Law School Discussion

Why Obama will lose in the fall

vercingetorix

  • ****
  • 707
  • Vive le quebec libre
    • View Profile
Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: May 30, 2008, 08:07:41 AM »
people seem to be missing the point.  it's not white racism that will cost Obama the election, its hispanic/asian racism.  as an ethnic group hispanics have huge issues with african-americans.  but don't believe me, just look at what happened to him in areas with large hispanic voting blocks.  as a voting block asians are also insanely racist, particularly against black people.  asians won't be as much of a factor however, that's simply a question of raw numbers.  i think it is indicative of the climate in which we live that this issue, the pink elephant in the room so to speak, isn't discussed.  the obsession is with white racism, which, grant you exists, but is waning, while these other forms of racism are in full swing (not to mention black racism, which is ridiculously entrenched and encouraged). discuss.

shayee053

  • ****
  • 108
  • Texas 2011
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #1 on: May 30, 2008, 08:24:06 AM »
So im sure that the comment that I am going to make will be extrememely controversial but here goes...

I am not going to address the validity of your arguement directly. I think it is important to discuss the definition of racism. Most dictionaries describe racism as a prejudice against a group based on race and the definition will allude to notions of superiority vs. inferiority. I think both both aspects of the definition are oversimplified. If you look historically at manifestations of racism you will notice the component that is left out of the definition. POWER!! So is it truly black racism, or racist asians, or latinos? Can they truly be racist because they lack the power to oppress another group at this point in time? Or are they simply prejudice?

Just something to consider...enjoy the rest of your discussion.

shayee053

  • ****
  • 108
  • Texas 2011
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #2 on: May 30, 2008, 08:29:38 AM »
Oh, man. Don't hit me with those negative waves so early in the morning.

Lol...I know. I shouldn't have even replied. I hate negativity as well. I was bored...

vercingetorix

  • ****
  • 707
  • Vive le quebec libre
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #3 on: May 30, 2008, 08:37:19 AM »
Oh, man. Don't hit me with those negative waves so early in the morning.

Lol...I know. I shouldn't have even replied. I hate negativity as well. I was bored...

so being an ostrich is the answer?  and the power argument fails.  racism is as good old Webster defines it: 1. a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.  no need for power to be a racist a$$hole.  that is a cop-out.

Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #4 on: May 30, 2008, 09:07:58 AM »
In my area, city dems voted for Obama, and all the suburbs voted Hilary. Suburbanítes are overwhelmingly white. If Obama loses the election, it might be because those suburbanites are not willing to get on board where poor people already are...in Obama's camp.

mbw

  • ****
  • 2426
  • TTTundra Law 2012
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #5 on: May 30, 2008, 09:23:56 AM »
people seem to be missing the point.  it's not white racism that will cost Obama the election, its hispanic/asian racism.  as an ethnic group hispanics have huge issues with african-americans.  but don't believe me, just look at what happened to him in areas with large hispanic voting blocks.  as a voting block asians are also insanely racist, particularly against black people.  asians won't be as much of a factor however, that's simply a question of raw numbers.  i think it is indicative of the climate in which we live that this issue, the pink elephant in the room so to speak, isn't discussed.  the obsession is with white racism, which, grant you exists, but is waning, while these other forms of racism are in full swing (not to mention black racism, which is ridiculously entrenched and encouraged). discuss.

Regarding bolded in your post above:  You're asserting that Obama did poorly in Latino areas because Latino didn't like him due to their inherent racism, not because, well, they actually were voting FOR Clinton?  Or because Latinos perhaps don't like Obama's actual policies?  (e.g., Latinos, as a group, are much more supportive of a strong government safety net (social security, universal healthcare, etc.) and Clinton has made it a point to emphasize her commitment to those issues - Obama, OTOH, has much more libertarian views of government.)  (NB: I am neither a Clinton nor Obama supporter.  Just a 20+ year political operative (Dem.) and I currently reside in a heavily (>80%) Latino area.)

