Cornel West’s Cheap Shot At Barack Obama
Never let it be said that people who have grievances against Barack Obama because he won’t talk their talk and walk their walk are white progressives.
There’s eminent black scholar Cornel West, who calls the president a “a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats. And now he has become head of the American killing machine and is proud of it.”
Strong stuff, and off target.
But if you read between the lines, as Ta-Nehisi Coates did, you come away with the impression that West is less exercised over Obama’s relationship with oligarchs and plutocrats than not getting his ring kissed with returned phone calls and inauguration tickets.
And “the head of the American killing machine” is beyond strange. After all, the guy is commander and chief.
41 Responses to “Cornel West’s Cheap Shot At Barack Obama”
Eminent black scholar? More like: Notorious leftist professor.
I wonder if there would be concern from the authors on here if West had said these things about George W. Bush. (Nope.)
DLS:
While I understand that some of crave instant gratification, my post had been up for all of five minutes when you wondered whether there would be concern from other TMV authors if West had gone after Dubya.
The answer is two-fold: I doubt it, and who other than you would care?
I’ll ignore the tone of your answer, and just note that it was a coincidence that your article was up for only a short time before I posted remarks (and got a poor answer).
I don’t care much for either West or Obama, but playing devil’s advocate here West does point out that part of his objection to Obama is personal and part is policy-related. He does give the specific of the Geithner/Summers appointments as something he is critical of. Coates doesn’t give much evidence to back up his assertion that West is mostly upset because he has been snubbed, other than to say West’s complaints were generalities and not specifics.
I see this more as an analogy to the Dubuque Republican yelling at Gingrich.
CW is far left and a real Liberal. Obamama is a centrist. This isn’t the first time we hear the Liberal left complain about BO.
My question was appropriate, of course. I, too, suspect the answer.
(list to port, often far to port)
http://www.jonco48.com/blog/ship_20list.jpg
Da Goat wrote:
“Progressives” and others by other names on the farther left have been quite critical of Obama at times. (Many of them made an exception to their anti-military stance when bin Laden was killed; some may also be soft on Obama’s choice to attack Libya, but these are exceptions.)
They’re angry at the Congressional Dems, too, for not moving far left enough in 2009-2010, but most criticism lately is for Obama.
(Conceding to reality and make centrist decisions from time to time just doesn’t conform to the blueprint, presumably.)
It’s highly likely that this liberal black scholar had a number of choice words for Bush, considering the overwhelming and justified dislike of Dubya by most liberals, and by most black people. Anyone who thinks that that would have been surprising or newsworthy is deeply missing the point.
I would guess Shaun may have missed the significance of the statement, too, based on his analysis, but I could be wrong. Perhaps Shaun, knowing the audience here is the type to immediately whine about Bush in a post about a black scholar’s admonishment of the first black US president, decided it was just easier to simply quote the statement and say he disagrees, without going into the intricacies and significance from a POV of a little more depth. If that’s the case, I certainly can’t blame you, Shaun.
More DNU from my crappier critics these days?
[sighhhh]
I neglected to note aloud that “progressives” (what a false name!) and even more, more conventional liberals will give West an uncomfortable pass.
Nope, you bring all the crap to the debate just fine on your own, DLS. I understand exactly what you are saying, and I think it’s a distraction, missing the point, and really has done nothing for the thread except derail it. I know that it might come as some sort of revalation that thinking your silly little Bush whinings are ridiculous and stupid and entirely beside the point is not tantamount to being “crappy” or having trouble understanding, but that’s actually the case. I can both think you’re full of it and *simultaneously* be capable of understanding your comment. Ooooohhhh… multitasking.
You’re having a rough day today, man. You need to calm down and back off.
Could well be DNU, could be poor behavior. Of either, I’ve had enough.
I can tell you for a fact that I would not find fault if he had said that about Bush because it was all true. Bush was an awful president, I mean really bad. Obama hasn’t screwed this country up nearly as much, altho its hard to tell because by the time he was sworn in we’d been pretty well screwed by Bush’s reign.
If West had said those things about George W. Bush, they would have been true.
Kathy
@gcotharn
I rest my case.
I think you’re right on this one, gcotharn.
what a waste of another TMV thread. Drive the meme of political comparison and don’t think for a minute that the real value of this subject gets buried in the usual grave of partisanship. Neither Bush nor Obama are the subject here.
CW is an ideologue, and as with any ideologue, he has defined with total certainty the meaning of being black, being progressive, and being unshakable right.. He alone holds the authority to judge his fellow men by criteria he has imagined out of his own subjective viewpoint. In many ways, he presents himself as the all-knowing censor for the rest of us. These are the basic characteristics of ideologues of any stripe. Ultimately, these “true believers” all suffer from narcissism. It certainly can be found across all political lines.
