If it's not racism, then what is it? [View all]

[Drunken Irishman]

I've been gone from DU for a few months now and thought I would stop in to see if things had cooled off a bit. To my dismay, they've only erupted even more and the entire site has dissolved into a hate-fest toward our President and other members. We've seen accusations of racism, homophobia and other venom spewed from all sides of the debate. It's enough for me to click 'log out' and never return again. I said in my post about taking a break that I would reevaluate where things stood in a few months and that's exactly what I'm doing.

The decision is irrelevant, though, to this post. So, I won't bore you with some LeBron James-like mega-decision. I'll either keep posting or I won't. No matter.

Anyway, when I did come online today, I noticed posts about racism from the left and how it's being used against Obama critics unfairly and unjustly - with many members pouncing on the narrative that this is basically all Obama supporters have left in their bag of tricks. I understand the push back. No one likes to be called a racist. Even racists don't like being called racist.

I don't know who is and isn't truly a racist on DU. Hell, for all you know, I'm really a 40 year old woman with Italian heritage instead of a 20-something man whose family came over from Ireland. This is the internet and most of you are just as much a stranger to everyone else as the random person in the coffee shop. What you are on DU isn't necessarily what you are in real life and that means we're all operating under our own illusions of what we think you are because our perception is entirely molded around your online persona. I think we've all, over the years, judged others here on how they represent themselves - good or bad - without ever knowing if that's how they are in real life. I'd also think that we are much more different online than in real life because it's easier with supposed anonymity to express ourselves ... especially to a group of people we most likely will never meet.

That doesn't change the fact that, at the end of the day, we still know little about each other except from what we can glean from each others' posts.

So, I don't want to suggest some people are racists and some aren't. I don't know. I don't know because I don't know you. But conversely, for some people, it's hard to put into context the constant hatred Obama has seen from some here - a consistent attack that has not let up at all over the four and a half years of his presidency. This goes beyond just disagreeing with some of his policies and a portion of his leadership and instead, compulsively at times, attacking everything he does - or only posting negative things about him. There are members, and I don't want to name 'em for fear of calling people out, who have, to this day, said hardly anything positive about Obama. I mean, from the day he won the nomination in 2008 to right now, they have maybe posted a handful of positive threads - if that. And there are others who have said only negative things about the President.

Is it racism? Maybe not. But if it isn't racism, then what is it? What is the driving force behind the constant criticism of Obama that has dominated much DU since his election?

I get that some are disappointed with his leadership and I understand many of you had high hopes for a Democratic president after eight years of Bush. But it seems much of the attacks we're seeing toward Obama are completely irrational. So irrational, that it leaves a great deal of Obama supporters questioning the motivation behind it - especially when it comes from the same collection of posters who have slammed Obama at every turn without ever offering even a token praise when warranted.

This is something that I've experienced since 2009 and I've had difficulty expressing it without sounding like I'm attacking. But while some of you believe Obama can do no wrong in the eyes of his hardcore supporters, from my view, there are a collection of you who believe he can do no right.

It's been a constant theme since his inauguration.

I look at Don't Ask, Don't Tell. For two years, between 2009 and 2010, the left howled and railed and some even questioned whether Obama was a homophobe. They attacked, they said he was dragging his feet, not doing enough and could easily overturn DADT with an executive order. But eventually, Obama got it overturned the way he wanted - the way that would have made it permanent and not risked the potential of the next president coming into office and signing an executive order overturning Obama's executive order - which would have certainly happened, I believe, had Romney won in 2012 - though, maybe not. But was that the risk any of you were willing to take? I guess so, because, at the time, it was much the ideal decision of DU. What path was ultimately better for the country and for gay rights - the one the President was derided for taking or the path advocated here on DU? I think we have that answer. Yet the hardcore criticizers couldn't even be bothered to thank Obama for staying with it, working with Democratic lawmakers and finally overturning a law that was bigoted and hateful. That's not to say some Obama critics didn't speak up and say, "you know, good deal all around...", but you know if you made those comments or not, so, if you did, obviously this isn't directed at you.

I look at healthcare reform. Obama was seriously in a no-win situation with this bill. It was a no-win situation because it's proven a no-win situation since Teddy Roosevelt tried to reform our healthcare system. Every president that fought to do it failed and some failed monumentally where it put their presidencies in jeopardy. Jimmy Carter famously lost support of Ted Kennedy in the U.S. Senate over healthcare reform and, among other reasons, it led to Kennedy mounting a primary challenge in 1980 that eventually played a role in Carter's demise. A little over a decade later, Bill Clinton nearly saw his presidency undone by failing to reform healthcare. He was able to pull back from the brink - but it wasn't without taking a huge hit and radically adjusting his administration's goals. Obama started this whole ordeal already the underdog because history had proven it could not be done. Worse, we were still mired in one of the worst recessions in American history.

