Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Election Results Reveal White Racism Remains Firmly Entrenched
By: Deborah FosterNov. 11th, 2012more from Deborah Foster
It should be a time for soul-searching for conservatives, and a few of them seem to be in a time of reflection. But the usual suspects are no more insightful than they were a week ago. One of the biggest problems for conservatives, of course, is that they are saddled with a circus of media pundits that keep them lurched over to the nether regions of the far right, unable to moderate themselves with this cacophony of voices always urging them further right. But conservatives have another problem that is only going to deepen as American’s demographics continue to diversify; they have entrenched race issues.
For anyone who cares about improving race relations in this country, the most dismaying fact to come in the days following the election was the figure on the percentage of white people who voted Republican: 59%. Yes, nearly two-thirds of white Americans selected the smarmy, outsourcing corporate shill who couldn’t settle on a single stance for any issue throughout the election season and had plans to bring back all of the policies that led the country into economic shambles. Even more disheartening is the fact that despite women being called the saviors of the day, the majority of white women still voted for Romney (56%). Likewise, among young voters 18-29, only 44% of whites choose Obama. Thirty-five percent of Americans call themselves Republican, and chronically vote conservative because they have hang-ups about government, and endorse theocracy. A healthy percentage of these folks are certainly racist, but they’d be voting against Obama anyway.
But, what about the other 24% who joined them for this election? If you tried to pin these people down on why they opted for the clearly inferior choice, most probably wouldn’t admit that race played a role (although clearly some would). They would probably say: 1) Obama wasn’t fixing the economy and 2) We can’t afford all this alleged spending. However, if these voters were being objective, they’d have to acknowledge that the economy has been steadily improving after falling off a cliff, Obama is a moderate who has been cutting spending, up to a trillion dollars so far, Romney/Ryan were trying to take away women’s rights and end a host of vital social programs for the middle class that essentially meant these people were voting against their own self-interest, and by supporting this pair they were endorsing the corporate takeover of politics ushered in by Citizen’s United. Actually, if they were being impartial, they would have to acknowledge a whole host of reasons why Romney/Ryan were the unreasonable choice.
So, what does that leave? It leaves the complaints that Obama is foreign, he’s the food stamp president, he allegedly wants to end welfare work requirements, and he’s a socialist who just uses the government to give things away like phones and health coverage. Each of these has a common underlying refrain. It’s tainted by racism. Racism has ticked up since 2008 from 48% of Americans expressing explicitly anti-black attitudes to 51% today. It’s even worse on scales that measure anti-black sentiments using implicit measures, where the percent has jumped from 49% to 56%. It’s not just a guess to see that race plays a role in opposition to Obama; the polls bear it out. Some might argue that the decision of vast majorities of African Americans to vote for Obama rather than Romney is racism. However, this is wrong-headed. It is vastly different to vote for someone because his policies are beneficial, and yes, maybe even identifying with and supporting him as a racially embattled minority, than it is to vote against someone because of their race in an act of discrimination.
Since the election, the nonsense spewed by the likes of O’Reilly, Limbaugh, or talking heads at Breitbart’s or Drudge’s sites has focused on the same theme. All of them have been throwing out their accusations that Americans who voted for Obama were seeking handouts from the government. In truth, their words were nothing less than variations on Romney’s screed on the 47%. Who are they worried about getting benefits? It’s always those people: immigrants and Latinos or black people and their “pathetic” white sympathizers. Republicans have long tried to associate welfare with African Americans. This is seen in the way O’Reilly stated that African Americans vote for Democrats just because they “gave them all kinds of entitlements, making them dependent.” They now want to imply that there is a ‘welfarification’ of half of America, and it’s no accident that they are linking it to a black President.
When they’re not doing racist things like playing, “Feliz Navidad,” to reach out to Latino voters as Limbaugh did, they try to plot a return to power by luring Latinos into their fold. In doing so, they make incorrect and gross generalizations about them. Representing the views of many of the Right, O’Reilly announced that Latinos were socially conservative and the only reason they were voting Democrat was immigration, so Republicans just needed to change their stance on amnesty. In reality, research shows that over 50% of Latinos support gay marriage and the majority of young Latinos (the fastest growing group, with 50,000 turning 18 every month) support abortion rights. They can’t even reach out to the one large minority group they think is good enough for them, because they know nothing about them.
