The Numinous Negro

[Cy]

Why the absolutely irrational, uncritical support for a four year senator with miniscule experience and a secret past, with a tradition of terrorist associations, radicalism, and no specific leadership?

Why the support for a guy who is to the left of Kerry, less technocratic than Dukakis, and less intelligent than Gore?

Why a media willing to drop every pretense to objectivity and behave like little girls in love at the mere sight of above senator?

There is but one reason: Barack Obama is the Numinous Negro.

What is the Numinous Negro? He is the creation of our collective guilt, the psychic compensation for the reality that the black race has underperformed so incredibly in our nation relative to other races.

He manifests in movies and television shows as the supporting role judge or teacher or, generally speaking, noble hero who always has an unearthly or divine wisdom, generally delivered in a supra-rational, baritone voice. He is Morgan Freeman in any number of roles. He's the black judge in just about every movie. He is a deus ex machina that is a "game-changer" in the movie.

He is what guilty white people want SO BAD to be true, so that they can appease their conscience. It's the new "I have black friends" of the media generation.

And instead of dealing with the TRUTH as it is, that in fact the black race has been left behind by the American Dream PRECISELY BECAUSE of liberalism, the Great Society, and the New Deal, we deal with it psycically through the Numinous Negro.

If we vote Obama in, so the thinking goes, we will exorcise that collective guilt from our consciences. It will be the ultimate "I have black friends," because now, "I have a black president."

Forget the fact that Obama has as much to do with the American Black (children of slaves) experience as I have with southern masters (i.e. none). That doesn't matter. Because identity politics is all there is. All that matters.

The image of the Numinous Negro has hypnotized us. We think we're getting Morgan Freeman as God in Bruce Almighty coming down to save us. It's why Freeman was cast for that role (because he fits our psychic expectations so perfectly), and it's why Obama is doing as well as he is, despite all the above negatives.

Comments?

[Cy]

"Forget the fact that Obama has as much to do with the American Black (children of slaves) experience as I have with southern masters (i.e. none). That doesn't matter. Because identity politics is all there is. All that matters."

I needed to expand on something...

What I meant by this comment is that, I don't really believe for a minute that voting for Obama will mean anything in terms of the USA dealing with its race issues. It will mean TONS in the classic tradition of good ole American "Anyone can make it here". I mean, the son of a Kenyan makes it as president, that's pretty cool.

But in terms of dealing with our deep historical scars of slavery and racism, it does nothing. Obama adopted his "American black heritage" like a typical post-modern soul searching for a designer identity. Sort of like Walter (John Goodman) in Big Lebowski deciding that he was going to be Jewish.

Nevertheless, Americans voting for a black man has nothing to do with a true redemption of our racial scars (something that we will indeed make a big step toward when the first descendant of black slaves becomes president).

Rather, it has to do with themselves.

By way of analogy, I think of Christians who participate in "evangelism" programs. They may stand out on the street corner and hand out pamphlets. This is far more about their personal pieties, their personal guilt, or their fears than it is about some "desire for the lost." Because when you deal with them, they give you that glaze-eyed look like, you're not human, but just some "target" for their cult.

It is with those eyes that the American populace is approaching the Numinous Negroe, Barack Obama. It's more about appeasing their guilt, or their personal pieties, than about the possibility of any real redemption of our racial scars.

[SkinBasket]

Oh great. Another well spoken rational conservative. You're going to raise the bar for what is expected of the normal people around here.

[BallHawk]

with a tradition of.....radicalism,

Care to elaborate on the radical thoughts Obama has come up with?

[bobblehead]

I have no guilt.....kinda shoots your arguement in the ass.

Try this on one....8 years of bush and a horrendous GOP congress has made Obama electable to a lot of people....putting McCain up made him nearly a slam dunk.

Rudy, Thompson, or Romney would win this in a breeze...but we still have a damaged republican brand to deal with.

