.
****Whole Foods ask you to pay upwards of 3x the price you would pay somewhere else for “Fair trade” coffee and chocolate, or locally grown and chemical-free farmers. Shoppers willingly hand over their disposable income with the knowledge that their extra money is helping peasants who hand pick coffee beans, or the local pesticide-free family farms. We all know these are liberal causes, and it made the shoppers feel good about their purchase.
Rather than propose a series of talking points, Mackey should have suggested insurance companies adopt his business model. If your desire to help the poor is as cavalier as you would have us believe, (I am not doubting this, by the way) then I am sure that if a private insurance company was to adopt a Whole Foods business model that you would go out of your way to do business with the company. Why not have a private health insurance company give insurance to poor people for a rate they can afford, then sell policies to bleeding heart liberals and rich people afraid of violent revolt for 3X the price to cover the costs of insuring their poorer policy holders?
****How does it not make sense to you that liberals wouldn’t want to support financially somebody who will take their money and turn it into material support for policies they disagree with? They are voting with their feet and wallets.
I admit I haven’t researched this, but what evidence do you have that Mackey is providing material support to any political cause? How does it not make sense to you that in a modern dynamic economy that as a consumer you really have no say over the way that money you spend on consumption flows through the economy.
*****Or you could ask Jewish business owners the day after Kristalnacht – I know excessive, but still these kinds of boycotts seem to be growing more out of a vindictive brand of primitive tribalism. I know that these are loaded words, but I am not the only one guilty of using loaded words.*****
Out of bounds, and you know it. A unilateral cease-fire only gets you shot in the head. I mean, think about it. Healthcare is around 1/7 of the economy (some say 1/6). If Obama says he wants to fix it, you’d think Republicans would say, “as long as you’re putting your hand into the beehive, here are a couple things you can fix for us. Then throw in whatever market-based reform you think will help (interstate competition, etc), and then still let him take most of the blame if you think the reform is a loser.
They smell blood, and they sense they can claim his scalp. This could be “his end” said one Rep. This is his “waterloo” says another. So, It cuts both ways. But Republicans have circled their wagons and are just shooting indiscriminately.
And I don’t have to look further than his WSJ op-ed. This IS material support. He’s giving aid and comfort to the enemy. =) Look at you and Harrison and your ilk jumping in to praise it. That’s reason enough for us lefties with delicate sensibilities.
*****So despite your disagreements with his proposals, he is successfully accomplishing something that Barack Obama and the democrats are not: through experience and executive ability he is managing the resources of an institution to provide sustainable healthcare benefits to a group that needs it.*****
First off: Obama has been working to reform health care for over a month for all of America. Mackey provides health care to his employees–for which provisions and groundwork have already existed. I am amazed you don’t see the difference. Or perhaps you did and just felt like delivering a punch below the belt.
*****Rather than propose a series of talking points, Mackey should have suggested insurance companies adopt his business model. If your desire to help the poor is as cavalier as you would have us believe, (I am not doubting this, by the way) then I am sure that if a private insurance company was to adopt a Whole Foods business model that you would go out of your way to do business with the company.*****
Points for inventiveness here. The WF model just makes the liberals feel good with enough vagueries about who is being helped by the high prices. We only shop WF for produce and meats (grassfed, cage free, and pesticide and growth hormone free natural foods) that we feel are worth the added price for our health. Otherwise, we’ve always shopped at Trader Joe’s and supplimented veggies and meats at WF (which we’ve always called Whole Paycheck). We’ve just taken to more shopping at the Yes! Organic. Same price, CEO has yet to come out as a right-wing nut just yet. Similarly poor clerks, full-time get Health coverage. It all makes sense to me.
*****How does it not make sense to you that in a modern dynamic economy that as a consumer you really have no say over the way that money you spend on consumption flows through the economy.*****
I’m afraid I don’t really follow this. It makes sense to me that, at least one degree of separation I DO have a say. WF is not getting my money, shareholders will be out money, and at the very least, Mackey will consider keeping his mouth shut for his business’s sake.
Brief story:
I went to a very conservative Univ. with a no-beard policy. No real reason, except the president in the 60s didn’t want the kids looking like freaky beatniks. I had a class that required a paper on a proposed civil disobedience. One kid proposed 500 guys wear fake beards. The professor had him present, and then publicly gave him a C on his paper. He what would have gotten him a better grade would be to have 500 guys actually GROW beards, refuse to shave them, and then confront the admin, get excused, and to have the news cameras reporting the ridiculousness of the Univ expelling them over that. The fake beards that they could take off at any minute when asked, with a “haha, just kidding” is weak.