As liberals, we react with disgust while witnessing Republican race issues, which were in full display right after the election. It would be advantageous to liberals to see the Republicans refuse to moderate, continuing to claim bipartisanship while they actually obstruct at every chance they get, and cling to policies that alienate demographics ranging from women and Latinos to African Americans and( the little discussed) Asian population (who went for Obama by 73%). While it would be easier for liberals to celebrate the continuing antebellum attitudes and demographic self-destruction of Republicans, it would be more beneficial to American society to address the entrenched white racism affecting large swaths of this country.
Rush Limbaugh claimed Mitt Romney got booed at the NAACP convention because all black people want is mor ...
In their attempt to explain away why 80% of young people don't like Mitt Romney, Fox News proclaimed tha ...
Americans have always had a particularly difficult time admitting they have a race problem des ...
According to a new CNN poll, President Obama is expanding his already huge lead with Latino voters. Amon ...
The booing of Mitt Romney's treatment of the president at the NAACP convention was not a one time thing. ...
Scarlet G
Nov. 11th, 2012 at 10:11 am
As a life long Democrat, I say long live the tea party and the conservative entertainment complex. Republicans don’t seem to understand that it’s not demographics, it’s their mean spirited, selfish, homophobic, bigoted, misogynist attitudes.
largo161
Nov. 11th, 2012 at 10:29 am
Can anything be done about entrenched racism other than waiting for the racists to die off?
I think I read somewhere that when different groups of people get together on a common project (such as when the military was integrated) it really can change attitudes.
However, our President’s situation is different–as commander-in-chief he’s in a position of power OVER white people–and that’s why the racists’ heads are exploding.
I’ve long said that if the President were white he’d already be hailed as one of the greatest leaders ever.
Johnee
Nov. 11th, 2012 at 11:38 am
Nah. Presidents always get slammed in a sour economy. If a white Dem was in the same situation he would still be hammered relentlessly. look at what happened with Jimmy Carter; they had him for breakfast.
Johnee
Nov. 11th, 2012 at 12:27 pm
BTW this was reply to your last statement only. Need more coffee.
A Walkaway
Nov. 11th, 2012 at 11:44 am
A quick reply – yes, we’ve found ways to deal with racism, ways that WORK.
“Failing Grades” by H. Roy Kaplan lays out a program that is really effective, but since it’s liberal-based and leaning, the schools and counties don’t like it (it also works great in destroying homophobia and other forms of bigotry). The “Good Christians” (who don’t look so good in his book) also don’t like it because it also helps to overcome discrimination against the poor.
Elizabeth
Nov. 11th, 2012 at 6:16 pm
Along the same lines, the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Teaching Tolerance has a wealth of materials, curriculum, books for schools and community groups. And its free.
Pouffia
Nov. 11th, 2012 at 10:41 am
I am glad someone finally brought this up. As a woman living in a progressive, largely liberal melting pot like the Netherlands, I was surprised, shocked and appalled by the statements made by Republicans concerning voters and their ethnicity. I can’t believe American citizens don’t immediately rise up and start protesting when they hear such things. Here in the Netherlands such statements would be not done. At all. And although I think it’s sometimes a little exaggerated here in the Netherlands, because you basically can’t say anything about a (sub)culture without being called racist, what happens in the United States is… well… unacceptable. Really, wow.
Glad you brought this up.
Shiva (Moderator)
Nov. 11th, 2012 at 11:03 am
As I always say, we have a long ways to go to catch up to Europe and Scandinavia
Johnee
Nov. 11th, 2012 at 12:09 pm
I love northern Europe. I have friends living in Norway. However I can see where, as you say, it can go a little too far. Criticizing something that may happen to be an aspect or out-growth of culture ( for example religion) is unavoidable.
Other than that yeah, northern Europe is the gold standard for enlightenment.
Karen J (@KaJo503)
Nov. 11th, 2012 at 11:08 am
When you read about “The Good News Club”, you realize that they AREN’T necessarily dying off, because their last gasp is to indoctrinate the young to carry on their attitudes in another generation.
theimmoralminority.blogsp...
Stealth theocracy is already evident in commerce and government. From some of the comments at IM, this stealthy theocracy for schoolchildren has been going on for some time. I had no idea.
