Forum Thread

President Obama chides Black Lives Matter movement

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 12 Posts
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    NBC News: President Obama Calls Out Black Lives Matter Activists for 'Yelling'

    Speaking at a youth Town Hall meeting in London, President Obama was asked about the Black Lives Matter movement. He responded by complimenting the movement for effectively bringing attention to racially motivated police violence across the country — but also had some harsh advice:

    "You can't just keep on yelling at them and you can't refuse to meet because that might compromise the purity of your position," Obama said. "The value of social movements and activism is to get you at the table, get you in the room and then start trying to figure out how is this problem going to be solved. You then have a responsibility to prepare an agenda that is achievable —that can institutionalize the changes you seek and to engage the other side."

    So is President Obama out of line to offer "suggestions" to the movement? Will he be castigated by members of the movement? Just wondering.

    I personally like what he said about "compromising the purity of your position". It's kind of what I have been preaching on this website...the need for liberals to understand that compromise is always necessary for progress.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Dallas, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Sounds like "hippie punching" to me.

    BLM wouldn't have been as effective as Obama suggests they have been without their aggressiveness and unyielding positions.

    No ideas that are of any merit can be achieved with the current institutional structure without a whole lot more yelling and direct action. The idea that we can talk this out now that some politicians are listening to BLM people is naive.

    Yes, extremism leads to excesses; but if you know you are going to have to compromise, that's more incentive to come to the table from a strong position and to pursue all leverage possible to strengthen your hand. Coming into the discussion with a mindset for and emphasis on compromise from the get-go is a horrible strategy.

    Obama should be telling the BLM activists to redouble their efforts and continue down the path of nonviolent and peaceful resistance, which is not the same as non-confrontational struggle.

  • Liberal
    Independent
    Durham, NH
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Sorta like what Bernie supporters have been saying about the (modern) Democrats! Nothing gets accomplished in this country by being a "nice guy" Obama, of all people, should have realized this seven years ago!
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Carlitos and pr -- You are being dismissive of the many many accomplishments of President Obama's presidency and style. Yes he could have accomplished more, particularly on job growth, if it wasn't for Republican obstructionism, much of it rooted in racial bias against our first black president. President Obama (and also Hillary Clinton) are what Nate Silver would call "rational progressives" (as opposed to many radical progressives in the BLM). His philosophy is incremental change brought about through sometimes slow tedious negotiating and understanding. Yelling at people is an emotional response that doesn't get you "buy-in"...it might get you a short term victory, but not consensus.

    President Obama has been the victim of racial bias his entire life, and especially as President of these United States of America. He has lots of haters just because of his race. But he didn't take office as the "angry black man" and he has steadfastly avoided showing that side of him as president of all Americans. He is my role model of how the African American community can make real progress to reduce institutional racial biases. He has been a transformational president, but for those still the victims of prejudices, they might not view him that way.

    He also understands that this is a generational process...you cannot change a person's biases overnight, and certainly anyone yelling at me is not going to change my views one iota.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Nate Silver, FiveThirtyEight, February 15, 2009: The Two Progressivisms

    I referenced Nate Silver's excellent short paper from 2009 above. I should have given it more prominence. Read it and reflect.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt, You have pretty much exhausted all the scenarios establishing approval for incrementalism. What you have to do is show a benefit for deteriorating conditions for people that do not have a guaranteed income. I am afraid that establishment protectionism can also be perceived as approval for conservative tendencies for cutting spending and reducing government power while increasing the power unelected policies. All indications are for a correction and a correction not addressed results in a further concentration of wealth and power. Incrementalling along gives more power to the dynamic actions of powerful groups of self interest. So while you advocate treading water to save what you have other forces are taking advantage of the protective complacency to forge ahead towards more wealth and unelected power. 4 more years of incrementalism is not incremental setbacks for the lower classes or incremental gains for the upper classes. It is huge setbacks and huge gains.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Dallas, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Schmidt, black American economic lives have gotten worse under President Obama.

