I said in another thread that the President is too political. He doesn’t seem to realize that once he took the oath of office, he became a leader for all Americans not just those who voted for him. But he has continued to act as if the only people he needs to be concerned about are his own political base and someone else will take care of everybody else.
So I’m one of those who agrees that Bush is indifferent to blacks rather than hostile. In fact, one of the few things I admire about George Bush is that he seems personally to have no racism. As long as you agree with him politically he doesn’t care what your race or gender is.
Bush has refused to meet with the Congressional Black Caucus. He refused an invitation to speak at the NAACP annual convention dinner. Most of his top black appointments are obviosly conservatives whos political beliefs don’t jibe with black Americans. Colin Powell has distanced himself from this second term, his pick for Education Secretary Rod Paige pissed off plenty of teachers when he likened them to terrorists for criticizing “No Child Left Behind,” and Condoleeza hasn’t had much credibility as she’s seen shoring up an intellectually deficient president who’s some bizarre surrogate husband.
He’s not much of a uniter and is indifferent to the divisiveness his slow actions in NO has caused, which might have been a watershed but instead turned to a huge missed opportunity. Why should black America care for him? He’s seen as very reluctant doing anything for us.
xtisme. Obviously we disagree. No need to try and change each other’s mind on that point, then.
That’s a good question. Perhaps you can start a thread about that. I’d be glad to participate. The questions I’d like to discuss here in this thread have already been asked-- more than once. But I’ll reiterate:
So far I’ve gotten a lot of what blacks can do to stop hating the president but not much on what the president can do to show he gives a rat’s ass about 12% his citizenry. Is this because people believe he doesn’t want to? Or that it is impossible?
Does it not occur to you that this would be the case, not because Bush would be there more quickly to take care of them, but rather that the people who live in “Bush country” may have some fundamentally different sets of principles, which would cause someone there, either a citizen or elected official, to rise to the need??
It would probably be a waste of electrons, and it would certainly be a hijack of this thread unless you want to attempt to make the case that relief efforts were slow because NO is predominently black. DO you want to make that arguement?
He could become a Democrat I suppose. Other than that, I don’t see how your question is answerable…unless we assume, as you have, that Bush actively hates or is indifferent too blacks, because they are black. I asked you to list out your reasons for thinking he doesn’t ‘care’ about blacks, but you have thus far been hostile in requests for you to actually provide additional information that would make this a debate…instead of a rant. As far as what you’ve given us to work with thus far, I think your question has been realistically answered…there is nothing Bush could do (that he WOULD do) to change the perception of the black community.
Well, if this is the question now, ISTM you should know better than us whiteys. What do you think he should do?
I’m with xtisme. I don’t think there’s anything he can do. He’s a rich white politician from Texas, which plays into many stereotypes – which are just as prevalent among black Americans as white. What’s he supposed to do? Go to NBA games? Make a show of eating neck bones? Invite Snoop Dogg to the White House? Start campaigning in black churches? It would obviously be phony, and he’d be criticized for it.
I suspect the only thing he could do would be to start supporting a bunch of programs that have the support of black Americans … even if he honestly doesn’t think they’re the best thing for the country in general, or even for blacks themselves. Is that sort of pandering what you want?
I think it is very unlikely that any president that has both 1) a personal and cultural background very different from the majority of blacks and 2) a very different set of political positions than the black political establishment will ever be seen as “caring.” Black politicians are not exactly known for taking a “well, my opponent opposes Affirmative Action, but that doesn’t make him a racist” kind of tone.
That makes no sense whatsoever, unless you seriously mean that Democrats/liberals/whateverthehellyoumean have less of a sense of responsibility toward each other and themselves than ones from “Bush Country”? That the federal officials who’ve been so callous toward their fellow Americans despite being products of “Bush Country” themselves are not to be held responsible for it?
:Shrug: Aren’t they the same stereotypes that apply to rich white politicians from Arkansas?
Now you’re getting warmer. Add in that such programs, if thoughtfully and respectfully designed, would have the support of a hell of a lot of white/Hispanic/Asian/everyone else voters as well and reconsider.
It’s the sort of service to his employers (namely us, if it isn’t clear) that I want.
It’s clear that Bush doesn’t see his responsibilities as being to the entire country. Do you also think that a President is answerable only to his own voters?
Quiz time: Who was “America’s first black President”?