Martin Prince, Jr.

  • ****
  • 148
  • Excelsior!
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #6 on: May 30, 2008, 09:34:08 AM »
people seem to be missing the point.  it's not white racism that will cost Obama the election, its hispanic/asian racism.  as an ethnic group hispanics have huge issues with african-americans.  but don't believe me, just look at what happened to him in areas with large hispanic voting blocks.  as a voting block asians are also insanely racist, particularly against black people.  asians won't be as much of a factor however, that's simply a question of raw numbers.  i think it is indicative of the climate in which we live that this issue, the pink elephant in the room so to speak, isn't discussed.  the obsession is with white racism, which, grant you exists, but is waning, while these other forms of racism are in full swing (not to mention black racism, which is ridiculously entrenched and encouraged). discuss.

Regarding bolded in your post above:  You're asserting that Obama did poorly in Latino areas because Latino didn't like him due to their inherent racism, not because, well, they actually were voting FOR Clinton?  Or because Latinos perhaps don't like Obama's actual policies?  (e.g., Latinos, as a group, are much more supportive of a strong government safety net (social security, universal healthcare, etc.) and Clinton has made it a point to emphasize her commitment to those issues - Obama, OTOH, has much more libertarian views of government.)  (NB: I am neither a Clinton nor Obama supporter.  Just a 20+ year political operative (Dem.) and I currently reside in a heavily (>80%) Latino area.)

Are you kidding? You must be joking... That, or, for a 20+ year operative, you have a surprisingly weak grasp of libertarian policies.

mbw

  • ****
  • 2426
  • TTTundra Law 2012
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #7 on: May 30, 2008, 09:45:50 AM »
people seem to be missing the point.  it's not white racism that will cost Obama the election, its hispanic/asian racism.  as an ethnic group hispanics have huge issues with african-americans.  but don't believe me, just look at what happened to him in areas with large hispanic voting blocks.  as a voting block asians are also insanely racist, particularly against black people.  asians won't be as much of a factor however, that's simply a question of raw numbers.  i think it is indicative of the climate in which we live that this issue, the pink elephant in the room so to speak, isn't discussed.  the obsession is with white racism, which, grant you exists, but is waning, while these other forms of racism are in full swing (not to mention black racism, which is ridiculously entrenched and encouraged). discuss.

Regarding bolded in your post above:  You're asserting that Obama did poorly in Latino areas because Latino didn't like him due to their inherent racism, not because, well, they actually were voting FOR Clinton?  Or because Latinos perhaps don't like Obama's actual policies?  (e.g., Latinos, as a group, are much more supportive of a strong government safety net (social security, universal healthcare, etc.) and Clinton has made it a point to emphasize her commitment to those issues - Obama, OTOH, has much more libertarian views of government.)  (NB: I am neither a Clinton nor Obama supporter.  Just a 20+ year political operative (Dem.) and I currently reside in a heavily (>80%) Latino area.)

Are you kidding? You must be joking... That, or, for a 20+ year operative, you have a surprisingly weak grasp of libertarian policies.

Actually, no I don't.  And you've provided no evidence, other than faux outrage, for your position.  Yawn.

ETA:  How about I drag out Reason magazine contributor and libertarian scholar Daniel Koffler on the subject?

Quote
Obama's language of personal choice and incentive is a reflection of the ideas of his lead economic advisor, Austin Goolsbee, a behavioural economist at the University of Chicago, who agrees with the liberal consensus on the need to address concerns such as income inequality, disparate educational opportunities and, of course, disparate access to healthcare, but breaks sharply from liberal orthodoxy on both the causes of these social ills and the optimal strategy for ameliorating them.