Mackey, if he really feel strongly, should engage in civil disobedience against his shoppers. Alienate them with his proposals, have his sales and share prices tank, and go down as a martyr for right-wing health care reform.
My guess is he’s not willing to do this. So why should we be impressed with this half-measure, and his half-punishment of some people not shopping?
Juss sayin’
Chuckles
Boycotts rarely work this one will be no exception to that rule. I bet plenty of Conservatives will go to Whole Foods.
*****Boycotts rarely work this one will be no exception to that rule. I bet plenty of Conservatives will go to Whole Foods*****
That is Harrison’s above post in its entirety. This is why I feel I must profess my love for these postings. There is no analysis. There is sheer, unsupported, inarticulate commentary. And yet I’m the pig throwing mud against the wall trying to make something stick.
Some would call the end of the British Empire in South Asia (Pakistan and India) a victory. Some would call voting and civil rights legislation in the 1960s a victory. Some would call boycotts of British products in the Americas during the taxation hikes of the 1760s and 1770s a victory. Some would call these among the most significant revolutions and societal shifts in world history.
But you go on with your “rarely” self. And your assumption that conservatives will want to pay 3x the price and support “fair trade” policies and organic growers in the process (which conservatives roll their eyes at).
Trust your instincts Harrison. They may not get you far, but they certainly amuse the rest of us.
Chuckles
**** We don’t have the freedom from consequences by those who legally, and lawfully disagree with us.
This sounds a lot like moral absolutism for me. This is my problem with moral relativism. Moral relativists will become moral absolutists when it is convenient for them.
Your empathy for the poor is admirable, but it is arguable that a lot of people are in the economic situation that they are in as a consequence to bad decisions that were made in the past. Why are you so quick to absolve this group from a form of justice that you are not willing to absove Mackey from? I am not saying we shouldn’t be compassionate to the poor, I am just curious where you draw the line for your double standard.
Chuckles, when I want to hear from you I’ll pull your cord. Thanks for keeping me amused!
*****This sounds a lot like moral absolutism for me. This is my problem with moral relativism. Moral relativists will become moral absolutists when it is convenient for them. *****
No moral absolutism here, and I frankly don’t see how you see absolutism anywhere. I have made no calls for anybody to do anything against anyone. I have told you how I understand it personally, and invite all men to make the call for themselves.
But you ask where I draw my personal line. I think the line is drawn well after politics, if we have to draw a line. I mean, not patronising a Jewish or a Mormon or a Gay bookstore because person is Jewish or Mormon or Gay? Wrong. Not patronising a Jewish or Mormon or Gay bookstore because their politics clash with yours and you see greater utility in shopping elsewhere. Perfectly alright. If you have always been patronising a Jewish or Mormon or Gay bookstore, read a published article by the proprietor of said establishment, and you find them to be off their nut and diametrically opposed to what you believe should be the direction of the country… and furthermore, you realise that patronising said establishment will only hurt your political goals in the future? That sounds just fine too.
I mean, was not voting for McCain in 08 a type of “moral absolutism”? I think it might be by your standard. My friends and people like me all saw his platform, saw the platform of the other guy, and thought the other guy was a better place to allocate their scarce resource (namely their vote). Looking at the platform of of the CEOs of Yes! Organic and WF, one looks crazy, and has politics that conflict with my own. The other doesn’t. Why would I vote with my cash for the one who is opposed to my position (not just indifferent, but hostile)?
And as I said about the unilateral ceasefire: you just end up getting shot. Each side can accuse the other of tribalism. But we are tribes! It’s libs that believe in holding hands and singing songs while drinking coca-cola. If Libs patronise everybody, and conservatives just patronise conservatives, pretty soon, there will only be conservatives. (as they would be getting 100% of conservative money and 50% of liberal money).
*****Your empathy for the poor is admirable, but it is arguable that a lot of people are in the economic situation that they are in as a consequence to bad decisions that were made in the past. Why are you so quick to absolve this group from a form of justice that you are not willing to absove Mackey from? I am not saying we shouldn’t be compassionate to the poor, I am just curious where you draw the line for your double standard.*****
Where is my double standard? You’re going to have to tell me where I have used two standards in order to defend it to you.
