Aggravation, humiliation,Obligation to my nation. interesting, provocative, and far more insightful than anything Obama has said or written about race and politics in the United States... [rquoter]While hanging out yesterday at Ace's yesterday as he was flogging racists, I happened to mention that many if not most black Americans view the federal government as beneficial and friendly. Some other commenters were surprised and I was surprised at their surprise, because it isn't difficult to figure out why this is. Whether it's the Emancipation or the desegregation of the Armed Forces or Brown v. Board or the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, the federal government for the most part had seemed to be on the side of the black American as his constitutional rights were being oppressed by state or local governments. What needs to be spelled, however is what the federal government did in the above-mentioned areas: it legally removed obstacles to the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of Americans who are black. And that it what it was supposed to do. The present problem in my unlearned opinion is this: the federal government began overstepping its bounds during the Great Depression and did so most infamously in the late sixties via the Great Society programs. Doing more that getting local racists out of the way, the federal government sought to and succeeded in making itself the suppliers of life, liberty and, putatively, the happiness of many black Americans. (Try telling a senior of any race that Social Security is sending the country to financial ruin. You'll get an earful about her "rights".) And even many black Americans who do not rely on the federal government still view the fed as our friend because of that history. What's needed in order to change this perception is obvious: education--not a new education but the old one, one which contains an objective explanation of the role of government. Simply put, the role of the American government is to remove obstacles to liberty of the People--even when that obstacle is American government itself. Supplying all of one's needs is not government's role. That's God's purview. We all remember President Obama's statement containing the assertion that one of the flaws of the US Constitution was that is only contained a list of "negative rights," meaning negative government "rights." The idea that a Harvard-trained lawyer thinks that the government has rights or that there was no list of positive responsibilities assigned to government was mockable. (Hey, you voted for him.) But what the statement betrayed was a widespread misconception present in those of us who aren't lawyers of any variety of a friendly fed whose role is to insert itself between God and man's liberty and to redistribute wealth (aka stealing). The notion that the founders "forgot" to address this is hilarious. So when the Democrats came to full power this year, they began to build on the foundation that Democrat Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson laid. The good news? Between Socialized Medicine, Cap and Trade, TARP, etc., the federal government's active role in overstepping its bounds--in crippling America--is opening the eyes of Americans of all races. The bad news: there may not be an America left when the federal locusts finish.[/rquoter] Politicians say more taxes will solve everything And the band played on.
what does his list of programs have to do with black people? why is he linking an article about the federal gov't being on the right side of arguments like segregation to public healtchare. is public healthcare only for black people? do only black people support public healtcare, is he blaming these social programs that benefit everyone that social conservative hate on black people is this just a blame black people argument seriously, you think this is a great commentary on race?
Dang, I was hoping this would be the one basso thread that didn't get a single response. I avoided posting in it for specifically that purpose. Oh, well...
what do Brown, the emancipation proclamation, civil rights act, etc. have to do with black people? i'm not following you; could you restate the question?
as usual you didn't read the article. the argument is because the gov't is on the right side of those issues, doesn't mean its on the right side of issues like welfare, or social security, or public healthcare, or TARP. so what do those programs have to do with blacks exclusively? please read the article you posted before responding
you're misreading the article. the article is about (first) why blacks view the with a certain amount of respect, and are thus more apt to view big government programs as beneficial. as the author writes: What needs to be spelled, however is what the federal government did in the above-mentioned areas: it legally removed obstacles to the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of Americans who are black. And that it what it was supposed to do. however, it does not follow that all big government initiatives are therefore beneficial, or beneficial to blacks: the federal government began overstepping its bounds during the Great Depression and did so most infamously in the late sixties via the Great Society programs. Doing more that getting local racists out of the way, the federal government sought to and succeeded in making itself the suppliers of life, liberty and, putatively, the happiness of many black Americans. please reread before posting again.
It's an interesting argument, I think, and an interesting way of putting it. I agree though, it's a lot less about race and more about poor people getting government handouts (to put it in a not-so-eloquent manner). Is the government's role to remove obstacles for liberty/happiness (the racial references were examples of this, BTW, and not the point of the article) or give handouts? Ideally, I think it's the former. Realistically, people need the handouts. Healthcare is a good example -- do we help out the uninsured who can't afford healthcare (but could if they got a proper education/job, and there's nothing to prevent them from doing that in theory), or let them die from lack of healthcare? I think morally, the government can't just say "Meh, they should've gotten a better education and gotten a better job in order to afford healthcare!", especially while the economy and job market is in the tank like this. They're practically obligated to help. Fact is, not everyone can afford it, but everyone needs it. The writer is idealistic (and projecting his personal view of government).
You can take any gov't program that you feel is just and then project saying that these other programs aren't just or they are overreaching programs. nothing new about that. why is he focusing on programs that benefit blacks to programs that benefit everyone? is this article a criticism of blacks being over reliant on the gov't. if so, why is he including things like TARP? what is the point of using blacks as his example of people benefiting from the gov't
the author is black i believe, and is making a general point about why blacks view the government sympathetically, and then segues to a broader point about government overreach in the age of Obama, and how that the efforts of Government in this instance (contrasting to the past), are maybe not in blacks (or anyone's) best interest, but blacks don't see it, because of past associations.
oh well, its all good, he probably has black friends okay, so now I'm going to be as patronizing as he is (and you are, par for the course) towards my own black folx do you think black folx sit around opining about TARP? This is the stupidity of this "opinion" piece. This opinion piece isn't specifically about blacks, or at least not the programs he fast forwards to. he would have made a good point, if he didn't focus on us black folx
i didn't mean to come off as patronizing, and i certainly didn't take the article that way, and in any case, i think we've gotten off on a tangent. the author's point is summed up in the last 4 paragraphs, where he discusses the difference between rights and entitlements, and how the Obama administration has confused the two.
Okay, lets ignore black people. Democrats have been trying to pass healtcare legislation for more than 50 years. Nixon wanted healthcare reform, so its not even unique to democrats aside for the warp discourse of today's politics oh an btw, whose program is TARP. so that being said, how is "problem" of gov't programs, unique to Obama
Obstacles to Liberty . . . . Maybe the biggest OBSTACLES TO LIBERTY are Self Interested Rich/powerful Folx and Corporations. Remove Government Regulation you get monopolies and serfdoms [company towns] heck . . . one of the main reasons america is failing is because Lobbyist seem to make more power over laws than congressmen [since they pay the congressmen] Rocket River
i don't think anyone is debating the merits of health care reform per se, just whether bankrupting the country is the proper way to go about it.
they did, and elected W. but health care has been an issue for as long as i can remember, certainly longer ago than 2000; perhaps you couldn't vote in '92?
Clinton left office with a surplus. If anything, people were fighting over how the money should be spent. oh those bankrupting Democrats.