    Something more needs to be done than half-measures and slow tedious progress. At this rate we will won't get to full employment until next century.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Carlitos Wrote: Schmidt, black American economic lives have gotten worse under President Obama.

    Something more needs to be done than half-measures and slow tedious progress. At this rate we will won't get to full employment until next century.

    I'm not sure there's much evidence to back either of these claims up.

    Is there any proof that black American economic lives have gotten worse under President Obama? The average black Americans economic life before President Obama wasn't all peaches and cream, so it is hard to statistically prove that it has gotten worse. Another thing we must factor in is that black Americans were hit harder than any other demographic group during the financial crisis that President Obama inherited.

    Your second statement also seems a bit off. We are already on the cusp of full employment right now. Janet Yellen and various other economic forecasters have recently stated that we are nearing "maximum employment." It's true that there is still a massive divide between the rich and poor, but recovering from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression in less than seven years is pretty damn good if you ask me.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Dallas, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Carlitos Wrote: Schmidt, black American economic lives have gotten worse under President Obama.

    Something more needs to be done than half-measures and slow tedious progress. At this rate we will won't get to full employment until next century.

    I'm not sure there's much evidence to back either of these claims up.

    Is there any proof that black American economic lives have gotten worse under President Obama? The average black Americans economic life before President Obama wasn't all peaches and cream, so it is hard to statistically prove that it has gotten worse. Another thing we must factor in is that black Americans were hit harder than any other demographic group during the financial crisis that President Obama inherited.

    Your second statement also seems a bit off. We are already on the cusp of full employment right now. Janet Yellen and various other economic forecasters have recently stated that we are nearing "maximum employment." It's true that there is still a massive divide between the rich and poor, but recovering from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression in less than seven years is pretty damn good if you ask me.

    Former NAACP President Ben Jealous would beg to differ.

    The labor force participation rate is still in the toilet regardless of whatever the Fed and Labor Department have to say about the unemployment rate. Jobs reports continuously show that a big chunk of those taking new jobs were not previously counted as in the labor force. Furthermore, the Fed thinks their job is "psychological" and will never speak negatively about the economy out of fear that they will influence negative outcomes.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Schmidt, You have pretty much exhausted all the scenarios establishing approval for incrementalism. What you have to do is show a benefit for deteriorating conditions for people that do not have a guaranteed income. I am afraid that establishment protectionism can also be perceived as approval for conservative tendencies for cutting spending and reducing government power while increasing the power unelected policies. All indications are for a correction and a correction not addressed results in a further concentration of wealth and power. Incrementalling along gives more power to the dynamic actions of powerful groups of self interest. So while you advocate treading water to save what you have other forces are taking advantage of the protective complacency to forge ahead towards more wealth and unelected power. 4 more years of incrementalism is not incremental setbacks for the lower classes or incremental gains for the upper classes. It is huge setbacks and huge gains.

    Chet -- Again, I just don't follow the logic of your post (and other posts). You have a fixation on the rich, and you throw around theories that I just cannot follow. Sorry, but I just don't have a clairvoyant mind that I can decipher what you are saying. Why don't you start providing some links to noted economists that I can read for more understanding. That's what Carlitos does, and he has helped educate me. I have read most all the stuff Carlitos has provided over many years. His links to MMT economists largely make sense to me, although I sometimes push back on him on some particular issues where I still struggle. Your stuff just seems jibberish to me.

    Getting back to President Obama and his economic policies. There is no question about the need for a massive infrastructure program. He came close to getting a second stimulus approved in 2011 that would have improved the job situation immensely. It was filibustered by Republicans out of spite and racial hatred for our first black president. Not only that, they blocked many other initiatives over the course of his seven years that would have helped the plight of the poor and youth. They became the "Party of No". They counted on people being largely ignorant of the goings on in Congress. Their goal was to make life miserable to as much of the populace as possible. They wanted President Obama to fail and sabotaged his presidency at every opportunity.

