July 21, 2010

Obama's Divisiveness

An excerpt from my recent VDARE.com column:
Here are Obama’s Gallup Poll approval ratings every week since his Inauguration:
Black support for the black President remains almost rock solid, standing at 89 percent through the week ending July 11, 2010—slightly higher than in his first week in office.

But Obama’s approval rating among whites is now only 38 percent—51 points below the black level. The white approval rating has fallen 25 points since January 2009.

It’s important to note that the white approval rating was as high as 60 percent as late as the week of May 10, 2009. The subsequent sharp fall-off is usually blamed on the economy.

But an alternative explanation is that white disenchantment with Obama appears to have set in during the warm weather months of 2009—about the time of Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court (May 26, 2009); the Supreme Court’s rebuke of Sotomayor’s ruling in the Ricci case (June 29, 2009); and the hilarious damage-controlling “Beer Summit” featuring Professor Henry Louis Gates and an Obama-dissed Cambridge, MA police officer, James Crowley (July 22-30, 2009).

Since the end of summer 2009, Obama’s staffers, such as the cynical Chicagoan Rahm Emanuel, have worked diligently to keep their boss from alarming whites with obvious racial gaffes—as when he responded frankly to the Henry Louis Gates question at one of his rare press conferences. Obama’s rating among whites has continued to trickle downward, but at a less catastrophic rate.

On the other hand, his staff’s perceived need to prevent “Obama from being Obama” has likely contributed to Obama’s current guarded, depressive affect. For a man proclaimed an inspirational political genius in 2008, he strikes many people in 2010 as a downer, a bit of a buzzkill.

And Obama’s allies continue to provoke racial squabbles. For example, the NAACP is trying to “concern troll” [=undermine] the Tea Party movement into dropping all that stuff about endless deficits in order to conduct purges of purported racists in its ranks. And the public is just waking up to the fact that Congresswoman Maxine Waters has larded the new financial reform bill with racial quotas.

Hispanics’ feelings toward Obama lie in between those of blacks and whites, as is so common in American racial patterns. The President’s Hispanic ratings have fallen roughly in parallel with white opinion, with the big drop starting a little later in 2009. This also follows a long tradition: Hispanic voters generally follow changes in white opinion, just more erratically, while staying significantly to the left of whites for perfectly understandable reasons of self-interest: they are much more enthusiastic about racial / ethnic preferences and tax-and-spend policies from which they hope to benefit at white expense.

Over the last decade, the Main Stream Media has carried countless credulous articles about the Hispanic vote. Most are based on self-serving talking points fed to journalists by so-called Hispanic leaders.

But there is a dirty little secret in all this: Hispanic voters seldom pay much attention to whatever the press proclaims to be their burning issues, such as Sotomayor or Arizona’s SB1070.

For example, Hispanic warmth toward Obama hit its peak (85 percent) a few weeks before he nominated Sonia Sotomayor on May 26, 2009. By August, he was down in the 60s with Hispanics.

Similarly, in the weeks before Obama went to war against the citizens of Arizona in late April 2010 over SB1070, his Hispanic approval rating had been in the 60s. Now, it’s at 55.

The fact is that Hispanics, on average, don’t pay all that much attention to the news. They tend to be younger, less literate, less interested in America, and less interested in public affairs in general.

The decline of the Los Angeles Times would be a sad reminder of this—it has long tried to compete with the New York Times for the title of the Most Serious Newspaper in the country, but its circulation area has become increasingly Hispanic—if the paper hadn’t been such an enthusiastic backer of the cause of its own destruction.

The conventional wisdom that says that the GOP must submit to the rising tide of Latinos. I have repeatedly argued that this is simply overblown. Despite their numbers, Hispanics are not the most formidable challenge any political party has ever confronted. They don’t have terribly charismatic leaders, they don’t have a determined and focused rank and file, and they don’t have much of a claim on the conscience of America. Their main political advantage so far has been that they’ve bored whites and blacks into inattention regarding illegal immigration.

Read the whole thing there and comment upon it below.

37 comments:

Anonymous said...

Steve, you're kind of a race-baiter.

So, I find it hypocritical and ironic that you should accuse others, ie, black-scholars.

Of course, your defense is: "but I'm telling the truth! They're lying."

Whiskey said...

Steve is not a race baiter.

