Andrew Cotto argues that there are some people for whom it does not matter what the president does or does not say; they only care about the color of his skin.
President Obama will be addressing a joint session to both houses of Congress this week. The subject will be our nation’s deeply troubled economy. Much attention will be paid to the speech, before, during, and after its delivery. Considering our serious economic plight, the nation’s (and the world’s) focus on today’s speech seems appropriate. There is nothing more important to most American’s right now than the economy. The President should be speaking about it to the nation vis-a-vis a joint session of congress. Sadly, the President’s speech won’t matter.
It doesn’t matter what the President says. It does not matter what facts he points out, what encouragement he provides, or what ideas he presents. It will not matter if he lays out a clear, brilliant, revolutionary plan that would begin to ease our nation’s financial woes and put people back to work as soon as Friday morning. None of this matters because there are members of our government who do not care what our president says or does. This president’s policies do not matter to them. The only thing that matters is that our president is black.
♦◊♦
The race card is not pretty. I know. But these government members to whom I refer play the race card, again and again, and their obvious subterfuge must be recognized because the nation is suffering as a result. The attempt to marginalize the President on racial ground has been going on since he won the Democratic nomination. And since that time, it’s been open season in race baiting, in relentless and unprecedented ways, on the candidate, president-elect and sitting-president. He’s been called a Muslim married to a militant with whom he trades terrorist fist bumps. The President of the United States is also a Kenyan-born socialist who wants to kill the elderly through his malevolent health care bill. His omnipresent teleprompter is filled with eloquent words written by somebody else, which explains his speech giving prowess. He’s been called out as a liar by a member of Congress in the middle of a State of the Union address. He reportedly spends, spends, spends on entitlement programs, all the while, at the White House, hosting profane rappers and hip-hop barbecues. The new line is that, despite all indications to the contrary, he’s just not smart, and his academic achievements and professional ascension are the results of affirmative action. The insidious and relentless message is that he is not one of us (i.e. regular, hard-working, deserving, white Americans). And those creating this cynical narrative are singularly focused on the removal of this outsider from our midst, and they will tear down our country in order to rebuild it in their image.
I’m willing to accept that some of the criticism of the President is not racially motivated (and even justified, in many cases), but I refuse to believe that race does not play the key role in the motivation of his most ardent and preposterous critics who, since the last elections, have held this country hostage. I’m speaking of elected officials who have a singular focus of crippling our country in order to remove the sitting president from office. Damn those Americans who suffer along the way. Damn those in need of a job. Damn those in over their heads from flood waters or debt. Forget the myriad of other problems that face the nation. Their objective is not to govern but to paralyze and discredit and denounce our nation’s President until they can assume absolute power, as is their assumed right. These are not people of science or reason; these are those who employ tactics reserved for the desperate and delusional; the behavior of zealots who are deeply afraid of something that threatens their core beliefs. I don’t blame them. If I thought that America was founded for the (white) people, by the (white) people, Barack Obama would scare the crap out of me, too: a young, educated, intelligent, charismatic, centrist, family-man with the ability to inspire millions. Damn. And there could be more where he came from…
This raw power play seems to be working. The President’s approval ratings have hit an all-time low. The current perception of him is that of an inept leader. Someone who is too willing to compromise and not willing to make a stand on behalf of the American people (a perception to which the President has contributed via his own actions). While some criticism is justified, to certain members of government, he’s an unqualified Kenyan emperor without a loin cloth. But the reality is that President Obama did quite well during his first session of congress as President. He presided over a Democratic-controlled House of Representatives and Senate that accomplished more than any single Congress, on matters both domestic and international, since the 1960’s. Included in these accomplishments was the quelling of the economic disaster inherited from the Republican mismanagement of our nation’s finances during the two terms of George W. Bush. But more must be done. The damage still lingers. Ironically, and cynically, the financial narrative, in conjunction with their false personal narrative, is what the adversaries of the President are using to bludgeon his standing with the American people.
The distort-the-script tactic worked to regain control of the House in 2010. And here we are, with a faction of true believers dead set on doing absolutely nothing until the next elections roll around. And this is why the President’s upcoming speech on the economy won’t matter. No matter what he says on Thursday night, his ideas will be rejected. He must not be reelected, no matter what. The black man must be removed from office, by any political means necessary.
—Photo AN HONORABLE GERMAN/Flickr
Hi AD,
Thanks for writing again. I appreciate your continued commitment to this conversation. I agree that some supporters of Obama have also played the race card, claiming ALL criticism (or rejection of him as former ally) is racist. That, to me, is a reductive-claim which both sides are guilty.
My point is that SOME people are singularly against the president, from an ideological level, purely embraced on race. This is not ALL of the detractors; it is SOME of those whose purview negatively influences our political discourse.
Thanks, again, AD, for your thoughts.
Best,
Andrew
The other side of the coin is that some of Obama’s supporters have tried to shout down ALL criticism of him as ‘racist’.
And I would suggest that saying that all of the people with whom one disagrees are engaging in ‘pure partisan hatred’ is more of the same.