    And what really irritates me is that the Republicans have been successful in that regard. Not only right wingers have mocked Obama at every turn, many liberals have joined the chorus, thinking that they elected a "King Obama" who should have "influenced" Congress to follow him better. They all blame Obama.

  • Liberal
    Independent
    Durham, NH
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    What do you expect? Obama accomplished some good and worthwhile things but I think most of his supporters would have to admit they felt left down by him. I certainly do. The general consensus is he blew it in his first two years and only now is he trying to polish his image.

    Schmidt - you seem to have a very difficult time accepting the reality of the lack of accomplishments of those you so fully support. If I didn't know better I would consider you a closet Conservative because you are pretty unwavering in supporting people that, in fact, have been less than honest with us. Stop collecting your data and start interpreting it with a more open mind and you might discover what we have been trying to tell you all along.

    when the Koch bros start supporting your candidate you know there is a big problem!

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Schmidt, You have pretty much exhausted all the scenarios establishing approval for incrementalism. What you have to do is show a benefit for deteriorating conditions for people that do not have a guaranteed income. I am afraid that establishment protectionism can also be perceived as approval for conservative tendencies for cutting spending and reducing government power while increasing the power unelected policies. All indications are for a correction and a correction not addressed results in a further concentration of wealth and power. Incrementalling along gives more power to the dynamic actions of powerful groups of self interest. So while you advocate treading water to save what you have other forces are taking advantage of the protective complacency to forge ahead towards more wealth and unelected power. 4 more years of incrementalism is not incremental setbacks for the lower classes or incremental gains for the upper classes. It is huge setbacks and huge gains.

    Chet -- Again, I just don't follow the logic of your post (and other posts). You have a fixation on the rich, and you throw around theories that I just cannot follow. Sorry, but I just don't have a clairvoyant mind that I can decipher what you are saying. Why don't you start providing some links to noted economists that I can read for more understanding. That's what Carlitos does, and he has helped educate me. I have read most all the stuff Carlitos has provided over many years. His links to MMT economists largely make sense to me, although I sometimes push back on him on some particular issues where I still struggle. Your stuff just seems jibberish to me.

    Getting back to President Obama and his economic policies. There is no question about the need for a massive infrastructure program. He came close to getting a second stimulus approved in 2011 that would have improved the job situation immensely. It was filibustered by Republicans out of spite and racial hatred for our first black president. Not only that, they blocked many other initiatives over the course of his seven years that would have helped the plight of the poor and youth. They became the "Party of No". They counted on people being largely ignorant of the goings on in Congress. Their goal was to make life miserable to as much of the populace as possible. They wanted President Obama to fail and sabotaged his presidency at every opportunity.

    And what really irritates me is that the Republicans have been successful in that regard. Not only right wingers have mocked Obama at every turn, many liberals have joined the chorus, thinking that they elected a "King Obama" who should have "influenced" Congress to follow him better. They all blame Obama.

    Schmidt, You might be able to sell incrementalism if you could explain why it is only used for the lower classes. But first things first. I have no problem with "rich". My problem is with the astronomic accumulation of wealth that is out of proportion with the intent and labor to produce it. Massive wealth is dumped on people who have no idea what to do with it. That kind of wealth under control of one person undermines the purpose of an economy and bypasses a democracy. The framers of the constitution had no idea or concept of individuals being able to accumulate in a few years the wealth equivalent to the liftime earnings of thousands people. I am going to look and see if there are any inklings in that direction.

    As far as slow and easy incrementalism it is only applied to the lower classes. Tax cuts, repealing laws proven to stabilize finances, deregulation to expedite business, new laws containing atrocities like the CFMA and every other action toward business were not applied incrementally. So in justifying the logic of small slow steps you also have to explain why incrementalism is only used for the lower classes.