Friday, July 24, 2015

Race Relations in the Age of Obama

When America elected her first black president in 2008 many people thought that it would usher in a new era of racial healing. With Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s protégé in the White House what could possibly go wrong?

According to a New York Times poll, a lot has gone wrong. Most people, especially blacks, believe that race relations have deteriorated during the Obama years. Most blacks appear to blame it on white racism. Apparently, they do not believe that the president himself, by his actions and his inactions could have aggravated and exploited America’s racial divide. They did not seem to see any significance to the fact that Obama kept inviting Rev. Al Sharpton to the White House.

The New York Times has done the poll and it presents the story:

Seven years ago, in the gauzy afterglow of a stirring election night in Chicago, commentators dared ask whether the United States had finally begun to heal its divisions over race and atone for the original sin of slavery by electing its first black president. It has not. Not even close.

New York Times/CBS News pollconducted last week reveals that nearly six in 10 Americans, including heavy majorities of both whites and blacks, think race relations are generally bad, and that nearly four in 10 think the situation is getting worse. By comparison, two-thirds of Americans surveyed shortly after President Obama took office said they believed that race relations were generally good.

The Times being the Times, it does not ask whether Obama has been a divisive president. It notes the prevalence of white-on-black violence, and especially of white police-on-black violence, but ignores black-on-black and black-on-white violence. Events that fit the narrative gain pride of place. Everything else is ignored or repressed.

Over the past five years more people have concluded that the Obama administration favors one race over another, a fair and rational conclusion. One need but compare administration reaction to the death of Michael Brown to its reaction to the death of Kate Steinle.

Unsurprisingly, only 15% of those surveyed believed that race relations had improved under the Obama administration. Nearly half believed that they had no effect while a third believed that the administration had made things worse:

Two-thirds of those surveyed said his administration’s policies treated whites and blacks the same. Yet in 2010, 83 percent of Americans said the administration did not favor one race over the other.

Still, almost half of those questioned said the Obama presidency had had no effect on bringing the races together, while about a third said it had driven them further apart. Only 15 percent said race relations had improved. Seventy-two percent of blacks said they approved of the way Mr. Obama is handling race relations, compared with 40 percent of whites.

According to the poll, blacks recognize that race relations have deteriorated and that their own circumstances had gotten worse. And yet, they tend to blame it all on white racism. It’s a neat bit of moral sophistry: if I succeed, I get the credit; if I fail, you get the blame.

It is noteworthy that American blacks and whites seem to have very little personal interaction:

In large measure, the poll found that blacks and whites live in separate societies. Most whites say they do not live (79 percent), work (81 percent), or come in regular contact (68 percent) with more than a few blacks. While the numbers have not changed among whites in the past 15 years, the poll suggested some erosion in residential segregation among blacks. Only a third of blacks surveyed said that almost all of the people who lived near their homes were of the same race, compared with half who said so in a 2000 Times poll.

Since one does not know the particulars behind this statistic, one hesitates to conclude anything. Surely, it is possible that neighborhoods are becoming more integrated. And yet, in New York City, for example, increased gentrification in many previously all-minority neighborhoods might well have influenced the statistics.


Ares Olympus said...

re; One need but compare administration reaction to the death of Michael Brown to its reaction to the death of Kate Steinle.

If you repeat nonsense comparisons does it become more true on each telling?

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Ares Olympus @July 24, 2015 at 6:01 AM:

Both are issues of policing and law enforcement for public protection. Due to the inaction of border security enforcement operations under his Administrative purview, Obama should've sent representatives to Steinle's funeral.

Michael Brown was killed by a local police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. This is normally treated as a local affair until there are clear Federal civil rights violations, which were not forthcoming at the time. The Justice Department moved on this before the police officer's side of the story. Obama and members of his Administration injected themselves into this local affair amidst unclear circumstances. The Federal role is a laggard in this case.