Gindy51
Nov. 11th, 2012 at 12:05 pm
Their dying off will happen no matter how many people go to those stupid after school clubs. Why? Because the population of white people is going don as opposed to the populations of all the other “minorities”. It’s simple math. No matter how many racist whites those clubs produce, they will never catch up to the amount of non-racist, non-white people being born.
Plus most of them turn into band camp type of things with very little of the god bothering nonsense absorbed. I do think they are dangerous from the position of the separation of church (and their clubs ) and state. If they were held at someone’s house (like they used to be) it would be fine. The fact that schools are hosting these damned things pisses me off. MY tax dollars are being used for religious purposes and that is dead wrong.
singhx
Nov. 12th, 2012 at 7:08 pm
Karen, it has been discussed, book reviewed a while back (I think Leah Burton took the lead).
Parents are fighting back once they know it goes on in their school…anecdotally, I’ve run into several parents who have “educated” their children, their friends, other parents…so the “stealth” works in reverse.
I am in no way disagreeing that this is a real problem and needs addressing on a national level, but the only way to combat it EDUCATION! Bring in actual former members, psychologist, ministers who’ve been steeple-jacked to talk about predatory fundamentalism at a PTA meeting…or have a “guest speaker” come to each class room armed with information on this style of “stranger danger”–reveal these fundamentalist proselytizers “Good News Clubs” for exactly what they are–predators with candy, gifts, etc that lure children away from their family. In Germany, this is illegal as it disturbs the peace of the democracy.
Ardyann
Nov. 11th, 2012 at 11:11 am
The Republican party is simply not sustainable in light of the changing demographics of this nation because they have deliberately refused to change with them.
When racism drives leadership policy, whether out in the open or glued to key words, it is difficult to escape from it. Leadership policy is coming from a rigid authoritarian party and an equally rigid and fearful religion. The combination is self-destructive in the end.
While we wait for the GOP to unravel and a new party (or parties) to form, the REST of us, the whole wide wonderful, exciting, diverse REST of us will likely be able to make tremendous inroads into ridding ourselves of harmful laws foisted off on us by hateful legislators, reestablish a Supreme Court that can be trusted to understand that corporations are not people, and make sure that the EPA, FEMA and OSHA, to name a few, do not disappear.
And when new opposition to the Democrat party emerges, it will be less racist and more diverse than the GOP ever was. Oh, yes…it will be!
Johnee
Nov. 11th, 2012 at 11:30 am
No doubt the GOP is a dying breed and Romney was appealing to his racist base. However they won’t die easily.
That being said Deborah, your attempt to connect the dots to white racism is an oversimplification. Obama won in a still struggling economy!!! It is a triumph for the American people.
Yes, yes, a lot of the Repuglicans smear stuff was tainted with thinly veiled racism, and it may have contributed to the overall effect. But I can tell you that while a significant percentage of whites that voted for Romney may have been wrong headed and ignorant…their main reasoning was: “Economy still sucks and Obama didn’t do what he promised; Let’s give the other guy a try”.
Johnee
Nov. 11th, 2012 at 11:41 am
BTW if I didn’t make it clear enough; my post does not take away from the general point that the Repubs base are ignorant, racist, anti science extremists.
Deborah Foster
Nov. 11th, 2012 at 11:53 am
Your explanation fails to acknowledge the fact that the election results perfectly mirror the poll numbers for explicit and implicit racist beliefs against African Americans among white Americans. Are you suggesting this is merely a coincidence? This is happening concurrently with white voters still holding Bush more accountable for the bad economy than Obama, yet they would want to return to Bush’s policies? (www.politicususa.com/obam...)
Johnee
Nov. 11th, 2012 at 12:56 pm
I did not say that Americans always made secisions based on consistency and rationality. Also there is no argument, that there are “explicit” racist beliefs held against black Americans concentrated among Repubs.
I am saying that your analysis of white voting white is an over simplification. For example, you try and connect the dots between whites that that voted for Romney yet held Bush accountable for the bad economy as an example of racism. You fail to take into account that a lot of people are simply ignorant, and don’t make the connection that a different guy is going to continue the same failed policies even if he is from the same party; especially since Romney lied his ass off and insisted things would be different. A lot of people are gullible!
Look, Romney tried to capitalize on the bad economy and it still didn’t work! History tells us that presidents get voted out in an economic climate like this. C’mon do you really think that Ovbama’s numbers in the election wouldn’t have been even higher if the economy was good?
