Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a serious question. In 50 years, when thinking Americans, political scientists and historians look back on the two terms of President Barack Obama, will they conclude that racism was the primary motivating factor in the continued obstructionism of a Republican House and Senate?
I understand that the GOP wants this President (and by extension, much of America) to fail, I get that. I also understand that the GOP represents the richest 1% of America, as well as corporations and their shareholders, both of which contain the wealthiest white Americans.
I am not asking about those who vote Republican, whether or not they are racist is immaterial, I am talking about the Republican membership of the 111th, 112th, 113th and 114th United States Congress.
Considering they have put forth little reason to be overwhelmingly obstructionist during the Presidency of the United States first African-American President, someone who has bent over backwards to appease Republicans, will history view the overwhelmingly white, older, male membership of the GOP as racist? Will President Obama breaking the color barrier, and the irrational level of opposition faced in doing so, be attributed to a Jim Crow level of disdain for this nations first black President?
Or will this opposition to President Obama be rationalized as something else in 2066?
This is a serious question. In 50 years, when thinking Americans, political scientists and historians look back on the two terms of President Barack Obama, will they conclude that racism was the primary motivating factor in the continued obstructionism of a Republican House and Senate?
I understand that the GOP wants this President (and by extension, much of America) to fail, I get that. I also understand that the GOP represents the richest 1% of America, as well as corporations and their shareholders, both of which contain the wealthiest white Americans.
I am not asking about those who vote Republican, whether or not they are racist is immaterial, I am talking about the Republican membership of the 111th, 112th, 113th and 114th United States Congress.
Considering they have put forth little reason to be overwhelmingly obstructionist during the Presidency of the United States first African-American President, someone who has bent over backwards to appease Republicans, will history view the overwhelmingly white, older, male membership of the GOP as racist? Will President Obama breaking the color barrier, and the irrational level of opposition faced in doing so, be attributed to a Jim Crow level of disdain for this nations first black President?
Or will this opposition to President Obama be rationalized as something else in 2066?
The fact that you preface this with 'This is a serious question' means you know the question sounded absurd, but proceeded to ask it anyway.
The answer is no. The majority of the opposition to Obama is entirely political. It has little to do with race. There are more people who don't like him because they think he's a Muslim than him being black, and even that is a tiny (yet quite stupid and loud) fraction of American conservatives.
And while some wealthy corporate shareholders and businessmen are conservative, like the Koch brothers who are basically the embodiment of America's evil plutocracy, some are actually quite liberal. Both Bill Gates and Warren Bufett, two of the wealthiest people alive, are openly liberal.
The fact that you preface this with 'This is a serious question' means you know the question sounded absurd, but proceeded to ask it anyway.
Uh, no, it doesn't, it means that people will overreact to a question that is asked in seriousness. Nice try at dismissing the question. Nor have you given a single reason to explain the almost unprecedented level of obstructionism faced by this President.
Uh, no, it doesn't, it means that people will overreact to a question that is asked in seriousness. Nice try at dismissing the question. Nor have you given a single reason to explain the almost unprecedented level of obstructionism faced by this President.
I didn't?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
The answer is no. The majority of the opposition to Obama is entirely political. It has little to do with race. There are more people who don't like him because they think he's a Muslim than him being black, and even that is a tiny (yet quite stupid and loud) fraction of American conservatives.
Uh, no, it doesn't, it means that people will overreact to a question that is asked in seriousness. Nice try at dismissing the question. Nor have you given a single reason to explain the almost unprecedented level of obstructionism faced by this President.
He is being obstructed simply because he is an America hating POS and is treasonous.
This is a serious question. In 50 years, when thinking Americans, political scientists and historians look back on the two terms of President Barack Obama, will they conclude that racism was the primary motivating factor in the continued obstructionism of a Republican House and Senate?