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration has a clear legal duty to protect our nation's porous borders, which is no easy task. Mind you there are declared terrorist threats against the United States, focused on attacking civilian targets. These terrorists are capable, sophisticated and well-financed, making the need for border security more pronounced. Without border security, there's no control over who is coming in. If there's no control over who is coming in, this really isn't a nation that cares about its sovereignty. We are devaluing American citizenship. The Federal government's failure to secure the southern border is a national scandal because our President is offering an implicit invitation to illegal aliens to enter the country.

Francisco Sanchez killed Kate Steinle, and it should not have been possible. The man was deported five times, yet still got back in. This happened on Obama's watch. If the President is going to make statements about law enforcement, he should look to his own responsibilities first, which are clear and defined. We seem to be able to put away our own citizens who make a "disgusting internet video" that "cause" consulate assaults in Benghazi, but we can't find people like Sanchez and simply return them to their country of origin. This has nothing to do with "amnesty" or a "path to citizenship." This is about Federal law enforcement. As O'Malley recently disavowed "All lives matter," clearly this is the Democratic Party's new position. Steinle doesn't matter, ostensibly because she's not a reliable Democratic vote...

Obama is engaged in an intentional plan to demographically gerrymander the entire country and certain target states. This is especially true of Texas, which has enjoyed solid Republican political domination in the last two decades. If he can turn Texas to a battleground state and eventually into a solid blue state, the Democrats will have a lock on the Electoral College vote. It is impossible to be too cynical about this border enforcement travesty.

The collateral damage left behind this demographic gerrymandering strategy is crime: murders, rapes, theft, burglary, etc. That's all. People like Kate Steinle getting killed. Her murder got attention because it occurred on a San Francisco pier in broad daylight. There are many more.

So Obama goes after a municipality for civil rights violations in the case of Michael Brown, but turns a blind eye and takes no action against sanctuary cities like San Francisco when it comes to enforcing Federal law to protect the lives of people like Kate Steinle.

That's not a "nonsense comparison."

As usual, Barack Obama exploits racial issues and chooses to use racial incidents to remind us of our racial problems when it benefits his chosen constituents. He wants to heal the planet, but he can't take concrete steps to heal the nation and be the reconciliation leader he is uniquely able to be. He accuses everyone else of "playing politics" ad infinitum, and then goes on to play a very shrewd hand. It's shameful.

n.n said...

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD:

If anything, the violation of human and civil rights committed by the illegal alien are uniquely in the federal government's jurisdiction, which was established to protect the unalienable and legal rights of the People and our Posterity as set forth in The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution.

I'll guess that Obama et al have also not commented on the indiscriminate killing (i.e. selective-child or pro-choice policy) and human commodity sales at Planned Parenthood.

Ares Olympus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ares Olympus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ares Olympus said...

Nice try IAC.

re: Both are issues of policing and law enforcement for public protection.

Mission accomplished: Sanchez is safely in jail, awaiting trial, awaiting justice, and there's nothing to be done but wait.

re: Francisco Sanchez killed Kate Steinle, and it should not have been possible.

That is irrational. There's no 100% certainty in a free country for anything.

Rationalizations like that are what create Executive Order MADNESS and preparation for Martial Law and antiriot gear police forces and all that nasty undemocratic stuff Conservatives are supposed to hate.

I admit I hadn't heard of the "Sanctuary city" concept before, certainly an interesting issue to discuss, and if Kathryn Steinle’s father is ready to use her death as leverage to the issue, that's what politics is for.
The term generally applies to cities that do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about an individual's immigration status.

The policy was first initiated in 1979 in Los Angeles, to prevent police from inquiring about the immigration status of arrestees. The internal policy, "Special Order 40," states: "Officers shall not initiate police action with the objective of discovering the alien status of a person. Officers shall not arrest nor book persons for violation of title 8, section 1325 of the United States Immigration code (Illegal Entry)."
The sanctuary city debate centers on laws that are aimed at encouraging illegal immigrants to report crimes to the police without fear of deportation.