The lesson I tend to get from this is: Racism is isn’t dead, but most of the country wants to move froward.
Deborah Foster
Nov. 11th, 2012 at 1:12 pm
So, your argument is that minority voters of all types are smarter than white voters, and thus able to see that Obama’s policies were better than Romney’s, but white voters were ignorant and unable to see that?
Johnee
Nov. 11th, 2012 at 1:51 pm
No I am arguing that a broad leap to racism as being the primary factor is incorrect. There are a number of reasons why minorities have voted primarily for Democrats. Just as there are a number of reasons why white’s have been all over the map.
56% of the of the votes for the president was from whites! When polled, the number one issue for whites was the economy; the Romney campaign purposely courted white voters, as opposed to minorities, to convince them that they would do a better job. Based on this, there is far more complexity to the situation than just race.
I stand by the fact that the president’s numbers would have been even better if the economy was in good shape. He WON in a stale economy. That’s huge.
Deborah Foster
Nov. 11th, 2012 at 2:05 pm
Here’s the best response to your “economic issues explain it all”: the 2008 vote. In 2008, 57% of white men voted for McCain and 53% of white women. What’s your explanation for that? If economic issues were driving their decision, Bush’s abysmal showing on the economy should have driven the white vote screaming from Republicans, and yet…no. As for 56% of the votes coming from whites…they make up 78% of the electorate, so that’s not really very impressive.
Johnee
Nov. 11th, 2012 at 3:53 pm
Deborah you just proved my point! First off I never said “economics issues explain it all” I said it was complex and looking at racism being the primary issue was oversimplification. Were liberals and progressives. We are supposed to look at complexity and nuance.
Secondly the elephant in the room is all the other presidential elections in recent history. Look at the numbers for both the Clinton and Bush wins. These were white guys v white guys elections. Even in a growing stable economy Clinton’s numbers weren’t nearly as good as they should have been. That’s why I say Obama’s numbers would have been even better if the economy was more stable, but not by that much.
Deborah Foster
Nov. 11th, 2012 at 4:26 pm
Your analysis completely misses the point that support for Democrats as a party has slipped among whites, regardless of the color of their leader, *because* of their perceived support for minorities. Perhaps you don’t remember that Clinton was called the “first black President.”
LBJ knew there would be a mass exodus of whites from the Democratic party following 1968 and the Civil Rights Act, and he was right. The party composition changed dramatically. This analysis requires historical knowledge, an awareness of trends, a complex understanding of how race has affected white’s beliefs about the role of government, and a capacity to apply Occam’s razor.
Nor did I ever make the argument that race was the entire explanation. I, however, used data to back up my assertions that it is playing a significant role. You simply can’t explain away the fact that 56% of white Americans have racist attitudes towards blacks. Are you arguing these people would vote for either Obama or for the party they perceive supports the group they despise? It seems you will bend over backwards to avoid the racist elephant in the room.
buckeyewill
Nov. 11th, 2012 at 12:13 pm
As American who happen to be Black, I did not vote for “more stuff”….I voted that the 20th century does not get abolished or repealed.
largo161
Nov. 11th, 2012 at 2:40 pm
Funny.
Reynardine
Nov. 11th, 2012 at 12:22 pm
Some of the things being said in the oligophrenisphere posts, and by that bullying blowhard, Donald Trump, makes me wonder if they’re blowing up racism to get the public behind another Business Plot.
DAVID
Nov. 11th, 2012 at 12:47 pm
This article clearly captures the racial situation in the USA. Folks voting on the basis of race only helps in retarding the progress of a nation. Folks who think blacks vote on the basis of racial allegiance should step back and imagine the following scenario: If the positions were reversed ie Barak standing on the Republican platform and espousing everything Mitt stands for and Mitt standing on the Democrats platform espousing everything Barak stands for, the choice would be straight forward for black folks, in this kind of scenario I would see most black folks go for Mitt.
Colour where politics is concerned, for black folks is irrelevant , the important thing is what the party and the candidate have to offer. In the last election Mitt had Donald Trump and all types of racist innuendos on offer , so naturally folks would avoid him , Ryan and Trump like a plague.
Ryan we hear wants to run in 2016 , before the starting gun is fired , he already identifies with the racist comments of Sununu, Trump and Mitt by association, if he did not agree with their comments he ought to have resigned his membership of the ticket, surprise,surprise he did not. He then went on to bring out his own 30% comment.