[hoosier]

"Forget the fact that Obama has as much to do with the American Black (children of slaves) experience as I have with southern masters (i.e. none). That doesn't matter. Because identity politics is all there is. All that matters."

I needed to expand on something...

What I meant by this comment is that, I don't really believe for a minute that voting for Obama will mean anything in terms of the USA dealing with its race issues. It will mean TONS in the classic tradition of good ole American "Anyone can make it here". I mean, the son of a Kenyan makes it as president, that's pretty cool.

But in terms of dealing with our deep historical scars of slavery and racism, it does nothing. Obama adopted his "American black heritage" like a typical post-modern soul searching for a designer identity. Sort of like Walter (John Goodman) in Big Lebowski deciding that he was going to be Jewish.

Nevertheless, Americans voting for a black man has nothing to do with a true redemption of our racial scars (something that we will indeed make a big step toward when the first descendant of black slaves becomes president).

Rather, it has to do with themselves.

By way of analogy, I think of Christians who participate in "evangelism" programs. They may stand out on the street corner and hand out pamphlets. This is far more about their personal pieties, their personal guilt, or their fears than it is about some "desire for the lost." Because when you deal with them, they give you that glaze-eyed look like, you're not human, but just some "target" for their cult.

It is with those eyes that the American populace is approaching the Numinous Negroe, Barack Obama. It's more about appeasing their guilt, or their personal pieties, than about the possibility of any real redemption of our racial scars.

How is Obama any less a part of that heritage than Jesse Jackson or Colin Powell or George Jefferson? If any of them can claim to be part of that "heritage" surely it's not because their great grandparents were slaves--after all, anyone among us who claims to identify with what great grandparents went through is adopting an imaginary identity. No, what they have in common--and what they share with that heritage--is that they are defined first and foremost as "black men" in this country, whereas Archie Bunker is not defined as a white guy, he's just a guy.

[HowardRoark]

No, what they have in common--and what they share with that heritage--is that they are defined first and foremost as "black men" in this country.

By whom?

[BallHawk]

Rudy, Thompson, or Romney would win this in a breeze...but we still have a damaged republican brand to deal with.

Yeah, they would of made it a breeze for Obama.

McCain was the only candidate who could have given the GOP a shot in this election. Anybody else is dismissed as a regular Republican and the race is over.

[bobblehead]

Rudy, Thompson, or Romney would win this in a breeze...but we still have a damaged republican brand to deal with.

Yeah, they would of made it a breeze for Obama.

McCain was the only candidate who could have given the GOP a shot in this election. Anybody else is dismissed as a regular Republican and the race is over.

your too young apparently. National elections are always a verdict on conservatism....real conservatives don't lose national elections....wishy washy moderate Bush1 and McCains lose elections. That is the way it is. While the media slayed gingrich he led the first successive republican house victory in 60 years....by sticking to conservative values. As the GOP slid into comfortability in power and started spending and being lazy legislators who didn't stand for conservative values they lost....they will lose until they find their soul.

McCain will lose...because he is the candidate that people like you think is best....He is Bush1 all over again.....

[HarveyWallbangers]

A lot of good points by Cy here. I also agree with bobblehead that McCain was the worst choice.

Bush spent money like a drunken sailor. (Just two examples are the big increase in education spending and the big increase in funds aimed towards Africa.) It didn't help the economy and it didn't draw him praise from the left-leaning media. All it did was make it hard for a Republican to win this election. Yet, a guy who intends to make government even bigger, a guy who has openly talked about "wealth redistribution", a guy who is going to make things tough on small business owners, etc. is a virtual lock to win the election. I never thought it would happen. He's the black Dukakis. I think Cy has a point--although I think that if Obama were Republican, things would be different. People would be going after "the Uncle Tom" hard.

[HowardRoark]

A lot of good points by Cy here. I also agree with bobblehead that McCain was the worst choice.