The left fragmented. The right unified. There was a lot of heated language on both sides and eventually, when it looked doomed after Scott Brown's election (another thing blamed on Obama), healthcare reform passed - barely. That barely is important because much of the left advocated for a far more liberal healthcare reform bill. They wanted a public option (hell, so did I) at the least, and, if at all possible, total universal healthcare. They got neither. They felt jobbed. I can understand the sentiments. But I also couldn't understand why the blame went to Obama, as if he was the one solely responsible for a reform package that didn't placate the base. Let's get real - the public option had limited support among lawmakers and universal healthcare had no support. Sure, Democrats held huge majorities in both the House and Senate, but it took compromise to get every Democrat on board. There was essentially three options - go with what we got, go for smaller reforms (advocated by Rahm Emanuel, opposed by Nancy Pelosi and Obama) or go for broke on something that was essentially dead on arrival. The left wanted Obama to do the latter. In theory, it sounds good because it's standing up for true liberalism as I've been told over and over by those on the left, they just want a president who advocates and advances their causes - even if they ultimately fail. So, I think we can all agree (though, for some odd reason, this is still debated) that had Obama done the last option, had he pushed for universal healthcare, there would've been no healthcare reform. Maybe in the end, it would've proven successful for his presidency (certainly the returns we're seeing right now means it wouldn't have proven successful for the American people), but it would have also meant we got no foot into the door toward a truly universal healthcare plan. Right now, at least it's a start and, prior to 2010, that starting line looked too distant for anyone to ever realistically believe we would be able to cross it.

But even today, Obama is often hit harder by the left than the right on healthcare reform. I'm sure there are many who are still upset that it didn't include the public option or wasn't a true universal package. Still, that doesn't change the fact that it put the country on the right course and has helped benefit millions of Americans and will only continue to benefit millions more when it's fully rolled out in 2014. Moreover, I think we all agree it's immensely better than the status quo.

Then there is Iraq. For a good portion of Obama's first term, the narrative here was that he lied on Iraq. He was keeping us there, he went back on his promise to bring the troops home. He was just like Bush in this regard. Over time, the pullout began and even then, many hit back saying it wasn't enough ... it wasn't good enough. And then the war officially came to an end. Not much talk about Iraq these days - how the President stepped in and finished the war like he said he would. Sure, there are the stories slamming the actual war itself, but we've moved on to Afghanistan - a situation that is playing out almost eerily similar to what happened with Obama & Iraq.

I'm sure when Obama officially ends the Afghanistan War, there will be a few here who will find another reason to criticize his foreign policy.

Oh wait...

There was Egypt. We all remember Egypt. Obama wasn't doing enough. He was too passive. I remember those threads. We all agreed Hosni Mubarak had to go - but Obama wasn't doing enough to get him to go. I don't think anyone really knew what we wanted him to do, except to put more pressure on him, but certainly we wouldn't want to intervene militarily? But there was only one option from the left - Mubarak Out and Obama wasn't moving fast enough.

Hosni Mubarak is out. Even though, in early 2011, Obama was mocked constantly from the left AND the right for his tepid response.

Then Libya happened and everyone's views kinda changed. Gaddafi wasn't a good guy, I think we could all agree with that, but there wasn't near the outcry, even though a revolution was taking place - as was the slaughtering of actual people. The left, who spent much of early 2011 demanding Obama do something with Egypt, then turned around and gasped when Obama did something foreceful with Libya. What business is it of ours to meddle in another country's affairs?

It was a legitimate question - just not a consistent question. Some even floated the idea of impeachment.

Now we're seeing it with Syria. A situation that is dire. It's not just a civil war now. It's something much worse and while all options on the table suck, I promise you Assad is no better than Mubarak - the same guy so many here advocated for his ouster back in 2011.

But Syria is just another extension of Obama's warmongering. He's a warmonger. I hear it all the time from guys like Noam Chomsky! So, you know, it must be true.

This leads into the next constant, and often overblown, attack I see - Obama is just like Bush. Yup. He's Bush's third and fourth terms. With the NSA revelations, something we probably all knew was happening anyway but didn't care to make hay of it all these years, the drumbeats of this attack have only grown louder. It's ridiculous. It's only used by ideologues who look at things in black and white. But as we all know, government isn't black and white. There is rarely any absolutes. Everything is muddled and that makes it harder for us to accept certain positions. Take Guantanamo, Obama is constantly attacked for not closing it down and yet, the blame mostly lies in Congress. Bernie Sanders wants it gone? Then he better round up the votes - put his money where is mouth is. Go build enough support in the senate to show Obama it can be done. But this continues the trend of blaming Obama without blaming those who truly are responsible. Even today, even right now, there are posters ridiculing Obama for saying we need to close Guantanamo because, gosh, if he really believed it, he'd do it! I actually saw someone say that if there is a will, there is a way and that is absolutely not how this situation works.

So, instead of putting pressure on Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate, where the pressure belongs, we'll continue to make snarky and snide comments to the one guy who is actually trying to do something we all want done. But that's how it's often been the last few years. It was the same with healthcare reform, DADT, DOMA and Mubarak - Obama is all talk but where is the action?

The action comes ... but as we've seen, he can't do it on his own. We want him to, we believe he can, but our government isn't set up for that. Yet that doesn't change the fact we will constantly blame Obama for congresses foibles. But he's just like Bush.