As things currently stand, folks, the racism exhibited by Mitt and pals has scarred the republicans for a while to come and would continue to do so until the current generation of imbeciles in charge are retired from front-line roles.
Jeb of the Bushes might be a way forward, but then it could be argued based on current evidence that each time the Bushes take office, their performance(except for bush in Florida bar the 2000 election) has been abysmal!
We need to congratulate the decent white folks who staked their votes on barak as a decent bunch with fairness of judgement in their hearts. Think of what a Romney Presidency would bring folks with pre-existing conditions? A REPEAL! Mitt to quote Barak shoots before he aims. What would happen to those folks!
Deborah Foster
Nov. 11th, 2012 at 1:20 pm
FYI: 15 States Including Texas Have Filed a Petition to Secede from the United States Since the 2012 Election: exm.nr/QyBV1H
Johnee
Nov. 11th, 2012 at 4:18 pm
Yeah, and let me tell you it’s pretty F-ing embarrassing. I live in Austin and most of us here cringe whenever Rick Perry opens his mouth.
BTW It was fun jousting with you above Deborah. I respect you and I agree with most of your articles. Since we are pretty much on the same side about all the important stuff, I guess we’re gonna have to agree to disagree on some of the details. lol
Deborah Foster
Nov. 11th, 2012 at 4:48 pm
LoL, I agree, I always appreciate a good discussion and I am never offended when someone disagrees with me (well, I don’t tolerate right wing nut job comments as easily). In fact, my hope is that what I write will encourage people to weigh in one way or another. Thanks for reading my articles and thanks for your respect! It’s good to have you on the team.
VirginiaBlack
Nov. 11th, 2012 at 1:23 pm
As a Black person I voted Democrat because A) I always vote Democrat 2) The progressive values of the Democrat Party align with my values 3) I wanted to prevent a return to the 50′s for women 4)I believe an educated workforce will help bring more high-tech jobs back to the USA 5) I want women to decide privately with their doctors what to do with their bodies and because 6) I want equal pay for equal work for all races and sexes.
clarence swinney
Nov. 11th, 2012 at 3:28 pm
PLANNED PARENTHOOOD
35%=test-treat sexually transmitted disease
35%=contraception—big abortion prvention
16%=cancer screen + prevention
10%=other women services
3%=abortion education advisory
1%=other services
2009—11.4 million services administered
why would any humane Christian desire to cut off essential life saving services for the poorest amongst thee? Only a Republican ??What would Jesus Christ say????? “GET AWAY FROM ME YOU HEARTLESS ONES”?
FEDUP
Nov. 11th, 2012 at 3:32 pm
We as Americans must cut off the head of the Snake FOX NEWS for there stoking the rasism fire….
Johnee
Nov. 11th, 2012 at 4:03 pm
Fox is trying to recast themselves somewhat. I think it’s hilarious but we will see how far they go.
Kevin Williams
Nov. 11th, 2012 at 5:09 pm
This is exactly why everybody knows that antiracist is a code word for antiwhite.
Reynardine
Nov. 12th, 2012 at 8:57 pm
Really, Kev, that has gotten so old. Ask them for a more original platitude.
Gina
Nov. 11th, 2012 at 5:44 pm
Like buckeyewill, though not Black, I am a Mexican-American (some of our ancestors were here in the Southwestern states before statehood) who did not vote for stuff…but for leadership that does not favor the rich, but will work to have a United States that fully engages all of its citizens on a path to prosperity.
SeekingTruth
Nov. 11th, 2012 at 10:18 pm
I am glad that this subject finally came up. First, I congratulate all of the whites who voted their consciousness in spite of all the hype and undercurrent racism that existed in this election cycle!
The coalition that came together to save American democracy represents the best in America. We must keep this majority together to assure America remains the land of “liberty and justice for all.”
Let’s continue to represent America as the UNITED STATES!
One factor that was interesting to me and spoke loud and clear that white racism is still alive and well was the evangelical white Christians! Most of them, including Liberty University founded by Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, always tagged Mormonism as a cult, not Christian, etc. Yet in this “anybody but Obama era, they went for Romney by close to 60%???
However, folks, there is too much positive that came forth in this election to dwell on the negatives.
In states with the fewest minority voters, Maine, Iowa, New Hampshire, Oregon, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Washington State, Obama received some of his highest percentages over Romney!
