Losing hope in Obama
The Barack Obama fan club is dwindling. For example, Princeton University religion professor Cornel West and journalist Tavis Smiley are launching a nationwide “Poverty Tour” that will offer a serious critique of the Obama administration’s policies toward the poor. In a devastating article, Bard College foreign affairs and humanities professor Walter Russell Mead concludes that when it comes to employment, “the Obama administration been a total bust for blacks.” If West, Smiley, and Mead are representative of many frustrated African-Americans and Democrats, President Obama’s reelection may be in jeopardy.
Mead highlights issues in urban America that would justify President Obama receiving an “F” grade for his administration’s inability to effectively address the following:
“[T]he devastating impact of what for most blacks is a still-deepening recession; the unfolding effects of the fiscal crisis meshed with the decline of the blue social model; competition for jobs, resources, and power between African-Americans and mostly Spanish-speaking immigrants; the increased fragmentation and disintegration of black political leadership; and the contrast between the high hopes of 2008 and the grim realities that have come clear since.”
The lack of progress on these issues may explain, in part, why West, Smiley, and other progressives are now some of Obama’s most vocal critics. Is the jig up? For those blacks who were expecting their situations to improve with the swearing in of the nation’s first African-American president, many are now standing around today sucking wind like a Hoover vacuum cleaner.
Today, blacks have an unemployment rate just above 16 percent, compared to 8.7 percent for whites. Mead reports that the states with the lowest black unemployment rates are generally the more conservative, low-tax states, while the ones with the worst black jobless rates are among the bluest states in the nation: Wisconsin (25 percent), Michigan (23.9 percent), Minnesota (22 percent), Maine (21.4 percent), and Washington (21.4 percent).
One the reasons blacks are affected more significantly by the current recession is because of the high percentage of African-Americans working in government and the public sector. To date, approximately 20 percent of working blacks are employed by government compared to 15 percent for whites and 11 percent for Hispanics. The public sector, according to Mead, is the single largest employer of black men in America and the second largest employer of black women. During a recession, when government cuts spending and cuts jobs, those measures tend to affect African-Americans far more than any other racial group.
More and more blacks are now questioning whether Obama can deliver on his vision of expanding government to bring about economic liberation for those who are struggling. While many progressives and liberals seem content to blame Republicans in Congress for blacks being worse off under President Obama’s tenure, leading African-American and Democratic thinkers—like West, Smiley, and Mead—are pointing their fingers solely at the administration of the man who promised “change.” Maybe many progressives (liberals) and conservatives have more in common looking ahead to the 2012 presidential race than they realized—namely, regime change.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top17 Comments to “Losing hope in Obama”
ANTHONY BRADLEY wrote; “More and more blacks are now questioning whether Obama can deliver on his vision of expanding government to bring about economic liberation for those who are struggling.”
I wish this line had read; “More and more blacks are now questioning whether ANY politician can deliver on his vision of expanding government to bring about economic liberation for those who are struggling.”
Thank you for your insights ANTHONY. BTW, when do you think African-Americans will begin to listen more respectfully to thought leaders like Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams or Clarence Thomas?
Report comment to moderator
ANTHONY BRADLEY wrote: …”of the man who promised “change.” Maybe many progressives (liberals) and conservatives have more in common looking ahead to the 2012 presidential race than they realized—namely, regime change.”
Now thats Change we can believe in!
Report comment to moderator
That’s a perfectly fair critique of Barack Obama, but despite the witty way that Bradley closes his article disappointment with Obama is not going to lead African-American’s to conclude that they have similar elector interests with conservatives. Blacks who lost their jobs when state revenues went down are not going to flock to Romney wile he promises to cut spending and downsize government. And Romney, forced to keep up with the continually shifting goal posts of the Tea Party, will never be able to say that what we need is more money for teacher, police officers, & fight fighters!
So if you’re expecting black voters to abandon Obama to any considerable degree you’ll find yourself disappointed.
And West et al are not going to couch their criticism in a way that suggests not voting for Obama is a good idea. West is not a radical; he teaches at Princeton for Pete’s sake. That’s not a den of third party voting.
Report comment to moderator
If Senate Majority Leader Harry Ried is typical of that party, then African-Americans with darker skin than that of Obama’s need not apply.
Report comment to moderator
The criticism is from the left — so there may be a primary challenge but thats about it. Obama is perceived by his leftist critics as too right of centre on economic issues and too willing to compromise or fold with Republican Congressmen. I doubt these critics will join up with the far right to orchestrate a regime change.
