Black President, Double Standard: Why White Liberals Are Abandoning Obama
A scurrilous accusation
This is the sort of pap I would expect in other political magazines, but not in The Nation.
This magazine truly is changing, and not for the better. When Eric Alterman justified the assassination of bin Laden, I disagreed but could at least understand his argument. But this is just so absurd on so many levels I don’t even know where to begin.
The Nation publishes a large quantity of high-quality, thought-provoking work. But occasionally I’ll see an opinion piece that makes me think the opinion writers truly are stereotypical “latte-drinking, limousine, East Coast liberals,” with the exception of Cockburn, Klein, Younge and others.
This article shows that Ms. Harris-Perry truly does not understand the concerns of average voters (black and white, as well as Hispanic, Asian and every other ethnicity), and the anger they feel toward both Republicans and Democrats, including Obama. She just cannot comprehend that people on the left have a genuine anger, anxiety and fear about the future of themselves, their families and their country. So much anxiety and fear, in fact, that they would contemplate not voting for any Democrat short of Dennis Kucinich or Bernie Sanders.
Progressives are sick, sick, sick of being forced to vote for a Clintonesque corporate Democrat or else let a fanatical Republican sociopath take the White House. Many on the left, myself included, may be willing to let the country go off a cliff rather than endure the “lesser of two evils” false choice, yet again. Let’s let it all go to shit, and let the chips fall where they may. We can rebuild with what’s left after the Generic Republican Sociopath finally drives the country off the deep end with the regressive “flat tax,” endless wars of oil conquest and nuclear exchanges.
It has nothing to do with race. Progressives are sick and tired of the “lesser of two evils” paradigm.
Liberals are used to Republicans obstructing any type of progressive piece of legislation, no matter how minuscule, that Democrats try to get through Congress. Republicans are so focused in their pursuit of corporate hegemony and unbridled greed that nothing they can do would shock anyone on the left. We expect them to be that way.
But Obama was supposed to be different. I never bought into all the “Obama-hype.” I was pretty accurate in predicting that he would be a typical Clintonesque, corporate Democrat (i.e., what a moderate Republican was forty years ago). But I at least thought he would be much more aggressive than he has been in advocating for average working Americans.
I at least thought that his first act in office would not be to staff his administration with the Clinton-era finance de-regulators who caused the financial crisis in the first place! His first move in office was to bring back the Clinton boys who advocated the overturning of Glass-Steagall and the decision not to regulate financial derivatives, which a decade later brought the entire world economy to its knees. Not to mention his selection as chiefs of staff—Rahm Emmanuel and William Daley, both with strong ties to the financial sector.
This tells you a lot about who Obama is truly representing: the financial sector. This also explains his hesitancy to even mention Occupy Wall Street. He still has not given any support to the protesters, although, like Clinton, he “feels” their pain. I’m sure they feel all warm and fuzzy with that kind of support as they get their heads smashed in by the thugs in blue.
And this brings me to my next point, which others have mentioned: Clinton was president during an economic boom. Obama has been president during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. One would be forgiven for thinking that desperate times should call for desperate measures; that is, that Obama would take some type of radical action to get the economy back on track.
Yes, Republican obstructionists make it such that Obama is not solely to blame for not enacting policies that most liberals support. However, people on the left can blame Obama for outflanking the extremist Republicans from the right on issues such as deficit cutting, cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits, etc.
Unfortunately, I don’t expect much from a Democratic president, which is a sad reflection both on the state of the Democratic Party and on the two-party system in this country. However, I do, at the very least, expect a Democratic president to steadfastly defend Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, rather than to join the attack against it.
Further, Obama has adopted the right’s nonsensical economic ideology to the effect that spending and tax cuts will lead us to full employment. He failed to counter the Republicans with a competing (Keynsian) economic narrative, either because he truly agrees with them or because he has been carefully tacking toward the center in preparation for the next election.
Clinton performed some despicable acts while in office—NAFTA, welfare reform, as well as many others. But he did not perform these despicable acts with record unemployment and underemployment, with record foreclosures, a record number of homes underwater, or following the largest act of corporate welfare in the history of human civilization.
Clinton isn’t president, though; Obama is. If a white man were to do what Obama is doing, most on the left would be just as upset and angered and exasperated with him as they are with Obama. And the same goes for Hillary Clinton, who would have been another corporatist-centrist Democrat, to be sure.
As a matter of fact, I voted for Obama because I thought he would be to the left of Hillary Clinton. Does that make me a sexist because I thought the black man would be a better choice for president than the white woman?
Sheesh…
Matthew Minor
Hazlet, NJ
Nov 3 2011 - 9:57pm