Romney won 9 of the 11 states that were once in the Confederacy!
Dan
Nov. 12th, 2012 at 9:07 am
73% of all votes cast were from white voters. That means a great many of them cast votes for Obama. I am one of them. I voted for Obama because I thought his vision was best for me and my interests. I liked his approach. Id most like to have a beer with the Obama fellow. I didn’t vote for him because he was black or a Democrat. If I was rich and had millions of dollars tied up in offshore accounts, I’d have voted for Romney. White people typically have higher incomes, so who represents those people most? We’re there racists voting in the election? Certainly. But by your logic the blacks that voted for Obama are even more racist because some 90%+ of them went for Obama. Articles like this full of junk stats don’t prove anything and make us just as guilty as faux for “stoking the racist fires”. Race affected this cycle about as much as voter fraud did. Nil.
hippiesocialworker
Nov. 12th, 2012 at 12:35 pm
You, sir, sound entirely self-centered and completely unprincipled. If I pulled down several million a year, I would still vote democratic/progressive because my character is evolved enough to recognize what policies are better for the majority of the country, particularly women, people who are poor, those with disabilities, senior citizens, etc. The vast majority of white people who voted last week, voted, demonstrably, against their economic self-interest. Why would that be, especially in the context of your apparent view of what motivates people? You also seem to be making a strenuous effort to just write off the truly immense body of evidence of racism directed toward Obama, on the part of various elected sociopaths in the Republican party as well as among the white citizenry (dramatic increase in hate group membership, the birthers, the entire tea party phenomenon, the Obama-doesn’t-understand-American-values mouth-breathers, those now demanding secession, etc., etc. etc. — the list could go on and on) — virtually all of it without any precedent in modern history. In fact, you seem so willfully blind to all of it that it makes one question what cave you’ve been living in. The statistics about percentage of white people holding either explicitly or implicitly racist attitudes toward African Americans are not “junk”, that is unless you distrust research and the facts that emerge from it. But those kind of figures certainly are unpalatable to white people who react defensively and personally to the reality of continuing, entrenched racism in the country.
Johnee
Nov. 12th, 2012 at 2:13 pm
There is no doubt that race and certain attitudes played a significant factor especially on the Republican side of things. I certainly am not in denial about that.
Yes, Dan is incorrect when he says that race didn’t play a factor.
However my point earlier is that a lot of those voting demographic numbers are similar to when the Democratic candidate was white. This does not take away from the fact that the Republican party appeals to a backward thinking and racist base, and that they came out in concentrated droves (as you pointed out)because of the presidents race.
Plus, when you talk about “explicit” and “implicit” attitudes you are talking about a very wide range of these attitudes .It WOULD be lacking in proportion and an over simplification to say: “56% of whites are racists”.
I base a lot of this on personal experiences. I am dark skinned, of middle eastern extract and I have some in laws that are white and Republican. My sister in-law is a typical example of someone that is influenced by a more subtle or “implicit” variety of racism; she has no separatist or racial inferiority notions whatsoever, but she has been conned by some of the typical revisionist history and “socialist” stuff. Knowing her, I lean to more towards her attitudes being wrong headed and ignorant.
Dan
Nov. 13th, 2012 at 3:19 am
Unprincipled? Wow. I would then call you naive if you think the President is a progressive white knight. If he had took a stand against the tax cuts, for single payer, forced the republicans (and fellow Democrats) into cap and trade, I’d say he was our progressive hero. What we got was a guy who gave most of the stimulus to the upper tiers, who waffled on the tax cuts, who let Obamacare devolve into a huge giveaway to the insurance companies, and who has put Medicare and social security on the chopping block as a way to get the “Grand Bargain” through. He did sort of stand up for gay rights in that he didn’t stand against them. He does support a woman’s right to choose but that’s easy to support with such widespread approval from the electorate. In the end you have to realize that the President has a very limited role to play in directly affecting a persons life day to day. This President helps me directly, through appointing sympathetic arbiters to negotiate our contracts. Romney wouldn’t have. Am I supposed to take some moral stand that would hurt my family? That would be irresponsible. I agree there was a racial component to this election. Of course there is since Obama is a black guy. To say it drove whites to vote against him a majority of the time is wrong. Let’s deal in facts. Whites make up the largest voting block. They had a huge say in who was elected President. Obama was elected twice showing great support from white and minority voters. To say this election shows how racist whites are is so unfair, not to mention untrue. A white democrat would have faced the same crap. Carter was a spineless coward. Mondale was wishywashy. Dukakis was a rapist lover. Clinton was a filandering commie. Gore was a stuck up elitist. Kerry was too rich. There was attacks on all these guys. And the GOP hated them all. If your argument was tea party racism I’d say you may be onto something. But the majority of whites are not racists.
