The Politics of Race — Flames Fanned by a Former President (Guest Voice)
The Politics of Race — Flames Fanned by a Former President
by Michael Reagan
The Democrats, led by certain members of Congress and former President Jimmy Carter, have developed a new tactic to dismiss growing displeasure with President Obama’s policies. As his approval ratings continue to drop, hesitancy over health care has snarled the plan’s progress, and tens of thousands marched on Washington this past weekend, the left has decided the entire opposition can be dismissed by the obfuscating charge of racism.
Just Tuesday, former President Carter told “NBC Nightly News,” “I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he’s African-American.”
No one wants to fall in with racists, to heed racially motivated comments, or to be lumped in with their kind — so, to President Carter’s thinking, what choice do we have but to ignore the discontent of any American and praise the administration blindly?
This sort of mindset is not only ignorant, but actually dangerous. A former president of the United States has equated opposition to nationalized health care, government bailouts, and out-of-control spending, to racist motives solely because the sitting president is black. Is that the sort of progress we need in this country? Progress where we can no longer have a national debate because of skin color? That’s not the sort of progress President Obama has advocated.
President Carter has failed to account for the fact that millions of Americans are simply fed up with the big government policies coming out of Washington — the same policies they denounced under President Clinton, at times under Republican Presidents Bush, and certainly from a certain President Carter. Perhaps Carter could take the time to recall conservative frustration when Republican President George W. Bush’s administration spent too much for their liking, or liberal frustration on social issues. Were those concerns racist? Of course not!
In that same interview, Carter also chastened us that, “No matter who he is or how much we disagree with his policies, the president should be treated with respect.”
It seems to me that the ones forgetting that creed have not been the millions who fear government interference in their insurance plans, children’s education, and small businesses. No, the one who seems to forget that is none other than President Carter himself.
After all, let’s remember now who it was who called President George W. Bush’s sitting administration the “worst in history.” Or do you recall the claim that President Bush had inspired an “overt reversal of America’s basic values” and that his “arrogance” and “fundamentalism” were taking the country in the wrong direction?
Could it be…Jimmy Carter?
Of course we should treat our sitting President with respect, and I will be the first to stand against those who do not treat President Obama as the duly elected leader of this country, and you had better believe that I will oppose any racially-motivated attacks against President Obama or any other leader or individual in this nation.
But in a democracy, in this great and free country, we retain the right of dissent, the right of free speech, the right to oppose government policies and the direction of our leadership, and the right to speak that disagreement publicly. If we lose that freedom, if we allow it to be suppressed by claims of racism, then what sort of free society are we?
Moreover, with his comments, President Carter is in essence telling independent voters across the country, including those who may have voted for Obama in 2008, that if they disagree with the president on any issue, their disagreement must stem from racist motives rather than clear thinking. Now that is not smart politics, and it’s something Democrats should stand up and oppose as well.
These latest comments by Carter cannot help by remind me how fortunate we were as a nation that my father’s election removed him from office.
Mike Reagan, the elder son of the late President Ronald Reagan, is chairman and president of The Reagan Legacy Foundation (www.reaganlegacyfoundation.org). ©2009 Mike Reagan. Mike’s column is distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. This columnn is licensed to run on TMV in full.
31 Responses to “The Politics of Race — Flames Fanned by a Former President (Guest Voice)”
“The Democrats, led by certain members of Congress and former President Jimmy Carter, have developed a new tactic to dismiss growing displeasure with President Obama’s policies. As his approval ratings continue to drop, hesitancy over health care has snarled the plan’s progress, and tens of thousands marched on Washington this past weekend, the left has decided the entire opposition can be dismissed by the obfuscating charge of racism.”
********
Ah the spin continues unabated.
What I sense here is anger…anger that at its heart is “snarled the plans progress”.
