Writes Dylan Hales:
“Kudos to Ralph Nader for telling the truth about Barack Obama:
‘He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically he’s coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it’s corporate or whether it’s simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up.’
Very early on in this election cycle I realized that Obama’s skin color was a huge drawing card for yuppies and hipster, liberal, youth desperate to feel good about themselves by voting for a member of the “oppressed underclass”. As Nader notes, Obama is the best of both worlds for voters like this. Obama’s blackness allows them to pull the lever for “social responsibility” and “diversity” without having to vote for a populist or “small d” democrat, that might challenge the managerial elite they so desperately cling to.
Mr. Nader also does a fine job destroying the myth of Obama as a “black nationalist”. Obama isn’t running on a theme of black self-help or community separatism, he is running on liberal internationalism. Obama is no different than Adlai Stevenson, aside from possibly being more of a militarist. Those worried about Obama pulling an FDR and “changing course” once in office, may want to consider what in fact a black radical/nationalist/et. would actually do for America.
The truth is that conservatives, traditionalists and other “small is beautiful” folks, can only dream of an authentic black nationalist getting anywhere near the White House. While black nationalism has its ugly and unrealistic side (the obsession with reparations for slavery, topping the list), the reality of the matter is that the basic program and dominant themes of black radicalism would be a marked improvement for our society. Small bands of self-reliant families, that are reflexively opposed to the corporate cartel class and the big government welfare statism of the modern world do not endanger whites, America or White America. Conservatives who know nothing about black nationalist and black power movements have created a “black radical” straw man, without understanding what in fact such radicalism has historically represented. That the same people who rant about the dangers of an Obama presidency, regularly cite Booker T. Washington as an appropriate model for black Americans, is a telling example of how clueless many of these people are (Obama is above all a globalist. Washington was a conservative black nationalist).
One can safely assume that these comments will get Mr. Nader into as much trouble with certain “civil rights” leaders, as his previous comments on “gonadal politics” got him into with the feminist racket. That Ralph Nader doesn’t care what these liberal interest groups think, seems to indicate that on at least some of the “taboo” issues, the American Left is as willing to confront the fallacies of PC culture as is the American Right.”
One Comment
I think your desire to brand everything you question a “liberal” product of some twisted social masochism has you thinking uncritically (specifically seeking out support for your opinions instead of trying to develop opinions from facts).
Your pet topic, white guilt, you summarize, saying, “yuppies and hipster, liberal, youth desperate to feel good about themselves by voting for a member of the ‘oppressed underclass’” gain fulfillment by supporting Obama. You imply that these imaginary and stereotypical privileged white kids feel guilty about their privileged lives and from this comes their self loathing and desire punishment in the form of black leadership. You presuppose all sorts of evils about Obama saying things like he’s an internationalist (i.e. not a patriot), he’s “possibly…a militarist,” he’s gonna “pull an FDR,” yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda to preclude any consideration that he might actually be a good and qualified leader. It seems your point is really that you don’t like what Obama represents to you, that you’ll assign any fault to him to justify your feelings, and to attack anyone who doesn’t see it your way by assigning them some mental defect. Please take a step back and think about something other than justifying your prejudices for a moment.
As one of the people whose mind you’re trying to read, let me tell you, I suffer from no decadencies of privilege. Though white, I am no elite (an assumption that sheds some light on your predisposition.) I’ll support candidates that reflect my outlook regardless of their class or race. Because I am lower middle class as were most members of my family going back to when they came over on the boat, because I am in a religious minority, and because I have great disdain for those who choose greed over altruism, I’ll support the candidate who will tax the rich and give to the ambitious to build a comfortable and productive middle class, who will protect my right to be free from religion, and who will make American corporations earn the support of the American people and not the other way around. I am not fighting against myself; I am fighting for myself. It just so happens that on the American scale of wealth I am much closer to the “oppressed” than to the “elites”—as are most white people in this country. Your decision to paint liberal whites as a self-loathing privileged class is an appeal to folks who think that because they are white they are elite, and your argument is predicated by the contrary assumption regarding blacks. Your argument is bound to gain ground with racists who share your incorrect presumptions. In so many ways your argument reveals what’s wrong with politics and race relations in this country.
When more lower class whites like myself stop listening to pundits and start thinking for themselves, maybe we can start rebuilding America in our image rather than in the image of medieval Europe.