Shocked & Disgusted

[DrPhil]

I've been lurking since yesterday to see GCers' reactions. This username will self-destruct after the post-election hoopla is over.

Originally Posted by Scandia

And voting for Obama because he's black is just as wrong as voting for McCain because he's not black.

Originally Posted by Kevin

It's just as offensive to be against the man because of his race as it is to support him because of his race.

At the surface level, sure.

Beneath the surface and taking a critical look, NO. There are different dynamics at play:

1. A large %, if not a majority, of people who voted for McCain would've done regardless because they are Repub. So the racial eptithets and hatred in those rallies and more subtly in some of the commercials were unncecessary political tactics if we're looking at people's political loyalties. But they were employed to spark fear and racial threat from McCain supporters and hopefully sway Independents, undecideds, and Democrats based on hatred, threat, and fear of the unknown (and not just the political unknown but racial and ethnic correlates of it). That's significant and should be rememberred when we try to act like racism and prejudice operate in the same manner for majority and minority racial and ethnic groups.

2. This is the first time a nonwhite man was a plausible candidate. So a bunch of people finally being excited by having a black man, or a woman, isn't hardly the same thing. It doesn't have the same potential impact on society as a bunch of people who are deadset on keeping white men in the White House. Different sentiments are expressed, one regarding hope and excitement for something different (even nonblacks laugh at the image of stuffy politicians as "white males in dark suits") and the other regarding a desire to keep the racial glass ceiling and a hypocritical interpretation of The Constitution and The American Dream.

3. A large %, if not a majority, of voters who voted for Obama would have voted for a Democrat, anyway. Repubs aside, many registered Independents also vote Democrat more often than not. Obama's skin color helped get new registered voters and encouraged some people to vote this time around---don't know the final stats on that so people can just theorize at this point--but a lot of these people would've voted Dem regardless if a white Dem had mobilized them the way that Obama's people did. His skin color made people more excited and was a good talking point. But it isn't uncommon for many people (read: not just black people) to religiously vote Democrat but not really know about the issues or to be able to explain their vote. This time they were simply able to say "he's black" as an additional seemingly superficial reason (that's not superficial at all given this KKKountry's history).

*******
I'm glad I was wrong about America being ready to elect a nonwhite POTUS. It couldn't happen with just the black and other minority vote. Whites were a large % of the vote. More work has to be done and we are nowhere near where we need to be as a nation. So I don't want people to assume that America is truly READY for a nonwhite POTUS. That remains to be seen. And structural racism and inequality did not disappear Tuesday evening so having a black POTUS does not make things better in society as a whole.

Of course, how well he will do remains to be seen. I just hope he will be given a fair chance that isn't based on his skin color and these "messiah-like" expectations. He's made a lot of promises but we should all know that the POTUS isn't in control as much as they claim that they are. He will have to do a lot that he doesn't want to do. And he won't be as honest and forthcoming as he is promising he'll be. He can't--the public can't and won't know everything.

[jwright25]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Of course, how well he will do remains to be seen. I just hope he will be given a fair chance that isn't based on his skin color and these "messiah-like" expectations. He's made a lot of promises but we should all know that the POTUS isn't in control as much as they claim that they are. He will have to do a lot that he doesn't want to do. And he won't be as honest and forthcoming as he is promising he'll be. He can't--the public can't and won't know everything.

I agree with you completely.

I, too, found myself reading statuses on Facebook as they were changing every second - literally. I live in a very red region, so the majority were anti-Obama. Some were racially motivated. The few pro-Obama ones that I saw, however, were quite nasty as well - like some of the ones Winnibug posted. Some folks out there are awfully sore winners. Something that I think Obama himself would be very disappointed in.

I think that what bothers me most about this election is the vast number of people out there who voted based on something completely false. On BOTH sides. Like how Howard Stern's show went out and asked people on the street who they were voting for, then listed the opposing candidate's VP and platforms to see if the folks would agree with those positions. They did - both McCain and Obama supporters. It's things like that that lead me to believe that there are tons of Americans out there voting for something other than issues. And this year, the biggest "something other" was quite arguably race.

I was thinking as I read your post, "This sounds like something DSTCHAOS would say...."

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Beneath the surface and taking a critical look, NO. There are different dynamics at play:

Your 'different dynamics' are just justifications as why it's okay to vote for a person based on their skin pigmentation.

How is despising Obama or being afraid of him because he's black not the moral equivalent of supporting him simply because he's black? What you offered were reasons -- justifications as to why you think that's fine. That's all well and good, given your obvious problems with this "KKKountry's"h history, but you're just trying to justify a behavior you would condemn if it was a white man supporting a white candidate because they were white.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Your 'different dynamics' are just justifications as why it's okay to vote for a person based on their skin pigmentation.

How is despising Obama or being afraid of him because he's black not the moral equivalent of supporting him simply because he's black? What you offered were reasons -- justifications as to why you think that's fine. That's all well and good, given your obvious problems with this "KKKountry's"h history, but you're just trying to justify a behavior you would condemn if it was a white man supporting a white candidate because they were white.

people are entitled to vote for whoever they want why they want. white people have been doing it for years against candidates of color. and guess what, that's ok. those are personal biases, and people are allowed to have those. big difference between personal bias and unjust law.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by starang21

people are entitled to vote for whoever they want why they want. white people have been doing it for years against candidates of color. and guess what, that's ok. those are personal biases, and people are allowed to have those. big difference between personal bias and unjust law.