Instead of recommending traditional welfare-state liberalism as a solvent for socioeconomic inequalities and dislocations, Goolsbee promotes programmes to essentially democratise the market, protecting and where possible expanding freedom of choice, while simultaneously creating rational, self-interested incentives for individuals to participate in solving collective problems. No wonder, then, that Obama's healthcare plan is specifically designed to give people good reason to buy in, without coercing them. Likewise, as George Will reported in a column from October, Goolsbee's proposal for reducing income inequality is to lower barriers to higher education, the primary factor in determining future earnings, and noticeably does not rely on state interventions in the market, which can succeed at equalising income at the price of reducing it across the board.

Goolsbee and Obama's understanding of the free market as a useful means of promoting social justice, rather than an obstacle to it, contrasts most starkly with the rest of the Democratic field on issues of competition, free trade and financial liberalism. Back in the spring of 2007, when the term "subprime mortgage" was beginning its ascent to ubiquity, Goolsbee composed an impressive op-ed in the New York Times, noting that - fraudulent lending practices aside - subprime products are a powerful tool for democratising the credit market and opening it up to lower socioeconomic strata, and had been substantially successful in reducing financial constraints on working-class people. Crack down on fraud by all means, but don't cut off an important avenue of economic empowerment for working people, and most of all don't do so in the name of working people.

The evidence that Obama heeds Goolsbee's lessons is ample, his healthcare plan being but one of many prominent examples. Whereas Clinton has recently taken to pulling protectionist stunts and rethinking the fundamental theoretical soundness of free trade, and Edwards is behaving like the love child of Huey Long and Pat Buchanan, Obama instinctively supports free trade and grasps the universe of possibilities that globalisation opens up, and seamlessly integrates it into his "audacity of hope" theme. As he remarked in a recent debate: "Globalisation is here, and I don't think Americans are afraid to compete. And we have the goods and the services and the skills and the innovation to compete anywhere in the world."

At the moment, Obama's and Clinton's positions on trade are roughly equivalent - both deserve credit for taking initial steps toward dismantling the obscene US government-supported agricultural cartels - but the present dynamic is Obama moving more and more in the direction of economic freedom, competition and individual choice, and Clinton wavering if not moving away from it. Obama proposes to address the "actuarial gap" in entitlement programs - actuarial gap being a term congenial to if not lifted straight from Niall Ferguson's analysis of generational accounting - in part by raising the cap on payroll taxes, but in part by creating incentives for personal retirement accounts, fostering, if you'll pardon the term, an ownership society. The idea, as with his approach to healthcare, is to bring individual self-interest and collective needs into harmony, and let rationality do the work from there. (Hillary Clinton, in case you're wondering, disagrees.)

Similarly, while Obama's support of immigration and immigrants undoubtedly derives in part from straightforward internationalism and humanitarianism - Obama's lead foreign policy advisor is Samantha Power, author of A Problem from Hell, under whose guidance Obama has directed far more attention to the Darfur genocide than any other candidate - it's likely that part of Obama's embrace of immigration stems from a Goolsbeean view of free movement of labour as inextricable from and essential to a free global market.

Perhaps it goes without saying that Obama's belief in freedom in labour markets and freedom in capital markets, sets him apart from the Republican field as well as the Democrats. Under ordinary circumstances, one would expect Republicans at least to respect free trade, but alas, they are inconsistent at best. As for freedom in immigration, even in politically propitious times, the modern GOP makes tactical concessions toward its xenophobic wing; in this season of famine, the Republican candidates, even those who have supported immigration in the past, have set up their nominating contest as a race to see who can take the most thuggish and contemptuous possible attitude toward Mexicans (the euphemism for this posture is "out-Tancredo-ing Tancredo").

Ironically, the nativist lunacy sweeping through the GOP underscores the conceptual connection between free trade and immigration, as mutually supporting pillars of economic freedom. Obama properly understands economic freedom as the best vehicle for accomplishing the historic goals of the left, which Irving Howe and Lewis Coser long ago described as wanting "simply to do away with those sources of conflict which are the cause of material deprivation and which, in turn, help create psychological and moral suffering."