In fact, I think it would be **HEALTHY** for America, to "move beyond race." For Whites to simply NOT CARE if they offend Blacks, or Hispanics, speak honestly about the many, many failings of both groups, and act actively to seize the most of the government spoils for their own ethnicity to the exclusion of everyone else.

White guilt (over very bad things, done long ago, by people who are mostly dead or very, very elderly) is as stupid as ... Victorian sexual repression.

Why shouldn't Blacks be told, honestly, by Whites that there is no more AA gravy train, that in fact most or even ALL of the governmental spoils will go to Whites, and if they want to object, they better "get in the game" by generating large amounts of money/donations and being swing voters?

After all, the current system of buying racial peace by a large transfer payment ran into one large problem: a sustained recession that will last decades.

Better for everyone for Government to be small, and Blacks (and Hispanics) to generate their own wealth and power.

If the pie itself is real small, there's no fighting over who gets what tiny cut.

jody said...

steve has penetrating insight into this topic. the sailer strategy is a winner. 'course, republicans are the stupid party, so they'll continue to be losers.

keep those "natural republicans" flowing across the border, guys. it's working.

headache said...

Excellent read Steve!
To this day I don’t know how liberals get away with it, but their policies generally lead to much more divisiveness than the so-called racism of white nationalists or traditional conservatives.

Anonymous said...

It's sorta surprising that Obama's approval among blacks has held up. For all his bluster, he hasn't really done anything for them.

Anonymous said...

"Read the whole thing there and comment upon it below."

I would read the whole thing but my employer blocks VDare. A message comes up that informs me that the site is "Tasteless and Offensive."

DCThrowback said...

I really think you captured the big picture and little picture stuff perfectly in this piece. The fight between Rahm on one side and the liberal ideologues in the White House is **the** story of this administration. (Pls check the review of John Alter's book on first year of the Obama Admin here: http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/15/friends-and-sources ).

Rahm actually didn't want Obama to tackle health care and, if Steve's guess is right, immigration either.

This report from Fox TV in Chicago links the British press' assertion that Emmanuel was thinking of resigning for a number of reasons - with one of them being fed up with "liberal ideologues" in the Administration.

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/politics/rahm-emanuel-resignation-report-20100621

Anonymous said...

Yeah, I read this like 4 days ago on some other website. You should be churning out 2-3 columns a day a la Andy Sullivan- I repeat Testosterone has no real negative side effects!!

Oh, that and you have a family


Dan in Dc

Anonymous said...

I have long held that blacks need to go through a sort of "reformation" in order to begin to achieve any progress of thier own. There must be some type of self awareness where blacks not only attempt to deal with issues such as out-of-wedlock births, drop-outs, crime, etc. but to grasp the impact that is has on greater society. Like everything else, it will probably only happen, if it happens, by pressure from the outside which means it will not be effective or lasting.

Kylie said...

headache said..."To this day I don’t know how liberals get away with it, but their policies generally lead to much more divisiveness..."

They get away with it because they have the kind of intelligence that lends itself well to eloquence, they know how to appeal to emotions.

This allows their lapses in logic, consistency and plain old fair play to be overlooked.

Meanwhile, far too many on the right think having and explaining good reasons for their positions is enough.

keypusher said...

Of course, your defense is: "but I'm telling the truth! They're lying."

Pretty good defense.

Anonymous said...

Congratulations Steve. Again you have published a simple observation that changes my worldview.

I remember reading a column of yours years ago in which you pointed out that white straight men actually like male homosexuals personally but tend to dislike lesbians. This was true then and remains true today. I should have made that connection for myself but I didn't. I read it in your column.

Now you point out that Hispanics don't like Blacks. I knew that at least on some unconscious level but it never entered into my conscious thought. The media, even the right wing media always assumes that Blacks and Hispanics are united against Whites. Any momentary reflection will reveal that that alliance doesn't exist, but until you pointed it out I had tacitly bought into it.

BTW it's hard to know what to call these little brown people from below the Rio Grande. They sneak in from Mexico but they are seldom Mexican. Around here in Northern California all the illegal aliens seem to be Mayans from Guatemala or the Yucatan.

Anyone who has traveled in that part of the world knows that Mayans are distinct from Mexicans. They look different and they live differently.

Historically of course the Mexica from Tenochtitlan were the oppressors (and eaters) of the Maya. Few minorities anywhere have such a strong case against their conquerors. The Jews have strong feelings about what the Nazis did to them but they must admit that the Germans didn't serve them up for lunch.