“When immigrant residents can report crime without fear of deportation, immigrants are more willing to engage with local police and government institutions, our streets and neighborhoods are safer, and those who commit crime are more likely to be brought to justice.”

Whatever else, you can imagine you have to be pretty desperate to live in a land with no legal protections, where someone can cheat you, steal from you, beat you up, even threaten to kill you dead, and the only way you can get justice is to face deportation.

Whatever risks "white women in broad daylight" face against "random shootings", these seem comparatively small.

So let the debate go on, and I'd have to expect the ONLY rational result of that discussion will be a sudden gain of 12 (or 34 million?!) new legal residents who don't need to hide from the law, until they deserve to.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Ares, you're the one who said there was no comparison. I compared.

No one asked Sanchez to come in six times, and you'd think after one or two return trips he'd get the picture. I think it's pretty irrational to expect full citizen protections in a country you're not supposed to be in. He should've been thankful for the free DHS bus rides.

And his cries of desperation will not go unheard. He'll get justice and mercy. Now that he murdered an American citizen, he can receive the full protections of the law as he goes to trial, and then we'll probably end up paying for his food, shelter and one hour of recreation behind walls and razorwire for the rest of his life. That's because of HIS choices, not Kate Steinle's.

Only in America is there a major political party that tries to avoid enforcing the laws to gain an electoral edge, and make excuses for people who aren't supposed to be here. Isn't it interesting that there's all this whining and moaning about "disenfranchisement" because we dare to ask for ID to vote? Meanwhile, courts have upheld voter ID and there are no claims of an actual someone not being able to vote. What a great sob story. We should ask Sanchez if he voted.

All the while we're creating these "sanctuary cities" to allow people to flaunt the law. One can deduce it's because it fits the imaginary narrative of a victim class, which wouldn't be the case if the aggrieved had stayed home and went through the regular visa, green card or citizenship process that's established.

So I guess you're willing to sacrifice the rule of law for people you feel sorry for, because they're more likely to become Democratic voters. Nice try, Ares. I just wonder how you're going to chirp when a Republican tries this $&-%#. I'll have a earplugs in and a box of Kleenex for ya...

Ares Olympus said...

The WSJ suggested Open NATFA borders for law abiding North Americans, but that was before 9/11 when Mexicans bombed the world trade towers and Pentagon. 2001 Open Nafta Borders? Why Not? 2013 Taking a Nafta Approach to Immigration

Strangely, if we really talked about it, you know the republicans business leaders love cheap labor and only American workers and unionists are worried about their minimum wage jobs being taken away.

But I admit free labor movement won't solve the problem of gun violence.

Pogo: I never said I was a diplomat said...

The most distressing part has been the President's serious efforts to intentionally factionalize the U.S., pitting tribe against tribe.

i think it's been his only actual success.

Dennis said...

As one wag put it, "I love all the racial healing under Obama." I expect the same will be said for Hillary gets to be president only in reference to gender relations.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Ares Olympus @July 24, 2015 at 7:46 PM:

Ares, unless you just crawled out from under a rock, the WSJ Editorial Page has always favored fluid labor markets. However, they do believe in national sovereignty and border security.

In terms of thinking that the 9/11 hijackers were Mexican, you must also believe that the hijackers went through security in Boston. You'd be wrong. They went through security in Portland, Maine... a small jetport where security was much more lax.

Yes, there are many Republicans who love cheap labor and sell out their fellow citizens. And please find me union workers who earn minimum wage.

You're just a contrarian, Ares. You're not interested in true exchange. You accuse others of nonsense comparisons, and then offer your own.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Dennis @July 27, 2015 at 5:18 AM:

Yes, we'll go from melanin-obsessed relations to relations determined by sexual organs. It'll be great. Stay tuned.