"No He [Obama] Can't" by Anne Wortham

[TerriDoodle 6]

Anne Wortham wrote the following article ten days after the election of Barack Obama. Her brief bio is at the end.

“No, He Can’t”By Anne Wortham | Published 11/14/2008

Fellow Americans,

Please know: I am black; I grew up in the segregated South. I did not vote for Barack Obama; I wrote in Ron Paul’s name as my choice for president. Most importantly, I am not race conscious. I do not require a black president to know that I am a person of worth, and that life is worth living. I do not require a black president to love the ideal of America.

I cannot join you in your celebration. I feel no elation. There is no smile on my face. I am not jumping with joy. There are no tears of triumph in my eyes. For such emotions and behavior to come from me, I would have to deny all that I know about the requirements of human flourishing and survival–all that I know about the history of the United States of America, all that I know about American race relations, and all that I know about Barack Obama as a politician.

I would have to deny the nature of the “change” that Obama asserts has come to America. Most importantly, I would have to abnegate my certain understanding that you have chosen to sprint down the road to serfdom that we have been on for over a century. I would have to pretend that individual liberty has no value for the success of a human life. I would have to evade your rejection of the slender reed of capitalism on which your success and mine depend.

I would have to think it somehow rational that 94 percent of the 12 million blacks in this country voted for a man because he looks like them (that blacks are permitted to play the race card), and that they were joined by self-declared “progressive” whites who voted for him because he doesn’t look like them. I would have to wipe my mind clean of all that I know about the kind of people who have advised and taught Barack Obama and will fill posts in his administration–political intellectuals like my former colleagues at the Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.

I would have to believe that “fairness” is equivalent of justice. I would have to believe that man who asks me to “go forward in a new spirit of service, in a new service of sacrifice” is speaking in my interest. I would have to accept the premise of a man that economic prosperity comes from the “bottom up,” and who arrogantly believes that he can will it into existence by the use of government force. I would have to admire a man who thinks the standard of living of the masses can be improved by destroying the most productive and the generators of wealth.

Finally, Americans, I would have to erase from my consciousness the scene of 125,000 screaming, crying, cheering people in Grant Park, Chicago, irrationally chanting “Yes We Can!” Finally, I would have to wipe all memory of all the times I have heard politicians, pundits, journalists, editorialists, bloggers, and intellectuals declare that capitalism is dead–and no one, including especially Alan Greenspan, objected to their assumption that the particular version of the anti-capitalistic mentality that they want to replace with their own version of anti-capitalism is anything remotely equivalent to capitalism.

So you have made history, Americans. You and your children have elected a black man to the office of the president of the United States, the wounded giant of the world. The battle between John Wayne and Jane Fonda is over–and that Fonda won. Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern must be very happy men. Jimmie Carter, too. And the Kennedys have at last gotten their Kennedy look-a-like.

The self-righteous welfare statists in the suburbs can feel warm moments of satisfaction for having elected a black person. So, toast yourselves: 60s countercultural radicals, 80s yuppies and 90s bourgeois bohemians. Toast yourselves, Black America. Shout your glee, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Duke, Stanford, and Berkeley. You have elected not an individual who is qualified to be president, but a black man who, like the pragmatist Franklin Roosevelt, promises to–”Do Something!” You now have someone who has picked up the baton of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. But you have also foolishly traded your freedom and mine–what little there is left–for the chance to feel good. There is nothing in me that can share your happy obliviousness

Anne Wortham bio;

Anne Wortham is Black, an Associate Professor of Sociology at Illinois State University and continuing Visiting Scholar at Stanford University ’s Hoover Institution. She is a member of the American Sociological Association and the American Philosophical Association. She has been a John M. Olin Foundation Faculty Fellow, and honored as a Distinguished Alumni of the Year by the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education. In fall 1988 she was one of a select group of intellectuals who were featured in Bill Moyer’s television series, “A World of Ideas.” The transcript of her conversation with Moyers has been published in his book, A World of Ideas. Dr. Wortham is author of The Other Side of Racism: A Philosophical Study of Black Race Consciousness which analyzes how race consciousness is transformed into political strategies and policy issues. She has published numerous articles on the implications of individual rights for civil rights policy, and is currently writing a book on theories of social and cultural marginality. Recently, she has published articles on the significance of multiculturalism and Afrocentrism in education, the politics of victimization and the social and political impact of political correctness.