Calling them all Hispanics isn't much of a solution either. The local illegals are all trilingual. English is their third language but Spanish is only their second language. They all seem to speak some tribal pre-Colombian language as their primary tongue. This makes them deeply illiterate - they can't read or write English, they can't read or write Spanish and their native language has no script.

Assimilating Mexicans is one thing but Mayans won't be so easy.

Albertosaurus

Svigor said...

In fact, I think it would be **HEALTHY** for America, to "move beyond race."

That can mean a lot of things. But if meant literally, then it might be healthy, but it certainly won't be enough. A people who "ignore" race and ethnicity will continue to be preyed upon by those who take them seriously.

For Whites to simply NOT CARE if they offend Blacks, or Hispanics, speak honestly about the many, many failings of both groups, and act actively to seize the most of the government spoils for their own ethnicity to the exclusion of everyone else.

This is what I'm talking about. To "NOT CARE" about offending blacks or mestizos or Ashkenazis and speak honestly about their many, many failings, you kinda have to grow a pair, as a race/ethnic group. That implies ethnocentrism, IMO, not "neutrality." "Neutrality" kinda got us into this mess in the first place.

Svigor said...

I have long held that blacks need to go through a sort of "reformation" in order to begin to achieve any progress of thier own.

I challenge the idea that blacks can achieve any progress of their own, at least, to a degree likely to satisfy whites.

The mix is just all wrong; too many of the type that tears down civilization (or more precisely, makes civilization building difficult or impossible), too few of the type that builds.

Like everything else, it will probably only happen, if it happens, by pressure from the outside which means it will not be effective or lasting.

Indeed. But this demolishes any chance of blacks progressing "on their own," yes?

Svigor said...

They get away with it because they have the kind of intelligence that lends itself well to eloquence, they know how to appeal to emotions.

They get away with it via power. He who has the gold buys the bullhorn.

Anonymous said...

Black support for the black President remains almost rock solid.

This is the answer to the standard polling question, "Do you approve of Obama's performance?" Well of course they do, they support him no matter what.

But I wonder what they'd say if you ask them, "Are you disappointed in Obama?" I suspect we'd see the same pattern (at an even higher level) as with the whites and Hispanics.

Anonymous said...

Corporate firewalls which block links to Vdare also block images hosted there. Think about re-hosting the image on Blogspot so everyone can see it.

jack strocchi said...

There is no need to invoke the spectre of racial division to explain Obama's fall from grace, although it may be occurring at any rate.

Obama's sliding approval ratings and the DEMs slipping poll numbers can be fully explained by the flagging US economy, plus general demoralisation about the Afghan war. Ray Fair predicts that "the current forecast of the Democratic share of the two-party House vote is 50.43 percent".

This is generally consistent with Hibbs "Peace and Bread" model of US federal elections.

So the REPs spoiling strategy of curbing the size of the stimulus generated some partisan electoral pay-off, at the expense of the US economy's health.

Another factor in Congressional elections is voter turn-out. In the contemporary period this tends to favour the REPs because their base is somewhat better educated and/or motivated than the DEM base.

So my prediction is that the Congress will be fairly evenly divided after NOV 2010, with the DEMs losing most of the gains they made from 2006 through 2008. I think they will still have bare majorities in both houses.

That spells lame duck for Obama. Although my guess is that he would dearly like to swing Left in his second term, possibly from 2014-16 if the DEMs can regain some control of the Congress.

Thats when we are likely to see the Culture War hotting up as the racial spoils division games begin in earnest!

Anonymous said...

"Neutrality" kinda got us into this mess in the first place."


Nah, ethnocentric guilt for the actions of a very few from our own got us into this. Those very few ironically never felt guilty. So, really why should we?

Anonymous said...

That's because us "hispanics" are not a race. I'm "hispanic" but 50% slav and 50% western european. Panchito from Juarez who's 100% indian is also "hispanic". We come from dozens of countries, most of whom have grievances between native population/white upper class and hatred for their neighbors (just ask a Peruvian what he thinks of a Chilean). We're not really a "people" at all.

David said...

>I don’t know how liberals get away with it, but their policies generally lead to much more divisiveness than the so-called racism of white nationalists or traditional conservatives.<

Liberals intend it. THEY are what they call those other groups, who are their foes: to wit, "the bad guys." And those others are - gasp - really the good guys.

The good guys are not basically on top. This is the central political fact of our era.

No progress will be made under the opposite assumption.

dsafasdfasdf said...