I see no moral absolutism (as everybody is free to behave as they wish, and I wish them all the best), and you’ve detailed no double standard. You’ve showed my moral position (and not revealed it to be absolute) and you’ve outlined your understanding of my ‘standard’, but failed to touch on what makes it a double standard, other than your assumptions. Let’s stick to facts in evidence.
Chuckles
*****Chuckles, when I want to hear from you I’ll pull your cord. Thanks for keeping me amused!*****
Well that’s just an enormous relief. I’m thrilled you’re enjoying this as much as I am. I’ll admit I was kinda feeling like a jerk for letting loose on you. Even several of my liberal friends have told me that I should lay off you. Fish in a barrel, they say.
And to be honest, I saw their point. But I can go as long as you’re enjoying it too. But now I have the added bonus of knowing I’m not hurting your feelings. But that leads me, again, to question your comprehension of facts around you. But that can be sorted out later.
Cheers!
Chuckles
I guess I’ll have to be more clear.
John Mackey makes an arguably poor moral decision to get involved in a controversial debate. As a result, those who oppose Mackey stop patronizing his business as an act of justice against his business. You seem to agree that this behavior is a Justified response to Mackey’s immoral behavior. In a broader discussion about morality, you are saying that moral decisions have consequences. If justice and consequences etc. must result from a breach of morality, then there would need to be an absolute point where you say that a moral standard has been breached. In the case of Mackey this absolute point was when he started to disagree with your position. You claim that as a result of his poor moral judgment that he no longer deserves to receive your cash. In this regard, I guess we can agree that a moral decision can be enumerated with the value of a fiat currency.
I know that this next example (based loosely on fact from people that I have known) is not comparing apples to apples, but it involves many of the same issues involved in a broader discussion on morality:
Let’s say a girl decides to get pregnant in high school, drops out to raise the baby, and is pretty much set to live at or below the poverty line for the rest of her life. Here we have an example of another poor moral decision being made, and justice would say that this girl shouldn’t be able to afford to have health insurance no matter how badly she wants it or needs it. Why should a government body be able to confiscate the private property from some of its citizens to give it to this girl, so she can afford health insurance.
Why is your cash so sacred when it comes to administering justice to Mackey, but the cash of those who are opposed to another massive entitlement program designed to help shelter the poor from the consequences of their moral decisions is not sacred?
This is the double standard – you seem to believe that some people should be held accountable for their moral behavior while other people should not.
*****In a broader discussion about morality, you are saying that moral decisions have consequences. If justice and consequences etc. must result from a breach of morality, then there would need to be an absolute point where you say that a moral standard has been breached.*****
Absolutely not. We couldn’t understand this more differently. There is a RELATIVE point that was breached. It was a point in me, a point in people around me, but not reached in you. I would never argue that it is a moral absolute to think like me on health care. It is a position I have derived through logic and my own moral experiences. But I know many like you do not share it. You may have sworn to never buy another Dixie Chix album after they came out against Bush. People who who hold a lot of your beliefs certainly did. That was a relative point that was not reached in me. Then we just go to a percentage tally in a democracy. Will the percentage that feel like me result in enough to cause WF to stand up, take notice, and muzzle their CEO?
Incidentally, it’s not my hope. I don’t care if they do or not. My reason for no longer going is not that I wish to hurt them, but that it is not the place I thought it was.
*****In the case of Mackey this absolute point was when he started to disagree with your position. You claim that as a result of his poor moral judgment that he no longer deserves to receive your cash.*****
My position is not a morally absolute position. And I never argued that. I felt it was a poor BUSINESS decision. And it is an enormous leap from there to where ever it is you land.
*****Why is your cash so sacred when it comes to administering justice to Mackey, but the cash of those who are opposed to another massive entitlement program designed to help shelter the poor from the consequences of their moral decisions is not sacred?*****
This is one of the silliest comparisons I’ve seen in a while. Not quite apples to apples? There are WORLDS of differences, too many to enumerate. And I’ve already said that my decision to stop shopping at WF is because I was under the impression that the company held certain beliefs/held a certain ethic. And honestly, my avoidance of WF since the op-ed is far more casual than I’m being made to sound. I thought the company’s management and philosophy was x, turns out it was y. Several of my major reasons for shopping there were mis-assumptions on my part. Is this the same reason you feel like ending entitlement programs for “welfare queens”?