[BJean 16]

Boy I feel very sorry for her. Her self-hate is so deeply ingrained that she will never see her way clear to climb out. Her essay reveals many things, one of which is that sometimes an education can serve to further cloud a person's mind rather than opening it to new possibilities.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

During the campaign of Barack Obama and since his election the conservative movement and republicans have made sure to spotlight their (few) black members - i.e. Michael Steele, Joe Watkins - as if to imply that their race makes their criticisms more valid. It doesn't. Or to show that they too can be inclusive.

Many on the right have criticized FDR's New Deal and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society but few of them are willing to acknowledge that social security, medicare and medicaid are successful programs that help lift many out of poverty or at least provide basic care.

And isn't it intersting that the motivation behind James W. Von Brunn's violent attack and murder at the Holocaust museum was that his social security check was being reduced. For someone who hated the goverment and believed it was the cause of all the world's ills, he had no problem accepting the biggest socialist program we have.

I'm always curious about what freedoms we are supposed to be losing. I am not less free than at any other point in time. But when our constitution was violated by the bush administration I was very concernced. If we've ever been in jeopardy of losing freedoms, it was during the bush's lying, secretive, abusive and failed administration.

Capitalism without regulations is just greed run amok. We are living with the results of that every day in this country with the current economy. If you have a 401(k) or are invested in the stock market, you know how much wealth you have lost. We thought that our salaries, our homes and our investments would all go up. Wrong on all three. Just the salaries of the greedy CEO's apparently were failsafe. I have a new motto to counter the drill, baby, drill. It's regulate, baby, regulate.

When we had two classes of people - the very rich (they were the owners of everything - the factories, ship yards, mines, etc..) and the people who provided the labor in these places (the very poor) - there was no trickle down economics. The rich had the money and they were keeping it. Do you think they supported worker's rights, a 40-hour work week, child labor laws, workplace safety or a minumum wage? Of course not. So where is this all trickle down wealth theory coming from? Oh, yeah, that's right. The almighty Ronald Reagan. Who got us into the biggest defecit to date and cut taxes for the rich and the rest could eat their crumbs. Wealth is created by the workers who make the goods or provide the services and then paid a fair wage and benefits go out to buy those goods and services.

And just so we are clear - I am a white, middle aged, suburban woman (complete with white picket fence) and I voted for Barack Obama because he is a Democrat. Not because he is black or isn't white or was male or for any othe reason. I supported Hillary Clinton in the primary and then Barack Obama when he won the nomination. I support the democratic agenda and so did both of them. That's why he got my vote.

[plain 12]

Boy I feel very sorry for her. Her self-hate is so deeply ingrained that she will never see her way clear to climb out. Her essay reveals many things, one of which is that sometimes an education can serve to further cloud a person's mind rather than opening it to new possibilities.

That's funny that you see self hate because she disagrees with Obama's politics.

During the campaign of Barack Obama and since his election the conservative movement and republicans have made sure to spotlight their (few) black members - i.e. Michael Steele, Joe Watkins - as if to imply that their race makes their criticisms more valid. It doesn't. Or to show that they too can be inclusive.

Many on the right have criticized FDR's New Deal and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society but few of them are willing to acknowledge that social security, medicare and medicaid are successful programs that help lift many out of poverty or at least provide basic care.

I don't really get that. If SS, welfare, and Medicaid worked really well, why didn't it lift more people out of poverty? No doubt that it has helped some people, but I don't know if the results have justified the staggering costs of these programs.

And isn't it intersting that the motivation behind James W. Von Brunn's violent attack and murder at the Holocaust museum was that his social security check was being reduced. For someone who hated the goverment and believed it was the cause of all the world's ills, he had no problem accepting the biggest socialist program we have.