40% of whites still like him. Among younger whites, it could be 50% or higher. It seems as though many PC whites like him for his 'divisiveness'. They see it as 'radical' and 'progressive'.

afasfasdfasdf said...

We are all race baiters, especially those who decry race-baiting. It all depends on which race you're baiting.

John said...

I challenge the idea that blacks can achieve any progress of their own, at least, to a degree likely to satisfy whites.

This reminds me of Bourdain's No Reservations program where he visited Liberia. Detroit and black sections of Baltimore are reminiscent of Monrovia. It looked like utter chaos and ruin there. Without the yoke of infrastructure provided by whites, blacks in America would end up like their Liberian brethren. I'm convinced of it.

Mercer said...

"The fact is that Hispanics, on average, don’t pay all that much attention to the news"

The vast majority of whites are the same which is why I am skeptical that Obama's falling numbers are due to the proud Latina or Gates.

"the public is just waking up to the fact that Congresswoman Maxine Waters has larded the new financial reform bill with racial quotas."

Most of the public has not heard about the quotas. If the GOP had made an issue of it the public would have heard about it instead the GOP decided that defending Wall Street derivatives and car dealer loans were more important.

The Dems best friend is the state of the GOP. They say nothing about importing one million people legally when the job market is terrible instead they want more trade deals. They make a big deal about the cost of extending unemployment benefits and are perfectly happy to spend freely on nation building on the other side of the planet.

asdfasdfadf said...

I'll say this much. GOP lost California due to rising Hispanic vote. And the rest of SW will follow if current demographic trends continue regardless of whether we find Hispanics boring or not.

Anonymous said...

Those charts clearly prove that whites are more discriminating.

Kylie said...

Svigor said..."They [liberals] get away with it via power."

Of course. But how did they get the power? By wrenching authority away from the primacy of reason and placing it in the expression of feeling, of style over substance.

That has huge appeal in a society as self-indulgent as ours has become. Why bother with self-discipline? Self-expression is much more satisfying.

I, a housewife in a flyover state, can easily poke holes in most of the left's arguments. But those arguments stand, regardless of how flawed their construction. Why? Because their basis and their appeal is grounded in emotion not logic. Intellectual rigor can be jettisoned if one has enough high-flown eloquence at one's command. Don't believe me? Try reading one of Obama's speeches for content.

Truth said...

And what, exactly was Carter's rating amongst whites during the hostage crisis?

What was Regan's during Iran-Contra?

What was Bush's toward the end of his term?

What was Clinton's during Lewsnski?

What was Boy George's when he invaded Iran?

Steven, grow up.

Truth said...

"that in fact most or even ALL of the governmental spoils will go to Whites,"

They already do, Sport; RICH whites. You can look up unfamiliar terms such as Haliburton, Bechtel and Arthur Andersen and educate yourself. You don't know anything about this because you're not a rich white, and, well, you're not too bright.

airtommy said...



Now you point out that Hispanics don't like Blacks. The media, even the right wing media always assumes that Blacks and Hispanics are united against Whites.

Unfortunately, Blacks and Hispanics can hate each other AND have a political alliance at the same time. Jews and Blacks mutually hate each other at a grassroots level, yet they've had a strong political alliance for half a century.

Political alliances are made by political leaders, who rarely bother to consult with their followers. Think about the powerful alliance between the Israeli lobby and political Christianity. That was created purely at the top, with Zionist leaders and Christian leaders (Pat Robertson was the first).

Anonymous said...

"Jews and Blacks mutually hate each other at a grassroots level, yet they've had a strong political alliance for half a century."

Not exactly. For the first 65 or so years of the 20th Century, Jews were big supporters of blacks, and blacks were too weak politically to reciprocate in anyway. After Civil Rights, the Six Day War, and black leftists' identification with Israel's leftist (at the time) Arab enemies, blacks started turning against Jews at the grassroots level, violently at times.

At the elite level, there are a few Jews and blacks that are friendly with each other (or even married to each other, e.g., Paul Krugman and his black wife), but there is no political alliance between them. Yes, majorities of both blacks and Jews are Democrats, but the Democratic Party has a history of including enemies in its big tent (e.g., blacks and Southern Whites from FDR to Civil Rights).

Anonymous said...

The fact is that Hispanics, on average, don’t pay all that much attention to the news. They tend to be younger, less literate, less interested in America, and less interested in public affairs in general.