*****This is the double standard – you seem to believe that some people should be held accountable for their moral behavior while other people should not.*****
No, absolutely not. The only way your argument makes sense is if I made all decisions for all people, or somehow required all men to think like me. But we are all grains of sand that align on one side of the balance or the other. You are distilling all actions and decisions into moral acts and decisions. And conflating my wallet (something over which I have absolute control) with my tax dollars (something I can lobby to change, but cannot ultimately control). If I felt pregnant girl should be cut off, I would lobby my congressman and senators.
I believe what I believe, and act the way I do, and afford all man the same right. I work to change it in ways I feel are good and right. But unlike absolutists, I give confidence intervals to my morality. I leave certainty and absolutism to fools and half-wits. Funny that the 11th Article of Faith, to allow people to believe what they do according to the dictates of their own conscience is quotable as “morally relativistic”. I would love if all people arrived at my conclusions, and to me, these positions are right. But I’m not big on compulsions/absolutes, so your terms make no sense to me whatever.
Best,
Chuckles
****There is a RELATIVE point that was breached. It was a point in me…
A Cartesian moral relativist – how fascinating.
****Each side can accuse the other of tribalism. But we are tribes!
Maybe I should welcome you to the modern world.
*****Maybe I should welcome you to the modern world.*****
I’ll accept your invitation as soon as you accept mine into the REAL world.
This is the difference between how things ARE and how they SHOULD BE. We identify with our own. We vote for them, we shop at their businesses, we support those who think like us.
Amazing I’m making this argument to a Conservative, b/c they’re always arguing that this is in fact a good thing. Mormons vote for Mormons (good ol’ Mitt), Hispanics vote for Hispanics (our friend Billy Richardson), whites vote for whites (McCain lost by a huge margin, but he actually WON a majority of white votes b/c his losses of white voters in the South–your biggest base of support btw–was so lopsided) and one not need note Obama won circa 95% of the AA vote.
Work for a post-partisan, post-racial, or post-tribal world, and you will be on the side of the angels. That doesn’t mean we’re there, or that we’re anywhere close.
*****A Cartesian moral relativist – how fascinating.*****
Don’t blame me for you turning freedom of thought and choice into moral absolutism. Moral absolutism is only present when others are compelled. You have done a lousy job defining your terms. The only example you gave were two horribly disparate scenarios, where it was hard to know where to start disagreeing with you.
You’re holding a loser hand here. Don’t don’t snipe and strut like you’ve got trump somewhere. Play it or move on, b/c your last two points are starting to sound like Harrison.
Chuckles
To clarify:
I have the positions I do. They are right for me. I make my own decisions in accordance.
I allow all men that same right. And I don’t believe there is one right, obvious, “moral” answer to health care. Hence, the debate. I’ve not made you accepting my position a moral imperative. I work through persuasion/argument.
Go ahead and tell me that’s moral absolutism, and that by making any moral decision for myself with my resources I’m as guilty of that as Republicans who want to batter down hotel doors to make sure men aren’t inserting themeslves into other men b/c Deuteronomy says those people should be stoned. I’ve told you you’re off base and nonsensical. I don’t know how many more ways I can tell you your argument is ridiculous.
Chuckles
**** This is one of the silliest comparisons I’ve seen in a while. Not quite apples to apples? There are WORLDS of differences, too many to enumerate.
If you get to play the copout card, I guess I’ll have to play it too. You are correct that there is probably some semantic confusion going on. The extent of this confusion is probably to much to enumerate here.
****I have the positions I do. They are right for me. I make my own decisions in accordance.
How is this not moral absolutism? Simply because you will only force your moral beliefs on others if you can get them legislated?
You seem to be saying that moral relativism is a process where everyone gets to define their own moral code. The absolute in this process is the self-contained, rationally-thinking being.
You’ve got me in stitches. What a cute remnant of the Enlightenment you are. Maybe someone should welcome you to the postmodern world, where concepts such as the “modern world” and the “real world” are entirely obsolete, and where silly comparisons are the only comparisons worth making. There are worlds of differances (notice the spelling), and that is the point. Given your hyper-privilege of reason, and your apparent disdain for the ridiculous and nonseensical, this is probably a world that you wouldn’t enjoy.
Yawn.
