That won't work without a subscription, but it's mostly a quote from my post "What's missing from 'Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Struggle to Be Unifying Voice for Nation' by Patrick Healy in the NYT."
James Taranto says I'm "right that the omission is glaring."
ADDED: I was wrong to say "it's mostly a quote from my post." I was only looking at the top of a column that (I didn't realize) really did go on to try to answer my question (How can we think about what Trump or Hillary could do about racial divisions unless we understand why Obama has not done more?). Taranto ends with:
The election of a black president was indeed—and still is—a sign of how far America has progressed since the 1960s, never mind the 1860s. Perhaps a nimbler politician could have dealt more effectively with the clamor of the past couple of years. But Obama is uniquely constrained by the unreasonable hopes that so many Americans placed in him.
Posts
11 comments:
"But we’d like to offer a qualified defense of the president. It seems to us his statement that “there’s a big chunk of our fellow citizenry that feels as if because of the color of their skin, they are not being treated the same” is undeniably true, and for him not to acknowledge it in some way would be a breach of faith with black voters."
Good for Taranto for understanding this and saying it out loud.
Taranto is scrupulous in his citations, links, & acknowledgments (as are you) -- but it's almost a lost art nowadays.
Way to go Althouse! Keep up the pressure - we want Trump, Hillary or Obama to cite you next.
Althouse, you're more than mentioned. What you criticized in Instapundit's post is explicitly addressed here. What do you think of it?
I read it every day after this blog.
You forgot to mention, tho' you usually do, using Bing/Google to find the firewalled article out in free range!
I noticed you too. It's so nice when all my favorite bloggers/columnists get along. Next time, let's throw Megan McArdle in the mix to complete the trifecta.
Since Taranto is likely to recognize your wisdom again in the future, you can find ungated versions of WSJ articles by copying the title into Google and using the links it provides in the search results.
Is Meadhouse in Colorado?
But Obama is uniquely constrained by the unreasonable hopes that so many Americans placed in him.
Hammond cannot speak for "many Americans," but for Hammond:
1. Race relations were moving, albeit slowly, in a healthy direction. There was no particular hope or expectation re. Obama and race relations.
2. Obama's 2008 campaign speeches clearly showed a man whose go-to political tool was division rather than unification. Groups are marked off, their particular grievances are stoked, and promises are made or implied. When done successfully, the groups fail to notice that the promises are unrealistic and in conflict with promises made to other groups.
Hammond did therefore expect Obama "leadership" to bring increased economic and social division.
3. In retrospect, Hammond was remiss not to have anticipated increased racial division.
Post a Comment