Not really surprising, though. That's the biggest problem I have with republicans. For the last 8 years, the party that is supposed to be in favor of less government threw that ideology out the window and grew the government's influence. It's the same with people. Some will say that they don't want government in their lives, but they'll be bought off by a government check.

I'm always curious about what freedoms we are supposed to be losing. I am not less free than at any other point in time.

Except for the government running private industry, the government poised to stuff nationalized health care down our throats, and the government dictating what foods you eat and what cars you drive (via increased "selective" taxes), no......you haven't lost any more freedoms. Oh, I almost forgot how the government recently weakened the legal concept of the "contract".

If you have a 401(k) or are invested in the stock market, you know how much wealth you have lost.

Or if your 401K was tied into Chrysler, like many in Iowa, the Obama government just made your investments woth pennies on the dollar by insisting that the unions be given priority-debtor status. But hey, He's still not Bush, right?

The almighty Ronald Reagan. Who got us into the biggest defecit to date

Oops...not anymore. President Obama gets that new honor.

and I voted for Barack Obama because he is a Democrat. Not because he is black or isn't white

That's cool, Cleo's Mom. And if you go back and read Anne Wortham's essay, you're both on the same side. She's saying that many black voters apparently voted for Obama (94%, according to her.....IDK where she got her figures) for no better reason than color. And you both seem to agree that's not the best litmus test to elect a president.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

That's funny that you see self hate because she disagrees with Obama's politics.

I don't really get that. If SS, welfare, and Medicaid worked really well, why didn't it lift more people out of poverty? No doubt that it has helped some people, but I don't know if the results have justified the staggering costs of these programs.

Most of Medicaid is used for nursing home care. What would you do for people who need 24/7 care and can't care for themselves or have the resources to pay for outside care? It also pays for health care for poor pregnant women, the disabled and many other categories.

Not really surprising, though. That's the biggest problem I have with republicans. For the last 8 years, the party that is supposed to be in favor of less government threw that ideology out the window and grew the government's influence. It's the same with people. Some will say that they don't want government in their lives, but they'll be bought off by a government check.

Except for the government running private industry, the government poised to stuff nationalized health care down our throats, and the government dictating what foods you eat and what cars you drive (via increased "selective" taxes), no......you haven't lost any more freedoms. Oh, I almost forgot how the government recently weakened the legal concept of the "contract".

Last time I checked the private industry was doing a pretty poor job of handling things. What with Enron years ago all the way up to AIG, Countrywide Mortgage, Lehman Bros., etc.. today- and their overpaid, overstuffed CEO's and their golden parachutes. Paid for by stockholders money. So, I'm willing to give the government a shot. They can't do any worse that the private industry honchos did. BTW the private industry's motto is: We don't want any government interference just their money.

And we trust government to run our military, I'm pretty sure they can handle a health program. The private health insurance industry needs the competition. I say, bring it on!

Everyone has a right to have health insurance. Period.

Or if your 401K was tied into Chrysler, like many in Iowa, the Obama government just made your investments woth pennies on the dollar by insisting that the unions be given priority-debtor status. But hey, He's still not Bush, right?

That's right he's not bush. How do we know? He can speak in complete sentences. And if the Pope visits the White House and speaks, I'm pretty sure Obama won't say: "Awesome speech your holiness", like dumbya did.

Oops...not anymore. President Obama gets that new honor.

At least with the spending Obama is doing, there is more in each person's paycheck (started April 1st) and the stimulus money is making it to states and districts, slowly, but it's getting there. Almost every day I read in my local paper about some project that is being funded by stimulus money. That saves jobs and creates jobs, too. So at least the money is getting to the people where it can do the most good.

That's cool, Cleo's Mom. And if you go back and read Anne Wortham's essay, you're both on the same side. She's saying that many black voters apparently voted for Obama (94%, according to her.....IDK where she got her figures) for no better reason than color. And you both seem to agree that's not the best litmus test to elect a president.

I agree that the color or gender of a person should not be a reason to vote for or against them. At least it has not been for me.

[BethFromVA 5]

That's funny that you see self hate because she disagrees with Obama's politics.