Anne
Nov. 12th, 2012 at 9:38 am
I agree that white racism was a significant part of the opposition to the president, but I also believe that other things came into play. For one thing, too many Americans have a short attention span when it comes to certain things. There are those who feel the recovery hasn’t been quick enough, but fail to take into account just how big a hole the president has dug us out of. They are into instant gratification even when it comes to solving long-standing problems that took decades to fester. Then there’s the stupidity of those who have an reverence for the wealthy, no matter how they earned their wealth. Many of them attach moral value to how wealthy people are, and they are often against helping the poor in opposition to their so-called Christianity. The nuts who rant and rave about Marxism and Communism wouldn’t recognize either one if they saw it, yet they are the loudest objectors to the president’s efforts to level the playing field for Americans. So, while racism is signficant in how a good number of whites voted, it is not the only reason and in many cases it worked in tandem with the reasons noted above.
Johnee
Nov. 12th, 2012 at 3:02 pm
Anne, as always, great perspective.
perplexed
Nov. 12th, 2012 at 11:29 am
I can’t fathom why so many in the GOP think it is okay for the wealthy to always expect more tax cuts and more corporate hand-outs but anyone else who wants anything from the government is a “freeloader”. Why shouldn’t the government invest in the poor and middle class as much or more then it does in the rich? we are the consumers and 2/3 of the economic activity in this country is dependent on us having money to spend. invest in us and we’ll stimulate the economy–BIG TIME!
Karolina
Nov. 12th, 2012 at 6:02 pm
Great post!! thanks a lot for sharing with us !!
Gary Vaughn
Nov. 13th, 2012 at 12:11 am
I read somewhere that Obama was only 1 of 4 presidents to get over 50% of the popular vote in both elections. Roosevelt was the other dem. Reagan and another repub. also did it. Obama had the largest ever turn around of GDP, Bush lost -9% his final quarter and O turned it around to a +2%, but you don’t hear about that. I can only imagine the margin if racism wasn’t involved. Like the girl that got fired for her kill Obama facebook post, on tv she said that it wasn’t racist and she was not racist. Sad that more people feel that way than one knows of. You can tell a racist, because they make excuses for it too much.
Lizzard King
Nov. 13th, 2012 at 4:04 pm
The Words of Jim Morrison of the Doors ” I’m gonna get my kicks when the whole $#!^-House goes up in flames “.
& I’m gonna say – I Told Ya So !
vigilo procinctu
Nov. 13th, 2012 at 5:41 pm
Is this article a satire?
Because if 59% of white people voting republican is somehow racist….. then what is 95% of black people voting democrat?
I’m not sure how bad Mitt would govern, but I voted against Obama’s black half AND his white half because of:
Benghazi
Solyndra
Obamacare mandates
Fast and Furious gunrunning
added national debt
currency debasement
corporate crony bailouts
taxes – in the open or through inflation
guaranteed loans
drones in domestic skies
lobbyists staffed in the Administration
illegal detentions
undeclared wars
raw milk raids
unemployment
welfare spending
stimulus failures
infringement of internet rights
Oh well, history repeats and Austrian economists will be proved correct yet again.
Shiva (Moderator)
Nov. 13th, 2012 at 5:46 pm
Now theres a great list of Fox News talking points
vigilo procinctu
Nov. 13th, 2012 at 5:54 pm
I wouldn’t know. I don’t watch that drivel. However, you are free to prove that any of my reasons never took place…
Shiva (Moderator)
Nov. 13th, 2012 at 6:38 pm
Never said they didnt take place. But to date you have nothing on Obama for Benghazi, Solyndra? Big deal. Romney, Boehner and the rest have all pretty much done pushed spending on the same stuff. Obamacare? Good for the coutnry, Fast & Furious has nothing to do with Obama, The stimulus created over 3 million jobs.