Once again MedMob spins the legitimate concerns of anyone left of the fruitloops-off-the-deepend GOP and whines about how their botched and bastardized “we'll-ram-deregulation-through-later-when-the-GOP-regains-the-Whjtehouse-and-Congress” “plans”.
Astroturfers showing up armed with racially denigrating posters of Obama at rallies, having chosen their “right” to preserve their ability to pay ridiculous premiums of claims-denying and disqualifying industry giants curiously as their “line in the sand” about Obama, are a phenomenon you're expected to overlook as you read this piece.
Remember: keep your focus on Jimmy Carter, “tens of thousands” who showed up for last Saturday's DC shindig and “Obama's falling numbers of approval” [while those who approve of his public option plans continue to rise...go figure?].
Stay mesmerized, stay stupid, stay gullible. Now read the article again..lol..
There is a large undercurrent of racism to the opposition of Obama. This doesn't mean that every bit of opposition of Obama is due to his race. Carter realizes that and so do most liberals. Of course all most republicans can do is deny that fact instead of trying to admit it and confront it.
The racism has come front and center because of republican tactics. Instead of trying to have a reasonable policy debate, all they are doing is using exaggerations and lies to play on peoples emotions and this often brings out peoples racism. Republicans have chosen to try and harness this racism for their own short term gain, and I think in the end something ugly is going to happen that totally blows up in their faces. Now, not all republicans are using racism or taking advantage of it, but most certainly aren't trying to stop it, and if they do they are shouted down by those who support these sort of tactics, and who are often racist themselves. On the commentor side, Rush and Glenn are the ugliest in their uses of misinformation. Hard to judge whether they are pruposefully trying to harness this monster, or they are actually ignorant to the meaning of what they are spewing on a daily basis.
@@Carter realizes that and so do most liberals. Of course all most republicans can do is deny that fact instead of trying to admit it and confront it.@@
Nice pontification without factual support…….the national poll came in at 12%. Just enough to account for Carter and the TMV posters. Who's the one in denial of facts?
Come back and play again!
[...] The Politics of Race – Flames Fanned by a Former President (Guest Voice) (themoderatevoice.com) [...]
[...] The Politics of Race – Flames Fanned by a Former President (Guest Voice) (themoderatevoice.com) [...]
I find it sad yet amusing that supporters of the man who was once given the label of the first “post-racial president” have fallen back to tactics of race-baiting.
From what I can tell, Republicans by-and-large are racists because they oppose affirmative action and pretty much any civil rights legislation.
They are also Elitists because they oppose virtually any bill that helps out the poor.
They are also bigoted because they also oppose legislation that assists the disabled and want to eliminate any laws that help the elderly and programs such as Social Security and Medicare.
So it is of no great surprise that they show no respect for the President of the United States by screaming “liar” at him during joint session on national television.
Clearly it is the President's race that the Republicans find repugnant as they find poor people repugnant, disabled people repugnant and the elderly repugnant.
Why? I have no idea.
Affirmative action = racism.
Anyone who thinks minorities need a handout to compete is putting forth the notion that they are inferior and cannot compete on their own merits. This is racism. Equal rights under the law need to be enforced to the hilt, minorities need nothing else and are just as capable as anyone else.
[...] The Politics of Race – Flames Fanned by a Former President (Guest Voice) (themoderatevoice.com) [...]
Yeah, because calling out the racism being exuded by conservatives and members of the republican party is 'race baiting'. The right has made race an issue since before Obama became president. Before saying anything, they said anything they say about the president would be construed as race baiting. Then they go ahead and make racist comments, get called out on it, and then say it was predictable that they would be called racists for making racist comments. But of course, according to them they aren't making racist comments, they are making common sense conservative observations. Because stating that our country is being overrun by people who are not white, and lamenting the fact that whites will soon not be a majority is not in any way a racist observation.
Carter: “I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he’s African-American.”
Yes, there is a strong race element in the opposition to Obama. However I think Carter went too far when he characterizes it as an “overwhelming portion”. I don't believe it is an overwhelming portion.
