Via FrontPageMag:

While he was an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama told a Chicago radio show host that he sought “major redistributive change” for the benefit of fellow blacks.

He was speaking in the context of the civil rights movement, and how it had fallen short of “economic justice.” Although John McCain and other Republicans are afraid to say it, his remarks can only be interpreted to mean one thing: economic reparations for slavery.This echoes what he wrote in his 2006 autobiography about the Constitution being “marred by the original sin of slavery.”

Question: Does Obama want to further amend the Constitution in some way? It seems he thinks something is missing, left undone. Does he want to institutionalize reparations somehow? It’s a serious question he should be compelled to answer, if he would only give reporters outside his fawning entourage a chance to ask it. (He hasn’t held a press conference in over a month.) Remember, Obama was a constitutional lawyer and would know how to get the amendment ratification process started with the right majority in Congress behind such a movement.

Back in August, Barack Obama said Washington shouldn’t just offer apologies for slavery, but also “deeds.”

Don’t worry, he said, he wasn’t talking about direct reparations.

“I consistently believe that when it comes to … reparations,” Obama told a gathering of minority journalists, “the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds.”

A few days later, he clarified his remarks, saying he was not calling for direct cash payments to descendents of slaves, but rather indirect aid in the form of government programs that will “close the gap” between what he sees as white America and black America.

In other words, stealth reparations.

7 Responses to “Obama’s Stealth Reparations”

1. James Says:
   October 29th, 2008 at 8:23 pm

   This is a very strange interpretation of Obama’s 2001 radio interview.

   In that interview, contrary to what this essay suggests, Obama declined to support “economic reparations for slavery.” In fact, his policy focus was entirely on the needs of people today, based on conditions today.

   Furthermore, contrary to what the author at FrontPageMag suggests, in this interview Obama not only doesn’t suggest that he wants constitutional change, he goes out of his way to suggest that the courts and constitutional law aren’t the way to address social problems.

   Instead, Obama says that he thinks the great failure of the progressive movement of the last 40 years is its focus on the courts and rights. He says the focus should be on making change in communities, and on democratic political processes. What could be wrong with that?

2. smoothstone Says:
   October 29th, 2008 at 10:05 pm

   Barack Obama says Washington shouldn’t just offer apologies for slavery, but also “deeds.” Don’t worry, he says, he’s not talking about direct reparations.

   A few days later, he clarified his remarks, saying he’s not calling for direct cash payments to descendents of slaves, but rather indirect aid in the form of government programs that will “close the gap” between what he sees as white America and black America.

   He says government should offer “universal” programs — such as universal health care, universal mortgage credits, college tuition, job training and even universal 401(k)s — that “disproportionately affect people of color.”

   In other words, reparations by another name.

3. James Says:
   October 30th, 2008 at 10:59 am

   I can’t see why it’s worth speculating that Obama could be talking about slavery reparations, if he’s come out against them repeatedly and has never supported them.

   Reparations for slavery would be a radical solution, to say the least, and Obama in this interview was careful to say that the solutions to inequality should be focused on the needs of people today, and on the democratic process, not courts and legal claims.

   He’s always opposed financial payments to the descendants of slaves, not merely in a “clarification” after that interview.

   Reparations by another name? If blacks in this country are disproportionately poor, and more likely than whites to grow up in families without good jobs, higher education, and so on, then OF COURSE any well-designed programs to address our social problems will disproportionately affect blacks.

   That’s not slavery reparations by another name. That’s merely addressing our problems in a race-neutral manner, and knowing that because of our history, there are proportionately more poor blacks, Latinos, and Native Americans than there are whites.

   Notice that under Obama’s programs, whites will still get most of the benefits. Because there are more poor whites than minorities. It’s just that a greater share of the minority population needs the help.

4. smoothstone Says:
   October 30th, 2008 at 7:06 pm

   “that because of our history, there are proportionately more poor blacks, Latinos, and Native Americans than there are whites.”