In other words and in short, Obama's slogan, "stand for change", is not a vacuous message of uplift, but a content-laden token of dissent from the old-style liberal orthodoxy on which Clinton and Edwards have been campaigning. At the same time, Obama is not offering a retread of (Bill) Clintonism, Liebermanism, triangulation, neoliberalism, the Third Way or whatever we might wish to call the business-friendly centrism of the 1990s. For all its lofty talk of new paradigms and boundary shifting, the Third Way in practice amounted to taking a little of column A, a little of column B, and marketing the result as something new and innovative. Obama and Goolsbee propose something entirely different - not a triangulation, but a basis for crafting public policy orthogonal to the traditional liberal-conservative axis.

If this approach needs a name, call it left-libertarianism. Advancements in behavioural economics, public and rational choice theory, and game theory provide us with an opportunity to attend to inequality without crippling the economy, enhancing the coercive power of the state, or infringing on personal liberty (at least not to any extent greater than the welfare state already does; and as much as my libertarian friends might wish otherwise, the welfare state isn't going anywhere). The cost - higher marginal tax rates - is real, but eminently justified by the benefits.

Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #8 on: May 30, 2008, 09:52:15 AM »
I'll sign on to fry's evaluation of the op's argument as far as 'racism' is concerned.  The op is making an argument that is similar to one made by the Clinton camp.  They seem to think that just because certain groups have chosen her over Obama in the primaries that those same groups would choose McCain over Obama in the general.  It is actually a pretty absurd statement considering we are talking about 'democratic' voters.

Martin Prince, Jr.

  • ****
  • 148
  • Excelsior!
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #9 on: May 30, 2008, 10:35:51 AM »
people seem to be missing the point.  it's not white racism that will cost Obama the election, its hispanic/asian racism.  as an ethnic group hispanics have huge issues with african-americans.  but don't believe me, just look at what happened to him in areas with large hispanic voting blocks.  as a voting block asians are also insanely racist, particularly against black people.  asians won't be as much of a factor however, that's simply a question of raw numbers.  i think it is indicative of the climate in which we live that this issue, the pink elephant in the room so to speak, isn't discussed.  the obsession is with white racism, which, grant you exists, but is waning, while these other forms of racism are in full swing (not to mention black racism, which is ridiculously entrenched and encouraged). discuss.

Regarding bolded in your post above:  You're asserting that Obama did poorly in Latino areas because Latino didn't like him due to their inherent racism, not because, well, they actually were voting FOR Clinton?  Or because Latinos perhaps don't like Obama's actual policies?  (e.g., Latinos, as a group, are much more supportive of a strong government safety net (social security, universal healthcare, etc.) and Clinton has made it a point to emphasize her commitment to those issues - Obama, OTOH, has much more libertarian views of government.)  (NB: I am neither a Clinton nor Obama supporter.  Just a 20+ year political operative (Dem.) and I currently reside in a heavily (>80%) Latino area.)

Are you kidding? You must be joking... That, or, for a 20+ year operative, you have a surprisingly weak grasp of libertarian policies.

Actually, no I don't.  And you've provided no evidence, other than faux outrage, for your position.  Yawn.

ETA:  How about I drag out Reason magazine contributor and libertarian scholar Daniel Koffler on the subject?

Actually, yeah, you do have a weak grasp of libertarian policies if you think the article you cited provides evidence for a libertarian worldview (at least in the economic sphere). Where are the calls from Obama (or his advisor) for reduced taxes and social services? Where does he call for a reduction in government? Koffler may read his advisor's agenda as "left-libertarianism" but what I read is a government providing more of a guiding, or Visible, hand in the free market, not the reverse (which would be, um, Actual libertarianism) in order to make those social justice and collective action decisions more rational to the individual. In fact, what this sounds like is efficient, good government.

frybread, I'd also like to add that I wasn't the one making the point about his supposedly libertarian policy views, so the vacuous nature of my first reply (avec le faux outrage! Sacre Bleu!) was equal to what I was replying to. If you want to make that case though, you'll have to do better than a sneer followed by a cite that doesn't actually back up what you are arguing.