As long as you find yourself compelled to inject an ultimately trivial political comparison as “more important” than what was written, need I point out that the authority you draw from to make such a change is grounded in exactly the same neurosis?
DH:
Thank you for trying to get the thread back on track.
This comment has been marked as spam and deleted.
he has defined with total certainty the meaning of being black
I’m pretty sure he’s a better authority on that than you are, Dave.
It’s always fun to be part of an all-white thread on a mostly all-white blog on the subject of one black man criticising another black man on the subject of being black. Neat-o.
If a white guy criticized another important white guy that holds a different viewpoint then he does, would there be such a big kerfuffle?
Just askin.
Yup, ’cause that’s exactly the same thing. Oh wait.
I know this is crazy talk for most of the white doods around here, but race is actually a different sort of construct from the point of view of black culture than it is for white people. Questions like you just asked, dduck, which are designed to be clever and smart, actually show you to likely never have deigned to listen to anyone of color talk about race without trying to impose your own white ideas and judgments on it. Meaning: you don’t sound clever, you sound like you don’t have any experience with the subject.
PS — despite all that, the answer to your question is definitely yes. We got at least 3 posts on one comment from Santorum about McCain, so yeah, about the same level of “kerfuffle”. We get posts here whenever someone publically criticizes someone else. So, doubly not clever. In fact, it’s so obvious that we pay extra special attention to every single time a white man opens his mouth to say anything, that the question is not only decidedly not clever, not only ignorant, but it verges on racially obtuse.
Cookie and milk time.
Yup, still not clever. But you’re trying super hard, so good for you, little buddy.
Now nappy time.
roro80 makes a good point and one that someone like myself who can honestly say that some of his best friends are black (cringe!) is unable to dispute.
I was only able to suspend my perspective one time. That was many moons ago (and I am not making this up) in the presence of a Trinidadian counterfeiter and his Jamaican bodyguard whom I joined in a ganja-fueled discussion about black culture far into the night. The higher I got the more I understood their patois and the more I understood their patois the more I understood their perspective.
Incidentally, don’t try this at home.
Great story, Shaun. Sounds like quite a night…
In which a sister takes West to the cleaners:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/160725/cornel-west-v-barack-obama
“a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats. And now he has become head of the American killing machine and is proud of it.”
Sounds true.
I thought you were in nappy time, dduck. Maybe you still are?
Very simple.
Cornell West is part of the Black Liberal Establishment (BLE) – Intellectual Wing. Many black politicians are groomed by the Black Liberal Establishment (which includes the NAACP and Congressional Black Caucus). President Obama WAS NOT totally groomed by the BLE. And he sure didn’t do the required “speaking” to the Intellectual Wing. The BLE – Intellectual Wing expects a certain amount of access when a black politician is in office. They thought they would have UNPRECEDENTED access with Obama. That hasn’t happened in Obama’s Presidency and frankly, they’re pissed off. It’s happening in my family. One side says that Obama is POTUS not the Black Folks President and can’t just give COMPLETE access to the BLE. The other side vehemently disagrees.
When I go to my local barber, this is the discussion MANY times. I have plenty of bones to pick with President Obama. But I thank the stars he was elected cause it has really torpedoed the BLE and have them all aghast (which I take great pleasure in). The BLE annoys me with their black superiority towards black people. They are tired and washed up.
NOTICE I said “Black Liberal Establishment”. Not “Black Liberals”. There is a difference.
Indeed it is a cheap shot and fundamentally misunderstands who Obama is. Not a leftist or a rightist, but a principled centrist.
If you are still cranky, try this:
Dr Oz said that the best method for dealing with crankiness is of course, exercise!
Oh dduck, it takes a lot more than a whiney little man who likes to snark about issues he doesn’t understand to make me cranky. Thanks for the concern, though.
Thanks for the explanation, T-Steel.
Past your bedtime, little girl.
You’re trying to insult a feminist by calling her a “girl”? Um.
who said: a whiney little man who likes to snark about issues he doesn’t understand
dduck, you’re just not that smart, are you? My point is that you can’t insult someone by calling her a girl if she doesn’t think having woman parts is a bad thing. I know that in your sexist little brain, calling someone a girl is just about the worst thing you can do, but to anyone who doesn’t automatically find the feminine to be inferior, it just doesn’t work.
And the thought of you, of all people, calling anyone immature — I mean, you might as well call me a doody-brain.
Tsk,tsk.
“I mean, you might as well call me a doody-brain.” OK
BTW: I didn’t know they had feminists in grade school, congratulations.
I quit, you win.