Indeed, as one should note that citizens of the City of Bell, California (91% Hispanic) are just now discovering that they've been paying they're city manager nearly $800,000 a year (with a 12% guaranteed annual raise); their assistant administrator nearly $400,000, their Chief of Police $450,000, and their councilmen $100,000.

The city manager doesn't even live in Bell, but in Huntington Beach, and owns a sprawling horse farm in Washington State.

Whiskey said...

What curbing of the stimulus? All the stimulus money went to: Dem Pork that employed no one, and state bailouts to keep government workers employed. Plus bailouts for GM and Chrysler to keep union workers employed.

Thats it. Defense spending would have ramped up employment (you require 10X the folks to build an aircraft carrier vs. a bridge) with the bonus of being a big stick to threaten Iran or Pakistan or anyone else to keep oil prices low.

Obama's core support among Whites is mostly yes, younger Whites, and particularly, Women. Women favor Obama vs. Men by at least six points in every poll.

Obama being Black has an advantage. Women of all races and particularly White women see him as more masculine, commanding, and intelligent than White male counterparts.

Why does "Diversity" have such an appeal to SWPL? Because White women find boring White beta males unsuitable and unmanly potential mates, and find at least the fantasy of non-White guys to be superior. You can see this clearly in advertising aimed almost exclusively at women. Boring idiot dweeb White guy and smooth, masculine/dominant Black guy.

Doug said...

75% Say Free Markets Better Than Government Management of Economy, Political Class Disagrees

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 75% of Likely Voters prefer free markets over a government managed economy. Just 14% think a government managed economy is better while 11% are not sure. These figures have changed little since December.

Polling released earlier this week showed that Americans overwhelmingly believe that more competition and less regulation is better for the economy than more regulation and less competition.

Not surprisingly, America’s Political Class is far less enamored with the virtues of a free market. In fact, Political Class voters narrowly prefer a government managed economy over free markets by a 44% to 37% margin. However, among Mainstream voters, 90% prefer the free market.

Outside of the Political Class, free markets are preferred across all demographic and partisan lines. This gap may be one reason that 68% of voters believe the Political Class doesn’t care what most Americans think. Fifty-nine percent (59%) are embarrassed by the behavior of the Political Class.

Doug1 said...

Kylie--

I strongly suggest to read this "review" (summary really) of each of the 8 chapters of Kevin MacDonald's "The Culture of Critique". (Critique that is of non Jewish while mores and beliefs.) It's sorta the Cliff Notes for the book.

Which is a real eye opener and a thorough and fair minded major scholarly work. Whose review by standard places like the NYT or publishing by a first run publisher has been network suppressed.

http://www.mypostingcareer.com/forums/index.php?/topic/107-the-culture-of-critique/

Svigor said...

Of course. But how did they get the power? By wrenching authority away from the primacy of reason and placing it in the expression of feeling, of style over substance.

I dunno. I know part of it was what I was referring to above with the "neutrality" comment; in the march through the institutions, the displaced kept to their belief in "the other fella has a point of view," "fairness," etc. It's a theme with which we're all familiar; you deal "fairly" with the guy who wants to cut your throat. Then he cuts your throat, and conducts his affairs without a care for "fairness."

They took over the media, which didn't hurt. I don't think many people recognize the media's power. Waaaaaay better than nukes. I'm aware of no historical precedent for the power the media gives over populations. How did they take it over? Well, they got in on the ground floor, and avoided "fairness" and "the other fella has a point of view" like the plague.

I could say a lot more but I feel like I'm straying off topic. I certainly don't feel any special slickness or fluency had anything to do with it.

But those arguments stand, regardless of how flawed their construction. Why?

Because they have the bullhorn, and we don't. We could break their backs with one national network. A cable channel would be enough. I think they agree; look how apeshit FOX drives them.


Because their basis and their appeal is grounded in emotion not logic. Intellectual rigor can be jettisoned if one has enough high-flown eloquence at one's command. Don't believe me? Try reading one of Obama's speeches for content.

Oh, hey, if we're talking about which is the better avenue to influencing people, reason or emotion, I totally agree it's the latter. I'm just not seeing any "triumph of the skilled" here. I'm seeing raw power. E.g., anyone who's jumped into the net with both feet these last 10-15 years can appreciate how different publishing ideas is now vs. before. I bet the gatekeepers know which they'd rather have, given a choice between fluency and monopoly. Politicians have been choosing emotion over reason forever, long before our current dilemma.