BINGO!! Had she written a puff piece on Obama, her education and self-love would have been oh-so-evident.

[BJean 16]

plain: "That's funny that you see self hate because she disagrees with Obama's politics."

Really? Did you read her piece? It had a whole lot to do with her own personal history. You're ignoring that because you agree with the politics of the Republicans that she infused into her self-hate story.

Cleo'sMom, excellent posts. Right on all counts.

Don't you love the way the Republicans rewrite history?

[BethFromVA 5]

Can you define what specifically about her piece defines self-hate?

[BJean 16]

Oh yeah and plain, it didn't go unnoticed that she was for Ron Paul. I remember that he was your man too. Hope it didn't interfere with your rockin' sense of humor.

Wonder who did the official numbers that claim that nearly all black voters voted for Barack Obama because of his skin color? That's seriously screwed up folks.

[plain 12]

Most of Medicaid is used for nursing home care. What would you do for people who need 24/7 care and can't care for themselves or have the resources to pay for outside care? It also pays for health care for poor pregnant women, the disabled and many other categories.

Sure, there are some legit uses. I just don't know if it's been worth the cost. On the whole, I think SS and Medicare are the most salvagable.

Last time I checked the private industry was doing a pretty poor job of handling things. What with Enron years ago all the way up to AIG, Countrywide Mortgage, Lehman Bros., etc.. today- and their overpaid, overstuffed CEO's and their golden parachutes. Paid for by stockholders money.

Right. That's how the whole stock market system works. You invest your money, gambling on the ability of the CEO and company to use your money to grow the business. If anybody thought the CEO salary was a dealbreaker, they didn't have to invest with that company. Will it be any better when the government sets salary limits (don't think it will be JUST CEO salaries, either)?

So, I'm willing to give the government a shot. They can't do any worse that the private industry honchos did.

Ok, if you feel comfortable with the government running more stuff than ever, cool......but don't delude yourself that you haven't lost more freedoms than you did under Bush.

And we trust government to run our military, I'm pretty sure they can handle a health program. The private health insurance industry needs the competition. I say, bring it on!

Everyone has a right to have health insurance. Period.

Competition? Single- payer system will totally abolish private insurance. Who can compete with the government when it comes to negotiating contracts, or buying power? Single-payer will end private health insurance and Obama knows it. That's why he slyly says that people can opt to keep their private insurance, and they won't be forced into the national plan.

Almost every day I read in my local paper about some project that is being funded by stimulus money. That saves jobs and creates jobs, too. So at least the money is getting to the people where it can do the most good.

I guess....but I think it might have been better in the long run to save some of that money so we wouldn't have to buy our own debt (in the form of treasury bills. In other words, we're printing more money like crazy, and inflation is gonna eat us alive. Just like President Carter's administration)

[BJean 16]

plain: " Single- payer system will totally abolish private insurance. Who can compete with the government when it comes to negotiating contracts, or buying power? Single-payer will end private health insurance..."

Oh my, would that it were true! The insurance companies are the bane of our existence. They've got us all by the kahoonas and have for a long time. They're the reason we have the problems we have with our medical system. It is a complicated situation but it all falls back on the insurance companies in the end.

It's partially our fault that it got so out of hand. It started with escalating health care costs, sometimes due to malpractice lawsuits. Now I think people should be able to have redress when they have been a victim of genuine medical malpractice. But the awards got out of hand and the doctors decided they had to be protected from those big awards that juries were willing to award their victims. So the whole thing snowballed and now we have lousy medical care for the masses in this country. If you are very wealthy you can get good care, but if you depend on insurance, or if you can't even pay for insurance, you are s$$t out of luck.

[plain 12]

plain: " Single- payer system will totally abolish private insurance. Who can compete with the government when it comes to negotiating contracts, or buying power? Single-payer will end private health insurance..."

Oh my, would that it were true! The insurance companies are the bane of our existence. They've got us all by the kahoonas and have for a long time. They're the reason we have the problems we have with our medical system. It is a complicated situation but it all falls back on the insurance companies in the end.

