Quantcast

Web Letters | The Nation

Web Letter

This article doesn't really touch on the main angst in the country today. It's more far-reaching than race. Because addressing race and prejudice is the state religion now, this prism naturally dominates plentifully in explaining Obama hate.

What is more true is that this epoch in American history represents the culmination of fifty years of leftist attempts to transform rather build upon America. The camps are really divided into Toqueville constitutionalists (also known as exeptionalists) and Marxist Gramscians. Reverse racism, the homosexual agenda, secularism and the perception that Christianity is being perscuted are subsets of the primary prism through which the culture wars are occurring. Obama's being black and black nationalists are pawns in the greater war between the Toquevillians and the Gramscians. Many Americans have lost touch with education and its value. And while they cannot articulate the players in such terms, they do know there is a ground-up assault against everything they stand for.

The joke is that the pawns of the left--homosexuals, minorities, women--have failed to realize how the temporary gains of socialism (disguised) will pale next to the losses of a socialist system as a whole. Russis, China, Asia have all tried some form of communism or socialism, and it never works. In this country, the only thing standing between Obama and socialism is the Constitution. But the attacks are the same, out of the Gramsci playbook: attack the majority with a victimization narrative--relentlessly--until the majority has its say and minorities have their way. It's logical that the author in this piece thinks its about race because he has failed to identify the bigger picture and more fundamental forces at play.

Robert DeGray

Atlanta, GA

Oct 26 2009 - 2:09pm

Web Letter

You seem to be grossly distorting the facts. There were 12 "gun-toting right wingers," who were not directly outside of a town hall meeting but quite a distance away from the president. One of them was black.

But hey, don't let the truth get in the way.

John Trillio

Waybe, NJ

Oct 14 2009 - 3:42pm

Web Letter

Mr. Younge wrote a good article. He made his point very well. But I disagree with his point. I do not believe the right wing is opposed to President Obama because of his race. My own disagreement with the president is entirely political, not racial. I do not purport to speak for other right-wingers other than myself, but in observing the criticism of the president, I get the feeling that it is politically based, not racially based. Mr. Younge has a valid point that white Americans' influence and power are declining. That has to be noticed by anyone to whom it is happening. But I do not believe this demographic trend is responsible for the vitriol the right wing is spewing at the president.

I think what we are observing can be explained by three other factors.

First, we lost. Any time you have an election, someone wins and someone loses. The losers never like it. We Republicans lost this one and we don't like it. So we are exercising our right to free speech to gripe about it. As I recall, the Democrats did the same after Republican victories.

Second, there is the magnitude of the difference of political opinion. In most elections, both parties nominate presidential candidates who are somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum. Democrats have a tendency to be left of center and Republicans right of center, but the differences between the candidates are not tremendous. George Wallace famously said that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the two parties. He was right. When you look at his opponents, Nixon and Humphrey, their politics were in the same ballpark. You could say the same for most other elections. The losing side is disappointed, but not hysterical, because the winner is acceptable. The attitude is, we can tolerate this guy for the next four years and the United States will still exist at that time.

But every twice in a while, one party will nominate an extremist from their radical fringe. Then the other party's attitude changes. This guy is not acceptable. He's downright dangerous. Time to start operating in panic mode. The extremist is so far removed from the other party's point of view that they can't deal with the thought of losing this one. If the extremist is elected, they will not be able to tolerate him for the next four years. The United States will not still exist at that time. This lunatic will destroy not only the United States, but he will destroy the world. This is more than just an election. They have to win this election in order to save the world. Failure is not an option. That was the attitude Democrats had about Goldwater, Reagan and Bush Jr. That was the attitude Republicans had about Roosevelt, McGovern and now Obama. I remember five years ago when Bush was re-elected. My Democrat friends were shellshocked. I tried to tell them it was only an election; you lost an election, that's all. They could not see it that way. It was the end of the world for them. What we are seeing now is the same thing, only in the other direction. Republicans are shellshocked and think it's the end of the world because President Obama is a radical, dangerous extremist. Now we are trying to prevent the radical agenda from being enacted. This is legitimate political discourse, not racism. It has everything to do with President Obama's policies, nothing to do with the decline of white power.

Third, we are witnessing "payback time," "backatcha." For eight years, Democrats were the ones being extremely rude to the president. They were just about as obnoxious as it is possible to get. They called President Bush everything but a gentleman. They slandered him every time they opened their mouths. When they couldn't find anything legitimate to criticize him for, they lied about him. The president could not go anywhere without being met with a street demonstration. There were serious movements to impeach both the president and vice president when it was obvious no grounds existed for impeachment. Bush deserved a lot of the criticism (nobody's perfect), but most of it was undeserved. I think he probably set the all-time record for being the most unfairly-criticized president.

OK, the situation is now reversed. And it's payback time. Republicans are criticizing President Obama (whether or not he deserves it) because Democrats criticized President Bush so unfairly. Backatcha. Republicans are being extremely rude and obnoxious because Democrats were extremely rude and obnoxious. Backatcha. Republicans are making up lies because Democrats made up lies. Backatcha. Republicans will not give President Obama credit for anything he does right because Democrats would not give President Bush credit for anything he did right. Backatcha. My favorite bumper sticker is the one that says, "I will show the same respect for your president that you showed for mine."

It is unfortunate, but that is the way politics work. Every president has had to put up with this sort of verbal abuse since John Adams. I think George Washington was immune from it because he was such a hero, but our politics have been dirty, rude, obnoxious and full of lies ever since. Forty-two white presidents have been subjected to this unwarranted abuse, so why is it racist if a half-black president is treated the same way? How is this related to the decline of white power? (Just for the record, I wish we could get away from dirty politics and have more civility toward each other.) By the way, how much vitriol would be directed toward a hypothetical President McCain by the left-wing nut cases?

I believe Mr. Younge has a valid point when he talks about the death threats aimed at President Obama. I do not remember any such threats to President Bush. So the Republican nut cases have raised the level of ugliness in our political debate to a new level. I do not approve of these death threats, but I wonder how serious they are. Is anyone seriously planning to assassinate the president, or is this just a bunch of jerks blowing off steam? I would also like to point out that even this, as ugly as it is, is not unique to the right wing. I can remember some folks named Squeaky Fromme, Sarah Jane Moore and John Hinckley Jr. I am not quite old enough to remember John Wilkes Booth, Charles Guiteau, Leon Czolgosz or John Schrank, but I have read about them in my history books. All their victims were Republicans. Of these assassins and would-be assassins, only Guiteau was a Republican, to the extent of my knowledge. So the current-day Republican extremist nut cases do not have a patent on threatening the president's life.

No, I do not buy the argument that the decline of white Americans' power/numbers/wealth is the source of all the vitriol being aimed at the president. I believe President Obama would be the target of every bit as much nastiness if he were white. Or brown. Or purple with fluorescent green polka dots.

Larry Dhooghe

Forest Grove, OR

Oct 13 2009 - 6:44pm

Before commenting, please read our Community Guidelines.