   Now slow down there, James. Whose history are you talking about? Not my history. And in the “history” that you are conceptualizing, how far back do you want to go – how many generations? How many white men do you figure into your “our history” argument include those that shed their blood and died during the Civil War to free slaves? Why don’t their numbers count? Why is your guilt about your family’s involvement in the slave trade supposed to be my guilt too? Why does there have to be collective guilt? My family didn’t own slaves, they came here from Europe at the end of the 1800’s to flee the pogroms. They didn’t own slaves, they were lucky to own a potato sack to cover themselves from the harsh Russian winter with hope that the Cossacks wouldn’t hunt them down like foxes and kill them. I am also ambivalent when Jews ask for reparations from the Holocaust and that was 60 years ago. Actual victims of the Holocaust are still alive, unlike slaves, although their numbers are now dying out. Holocaust victims and their artwork, their bank notes and money? Yes, those items should be returned to their families who seek them especially if there is paper and documented proof that what was once owned by a Jew can be returned to the families from which they were pilfered.

   But you can’t have it both ways; you can’t come here to my site, complain about my perception that Obama is describing stealth reparations 150 years after slavery ended, then tell me in the next sentence that because of “our history”, we should accomodate those who suffered from the acts of some 150 years ago. What about America’s largesse? Does that not count for anything?

   You want me to deny that the US has done terrible things? I won’t. And no excuses either.

   But, I, like so many other intelligent people around the world for whom resentment is not a guiding philosophy, have conducted a cost/benefit analysis and have concluded that, where the United States of America is concerned, the good far outweighs the bad.

   The people here, the social outreach we conduct, the services our nonprofits and local governmental agencies provide to the enormous number of refugees that have come here after fleeing torture and human rights abuse, the incredible amount of charitable contributions we make, the medical services, our search and rescue teams, and on and on. We helped liberate Europe, then pumped billions to rebuild them through the Marshall Plan, rather than loot and plunder what was left.

   You know how many thousands and thousands of foreign babies have been adopted into good American homes, having been taken out of the worst orphanages just because people want someone to love?

   How many Americans, right now, are abroad, helping people totally different than they are, in remote places?

   You could probably find American doctors in clinics in every single impoverished nation. We could always do more, but we still do plenty that’s good.

   But to you, it’s nothing. Their hard work, love, dedication, and concern equals nothing.

   How about some intellectual honesty on your part, where you acknowledge our foundational goodness? And how about some humanity where you look at our mistakes as places where we need improvement, not excuses to shit on us?

   What kind of caretaker are you claiming to be? What do you hope to accomplish by beating the US down, rather than propping its up? A better world? Give me a break. Talk about short-sightedness.
    
   In a nutshell, yes, the US does, and has done bad things that need to be corrected, learned from, and used to help us evolve. But, if we also pay close attention to all the great things we’ve done, all the way down to the grassroots, and all that we actually do share rather than hoard, the only logical conclusion is that there a lot about the US that is good, and which deserves to be a fundamental part of the equation, especially in the face of such an obvious agenda to swing the pendulum in the direction of our enemies.

   There is always room for improvement, but overall, yeah, we’re the good guys.

   Hey, if we’re so oppressive, and our negative qualities define us, why do so many people you say we oppress seem to rush here at first chance?

   It’s because they like us, get it?

   Go live in a multiethnic city, full of immigrants that are thrilled to live here. Talk to them. Get their stories. Then tell me whom, exactly, your horrendous United States represents.

5. James Says:
   October 31st, 2008 at 11:29 am

   “Whose history are you talking about? Not my history.”

   I apologize. I was referring to the history of the United States, and by “our history,” I meant the history of the society from which I, Obama, and his critics all come.

   As for the U.S. civil war, those men didn’t die to end slavery. They fought to preserve the Union, and in any event, ending their nation’s evil practice doesn’t amount to making up for it.

   You speak of my guilt for my family’s role in this. I have no such guilt. Like every American alive today, I’m not responsible for that history, which in my mind means no guilt, individual or collective. I’ve inherited no more, and no less, of the benefits of that history than the average American, and that’s the issue.

   I’m glad that your family arrived here after slavery ended. That doesn’t mean, however, that your family didn’t benefit from slavery. Your family came here and found jobs and opportunities, courtesy of the economic development which followed the industrialization of the U.S., largely because of slavery and the slave trade. Much of our current standard of living, in fact, results from slavery. Moreover, your ancestors arrived here to face significant advantages over those freed slaves, and their descendants, who were already here. In the generations after your ancestors arrived, there were massive government programs to aid white citizens, while blacks faced official, legal discrimination and brutal violence.

   Who’s history? Our history.

   “where the United States of America is concerned, the good far outweighs the bad. ”

   Absolutely it does.

   Does that mean we don’t strive to improve ourselves? This was, of course, true in the days of slavery, too, and in the days when blacks didn’t have the right to vote. I assume you’d agree that we were right to be proud to be Americans then, and *still* were right to say that the country could be more just and fair to its citizens?

