It’s Turtles All The Way Down

An article in today’s New York Times describes frustration amongst black activists over what they see as insufficiently preferential treatment from the President. Here’s an example:

On Capitol Hill, members of the Congressional Black Caucus have expressed irritation that Mr. Obama has not created programs tailored specifically to African-Americans, who are suffering disproportionately in the recession. In December, some of them threatened to oppose new financial rules for banks until the White House promised to address the needs of minorities.

“I don’t think we expected anything to change overnight because we had an African-American in the White House, but the fact still remains that we’ve got a constituency that is suffering,’ said Representative Elijah E. Cummings, Democrat of Maryland. “I think he could do more, and he will do more.’

Well, maybe he will, and maybe he won’t. Apparently the problem, at least in part, is that this President negelects his duty to educate the people (I’m still looking over Article II for this one, but it must be in there somewhere, I guess):

Michael Eric Dyson, a Georgetown University sociologist and longtime supporter of Mr. Obama, is exasperated. “All these teachable moments,’ he said, “but the professor refuses to come to the class.’

Yes, I’m sure all of us feel short-changed in this respect. It would be nice if Professor Obama could find the time to lecture us more often. We know so little.

The president, to his credit, clearly understands that he serves a broader constituency:

In an interview in late December with American Urban Radio Networks, a group of black-owned stations, Mr. Obama conceded that there was “grumbling’ among African-Americans, especially about his jobs policies. But he rejected the idea that he should pay special attention to them ”” an argument that Earl Ofari Hutchinson, a black author and political analyst, called “disingenuous at best, and an insult at worst.’

Mr. Obama framed it this way: “I can’t pass laws that say I’m just helping black folks. I’m the president of the United States. What I can do is make sure that I am passing laws that help all people, particularly those who are most vulnerable and most in need. That in turn is going to help lift up the African-American community.’

In other words, if the government is going to intervene for the creation of jobs, it is because people are suffering and need help. Because his constituency comprises all Americans, the President should see to it that any such programs are directed toward all who are suffering and need help. Mr. Obama understands this, and has in mind two important facts: first, that if the nation’s wealth is redistributed according to need alone, any group that is disproportionately needy will be aided disproportionately, too; and second, that overt racial preferences for his identity group simply aren’t going to get anywhere in the current political climate.

The article provided an jaw-dropping glimpse of a mind in which any conceivable circumstance whatsoever becomes an instance of racism, victimhood, and entitlement:

Until now, black leaders have tended to tread lightly in criticizing Mr. Obama, and some find it painful. Black Americans remain overwhelmingly supportive of Mr. Obama; a recent ABC News poll found that 96 percent approve of his job performance.

But Elinor Tatum, the editor and publisher of the black-owned Amsterdam News, says that if blacks were asked “Is he doing a good job for African-Americans?’ his numbers would be lower.

“Every time someone brings up an issue that affects blacks, he says that’s an issue that affects all of America,’ Ms. Tatum said. “But at the same time, if he were of a different race or ethnicity, he would be playing to the black community. So there’s a double standard there. Should we be the victims in that?’

This is such a hugely mis-shapen thought that a rational mind must unmount the hinges just to get it in the door. If I can unravel it, it asserts the following:

1) Black people are suffering, presumably because of white racism.

2) A remedy for this ought to be provided by the government.

3) Any allegation by the president that economic suffering is not specific to blacks, and that therefore redistributive government remediation should be given to all who suffer without regard to race, is false.

4) Because the suffering of blacks is due, as always, to white racism, it would be better to have a white person in power, because a white person would be “playing to the black community”. In other words: white racism means that black people can expect to be treated better by whites than blacks, and therefore it is clearly to their disadvantage to have a black man as President. It’s a “double standard”.

5) Because they do have a black man as President — a sure sign of their oppression if ever there was one — and are therefore at an unfair racial disadvantage, black people will be less likely to receive preferential treatment from the government, in the form of redistributive social programs that white people would rightly be barred from taking advantage of.

6) Therefore, they are, as always, victims.

I have to say: even by today’s high standards, that’s some pretty impressive work. Read the article here.

8 Comments

  1. the one eyed man says

    If Joe Lieberman were President, I’m sure that our policy towards Israel would be endlessly scrutinized in much the same way. Since nearly all of our other Presidents were WASPs (is JFK the only exception?), this sort of thing never came up before.

    I’m missing the reference in your title. Turtles?

    Posted February 9, 2010 at 7:04 pm | Permalink
  2. Malcolm says

    You need to learn to use search engines, Pete.

    Here.

    I was invited tonight to a Scotch tasting at a local steakhouse, and am unfit to comment further. More later, maybe.

    Posted February 9, 2010 at 11:50 pm | Permalink
  3. howsurprising says

    When Malcolm headlines this as Its Turtles all the way Down, I thought that he was actually going to talk a little philosophy. But no, the same boring political racially tinged rants; further evidence of Malcolm’s increasingly degenerate and crotchety brain.

    Posted February 10, 2010 at 10:16 am | Permalink
  4. Malcolm says

    Very constructive comment, howsurprising.

    Yes, I write about politics and society fairly often, and from a generally conservative viewpoint. I am always happy to discuss and debate with readers any observations or arguments I make; that’s why I do this in a public forum.

    But with rare exceptions, you don’t come here for discussion, or to examine the issues; you usually contribute nothing but insults.

    In this post I commented on an article that pointed out a flamboyantly, and arguably incoherently, race-centric viewpoint that is common enough to warrant the attention of those who take an interest in the course of public affairs. To you, however, that’s just a “boring rant”.

    What puzzles me is why, if my brain is so degenerate, and my commentary so dull, you feel the need to keep reading and commenting here. The degree of your animosity, indeed, seems almost personal: it makes me wonder if you are someone I know from the “real world”.

    I suppose, though, that I am not likely to have an answer to that. I doubt that you have the courage to post your witless invective under your real name.

    At the very least, let me assure you that you are certainly welcome to go away.

    Posted February 10, 2010 at 11:04 am | Permalink
  5. howsurprising says

    Malcolm, rest assured, I don’t know you in the “real world”. But I began to visit and read your blog out of respect for your intellect when discussing philosophy. But my respect has turned into disgust and disappointment.

    Posted February 10, 2010 at 11:15 am | Permalink
  6. Malcolm says

    I have other interests besides philosophy, and I have political views that you obviously do not agree with.

    If my opinions disgust and disappoint you, and you lack the inclination or ability to engage and rebut them (or, for that matter, to make any worthwhile contribution whatsoever), then I suggest once again that you simply stop visiting this website.

    Posted February 10, 2010 at 11:28 am | Permalink
  7. Malcolm, trolls like howsurprising aren’t worth the time of day, as you say, contributing nothing but insults. One has to have a modicum of agreement in order to intelligently discuss and argue disagreements. Ban him.

    Posted February 10, 2010 at 12:52 pm | Permalink
  8. JK says

    There’s something out of kilter here. If, as you say, “…I began to visit and read your blog out of respect for your intellect…” and that curious moniker, none (so far as I’ve seen) of your comments reflected a change in perspective?

    Indeed, out of the gate your comments never gave indication of any such sentiment. And that moniker. How surprising it is (to me) from your initial comment to the present, you’ve only shown a deniggerating expression of whatever the host has written.

    ‘Round here there’s an expression, “Don’t go away mad – just go away.” Although I must admit to deriving a certain degree of amusement from the joust.

    Posted February 10, 2010 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*