That’s pretty much how I feel about healthcare reform. Which is why I pretty much change the subject whenever I can.
Me too.
I got out of the field because, honestly, it’s not my passion.
But all this anger is not about Health Care. This is Round 2 on last November’s election. People see a changing America, a Black president, liberal policies AND a poor economy. It’s too much work to disentangle all of the anger, but I really doubt all these people are this passionate about this health care debate.
I agree with Chuckles here. I simply do not believe that all the anger we see is over their concern for insurance companies survival!
Conservatives have as many insurance horror stories as Liberals, so why are so many so worried about protecting them?
They aren’t, it is just a convenient way to protest a black, liberal president that won fair and square.
My own parents are so racist they voted Republican for the first time, despite being lifelong Union Democrats! They just could not handle the idea of a black president.
They won’t admit this to most people however, they will scream ‘Socialism’ and other nonsense.
They are scared, they will get over it, or not.
This is less about protecting private insurance companies and more about preventing a massive expansion of government into a sector where they have already proven that they are extremely ineffective.
Liberals playing the race card. I have to say I am not surprised.
Conservatives playing the “you’re calling us racist” card. Can we put this on auto pilot?
I was playing the “change” card. Call it an empty word, but it sure has a lot of conservatives scared. And you’re scared because a lot is changing. I’m not saying (all) repubilcans and hard-right conservatives dislike Obama b/c he’s black, but because he’s different from what we’ve had. A real departure. Look at that presidential wall in any Jr. High civics class. It’s like picking out the right shade of pale for for a countertop until you get to Obama.
Not only does he look different, his policies are a departure. The economy is being remade as a result of the crisis. There are two wars going on, and we’re rediscovering our role in the world. There is a lot “changing”. That is what I content has your people scared.
I don’t doubt some of them are racists. Some of them freely admit it. But it was not my argument.
I wouldn’t classified myself as scared. I would have to say I am highly skeptical. Skepticism and Fright are two completely different emotions.
Just because people are racist oppose Obama’s policies, this doesn’t mean that they are opposing them because of their racist inclinations. Racism to me is an even emptier word than change. I don’t say this to trivialize the phenomenon of racism, but it really is a tiresome conversation anymore.
Remaking the economy is a funny euphemism to describe what Obama is doing with the economy. Fodder for a future post.
I think fear and racism is much more responsible for the actions we are seeing such as people showing up to event with signs showing Obama as Hitler. Give me a break.
Maybe discussing racism is boring to you, who I would bet is a white male. But it is alive and kicking, and we need to talk about it.
And if an economy, and in fact our nation was ever in need of some remaking, ours is.
And you are more than skeptical, at least based on what I have read from you on this board.
Racism is boring to me as a white male who has an advanced degree in the liberal arts and has published academic papers in the field of cultural criticism. I never said it didn’t exist, but I did say that it is trivialized by people (typically liberals) who like to interpret everything they see through a simplistic paradigm of “race consciousness.” Race might be motivating people to oppose Obama’s policies, but for you stereotype these people as “ignorant racists” and ignore some of the more complicated reasons why they are upset is to make the same reductive and essentialist gesture that is usually the root cause of racism.
The economy and the nation might need some remaking, but to outsource this job to Barack Obama and the government??? Seriously??? You have this much faith in politicians, regulators, and bureaucrats?
Skepticism accentuated by rhetorical excess is still skepticism. I’m not literally afraid that everything is going to fall apart.
I think Brooks makes an interesting argument that is worth reading in the context of these recent posts, the piece is titled, “No, It’s not about race”:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/opinion/18brooks.html?adxnnl=1&ref=global-home&adxnnlx=1253276384-QOEXjQ8tFMq0nqrTSUNFig
I think it is overboard to say that race is a complete non-issue in this discussion, as well as to say this is all a covert white-supremacist movement. I appreciate Brooks’ point of view, but when I watch Glen Beck, I have a hard time believing that race or at least some sense of cultural superiority doesn’t factor significantly into his thinking and ranting – and I am not just talking about his critiques of Obama.
From the article: “One could argue that this country is on the verge of a crisis of legitimacy,” the economic blogger Arnold Kling writes. “The progressive elite is starting to dismiss rural white America as illegitimate, and vice versa.”
To dismiss rural, white America isn’t racism. To disagree with Barack Obama is. Do you see why this issue bores me?