I think you're mistaking what Kevin's arguing as "OK" versus "acceptable" or "understandable" or "beneficial for the individual/group, outweighing any real or perceived moral or ethical issues" - not that it particularly matters.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I think you're mistaking what Kevin's arguing as "OK" versus "acceptable" or "understandable" or "beneficial for the individual/group, outweighing any real or perceived moral or ethical issues" - not that it particularly matters.

they're both acceptable AND understandable. everyone is prejudiced, and everyone has personal biases. it's human nature. the only person who needs to understand or accept is the person who is doing the voting. from what i'm reading, he's chastising those who voted for obama based on the color of his skin. while i think that it's a limited reason to vote for a candidate, there's really nothing wrong with it.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by starang21

they're both acceptable AND understandable. everyone is prejudiced, and everyone has personal biases. it's human nature. the only person who needs to understand or accept is the person who is doing the voting. from what i'm reading, he's chastising those who voted for obama based on the color of his skin. while i think that it's a limited reason to vote for a candidate, there's really nothing wrong with it.

Maybe I wasn't clear - I see exactly where you're coming from. It's not at all where Kevin is - you're arguing something he's not saying.

I agree with you, by the way, from a pragmatic standpoint - that doesn't mean there aren't "issues" with voting based on race, it's just that you and I understand that other issues win out.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

you're arguing something he's not saying.

this is what he said......

Originally Posted by Kevin

It's just as offensive to be against the man because of his race as it is to support him because of his race.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Your 'different dynamics' are just justifications as why it's okay to vote for a person based on their skin pigmentation. How is despising Obama or being afraid of him because he's black not the moral equivalent of supporting him simply because he's black?

Originally Posted by Kevin

you're just trying to justify a behavior you would condemn if it was a white man supporting a white candidate because they were white.

this is what i said......

Originally Posted by starang21

people are entitled to vote for whoever they want why they want.

i'm basically telling him that both are ok. if someone wants to not vote for obama because he's black, there's nothing wrong with that. if someone wants to vote for obama because he's black, there's nothing wrong with that, either.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kevin

How is despising Obama or being afraid of him because he's black not the moral equivalent of supporting him simply because he's black?

"Moral equivalent" is the surface level. If you only deal with surface level then it would appear to be the same thing, as I stated in my post. I don't deal with surface level so...we can end this transaction because I'm typing about stuff beyond the surface.

*****

I have already visited both sides of this issue because I heckled and challenged staunch Democrats and Obama supporters for months. But, although it is fun to heckle, I always knew the different dynamics at play and am looking forward to my colleagues' analyses of this election as another illustration of the dynamics of race, class, gender (sexual orientation, etc.) in America. That's the critical approach to our social world that requires more than just "they do it and we do it...it looks the same to me because humans are suddenly removed from our social roles and statuses."

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

"Moral equivalent" is the surface level. If you only deal with surface level then it would appear to be the same thing, as I stated in my post. I don't deal with surface level so...we can end this transaction because I'm typing about stuff beyond the surface.

Yea!!!! You're back (at least for a while). You've been missed!

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Yea!!!! You're back (at least for a while). You've been missed!

On the surface level it looks like I'm a newbie!

But getting beyond the surface, there are some things going on that makes my new username different than the other new usernames. However, Kevin would have me go to the newbie thread just like everyone else because it's all the same based on the join date and post count.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

However, Kevin would have me go to the newbie thread just like everyone else because it's all the same based on the join date and post count.

Folks are putting a lot of words into my mouth these days.

Welcome back, btw. You were missed.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Your 'different dynamics' are just justifications as why it's okay to vote for a person based on their skin pigmentation.

How is despising Obama or being afraid of him because he's black not the moral equivalent of supporting him simply because he's black?

I think there is (or can be) a moral difference.

If we start from the assumption that both candidates are on the balance reasonably-equally qualified, I think there is a moral/ethical difference between

1) A white voter whose vote for the white candidate is prompted by the belief that a white will always make a better president than a black, or that he doesn't want to see a black president; and

2) A black voter whose vote for the black candidate is prompted not by the belief that a black will always make a better president than a white, but by the belief that the time is right to bring a perspective into the Oval Office that hasn't been there before and to move America a little further down the road.

It seems to me that the former is a refutation of the promise inherent in the Declaration of Independence ("that all men are created equal"), while the latter is an attempt to claim that promise.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Your 'different dynamics' are just justifications as why it's okay to vote for a person based on their skin pigmentation.

How is despising Obama or being afraid of him because he's black not the moral equivalent of supporting him simply because he's black? What you offered were reasons -- justifications as to why you think that's fine. That's all well and good, given your obvious problems with this "KKKountry's"h history, but you're just trying to justify a behavior you would condemn if it was a white man supporting a white candidate because they were white.

Been to West Virginia lately?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Been to West Virginia lately?

West Virginia, or at least parts of it, is the exception, not the rule.

Thank God for that.