And of course the Republicans are on the other extreme…. they don't admit just how much of a factor race plays. The Republicans I know in the South claim that they are not racist but then they mention the words “black” and “white” whenever they talk about Obama and the country. When they use the word “black” it's always to put Obama (or his father) down. When they use the word “white” it is always in tones of goodness.
I strongly disagree with Reagan's statement, “…the left has decided the entire opposition can be dismissed by the obfuscating charge of racism.”
I think the very vocal opposition to Obama is coming from a minority of Republicans who tend to be racist. However I don't think most Republicans are racists. So I can understand why some liberals may feel that race is the underlying motive in attacking Obama. I think the bigger underlying motive is fear stoked by the likes of Rush, Palin, Beck, etc. and the outrageous lies they tell. I wish the Dems would push back more on these falsehoods propagated by the GOP.
http://media.photobucket.com/image/the%20race%2…
http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/269/motivato…
Carter didn't say all opposition to Obama was based on race. He was talking about things like shouting at the President during a speech to Congress, waving pictures of Obama-as-Hitler (I've seen far more of these comparisons than I saw of Bush-Hitler comparisons or even Cheney-Hitler comparisons, and I live in an area that is considered liberal), and spreading blatant lies (e.g. Obama wants to kill off the elderly).
I have plenty of policy diagreements with Obama. If people would stick to discussions of policy, they wouldn't be suspected of racist motives. When they act irrationally by telling lies, making light of death threats or shouting during a speech, they naturally invite speculations that they are irrational; one asks what their irrationality is based on, and since racism is a prominent national pasttime that falls into the irrational category, one conjectures that racism is the motive. Maybe this conjecture is wrong, and these ridiculous acts are a manifestation of some other sort of irrationality. I'd love to hear alternate theories on where this irrationality is coming from.
As opposed to race-baiting, what Leonitas continues to post here is master-baiting.
YUCK! More Michael Reagan. pffffft
I see you've maintained your “standards” for class imavettoo.
So for anyone that missed the 80's version of racism (only reverse racism exists and other than that we will blame the victim while muttering racial epithets under our breath and saying we have a black friend) its officially back. It's David Duke time, will the Repubs be claiming that they are only a white pride organization soon? I know that is pretty hostile stuff but to be honest with every new story about how its really the left that is racist I move a few more feet toward believing that they are racist, they being the people spinning the living hell out of this.
When this all went down I said it was not about race but that a minority of racists are loud and giving the Repubs what they think is cover for such actions but will end up harming the party. Seeing the classic 1980's version of the “were not racists” response is beginning to change my mind and I am actually starting to turn against them now. Me thinks you protest too much. For any on the right reading this the way to fight it is to let it go, if you keep this up you may win a battle but I assume I am not alone in finding these types of “up is down” arguments disgusting considering we have seen them since the 1970's which low and behold also coincides with the introduction of Nixon's Southern Strategy. A minority of americans that lived through the 60's and 70's see race everywhere, some are racists and some are not but they project it on everything because it was the world they were raised in. Both the racists and non-racists(the “defenders of minority groups” I have no better word for them though the preferred tag of the racist group is reverse racists) will not change nor will they change the way they see reality but luckily their political era is over unless say we keep talking about it over and over in which case we are likely to dig into history and find some ugly things about both sides.
Number one please god let this go, it does not matter and I hope it never will again. Number two when discussing who or what is or is not racist keep in mind that older americans are great people but much like the generation of and after the holocaust they have been traumatized and they are still fighting a battle that they either think can be reversed or is being reversed and guess what, neither is happening.
So again where did Carter say that all opposition is racist? Oh yea he did not say that.
Where did he say that you could not disagree without being racist? Nope did not say that either but did call for civility, which is the tradition that has been enforced by Repubs in the past.