Oh BJean.....I was hoping you'd open the door for this one, because you, as a small business owner should be the first one to see how this will play out.

Do you offer any insurance to your employees?Typically, the business pays a portion of the premium, and the employee pays a portion. If the government puts out a national plan for free, then there is a huge financial incentive for the employer to not even offer private insurance. I mean.....why cut company profits for a benefit that employees can get for free from the government? Heck, it'd be cheaper for the employees too (well, not counting the real price, which will be taxes, taxes, taxes). Wouldn't you be tempted to do that, as a business owner? I would.

The thing is, as the government plan swells, it will become increasingly expensive for anybody to have private insurance. Why can't private insurance compete, like in the free market now? Because they'd be trying to compete against the government. The government is the body that tells hospitals and doctors what they'll be getting paid. It is impossible to underbid the body that makes the rules of the game.

Eventually, it will get so expensive to have private insurance that it will not be feasable for a company to underwrite premiums. *boom* private insurance is dead. Now everybody HAS to go through the government.

So how will Obama handle all the new demands that universal healthcare will deliver? Rationing. He's already tipped his hand by commissioning a group to explore "most efficient health practices". What that means is that this group will determine who gets what care:

My 80 year old grandma needs dialysis? Sorry, it becomes inefficient for anybody over the age of 78 to recieve dialysis.

I need to repair my torn ACL. I'm approved? Cool!! Now I can get that surgery in 8 short months!

But don't take my word on this. Ask any medical person. Anybody. If they have an optimistic take on this, I'd LOVE to hear it.

[BJean 16]

Yes plain, we do own a small business and we do offer a plan for medical insurance. Do you?

Yes plain, I have talked to several doctors at great length about the insurance companies and what they have done to the quality of health care in America. Have you?

I learned that not only have the insurance companies adversely affected the kind of care and medicine that are dispensed, it has trickled down to the medical schools.

The best and brightest used to go to medical school in this country. Now they don't. And I challenge you to get a good ole' homegrown doctor for all your special needs in America. There's a good chance English will not be their first language. And most of them are not even educated in America.

I know that you live in Texas, unless you lied about that, and I would imagine that you have it better than in most large cities with regard to the medical care and doctors who treat you. But in many large cities, it is true. How many large cities have you lived in? How many doctors have you seen who specialize in one type of medicine?

What you're saying is that you believe you trust insurance companies to take better care of your medical needs than the government, with its' checks and balances, could. I disagree with you. It has been proven what the free market winds up giving us: inferior and even questionable decisions about our health. And once again, it's all about greed.

What started out being a seemingly great idea - medical insurance for everyone to cover everything - has turned out to cause Americans as a whole to have inferior medical care than in many other industrialized nations. If you haven't experienced the decline of medical care in the U.S., then you're one of the lucky ones.

I have lived in a country where the government was involved in providing medical care. Have you?

My family and I were treated within that system for all of our medical needs. Have you ever experienced that kind of medical care?

It was a much better system than what we have here in the U.S. Sorry to burst your bubble.

I think that maybe you need to prove to me exactly why YOU are right instead of just declaring that the capitalistic approach to medicine is superior by conjuring up some hypothetical scenarios. Because it is my experience that says there is all evidence to the contrary, dear sir.

[plain 12]

Yes plain, we do own a small business and we do offer a plan for medical insurance. Do you?

Nope. I'm strictly a worker bee. But, will you continue to offer a medical plan if the government has a plan for your employees too? Because you'd be paying twice, in a way, for medical insurance.

=BJean;1248052]Yes plain, I have talked to several doctors at great length about the insurance companies and what they have done to the quality of health care in America. Have you?

well....."at length" is subjective. I have a working relationship with many docs and see them everyday. We don't have a whole lot of time to chitchat about non-medical issues, but sure, the topic has been exhaustively discussed, lol.

I learned that not only have the insurance companies adversely affected the kind of care and medicine that are dispensed, it has trickled down to the medical schools.