   You make much of the contributions which Americans make in the world, and I couldn’t agree more. Why you say that to me, that’s “nothing” is beyond me. Just as to me, why you think that somehow means we shouldn’t examine our past, and acknowledge how it affects our present, baffles me.

   “Go live in a multiethnic city, full of immigrants that are thrilled to live here. Talk to them. Get their stories. Then tell me whom, exactly, your horrendous United States represents.”

   I do live in such a city, thanks. And I’ve never thought these terrible things about my country.

   “How about some intellectual honesty on your part, where you acknowledge our foundational goodness? ”

   I do. I’ve been a proud, patriotic American all my life, and I’ve never said anything to suggest that this nation isn’t fundamentally good.

   Of course, that doesn’t mean our history doesn’t have dark aspects, and it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive to better ourselves.

   Now, how about some intellectual honesty on your part, where you acknowledge that this history has left injustice in our society, and not just past episodes that have no effect today?

6. smoothstone Says:
   October 31st, 2008 at 5:49 pm

   Evidently you can’t read because if you had, you would have read my comment above “You want me to deny that the US has done terrible things? I won’t. And no excuses either. ” If that’s not good enough for you, then take a hike because you’re beginning to annoy me. You came here to comment about my post on Obama’s stealth reparations policy. If you have problems with it, then take it up with Obama.

   By the way, it was the Democrats who kept Jim Crow in business, it was a Republican who freed the slaves.

   Your statement that the men who died in the Civil War didn’t do so to free the slaves is a FLAT OUT LIE and highly offensive. It might not mean a lot to someone like you in 2008 but what those men did to end slavery meant a lot to them THEN in the 1860s. Read their diaries. Read their letters home to their families. Read up on John Brown and the thousands of white Americans like him who risked all to end slavery. That you can make such a statement tells me all I need to know about your “open-mindedness”. You’re a socialist, perhaps a Marxist, and you’re supporting a Marxist socialist candidate who would fundamentally alter the very things that have made this nation the greatest nation that ever existed on the planet.

   And one more point and then I’m done with this discussion: my grandfather who came here through Ellis Island lived in a Jewish overcrowded ghetto in the Lower East Side of NYC. He benefitted from no slave or slavery. He was a poor tailor who had to support three children and one of whom was severely disabled. Don’t you EVER DARE talk about what my family benefitted from unless you dare discuss what they suffered. Do you think all white people sipped lobster bisque? Are you that naive? He battled racism, classism, and worse using the tools this nation afforded which were ambition, initiative, hard work, and good old American capitalism. Socialism destroys initiative and emasculates its citizenry whereas initiative feeds capitalism and capitalism is a good thing.

   The founders of this nation were brilliant visionary men who gave us the tools to build as close to a utopia as this world may ever see.

   Obama and his minions and I count you in as one of them seek to hack away at the roots of that mighty oak of freedom.

   See ya. I’m done here. This is a waste of my precious time. My site, my rules.

7. James Says:
   November 1st, 2008 at 12:16 pm

   I’m sorry you feel this way. I certainly wasn’t trying to deny your statement acknowledging that terrible things happened in the past. I was trying to point out that you deny that anything should be done about the effects of the past today, and i don’t see why.

   I agree with you about the Democrats vs. Republicans on this issue, by the way.

   What I said about the Civil War was an historical fact that you can’t deny. Almost all of those men enlisted long before the decision was even made that slavery would be ended after the war. So they couldn’t have chosen to fight in order to end slavery, however much it may have motivated them further to fight once Lincoln announced that decision.

   Calling me a socialist on your site, when I’ve said nothing to support socialist principles, will be very revealing to your readership, I’m sure. I fear someone’s given you a very misleading understanding of what socialism is. For instance, when you speak of a socialist candidate, you do realize that the difference in how much wealth Obama and McCain propose to redistribute is only a few percentage points, right?

   Your grandfather most certainly did benefit from slavery, just as my immigrant ancestors did. His ability to work hard and make something of himself depended critically on a strong, expanding U.S. economy, with lots of available jobs and room for enterprising individuals. That’s the direct result of slavery and the industrialization it made possible. Not to mention that your grandfather’s white skin allowed him unfair advantages over those with black skin, even if, as a Jewish immigrant, he didn’t exactly enjoy the highest status in society, either.

   James

Leave a Reply