I understand that the GOP wants this President (and by extension, much of America) to fail, I get that. I also understand that the GOP represents the richest 1% of America, as well as corporations and their shareholders, both of which contain the wealthiest white Americans.
I am not asking about those who vote Republican, whether or not they are racist is immaterial, I am talking about the Republican membership of the 111th, 112th, 113th and 114th United States Congress.
Considering they have put forth little reason to be overwhelmingly obstructionist during the Presidency of the United States first African-American President, someone who has bent over backwards to appease Republicans, will history view the overwhelmingly white, older, male membership of the GOP as racist? Will President Obama breaking the color barrier, and the irrational level of opposition faced in doing so, be attributed to a Jim Crow level of disdain for this nations first black President?
Or will this opposition to President Obama be rationalized as something else in 2066?
I believe the answer to your question is yes. And I believe that Americans will look back at this as a shameful period in our history, much like we view slavery and the era of Jim Crow today. It probably was inevitable that the election of the first black man as president would bring so much racial hatred to the forefront, exacerbated by him not only winning in a landslide, but then definitively winning reelection, especially when their stated goal was to make him a one-term president.
But we have a president who has handled being the first to cross the barrier with grace and intelligence, and like Jackie Robinson, he will be remembered as a class act in spite of it.
It's because he's Democrat. The Republican party has been hijacked with far right nut jobs who oppose any and all progressive ideas. Also (and this problem is not a partisan one), the politicians main concern is his own political career. If smearing Obama is what works, then that's what is done. We saw this in the last election. How many Democratic senators were voicing support for Obama? Certainly not many in a state that is traditionally not a blue state.
It's politics. Not race. Unless you have evidence to suggest otherwise. So far, you're evidence is that Republican congress is obstructing Obama and that Obama is black. But he's also tall, half white, a Democrat, a father... the obstruction could be explained through an myriad of other ways; you arbitrarily picked one.
It takes two to tango. Both parties have become more entrenched and uncooperative. The GOP has become more conservative. The Democrats have become more liberal. There's been far too much "my way or the highway" on both sides of the aisle. Remember after Obama won? Remember him telling the Republicans, in essence, "You lost and we won. Now we get to do whatever we want and you can't do anything about it." Needless to say, that seriously pissed of a lot of Republicans. Since then, you have the TEA Party on one side and the Progressives on the other -- both dragging their party, farther away from moderacy. Moderates on both sides are increasingly hated. Compromise has become a four letter word.
Barack Obama's presidency has accomplished some good things certainly. The glass ceiling is officially shattered for black Americans. We finally killed Osama bin Laden. Messy and controversial and unresolved though they might be, issues of gay rights, illegal immigrants and reforming health care have at last gotten the attention they are due. But I think it will go down in history as 8 years where any and all opposition against the Democrats was equated to racism. Even saying that you don't like Obama and think he's a lousy president makes you a racist these days. Frankly, that's going to seriously annoy people. It also creates a lot of real racism where there was none previously. The Obama presidency will be remembered as an era of undoing much of the progress this nation had previously made at eliminating racism. Very unfortunate.
I believe the answer to your question is yes. And I believe that Americans will look back at this as a shameful period in our history, much like we view slavery and the era of Jim Crow today. It probably was inevitable that the election of the first black man as president would bring so much racial hatred to the forefront, exacerbated by him not only winning in a landslide, but then definitively winning reelection, especially when their stated goal was to make him a one-term president.
But we have a president who has handled being the first to cross the barrier with grace and intelligence, and like Jackie Robinson, he will be remembered as a class act in spite of it.
I have to agree completely with your explanation, and I believe this as well. Whenever change occurs, it is rarely seamless, and some folks will always resist this change. However, in this case, we are talking about an entire political party that has little or no dissent within its own ranks, making this attitude a shared one, proven by their legislative voting record.
The Jackie Robinson analogy is quite accurate, as both men knew the changes they made would be countered with racist hostility, and both men have shown class and dignity throughout.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