Bush spent money like a drunken sailor. (Just two examples are the big increase in education spending and the big increase in funds aimed towards Africa.) It didn't help the economy and it didn't draw him praise from the left-leaning media. All it did was make it hard for a Republican to win this election. Yet, a guy who intends to make government even bigger, a guy who has openly talked about "wealth redistribution", a guy who is going to make things tough on small business owners, etc. is a virtual lock to win the election. I never thought it would happen. He's the black Dukakis. I think Cy has a point--although I think that if Obama were Republican, things would be different. People would be going after "the Uncle Tom" hard.

I was thinking the same thing earlier. What if the the two switched bodies, what would all the sycophants be saying?

[wist43]

Don't accept that arguement Cy...

Non-black, indendent Obama voters couldn't care less about Obama's race... simply put, most will vote for him b/c they believe he will give them either a check or a tax cut.

They're completely ignorant dolts, of course, but doesn't have anything to do with race.

I'm sure there will some guilt ridden country club types that might fall under your description, but not enough to register I wouldn't think; of course, I'm not sure you'd have any way of measuring it, b/c if they did vote for Obama b/c racial guilt, they'd never admit to it.

[Freak Out]

What a load of crap. The majority of people are voting for him because he's not a republican. That's it. Bush and his administrations have fucked this country over with the help of Congress and voting Hussein is the only "change" given them. If he fuck's it up we'll change again in four years. Oh wait....he's going to take away our right to vote.

[mraynrand]

The majority of people are voting for him because he's not a republican. That's it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6ikOxi9yYk

[mraynrand]

I was thinking the same thing earlier. What if the the two switched bodies, what would all the sycophants be saying?

They'd still be looking for the pubic hair on the coke can.

[Cy]

A quick response to some of the comments.

1.) It is true, no single theory cannot accomodate every single anecdote. I agree that there are some who simply -- as some have been quoting DeTocqueville (sp?) -- want to vote themselves a chuck of change from the productive guy next door. What I'm looking for is that attitude that has propelled Obama into demigod status. Kerry and Gore or any old run of the mill lib would get the freeloader vote, and any Dem would get the Bush derangement syndrome vote. But a vote for Obama is quite clearly more than a vote against Bush.

2.) Someone asked "what radical positions Obama has taken?" I wonder if he's being ironical, kidding, or just uninformed. He's the most liberal senator in the senate. He has a history of hanging around radical elements, of the black liberation theology camp, of the "rules for radicals" crowd, of the collectivist strain. His language is littered with references to "sacrifice," "community," and "my brother's keeper," which makes fine INDIVIDUAL ethics, until it becomes a prescription for the state, at which time it becomes tyranny of the most perverse kind. (As someone said -- maybe Friedman? -- something to the effect of "I'd rather have a mean tyrant than a nice one...at least it's clearer what the mean one is all about.")

3.) I understand that this is an anti-GOP year...but something way more is going on. And great if you're not guilty about slavery -- either am I -- but I think a great bulk of suburban type, white women, and their senstivite husbands, are the types that are drawn to Obama.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The most liberal senator is the biggest canard.

Any ranking that has Obama #1 over Sanders is laughable.

Amazing how each time a dem runs for prez he is the most liberal. :roll:

[Cy]

4.) Oh, and number four...

Yes, in fact, I have thought of the whole "what if a black conservative ran?" And I have to admit, I'd be pretty psyched. I think the "Numinous Negro" thing runs deep for many people, myself included. It boils simply down to this: Many people want to see some good news coming out of that race other than in entertainment, sports, and thug politics, all of which seem to have the operative paradigm of: Can't get out of the ghetto, let's make the whole culture a ghetto.

You can hear the "Numinous Negro" -- conservative installment -- anytime you're listening to conservative talk radio, and a black American calls, and they will instinctively be given extra time. Why? Because for whatever reason, it "means more" coming from a black conservative than from the typical "Diddos from a Kansas soccer mom, Rush!"