Because Bush ended the Iraq War. Bush got bin Laden. Bush appointed two pro-choice judges to the Supreme Court. Bush reformed our healthcare system. Bush opposed DOMA. Bush came out in support of gay marriage during an election year. Bush signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Bush repealed DADT. Bush actually raised taxes on the rich. Bush actually tried to reform Wall Street. Bush expanded pell grant funding. Bush was a constant supporter of women's rights, gay rights, voting rights and other civil rights. Bush was beloved around the world. Bush added gender, sexual orientation and disability to hate crimes legislation. Bush extended benefits to same-sex federal employees. Bush supported affirmative action. Bush actually said global warming was a real thing. Bush truly invested in the U.S. economy.

I could go on ... but you get the point. Bush never did any of those things. We could line up the comparisons and the differences and it wouldn't even be close. Of course, those same comparisons would probably work for every single president in modern American history because most every president operates under the same template when it comes to national and international politics - from Woodrow Wilson to FDR all the way through to Barack Obama. There will always be similarities between Obama and Bush because they were presidents. But the differences are far starker and instead of focusing on those differences, the fact society is better today than it was during the Bush administration, we focus on the similar aspects of their presidency. Those who attack Obama constantly, constantly use this line of attack and never concede, or admit, the good he's done.

You know, it's interesting - Obama is in Berlin, or was, I don't know if he's still there, and the reception he received, along with the reception he received in Northern Ireland, truly shows the disconnect between the American left (and right) and most the rest of the world. Our president still remains a very popular figure in most parts (though, I suspect he isn't in the Middle East - which isn't a surprise) and why? I'm just told over and over here by American intellectuals and liberals that he's just Bush with a tan (google that one) ... but they hated Bush. I don't remember thousands of people lining the streets in Ireland (or Northern Ireland) wanting to see Bush. Hell, I remember this from Dublin:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6695-2004Jun25.html

And then there was this when Obama visited:



Are they delusional? Are they woodchucks?

But he's such a disappointment! They just don't understand!

Obama is probably more popular in England and Germany and Ireland and Australia than their leaders are and that says a lot about him, our country and our position in the world.

But he's just Bush.

For me, it's hard to reconcile much of this hatred. I can understand disappointment and displeasure with his policy - but there is voicing concern and outright attack that leaves many questioning the motives behind those attacks. Is it racism? Maybe not - but if not racism, then what is it? That is a legitimate question because it seems some here are only content on judging Obama by his faults instead of his whole body of work - you know, saving the U.S. auto industry, the economy, reforming healthcare, embracing equality, ending DADT, pushing for the end of DOMA, ending the Iraq War, putting us on the path to ending the Afghanistan War, trying to close Guantanamo even with a hostile congress, appointing two wonderful, qualified women to the Supreme Court, supporting a woman's right to choose more so than any president in American history, pushing for immigration reform even though he's doing it with a Republican House and a combative Senate, trying to advance sensible gun control and building a better, stronger relationship with our allies so that we're not the isolated country Bush turned us into during his presidency.

And that's just half of the good Obama has done for this country. But none of it matters. It wasn't good enough. Healthcare reform wasn't good enough. He didn't end the Iraq War fast enough. He took too long to overturn DADT. He isn't doing enough when it comes to DOMA. He really doesn't mean it when he says he wants to close Guantanamo because if he did, it would be closed. He only came out in support of gay marriage because of political opportunism. He's a neo-con. He's a hawk. He's indecisive. He's a corporatist. His stimulus wasn't big enough (even though it was the biggest in U.S. history). He's in the back pockets of all the banks. He's a DLCer. He's a third-wayer. He's ruining the Democratic Party. He's driving the youth to vote Republican. He's a DINO. He's a Republican. He's to the right of Ronald Reagan. He wants to gut Social Security. He wants to gut medicare. He is ruining the middle class. He's an elitist. He's too powerful. He's not powerful enough. He's going to get us into a war with Egypt/Libya/Syria. He can't be trusted. He's a coward. He has no backbone.

These are the attacks I've seen here on DU over the last four and a half years. Many of these attacks are also from the racist right-wing media. When attacks are irrational, you have to question why they're irrational in the first place. We do it all the time with the right-wing and we concede their irrationality toward Obama, you know, when they call him fascist or socialist or Marxist or communist, is because they can't handle there is a black man in the White House.

That doesn't mean the left is racist for making very similar irrational arguments (Obama has been called fascist by both the left and the right) - but there has to be an explanation for that irrationality. What is it? To wonder if it is racism, when the attacks are so eerily similar to the racist attacks from the right, is not entirely unreasonable. I don't think it's true for a vast majority of DUers or liberals ... but there does appear to be a collection of people who, from day one decided they didn't like Obama and were going to express that dislike at every chance they got - without ever admitting when he did something right.

To those members, to those attackers, their reasoning is always suspect. It's always suspect when someone spews nothing but hate. It's suspect when the right does it and it's suspect when the left does it as well.

So, if it's not racism, then what is the reasoning behind the often irrational attacks toward our President?