Little-Acorn
07-30-2008, 06:11 PM
As the author points out, it's hard to tell exactly what Obama is advocating here - a not uncommon characteristic of his speeches. But he specifically refers to "reparations", and then says the government should do deeds, not just offer words.
---------------------------------------------------
http://opinionjournal.com
from "Best of the Web"
Check, Please
By JAMES TARANTO
July 30, 2008 -- 4:00 p.m. EDT
One of the most appealing features of the Barack Obama candidacy is the idea that Obama is "postracial"--that he is a candidate who is black and does not practice the adversarial politics of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. This is why his 20-year association with the racist anti-American crackpot Jeremiah Wright was potentially so damaging to him, and why Jesse Jackson's lurid fantasies of sexually mutilating Obama were such a great stroke of luck for the candidate.
But a story in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin raises serious questions about Obama's postracialism. The paper describes an Obama appearance at Unity '08, "a convention of four minority journalism associations":
"I personally would want to see our tragic history, or the tragic elements of our history, acknowledged," the Democratic presidential hopeful said.
"I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds."
Exactly what Obama is advocating here cannot be determined, but it seems to be something of an endorsement of the idea of "reparations for slavery," which is usually taken to mean cash payments. In this view, the following deeds are insufficient to balance the ledger between America and the descendants of slaves: the Civil War, the ratification of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, Brown v. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the continuing practice of racial preferences.
The idea of reparations is highly unpopular, and with good reason. Unlike the Japanese-Americans who in 1988 received compensation for their internment by a Democratic administration in the grips of wartime hysteria, no one alive today has ever been a slave. The idea of the government cutting checks to compensate people for a wrong that they did not personally suffer is unlikely to appeal to anyone except perhaps those who stand to receive those checks.
The politics of this are rather odd. There is little for Obama to gain by endorsing reparations. If ever there was a candidate who has no need to pander to the descendants of slaves, it is Barack Obama. Democratic presidential candidates can usually count on upward of 90% of the black vote, and Obama racked up similar percentages in a hard-fought primary battle.
On the other hand, in order to attract votes among nonblacks, Obama needs to guard carefully his postracial credentials. It's one thing to endorse racial preferences, a conventionally liberal if unpopular view. But reparations remains a fringe idea--the sort of idea a presidential nominee would normally be careful to stay away from.
---------------------------------------------------
http://opinionjournal.com
from "Best of the Web"
Check, Please
By JAMES TARANTO
July 30, 2008 -- 4:00 p.m. EDT
One of the most appealing features of the Barack Obama candidacy is the idea that Obama is "postracial"--that he is a candidate who is black and does not practice the adversarial politics of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. This is why his 20-year association with the racist anti-American crackpot Jeremiah Wright was potentially so damaging to him, and why Jesse Jackson's lurid fantasies of sexually mutilating Obama were such a great stroke of luck for the candidate.
But a story in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin raises serious questions about Obama's postracialism. The paper describes an Obama appearance at Unity '08, "a convention of four minority journalism associations":
"I personally would want to see our tragic history, or the tragic elements of our history, acknowledged," the Democratic presidential hopeful said.
"I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds."
Exactly what Obama is advocating here cannot be determined, but it seems to be something of an endorsement of the idea of "reparations for slavery," which is usually taken to mean cash payments. In this view, the following deeds are insufficient to balance the ledger between America and the descendants of slaves: the Civil War, the ratification of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, Brown v. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the continuing practice of racial preferences.
The idea of reparations is highly unpopular, and with good reason. Unlike the Japanese-Americans who in 1988 received compensation for their internment by a Democratic administration in the grips of wartime hysteria, no one alive today has ever been a slave. The idea of the government cutting checks to compensate people for a wrong that they did not personally suffer is unlikely to appeal to anyone except perhaps those who stand to receive those checks.
The politics of this are rather odd. There is little for Obama to gain by endorsing reparations. If ever there was a candidate who has no need to pander to the descendants of slaves, it is Barack Obama. Democratic presidential candidates can usually count on upward of 90% of the black vote, and Obama racked up similar percentages in a hard-fought primary battle.
On the other hand, in order to attract votes among nonblacks, Obama needs to guard carefully his postracial credentials. It's one thing to endorse racial preferences, a conventionally liberal if unpopular view. But reparations remains a fringe idea--the sort of idea a presidential nominee would normally be careful to stay away from.