Roberto Unger, one of the President’s old professors at Harvard Law School, has said that the President “must be defeated” in the next election (@6:10). Is he a racist?
Actually, Unger is making the same criticisms of the President as some others from the far-Left have been making, including Occupiers: He has failed to transform the country into a Progressive Paradise. He hasn’t governed Left enough.
“President Obama must be defeated in the coming election,” Roberto Unger, a longtime professor at Harvard Law School who taught Obama, said in a video posted on May 22. “He has failed to advance the progressive cause in the United States.”
Unger is one of those who believe that their side must spend a few years in the wilderness in order to refocus and regain strength and purity.
Unger said that Obama must lose the election in order for “the voice of democratic prophecy to speak once again in American life.”
He acknowledged that if a Republican wins the presidency, “there will be a cost … in judicial and administrative appointments.” But he said that “the risk of military adventurism” would be no worse under a Republican than under Obama, and that “the Democratic Party proposes no new direction.”
But check out the specific policy criticisms:
- His policy is financial confidence and food stamps.”
- “He has spent trillions of dollars to rescue the moneyed interests and left workers and homeowners to their own devices.
- “He has delivered the politics of democracy to the rule of money.”
- “He has disguised his surrender with an empty appeal to tax justice.”
- “He has reduced justice to charity.”
- “He has subordinated the broadening of economic and educational opportunity to the important but secondary issue of access to health care in the mistaken belief that he would be spared a fight.”
- “He has evoked a politics of handholding, but no one changes the world without a struggle.”
Much of this resembles complaints from the Tea Party movement, no? Unger even says it was misguided to push ObamaCare through when they did. I realize, though, that most of the rest of his diatribe is standard far-Left fare.
As we know, the BBC Narrative is that there is no legitimate opposition to any of His policies, and any objection to Him is really inspired by racism. Their top man in the US, Mark Mardell, came to the US job expecting racism as a reason for opposition to the President.
The relationship between black and white has been such an important driving factor in American political history that it would be strange if it now mattered not a jot.
Last year, he told the BBC College of Journalism that opposition to the President’s policies – particularly amongst Tea Party types – is ultimately based on racism. Mardell also reiterated his expectations of racism. Beginning at 55:30:
“I’ve been to lots of Tea Party meetings, and I honestly don’t think most of them are racists. I think some of them…..uh…certainly not in a straight forward sense…I think for them it really is about the government spending…uh…their money. Now, I think that deeper than that, it’s about the government spending money on people who are not like them….sometimes.
And I think there are people who feel a disconnect because they just didn’t expect this sort of person in the White House, and particularly because He plays against their stereotype of what a black person is like. I mean, it’s actually quite a stereotype in the African-American community, the thoughtful, professorial…uh…you know…intellectual. But it’s not a stereotype in the ‘country’ South.
But yeah, I mean it’s one of those things that I feel that I can only answer when I go out and when I talk to people. And I haven’t found it as strongly as I thought I would.”
So when Prof. Unger criticizes the President for having a policy of “financial confidence and food stamps”, is that racist? When he scolds about the “politics of handholding”, is it about the government holding the hands of people not like him? Or are some people permitted to object to these policies while others are not?
Another BBC correspondent in the US, Jonny Dymond, made a rather dishonest report about how there’s been an “explosion” of hate groups since the black man became President.
So, one has to ask Mardell and everyone else at the BBC: is Prof. Unger a racist after all? Or is he magically exempt from the charge of racism because he’s of the Left, even though some criticisms are virtually indistinguishable from those Mardell suspects to be driven by racism?
Oh, and the BBC sure won’t be telling you about this any time soon. Doesn’t help the Narrative.
As I understand it, 98% (or thereabout) of black Americans who voted voted Obama. If the whites vote for their candidate of common skin, or wont vote Hawaii Gold, it is racist. If the blacks do it , its err umm err difficult to explain, what was the White House talking point again.. sorry my earpiece seems to be having difficulty, prompt prompt…
Blacks cannot be racist. Only Asians (in some cases) and Whites can be racist just only men can be sexist. There is some whole theory based on institutional power dynamics which proves this, although being a white male I am unable to understand the theory and am racist & sexist to boot.