Well, yeah. There needs to be some refinement and oversight. But the current plan is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The best and brightest used to go to medical school in this country. Now they don't. And I challenge you to get a good ole' homegrown doctor for all your special needs in America. There's a good chance English will not be their first language. And most of them are not even educated in America.

Woah there! Although I don't know you IRL, I think I know you well enough to say that you're not a racist. But.....the above sounds extremely racist. I would postulate that the reason there has been a large influx of foreign doctors is that foreign parents actually pressure their kids to study. I think by and large, the children of American have a blase' attitude toward education.

Or are you saying that medical schools are accepting foreign students because of some kind of affirmative action quota? As a committed liberal, I'd think you were all for that :wink2:.

I know that you live in Texas, unless you lied about that

Nope, that's true. I might lie about my genital size, but I actually live and work near Texarkana, Texas.

[/quote=BJean;1248052]I would imagine that you have it better than in most large cities with regard to the medical care and doctors who treat you. But in many large cities, it is true. How many large cities have you lived in? How many doctors have you seen who specialize in one type of medicine?

Well, again, "better" is pretty subjective. I think the medical care here is pretty good.

How many large cities have I lived in? A lot.....and none. We moved extensively when I was a kid (lived in Austin, Dallas, Houston, and Little Rock), but I've only lived in East Texas my adult life.

How many doctors have I seen that specialize in one type of medicine? The simple answer is....all of 'em. Medicine is far too complex today for any one doctor to know more than one or two fields. The days when you went to one doctor for everything from stomach ache to setting broken bones to gall bladder surgery are long gone. The doctors I interact with as a sleep therapist are pulmonologists, cardiologists, and the occasional neurologist. Every now and then I get an internal medicine referral. But.....what does this have to do with single payer system?

What you're saying is that you believe you trust insurance companies to take better care of your medical needs than the government, with its' checks and balances, could.

It's not a matter of me thinking that big insurance is compassionate enough to make the right decisions involving medical care....it's a matter of me thinking that, with a lot of insurance companies competing with each other, pricing and decisions are kept in check. With single payer, ONE entity holds all the cards. With single payer, there will be no competition.....and that's not good.

What started out being a seemingly great idea - medical insurance for everyone to cover everything - has turned out to cause Americans as a whole to have inferior medical care than in many other industrialized nations.

Huh? What insurance was meant for everyone to cover everything? Are you talking about medicare / medicaid? And your assertion that America has inferior medical care to anywhere else is laughable....except to Michael Moore.

I have lived in a country where the government was involved in providing medical care. Have you?

Nope. How is that germane to this discussion anyway? Are you seriously saying that "I liked nationalized care in country X, so I will like it here". That's a fallacious argument on two different fronts.

It was a much better system than what we have here in the U.S. Sorry to burst your bubble.

So your parents are first generation immigrants? Or did they choose to move off later? How many years did you spend in the other, better, medical system?

I think that maybe you need to prove to me exactly why YOU are right instead of just declaring that the capitalistic approach to medicine is superior by conjuring up some hypothetical scenarios. Because it is my experience that says there is all evidence to the contrary, dear sir.

BJean, medicine is really no different from any other business. I don't know exactly what your small business is, but surely you can see what would happen if the government decided to go into that line of business. Do you think your small business would be able to compete against the governmental juggernaught?

I think maybe you need to see what the AMA is doing. They don't support Obama's plan. To try and rally their support, Obama is pledging lawsuit protection......and they STILL aren't behind him. So, the "several doctors that you talked to at great length".....they are uniformly in favor of single payer?? Really?? Because, honestly, I find that pretty hard to believe.

[BethFromVA 5]

I think maybe you need to see what the AMA is doing. They don't support Obama's plan. To try and rally their support, Obama is pledging lawsuit protection......and they STILL aren't behind him. So, the "several doctors that you talked to at great length".....they are uniformly in favor of single payer?? Really?? Because, honestly, I find that pretty hard to believe.

Most doctors won't even take Medicaid because of the way that screws them! No doubt you toss in government healthcare, the "dirty hands people," and you can forget it. Uncle Sam will be determining who lives and dies and is worthy of getting care. They ruin every single thing they touch and do. This will be no different.