[Cy]

The most liberal senator is the biggest canard.

Any ranking that has Obama #1 over Sanders is laughable.

Amazing how each time a dem runs for prez he is the most liberal.

Not a canard. It's according to the National Journal, which tallies this stuff using ratings from a wide array of groups on the left and the right. In other words, it is liberal groups who rate Obama their friend. The National Journal has been doing this for years and is quite reputable. Here is the ranking for 2007:

Obama, Barack, D-Ill. 95.5 4.5
Whitehouse, Sheldon, D-R.I. 94.3 5.7
Biden, Joseph, D-Del. 94.2 5.8
Sanders, Bernie, I-Vt. 93.7 6.3

Great...I didn't even know that Biden was third. But your Sanders is number 4.

[Cy]

I've been doing a quick study on National Journal scores, vis a vis the comment that whomever the Dems put up is the "most liberal." And in fact it's true...

Kerry WAS the most liberal senator in 2003.

But there's a simple explanation for this. When a Dem knows he's going to run for president, he needs to get the kook, left-wing base on board in the primaries. So he has to tack left.

[hoosier]

Take the blinders off and put the megaphone down. As has been pointed out here before, the US Senate is populated by centrists. If they don't arrive there already centrist, they quickly become centrist when they see it's the only game in town. The HOR, on the other hand, has a big enough playing field for more than one game. But to suggest that Obama's "most liberal" ranking makes him a radical is just partisan hyperbole.

[HowardRoark]

As has been pointed out here before, the US Senate is populated by centrists.

Thanks for clearing this one up Hoosier.


But to suggest that Obama's "most liberal" ranking makes him a radical is just partisan hyperbole.

I do agree with you here Bobby. What makes him a radical is the fact that he's a fucking radical. He wants to change the Constitution via the Supreme Court. The Senate is merely a stepping stone to where he wants to be.

[MJZiggy]

If all these years of Republicans couldn't change the Supreme Court enough to overturn RvW, what makes you think Obama's gonna be able to anything in only 8 years. The justices are bright people, you know and their appointments do have to be approved...

[wist43]

The most liberal senator is the biggest canard.

Any ranking that has Obama #1 over Sanders is laughable.

Amazing how each time a dem runs for prez he is the most liberal. :roll:

Bernie Sanders??? Congressman Bernie Sanders??? The Socialist Congressman Bernie Sanders???

Obama isn't liberal... he's a Marxist nut. I don't even have to make the case - he's made it all on his own.

[Cy]

I must be on the same wavelength as with other pundits...

Mark Steyn is the guy who's sounding the warning bell about Europe losing its heritage due to mass demographic changes resulting from low birthrates of Europeans combined with high immigration of Islam elements.

He's also the guy who was charged with hate speech for his book outlining the above in Canada.

He's a canary in the coal mine for what's going to happen in America.

Anyway's, here's his take on the "two dimensional" Barack Obama. He sums up what I've been saying.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjE3OTEzNmI1NTEzOGIzNTU3ZWRmNzdmZmY3MTY5OTA=

[HowardRoark]

I am a little uncomfortable with the word Negro in the title of this thread. Isn't that a hate crime? Or something.

[falco]

I am a little uncomfortable with the word Negro in the title of this thread. Isn't that a hate crime? Or something.

pfft, if "hating" was a "crime" you'd have put more people behind bars than Wyatt Earp or some other notable law enforcement figure in history

[sheepshead]

The most liberal senator is the biggest canard.

Any ranking that has Obama #1 over Sanders is laughable.

Amazing how each time a dem runs for prez he is the most liberal. :roll:


HUH?

[BallHawk]

But there's a simple explanation for this. When a Dem knows he's going to run for president, he needs to get the kook, left-wing base on board in the primaries. So he has to tack left.

Or the republican base anticipates who the most likely Democratic candidate will be and skews the stats to make the nominee the most liberal senator.

