Are Blacks Too Invested in Obama’s Success?

This is a particularly difficult blog for me to write, as I run the risk of further alienating my liberal friends, who somehow believe that I want to see Obama fail. This couldn’t be further from the truth, but more on that later. I feel that the black attitude towards Obama is important to consider, and hope that my friends will not take offense, but see this as a challenge to think a bit more deeply about how they perceive Obama, and how they see themselves in light of the Obama Presidency. The key issue here as it appears to me is that as the Obama Presidency goes, so goes the psyche of blacks that have invested far too much in his success as a source of our identity.

This week I posted an entry to FaceBook on the Fairness Doctrine, whose title happened to have Obama’s name. None of the criticism of my post was in response to the Fairness Doctrine, but was entirely about how Obama is fixing the mess that George Bush created or how Republicans just want to see Obama fail so that’s why they didn’t vote for the pork-laden, almost $800 billion stimulus package. In both cases, one would think there were simply no other available explanations. Without a lengthy treatise, I would like to first respond that George Bush was not alone in Washington. There is also a bicameral Congress composed of Republicans and Democrats, who are the ones that write and pass the laws, who could override George Bush’s veto pen if he didn’t sign a bill into law, and who could also prevent him from going to war. This is not a monarchy nor a dictatorship, but a republic. The President may set policy direction and use his office as a bully pulpit to encourage the passing of certain legislation, but he must ultimately depend on Congress to pass laws.

Any mess that Obama is cleaning up is the responsibility of George Bush and Congress, as well as policies carried over from previous administrations. While the Republicans spent recklessly when they controlled Congress (up until two years ago), it was Democrats who were largely responsible for encouraging the subprime mortgage mess that led to the financial crisis, through pressure they exerted on financial institutions to make loans to people who couldn’t afford them, and the sweetheart treatment they gave Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when these government sponsored enterprises were failing miserably. The very situation that created the opportunity for banks to engage in the dangerous financial instruments that led to the global financial crisis was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, ushered through Congress by Phil Gramm, a Republican, and signed into law by Bill Clinton. So there is plenty of blame to go around. Unlike many of my Democrat friends, however, as a Republican I have no problem criticizing my own party because I know it is made up of imperfect people like me.

Secondly, I cannot imagine that Republicans, en masse, want to see Obama fail. There could certainly be a small minority of ill wishers, which is within the bounds of the human condition, but somehow my liberal friends don’t see that human nature applies to Democrats as well. What we need to understand is that there is no reason to believe that Obama’s policies are necessarily efficacious and should thus go unopposed because the people voted for "change." Success and failure cross color and racial boundaries, and are most decidedly colorblind. The fact is there are fundamental philosophical differences between Democrats and Republicans, and it is entirely reasonable that for these reasons Republicans have not signed on to the stimulus bill, instead proposing another version they see as focused on stimulus and infrastructure, without additional massive spending lacking a stimulative effect that future taxpayers must pay back with interest.

From a black perspective, having too much invested in Obama’s success because he is black will only be a hindrance to the realization of a colorblind society, and will be a huge disappointment to the psyche of blacks if his policies prove to be unsuccessful. Obama’s successes should have no bearing on the identity of black Americans, and neither his failures. Obama’s successes or failures should reflect on Obama as an individual, and on the viability of the U.S. government to maintain a free republic based on free market capitalism, instead of an inevitable slide towards a nanny state (which appears to be where we are headed). Now is the time to set race aside and evaluate Obama solely on the content of his character and his ability to successfully govern. That means he is open game for criticism on any all policy decisions, and we should all welcome the debate.
share on: facebook

An Apology and A Way Forward

I am deeply appreciative of the feedback received, both positive and not so positive, from my friends and acquaintances that have been following my new blog. As I value your opinions highly, I totally hear you that the blogs tend to run a little long (ok, way long). The reason for that was force of habit, as I was writing in an Op-Ed format which is typically about 850 words long. So I will attempt to keep these shorter and sweeter moving forward.

I am aware that my posts are controversial, particularly for my liberal-leaning friends. But what I ask is that you evaluate my arguments based on their own merits, even though you may disagree with my premises and ultimate conclusions. I don’t allow comments on the blog because it is amazing how much vitriol people will spew when they can do so anonymously, and I’m not particularly fond of others lobbing hate bombs at me from the privacy of their corner of the internet, hidden from view. However, for those who know me on FaceBook or communicate with me via e-mail, please feel free to open a dialog and express yourself. This is not warfare, but good natured debate. I only ask that if you take a position, be able to defend it in a cogent, logical, and consistent manner (and yes, I know some of you feel that I don't do that, but I digress).

For those unfamiliar with the German word Weltanschauung, it may be translated as worldview, and it is something that we all have. According to Wikipedia, worldview “refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs through which an individual interprets the world and interacts with it.” So if I have an idea of your basic worldview, I can, with great certainty, know how you would respond to a great variety of situations, because worldview is pervasive. We all, to some degree, can feel out, or sense, what opinions various people may have through acquaintance. But understanding worldview provides deeper insight than we can glean from our senses alone, because the added ingredients are rational thought and analysis through the study of first philosophy.

So now you may be thinking that all we need is more philosophy, and even more, another dry philosopher. Fair enough. My promise to you is this won’t be a dry tour, but a dynamic introduction to the philosopher within you, underpinned by your most basic of beliefs for which no proof is required. These basic beliefs are brute facts that you have accepted, becoming the presuppositions that support your overall belief system. In posts to come, we will explore worldview, particularly as it relates to liberal versus conservative thought. And one thing in particular we will learn is that all politics and ideologies have their basis in worldview and underlying presuppositions. So anyone who criticizes another for being “political” or “ideological” must tread lightly, as their own politics and ideology are inseparable from their worldview. In essence, we should not expect politics or ideology to be inconsistent with worldview. More concretely, there will be certain things that we should never expect Republicans and Democrats to agree on, since certain aspects of their respective worldviews are simply incompatible (unless of course, you are Arnold Schwarzenegger, but that's another story).

Again, thank you for your feedback. I look forward to our journey moving forward.

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview
share on: facebook