Most of the rest of your garbage can be blamed on most any president. Taxes? You are paying the lowest taxes right now of modern times.
Im sorry, a ton of garbage
Johnee
Nov. 13th, 2012 at 8:16 pm
Yeah, I didn’t get that one either. He’s suggesting that because these things on the list exist, they are either: A) Obama’s fault, or B)It’s an automatic given that Romney would do a better job with them? Weird.
Plus, the “illegal detentions” and “undeclared wars” had me rolling. Gee,I wonder…who between Obama and Romney, would most likely declare unnecessary wars and continue military detentions ( as well as torture)? Hmmmm.
Shiva (Moderator)
Nov. 13th, 2012 at 8:21 pm
He gets his stuff from the tea thugs or Fox News.
The taxes one killed me.
vigilo procinctu
Nov. 14th, 2012 at 1:01 am
You are right!!! an ambassador and SEALs were killed because they happened to get caught up in a youtube video. Kaiser was not an Obama bundler and his associated corporations did not receive ‘front of the line’ positioning for Solyndra bankruptcy repayments. It was the Bush appointed Mukasey Justice Department that perpetrated Fast and Furious, not the Obama appointed Holder Justice Department. Obamacare does not force anyone to violate their faith and pay for practices they dont agree with, and also, businesses are not cutting their employees hours to avoid its implementation. Borrowing and spending $800 billion to possibly create between 600,000 – 3,300,000 (temporary) jobs will have a net positive effect on an economy. Bush tax cuts are not set to expire. Tax through inflation is really low right now, and the government reports accurate CPI figures. The Obama administration did not SUE to keep language in the NDAA permitting detainment of US citizens, with no charge or warrant. Congress voted for war in Libya. All that’s left is to do is sell all silver and invest in a prosperous future with Obama. Thanks for showing the err of my ways.
Shiva (Moderator)
Nov. 14th, 2012 at 7:41 am
Thanks for the chuckle. Lybia was a NATO action. You should have known that. You do not see Daryl Issa going after Obama on that do you? Theres nothing to go after.
Solyndra started as a republican attempt.
The Justice department did not start fast and furious. Holder had no idea it was happening. It was run out of a field office in one state. www.cbsnews.com/8301-3172...
The fact the 4 people were killed had nothing to do with Obama. You obviously get your facts from Fox and Have no idea what the chain of command is in the security world for embassys
How many months of positive job creation have we had now? 32? Your claim the jobs were temporary if extremely laughable.
No ones faith is violated. They all have permissions to elect out. The catholic church made an issue out of this becuase they want to fight Obama. There is not one faith based group forced to sell birth control. Regardless of the fact that 95% of Catholics have or are currently using birth control.
I suggest you start using your own sources for this type of post. You are parroting BS information put out by Fox and other RWNJ sources and they are making a fool of you.
PolitiFunk
Nov. 16th, 2012 at 4:55 pm
I think if read properly, one will see the point is not that all white people are racist, but that racism is still alive decades after Civil Rights Movement. I think the point is that racism needs to be seen for what it is, not glossed over, marginalized or even overblown.
I am much more hopeful on this topic than not since the election. The president only lost 5% of the white vote since 2008. That’s a actually a good number given all the dog whistles blown over the past four years, and it’s true not all of that 5
Racism is a reality. And one strong enough to take shape over airwaves and in national politics. That candidates and pundits would feel safe enough to use words like “lazy”, “shuck and jive”, “welfare president” etc. on television is cause for alarm.
We should also remember, however, that there are two aspects to this topic…policy/law and morality. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. That’s America. One could actually be of the opinion that theft is great. As long as one doesn’t steal from anyone, the law is satisfied, however we feel morally.
What is racism? It’s not discrimination. That’s a symptom. No action a racist takes is a definition, however defining, only the product. What is it, then? Hate. Fear. Ignorance. Indoctrination. Inferiority complex. Vanity. How much of it is homogeneity?
My point is that a voting nation can only stamp out a racist agenda, and guard against racist nationalism. The racist mindset is a social construct. It takes something much larger than our votes, individual or even collective opposition. Just as the abolition of slavery took something larger than the eloquence of Mr. Douglas, and the end of segregation took something larger than marches, sit-ins or even displays of brutality. All these things play an important part, but in the end we need a countering force stronger than that which spreads and sustains racism itself. Otherwise, accept it as a valid voice in our republic. Do or…