So why oppose Obama? Simply, it is the shape of the society Obama is crafting that I oppose, and I intend to hold him responsible, such as I can, for his actions in creating it. Many Democrats are disappointed in Obama. Some feel he’s a good president with a bad Congress. Some feel he’s a good man, trying to do the right thing, but not bold enough. Others think it’s just the system, that anyone would do what he did. I will get to each of these sentiments, and pragmatic questions around the election, but I think it’s important to be grounded in policy outcomes. Not, what did Obama try to do, in his heart of hearts? But what kind of America has he actually delivered? And the chart below answers the question. This chart reflects the progressive case against Obama.
Yeah, Obama has in fact crafted an entire society in just 45 months. Let's give a pass to the Republican's effect on the Body Politic, causing a heart attack and an collapsed lung of an economy and two broken legs. We get all that fixed, and Dr. Obama is a terrible President because we're doing 5Ks on the slow end and not running full marathons.
But then Stoller veers into Privileged White Guy territory towards the bottom of his screed:
Now, it would not be fair to address this matter purely on economic grounds, and ignore women’s rights. In that debate with Ellsberg, advocate Emily Hauser insistently made the case that choice will be safe under Obama, and ended under Romney, that this is the only issue that matters to women, and that anyone who doesn’t agree is, as she put it, delusional. Falguni Sheth argued that this is a typical perspective from a privileged white woman, who ignores much of the impact that Barack Obama’s policies have on women, and specifically women of color. And even on the issue of choice, you could make a good case, as she does, that there’s less of a difference between Obama and Romney than meets the eye.
Yeah, you have the white guy going after a personal friend of mine because supporting the black president is actually damaging to women of color.
Falguni Sheth's argument, by the way, is complete tripe. It assumes that there's no stated functional difference between Romney and Obama because Congress has Republicans in it, and since Obama has yet to declare himself dictator for life (which is hypocrisy because DROOOOONES) then there's no difference. Which means Sheth is as full of emoprog crap as Stoller is. Surprise!
It really is tiring to see any/every emorprog "case against Obama" boil down to the paragraph above, but it still apparently must be pointed out because they keep doing it constantly. But for Stoller to say what he did is such massive assumption of privilege that it borders on the tragic. It's based on the assumption (there's that word again Matt, pay attention here) that persons of color AND women are too stupid to see how "awful" Obama is for them, when the opposite is actually true.
Stoller's cool because the "marginal" difference on policies that actually affect him where he is allows him the privilege of it not mattering to him regardless of whom is elected. For a great many of the rest of us, we live on that margin. We don't have the luxury of "Oh well, it doesn't matter." We don't have the luxury of the 40 year progressive plan for a new society. We need to get things fixed now, and I'm going with the guy fixing them as opposed to the guy going back to the same things we did in 2001-2008.
Yes, the macro-level stuff is horrible. Inequality? Unacceptable. Climate change? Being ignored. it's awful. But I know for a fact Romney won't make any of that better, and Obama will at least try to correct the micro-level stuff so that the macro-level stuff can be fixed later.
Those are my two choices. And I live in Kentucky where my vote for President is utterly, utterly meaningless. Doing it anyway out of patriotism and to honor those before me who fought and died for my right to vote.
Period.
Get over yourself, Stoller.
No comments:
Post a Comment