Don’t forget those ‘white hispanics’!
Yes, those ‘white hispanics’. Non-white and therefore an oppressed minority when it comes to using them to deconstruct a common American culture. However, they magically turn into ‘evil white racists’ whenever they do anything wrong. Just look at George Zimmerman.
Who cares who is “racist” and who isn’t? Almost all discourse on the subject is full of humbug and hypocrisy anyway.
Someone wants to call me a racist (and they have)? Fine – water off a duck’s back.
Yes, fascinating to see the response to a reporter ‘heckling’, as they put it, Obama during his speech on immigration….only a racist would heckle him apparently.
The stupid thing is that this was supposed to be a speech from the President with reporters not permitted to ask any questions. They were merely there to hear Him and repeat the Gospel to the masses. Munro had the audacity to break ranks and ask a question. The President was unhappy that His Imperial Presence was interrupted. To Him, a question was an argument.
And the rest of the press covers for Him as usual. Like I keep saying, no amount of evil Republican cash can match that power.
‘to be a speech from the President with reporters not permitted to ask any questions’
So… basically like a ‘What Ed Miliband will say, is saying and actually meant’ outing on the BBC?
The ‘interviewers’ of course can speak post bestowing of the word, but only to provide talking points for their hero to be amplified upon.
I came to this post basically agreeing with its premise. But the quote from Mardell doesn’t in any way support your argument. He points out that economics, not race, is the main motive of Obama’s Tea Party critics, before observing that those in the South used to forming judgments according to stereotype have had their expectations confounded. The phrase ‘people who are not like them’ is ambiguous, but it’s clear he’s talking socioeconomic class, not race. The tenor of that whole quotation, in fact, is that although he’d expected race to be a significant factor in criticism of Obama, to his surprise it isn’t.
No, Red, Mardell is saying that he came in with a prejudice, and, while he is constantly surprised that he hasn’t seen open evidence to confirm it, he still believes that underneath the surface the economic concerns are driven by racism. He sees no overt evidence, but sees crypto-racism instead. Mardell’s statement about the “disconnect” only adds to that perception. To him, all opposition to the President must be based on racism at some level.
On the same topic of people of the Left criticizing Him:
Austan Goolsbee: President Obama Should Have ‘Mea Culpa’
Goolsbee: “I think Matt’s right that we ought to come forward — and both sides — and the president should have a mea culpa, that we have gotten into a place that was very different from what the campaign wanted it to be from 2008, one in which — and, look, I think you could blame more the Republicans, but I’m sure the Republicans would say more you blame the president, but we got to — we got to back away from that. Otherwise, we’re not going to be able to confront this pretty serious challenge at the time when we — when we could do it.”
Earlier in the show ABC News political analyst Matthew Dowd suggested that President Obama should issue a mea culpa to help address the partisan divide in Washington that, Dowd argued, is a partial result of Obama pushing a partisan health care law after running on a message of unity during the 2008 campaign.
My goodness, the racists are coming out of the woodwork, aren’t they? I’m sure Mark Mardell will get right on this.
It’s the left’s own ‘Catch 22’: any criticism of the Golfer-in-Chief is by definition raycist since only a raycist could possibly object to His policies.
Clearly then, any mention, say, of ‘Fast & Furious’ must just be a cunning trick designed to hide the speaker’s true agenda.
Black and Hispanic Tea Party supporters and speakers, shock horror.
Obviously not the sort of stuff you see on ever do-goody and brainwashing Al-Beeb/LiebourTV.
I myself know a proud black woman (ex gf still in touch with) and some Hispanics in the US who’re Tea Party supporters.
Just keep coughing up for the undemocratic licence fee and behave.
Unger’s full argument is here:
hello there and thank you to your information ? I’ve certainly picked up anything new from right here. I did however expertise a few technical issues using this site, as I experienced to reload the website a lot of occasions prior to I may just get it to load correctly. I have been wondering in case your hosting is OK? Not that I’m complaining, but sluggish loading cases occasions will very frequently impact your placement
in google and could injury your high quality ranking if ads and marketing with Adwords.
Well I am including this RSS to my e-mail and could
glance out for a lot extra of your respective interesting content.
Make sure you update this once more very soon..