Not only are these two different questions, but they aren’t really arguments. The first is clearly IMHO. The second is a strawman, really, arguing a basis that has little objective basis in reality, dealing, unrealistcally, with other people’s preception of the man. Seriously, start posting evidence of racism, and then maybe we can have a debate. Hell, why not start a thread claiming stuff to be racism, and we’ll debate that. At best, you’re putting the cart before the horse.
I don’t think Bush hates black people. He hates poor people, and sees their poverty as a character flaw which should be punished. Poverty is synonymous with laziness to people in his circle, and any aid to them is seen as encouraging laziness. In their minds, if laziness is rewarded, it sends the wrong message, and more people will choose to be lazy and poor so they can get free food, water and shelter. So, making the lives of the poor as miserable as possible is really for their own good, so they will choose to be industrious and productive, not slothful parasites suckling the public tit at the expense of upstanding citizens who work hard for their money, and are entitled to keep it. All of it.
IIRC, Bush II got a higher percentage of the Black vote in 2004 than either Bush I or Reagan-- or at least the percent was about the same. Why does that translate into the perception of Bush by the Black community (if that can even be determined) is worse than it was for Bush I or Reagan?
How does one quantify the hatred felt by a group of people? Might it be that you are projecting your own feelings (Bush II hates me but Reagan didn’t) on the larger community?
This is the way I see it. Bush isn’t indifferent to blacks so much as he’s indifferent to the poor. It’s just politically inconvenient that there’s a lot of overlap, coincidental or not, between the two.
His base is the wealthy, regardless of what color they are, and that’s who he sees himself as serving as President. And he himself is wealthy, of course, which is why his administration has been so self-serving.
But disregarding blacks because they’re black? I don’t see it.
He can’t fix it, barring any miracles. His whole administration–Condi included–is contaminated as far as I’m concerned.
Black people are not alone in perceiving the involvement of racism. I’ve seen many white people also suggest that race along with class was at play. Whether the perception is accurate or not is a subject of debate, but I think its pretty clear that in terms of public relations Bush has taken a mighty blow from Katrina. The hot potato blame game the administration is currently playing only serves to worsen their image in the eyes of the public, but especially black people.
I think the President cares about his image, and that’s about it. I’m sure he doesn’t want to go down in history as the president who watched NOLA implode upon itself and did nothing. But as far as the people? Not so much, as much as it pains me to say it.
Why do I say this?
His absence of emotions is quite noticeable to me. I find it hard to believe that most people when confronted with that level of devastation and despair can turn to a camera and deliver some soundbites without at least choking up a little. The country has just experienced one of its worst disasters ever, but Bush doesn’t seem to be reacting in a way that suggests he understands that.
Bill Clinton was not born rich. He also spent a lot of time as a young person around black people and black culture. Bush grew up in west Texas, not exactly known for it’s thriving african-american communituies. It is known for a hispanic influence – and whaddya know, he seems to get along with them OK.
IOW, support programs he – and presumably the 51% of Americans that elected him – honestly thinks are bad for the country and bad for minorities, just because those are the programs that minorities want and it will make him more popular.
Of course this implies that someone who support different policies than you is “indifferent”. A common error made by partisans.
No. As you can see, Bush still got 44% of the under $50k/year vote. Someone making $50k/year is not “wealthy”. And although Bush did get a high % of the over $200k/year vote, there aren’t enough of those out there to make up a “base”.
Bush’s “base” is conservatives, especially religious (evangelical) conservates, of whatever income. Many democrats just can’t seem to understand that there are LOTS of conservative folks who are not in any way shape or form “wealthy”.
You decried stereotyping just one post ago. Now you’re acknowledging that the negative image of Bush among the black community is probably grounded in fact?
Only if you’re laboring under the belief that voting for a candidate means supporting everything he says he’ll do and everything he does do, and opposes everything the other candidate says and does. Reality just ain’t that simple. People vote for the candidate who best meets the preponderance of whatever range of criteria that apply. You cannot say that 51% of Americans want Social Security gutted just because Bush does, or that 49% of Americans want to internationalize and disengage from Iraq just because Kerry does. But that’s your reasoning here.
I’d just like to point out, in the interest of accuracy, that what Kanye West actually said in that Mike Meyers clip was: “George Bush doesn’t care about black people…” The title of the thread says “hate.”
(Maybe he’s said “George Bush hates black people” at another event…I have no idea, but I figured I’d point this out anyway).