Report comment to moderator
“Obama is perceived by his leftist critics as too right of centre on economic issues and too willing to compromise or fold with Republican Congressmen.”
Gee what are they smoking? Obama hasn’t compromised one bit with Republicans.
Unless you call failure to follow through on “change”, compromise?
What else would we call Gitmo? Wasn’t he going to close that?
Report comment to moderator
Thorn — you need to get out more. there’s a large mass that thinks Obama overcompromised. They point to the extension of the Bush tax cuts and now to putting social spending on the table.
As for Gitmo — he should have closed it the minute he walked into the oval office
Report comment to moderator
What difference does that make, if he knows he can just print money anyway?
That’s what he got by not ending Bush tax cuts. He got to spend half the income tax revenue on a bunch of failures.
Of course he’ll put social spending cuts on the table in exchange for a tax hike and raising the debt ceiling. Why? Because he just gets to spend more money.
He’s not compromising because he hasn’t given anything up, and frankly, I think he’s playing Reps like a drum. He doesn’t care if our interest rates jack sky high after we default.
He will just spend more money, while pointing fingers elsewhere. I mean it’s not like Boehner is asking anything difficult.
And he’s playing these guys in the article like a drum, if they think he hasn’t been liberal enough. The guy has turned student loans into public hand outs only, he’s taken away the welfare reforms of the Clinton era. He’s passed Obamacare, which siphons money away from Medicare and won’t do a darn thing about lowering healthcare costs. He’s creating dependents. He already has the black population right where he wants them…as dependents. And that’s why they haven’t seen any improvement while he’s been in office.
For a guy that had criticized Bush left and right, he has no trouble making a kill order on Bin Laden, or bombing Qaddafi, or leaving Gitmo open.
When both sides don’t like him, something really reeks if you ask me. He’s Bush times 10, but in my opinion, without Bush’s genuine character.
Report comment to moderator
#3
A big part of the fed. gov. problem in they are trying to fund teachers, police and fire fighters. That is a LOCAL and state funtion! Leave the money in local communities to deal with local problems.
Report comment to moderator
I live in Colorado, why should I be funding police in NYC?
Report comment to moderator
This would be a good time for Mrs Clinton to resign her post and start campaigning. But if Obama is defeated in the primaries, then the Democrats would be sure to win another four years at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. So, I hope Obama is the candidate again so we can have a change a the top. (And that a true Conservative, or at least a non-RINO is the Republican candidate. I don’t want another Republicrat to run.)
Report comment to moderator
PETER, I doubt there will be any serious primary candidate against this affirmative action President. Unfortunately, the Dems might have ruined their equal opportunity chances for a qualified candidate “of color,” if that has to matter any more.
Report comment to moderator
“the Obama administration been a total bust for blacks.”
What a totally racist attitude! Why should blacks expect a black president to favor them? Shouldn’t Obama be the president of all regardless of skin color?
If we elect an Asian president should Asians hope to get special treatment? Or an Irish president? Can these people even hear themselves?
Report comment to moderator
Here is a more reasoned approach to helping the poor. Notice that it doesn’t mention skin color.
An Effective Approach to Poverty: Circle of Protection or Triangle of Uplift?
Report comment to moderator
PETER, I doubt there will be any serious primary candidate against this affirmative action President.
Lousie — From what I’ve heard both Sen Schumer and Kuscinich have debated finding a viable canidate from the left to scare or even upset Obama. Both Schumer and Kuscinich are white.
Report comment to moderator
Government spending increased dramatically under Bush at the end and Obama following, so why was the government laying people off?
Report comment to moderator
I’m very sorry, I never took Bradley for one of those people who Travis Smiley says will “say anything in order to make sure [Obama] does not get reelected.”
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/tavis-smiley-trump-and-tea-party-make-presidential-race-the-ugliest-most-racist-in-history/
Bradley mischaracterizes Smiley, West, and Mead when he claims they criticize Obama “solely.” This doesn’t match what I’ve heard of these commentators, as illustrated at the above link. Bradley fails to back up his evaluation with a quote, so I think he’s making it up.
Bradley is also wrong when he claims that progressives “seem content to blame Republicans.” Progressives are in no mood to stop their blaming anywhere. It’s open season on DINOS. In no way are progressives content to blame Republians without also whining in a major way about our moderate Republican president.
No, Bradley, progressive Blacks will not change the regime of a moderate Republican president for that of a radical Republican.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!