Where did you learn to build such pretty and wonderful straw men? Oh yea you are Reagan's son, nevermind I was stupid to read further than your name.
Leo's Law
As a internet discussion on polotics involving progressives grows longer, the probability of a claim of racism approaches 1.
The Magical Sky Father's Law
When debating politics with anyone that lived through the 60's/70's expect them to see racism or reverse racism in everything and to continue to throw the filter at you so that you will see it as well. If you watch Fox or listen to Rush or the like you may not have had to live through the previous eras to make this law work. Also if you were raised in a racist or bigoted area or ghetto(Watts, Compton, the rural south) you may also suffer from the exact same 60's/70's hangover and should also be ignored.
In my little melt down though I thought of a way to separate the racists from the non-racists on the right though it will likely not be a popular one. Stop screaming race baiter or reverse racist and start policing your own side of the fence and telling those that are not helping the cause that they are not helping the cause. Then turn to the left and ask them why they cant do the same. Currently both sides are playing defense but silencing the extreme or out dated elements of the party is the path to success, the current path is the road to the Dem party of the 70's/80's just flipped on its back.
I'm surprised this liberal site hasn't routinely quoted professional “racism” hoaxster-industrialist Tim Wise. Especially right now, with the Dems' self-destruction of their health care effort.
Where's my AA check darn it?!?!! I'm BLACK!!!
Anyways, President Obama won regardless of the “racist vote” against him. That's enough to tell me that true racists (I prefer “bigots” since most bigots don't have the power to be racists) aren't mainstream. I have a simple philosophy when it comes to racists:
Try me fool!
And let me tell you, there aren't many racists/bigots willing to try ANYTHING but the Internet and discussions in “places of comfort”. So the majority of anti-Obama is policy. But political debate has become more uncivil as the years go by. So every Tom, Dick, Harry, Jane, Mary, and Barbara are projecting their personal “issues” onto anything and tainting what they say. That is the incivility that ruins discussions.
Really? So all of these people were screaming from the rooftops as our debt doubled in 8 short years?
Or did they put some kind of fiscal conservative serum in the water supply last January?
He is actually correct about the race thing. On the policy side what you are seeing is hypocrisy not racism which is not exclusive to one party. Having said that I think it is important to point out on a regular basis “where were you?” If for no other reason than it paints them as partisans who have a reason to protest the other sides policies. Speaking of hypocrisy where are the anti war protests now? Again, fiscal conservatives come out when they are out of power and hide when their side is in just as do the anti-war protestors. Call it the horror of winning only to lose big and be marginalized. The sky is falling crap is just hypocrisy not because they are loonie but because they neutered themselves by being inconsistent. If anti-war protests do not get going in earnest soon though they will be just as silly and cartoonish as the fiscal conservatives and I say this as a leftie fiscal conservative.
You are 100% correct, they hide behind jokes/sarcasm/message boards and friends that will not call them out on it. Calling them out on it gives them incentive to either hide under a rock or do some serious soul searching.
Most serious anti war protests involved the Iraq war and how many did we see in 2008? Not many that I can recall probably because we'd already signed a SOF agreement that included a withdrawal timeline.
That is a good point, I happen to think they should still protest it but I think that is because I have confused the 60's “all wars are bad” with the 00's “stupid wars of choice are bad.” Even though I was part of that 00's group though more on the internet side. So that was a bad example since few if any will protest Afg. and the big target of Iraq is kinda a signed deal at this point.
Prove it I need a birth certificate! Orly Taitz told me you were really a Swede!
Hey, not going to let progressives have all the fun. =D
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Kurt. Kurt said: The Politics of Race — Flames Fanned by a Former President (Guest … http://bit.ly/cAn7I [...]
[...] The Politics of Race – Flames Fanned by a Former President (Guest Voice) (themoderatevoice.com) [...]
[...] The Politics of Race – Flames Fanned by a Former President (Guest Voice) (themoderatevoice.com) [...]