General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: If it's not racism, then what is it? [View all]BeyondGeography
(39,374 posts)First, they are convinced that liberal/progressive values aren't aggressively enough embraced and advanced by the President, and that he hasn't made the most of his tenure as a result. There is enormous frustration about the long-term arc of the country since Reagan and that the President hasn't been as unabashedly liberal as his predecessors were conservative.
I have to say I have very often shared this frustration.
Second, the President's most vocal opponents severely underestimate the degree of difficulty involved with advancing a liberal agenda in this country at this time. The most clear example for me is the constant harping about FDR and what he was able to achieve, without even mentioning the sweeping majorities (3-to-1 in the Senate at its peak, e.g.) that he enjoyed compared with the scant margins the President has worked with, when he has even had the margins.
That said, the President was handed two wars (both of which he will end), the worst economy since the 1930's (which he has at least stabilized), George Bush's outrageous tax cuts (which he has ended for the wealthiest Americans), one of the least efficient health care systems in the developed world (which he has overhauled), a broad set of retrograde social policies, from equal pay to LGBT rights to immigration (where his commitment to progressive change can not be questioned), relationships around the world that needed to be rehabilitated (which they have, almost without exception), and a global terrorist threat that has been greatly diminished. This has been a successful presidency by any objective measure, one that our opponents would be venerating to the political heavens if they had anything remotely equivalent.
So why the continued outright hatred, per your OP. i don't see it as racism, more likely American-style impatience and, too often, naiveté.
That said, it's a thrill to see you back and hope you'll stick around.