Mike, Thank you for showing me that i’m not the only out here who can see the PAINFULLY obivious. The nerve of these readers on here saying things like this “I think you are fooling yourself when you say that you are willing to accept that some criticism of Obama is not racially motivated. You are, in fact, trying to suggest that any and all criticism of Obama is racially motivated, and therefore, not legitimate. You sir, are the one playing the race card.” Double you tea eff. As a BLACK man, I agree with you and the republican party… Read more »
Mike,
I never suggested that this was the beginning of insane political strategy. What I am saying is that part of the current insanity is an emphasis on the president’s race in a pejorative context.
Andrew
Rick,
Where do I say that blatant partisan is unprecedented? The racist component is unique to this strategy, clearly, because we have our first black president. My argument is that this angle is being used in ways that are unprecedented in that a faction of the oppositional government party is being driver beyond the realm of even political sanity to exploit this fact for future gain at the sake of any current progress.
So, when congresswoman Cynthia McKinney stated in 2001 (while in office as a Democrat from Georgia) that she believed the US government not only had “advanced knowledge” of the 9/11 attacks, but that George W. Bush himself had that knowledge, this was within the “realm of political sanity”?
Or is it possible that politicians on both sides have resorted to insane tactics beforehand?
Your argument seems to be that ferocious, mindless, and partisan criticism of the president is basically inherently racist by virtue of its being unprecedented in American politics. But, of course, it isn’t. Witness the Bush=Hitler nonsense, or Ann Coulter’s “liberals are traitors or they’re idiots” diatribes, or the firm belief that Kennedy would be ruled by the Pope, or BJgate, or anything else that’s happened in American politics over the last forty or so years. The only thing that’s changed is that the President is now black.
Mr Cotto,
I think you are fooling yourself when you say that you are willing to accept that some criticism of Obama is not racially motivated. You are, in fact, trying to suggest that any and all criticism of Obama is racially motivated, and therefore, not legitimate. You sir, are the one playing the race card.
How?
How can I write that “some” of the criticism is not racial but at the same time, in your interpretation, I really mean all of it is. I wrote, on numerous occasions, that the criticism was not entirely racial nor undeserved.
How am I suggesting otherwise?
” It spent more than $1.67 trillion to revive an economy on the verge of a depression, including tax cuts for most Americans, jobs for more than 3 million, construction of roads and bridges and investment in alternative energy; ended an almost two-decade ban against openly gay men and women serving in the military, and today ratified a nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia.” And yet today America is deep in the hole, unemployment is at an all-time high and DADT is still in action as of today. I won’t even keep reading that link you posted if your argument… Read more »
n00b, If you’re having a hard time identifying those who refer, repeatedly, to the president in overtly racist context, you might want to pay closer attention. Start with the factually ridiculous “birther” movement that was only sunk, after years of discussion, by the inclusion of the cartoon-figure of Donald Trump as a champion of this narrative and a potential Republican candidate for president. Work your way up there to the hip-hop barbeque and the blatant disrespect for the president before and after the post-debt ceiling American debacle (you know, the America with a credit degrade and a tumbling stock market).… Read more »
N00b,
I called you “Assman” in the second to last paragraph. That was a mistake. That is actually the name of another person who wrote in (I swear – look one comment up from yours). Sorry about that.
Andrew
The article is a pretty partisan attempt to conflate two separate forms of criticism: 1) vigorous criticism of the president 2) racist criticism of the president. These two things are separate and if indeed they are to be considered equivalent then we should NEVER have a black president because his race would make vigorous criticism impossible. If I have to choose between equality and being completely free to criticize elected officials then I choose the ability to criticize. So if you are trying to muddy the distinction between racist attacks and ardent/ridiculous criticism than I say I cease to care… Read more »
Assman, Thanks for writing. I, like you, don’t want to get reduced to a simple argument about race being the dominant matter in the criticism of our President. Vigorous criticism is a necessary component of democracy. But pure partisan hatred (as opposed to genuine difference with regard to the best course for our country) should not be accepted on any level, for it is destructive to our democracy. Newt Gingrich admitted that the prosecution/persecution of Bill Clinton, which you referred, was a matter of opportunity (as opposed to general moral outrage – which makes sense considering Gingrich was a repeat… Read more »
Yeah, I guess all of those black leaders like Cornell West, Tavis Smiley, and Al Sharpton and various union leaders are criticizing Obama because they’re racist.
The economy sucks and anything and everything will be pinned on Obama because of that. This is damn near a law of politics. Some marginal Tea Partiers may see race at play with Obama, but those are probably the same people who hated Bill Clinton’s guts too.
Hey G.L., My argument is not that all criticism of the president is racist. That would be absurd and reductive. But complicating the primary political matters at hand, matters of national and international importance, is a sub-narrative related to the president’s identity. A narrative inspired by an ambition to remove the president from office as a top priority (hell, man, Mitch McConnell admitted to such). Whether those committed to this goal promoting the looney characterization of Obama as a socialist, Kenyan, Muslim, affirmative-action-baby, racist, hip-hop-host are “marginal” or not is debatable; whether they exist in government, and wield power, is… Read more »