The Pathology II
By gamecock Posted in Archived — Comments (14) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
In The Pathology, I wrote a few weeks ago that the ascent of Barack Obama as the likely presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, especially given his 20 year embrace of a racist mentor and pastor, would force an out in the open discussion of pathologies that have developed within the black community since the late 1960’s.
Just as the successful civil rights movement and attendant outlawing of de jure racial discrimination in many areas of American life, forced discussion of the pathologies of "The South" and segregationist whites in general, with any hint of racism disqualifying a potential nominee from deigning to command the nukes, blacks will now have to endure a painful exposure of kooks and kooky ideas the PC left has protected them from for five decades.
There can be no protection for ignoring elephants in rooms of the million man Farrakhan march, AIDS and crack conspiracies kinds when elephants like Osama bin Laden and Iran abound and one wants control of the nukes.
The discussion of the black pathologies is ongoing, thanks primarily to talk radio and Fox News. The leftist media, try as they might to declare anyone a racist that continues to bring up Obama’s 20-year pew-parked butt in the Rev. Wright’s Hate America Church, cannot put screaming tirades on DVDs back in the bottles.
As I suggested in part one of this discussion, the Black pathologies are primarily a creation of liberal condescension towards blacks as disabled by a mean America of 200+ years children victims. Moreover, the black pathologies are but a subset of pathologies of the left that are perpetuated by the left in its control of the media and universities.
Since the McGovernite leftist takeover of the Democratic Party in 1972, and especially after the landslide defeat and utter rejection of the leftist blame America first, socialist, Marxist, elitist, snobby world view (akin to an earlier rejection of same embodied by Adlai Stevenson’s defeats at Ike’s hands in the 1950s), liberals have lived a schizophrenic political life that prevents them from saying what they truly believe, necessitates that they speak in code language with winks and nods, and requires that the media always manipulate campaign and policy debate coverage to always ensure that liberalism in never reported as the reason democrats lose.
But a funny thing happened over the past few weeks when Obama was caught on tape explaining that working class whites prefer Hillary to him because the closing of factories creates in them “antipathy towards people that aren’t like them”, i.e. they become racist.
In Obama’s now famous statement, in which he also snobbishly disparaged non-elites (the vast majority of Americans) for “clinging” to God and guns, he encapsulated the Marxist-materialist view of history embraced by the left that controls power in the Democratic Party which ensures their presidential defeats whenever it rears its head.
These pathologies of the far left will be harder to utterly discredit than the kookiness of Rev. Wright given the left’s control of so much of the culture, but they may already have made it impossible for Obama to be elected President.
Witness Michael Barone’s take on a result of the power of the alternative media, on how The Rules Are Changing for Obama
His gracefully written autobiographical "Dreams From My Father" -- we could learn, if we could get through all 464 pages -- is a story not of transcending racial barriers but of developing a black and African identity.
The presidency is a uniquely personal office, and each incumbent puts his individual stamp on it. Obama's choice to join Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church and his choice to befriend William Ayers were not those most Americans would make, and Hillary Clinton was quick to declare, perhaps opportunistically, they were not choices she would have made.
This doesn't mean that Obama is responsible for Wright's outrageous statements or for Ayers' criminal acts (the charges against him were dropped because of government misconduct). But Obama's choices to associate with Wright and Ayers tend to undercut his appealing message -- very appealing after 15 years of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush -- that we must strive to overcome the racial and cultural and ideological divisions which have dominated our politics They are something that voters are entitled to weigh as they make their decisions.
Obama fans are upset that ABC News' Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson broke the unwritten rule that you are not supposed to ask Democratic candidates about these things. Associations with unrepentant radicals and comments made to contributors at a San Francisco fund-raiser in a billionaire's mansion are supposed to be kept indoors. Only the face that the candidate wants to place before the public should be seen.
Beliefs that most activist liberals share should be kept under wraps if they are unpopular with most of the voting public. That is how mainstream media have operated for the last generation or more. But not at Philadelphia's Constitution Center on April 16. The rules had changed. And Barack Obama was not well prepared.
When Carter’s “inordinate fear of communism”, Mondale’s promised tax hikes, Dukakis’s optional Pledge of Allegiance of school children, Gore’s rejection of Clinton’s relative conservatism, and Kerry’s desire that a captured Osama bin Laden have an “OJ” trial, were understood by the voters, they were rejected.
How is it then that Obama didn’t get the memo?
I think the answer lies in what happened in the Clinton years. The left has controlled most cultural institutions since the 1960’s. Their Democratic party vessel controlled Congress since the 1950’s. Yet, they watched Reagan utterly defeat them for 12 long years. They thought that with the election of Bill Clinton they would finally be able to finish building the Great Society.
But with the Hillary care fiasco, the election of a GOP majority in congress and with the realization that except for the issue of abortion, Bill Clinton was not a champion of the left, they stewed under Dick Morris triangulation for eight years.
They were exultant when Gore chose to run as a populist from the Left, and thought they won when the networks projected Florida too soon.
Pathologies of the left from class warfare at home, blame America firstism abroad, intolerance of dissent, to obsession with race and sex, and worship of the earth, have abounded for decades. Their kooky ideas get cover as legitimate by the MSM. Only when Rush Limbaugh unleashed a broadside against it, affirming what most knew as common sense, did many Americans finally get some public relief from the shaming of their views as that of Neanderthals.
But Gore’s betrayal of the American tradition of election concession has caused the left’s pathologies to multiply in number and intensity exponentially, from sick obsessions with Bushlied, Bush as Hitler, and Halliburton, to manmade global warming and 911 conspiracies.
And now, the morally and intellectually bankrupt party is on the verge of nominating an Obama that is to the left of McGovern himself. Obama believes the media spin and orthodoxies of the leftist cocoon he has lived in all his life.
One of the most insidious he revealed in his San Fran musing was the “What’s the Matter with Kansas” meme the libs “cling” to in their pathological denials of the irrefutable evidence of US economic history since the late 70s that their liberal policies don’t work and that conservative policies do.
In Thomas Frank’s book, he asserts that the Reagan democrats vote against their economic self interest when they vote for republicans on social issues.
I so tire of this ridiculous claim and glazed over liberal eyes in the media and elsewhere that accept it as faith that working class Americans would benefit economically from a return to the late 1970’s when a democrat president and congress had their way.
Its revisionist history to suggest that the Dems lost their majorities primarily based on abortion.
They lost their majorities primarily based on Carter’s misery index that made it impossible to buy a home.
Now, in the 25th year of the Reagan recovery, and despite the sub-prime credit crisis mortgage foreclosures, more Americans overall and more Blacks own their homes than at any time in history.
Case closed on the economic bitterness argument.
Now, as to the racism allegations, I ask a question:
Who didn’t Georgians know and when didn’t they know him?
Obama won a majority of white male votes in the Georgia primary and not a few other states with significant minority populations. (He also has won a lot of nearly all white states but we are told by the left that they don’t count against the liberal meme that most whites in America are racists and that the only reason people oppose Obama is said racism.)
It does appear to be true that many latte liberals don’t care what Obama says, no matter how offensive; what church he chose to attend; or that he hangs with terrorists. They are so ridden with white guilt, all they see is skin pigmentation, and their salvation to purge themselves of their nation’s evil.
It appears that Ohioans and possibly Pennsylvanians actually do care what Obama says and does.
Georgians would have cared too, but they didn’t know of Rev Wright at the time.
Obama used to preach that words matter when Hillary accused him of being an empty suit. In this week’s debate, Obama said people are too focused on what he says.
Sounds pathological to me.