Because, of course, Obama is more liberal than a self-described Socialist. :roll:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The most liberal senator is the biggest canard.

Any ranking that has Obama #1 over Sanders is laughable.

Amazing how each time a dem runs for prez he is the most liberal.

Not a canard. It's according to the National Journal, which tallies this stuff using ratings from a wide array of groups on the left and the right. In other words, it is liberal groups who rate Obama their friend. The National Journal has been doing this for years and is quite reputable. Here is the ranking for 2007:

Obama, Barack, D-Ill. 95.5 4.5
Whitehouse, Sheldon, D-R.I. 94.3 5.7
Biden, Joseph, D-Del. 94.2 5.8
Sanders, Bernie, I-Vt. 93.7 6.3

Great...I didn't even know that Biden was third. But your Sanders is number 4.

Like i said, any ranking that has Sanders behind Obama is a joke.

National Journal..you mean that bastion of unbiased reporting?

But, like most conservatives you blindly accept what is written. Do you know the criteria for the NJ? Nope. I've gone thru this before...and it is is quite biased.

For instance...Kerry was the most liberal..despite its recent admission that the 2003 ratings were flawed because Kerry had missed a significant number of the votes that the study had analyzed. According to Journal editor Charles Green, the magazine was aware of the issue at the time, but decided to publish the ratings anyway and change its methodology later, rather than "change the rules in the middle of the game ... after we learned Kerry's ranking." :oops:

What about Mac? Under the new methodology applied in the 2007 study, presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) did not receive a rating because he missed too many votes. Well, that is a great system. :roll:

Let's examine some of those "liberal" votes of Obama's:to implement the 9-11 Commission's homeland security recommendations, provide more children with health insurance, permit federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, and maintain a federal minimum wage.

Please stop with this foolishness. My sides are hurting from laughing.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I've been doing a quick study on National Journal scores, vis a vis the comment that whomever the Dems put up is the "most liberal." And in fact it's true...

Kerry WAS the most liberal senator in 2003.

But there's a simple explanation for this. When a Dem knows he's going to run for president, he needs to get the kook, left-wing base on board in the primaries. So he has to tack left.

Apparently you dont' really know how to study or research as the NJ repudiated it's own results because of flawed data. :lol:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The most liberal senator is the biggest canard.

Any ranking that has Obama #1 over Sanders is laughable.

Amazing how each time a dem runs for prez he is the most liberal. :roll:

Bernie Sanders??? Congressman Bernie Sanders??? The Socialist Congressman Bernie Sanders???

Obama isn't liberal... he's a Marxist nut. I don't even have to make the case - he's made it all on his own.

Like most things..you can't even get the basics right. It is Senator Sanders.

And, to put Obama as more liberal than Sanders is hilarious.

No wonder the repubs are losing the senate and congress..you guys can't even figure out what is reality.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

But there's a simple explanation for this. When a Dem knows he's going to run for president, he needs to get the kook, left-wing base on board in the primaries. So he has to tack left.

Or the republican base anticipates who the most likely Democratic candidate will be and skews the stats to make the nominee the most liberal senator.

Because, of course, Obama is more liberal than a self-described Socialist. :roll:

No way Ballhawk. I'm sure the reason that the NJ released only Obama and Clinton earlier than all the other Senators was pure happenstance.
:roll:

[HowardRoark]

The most liberal senator is the biggest canard.

Any ranking that has Obama #1 over Sanders is laughable.

Amazing how each time a dem runs for prez he is the most liberal. :roll:

Bernie Sanders??? Congressman Bernie Sanders??? The Socialist Congressman Bernie Sanders???

Obama isn't liberal... he's a Marxist nut. I don't even have to make the case - he's made it all on his own.

Like most things..you can't even get the basics right. It is Senator Sanders.

And, to put Obama as more liberal than Sanders is hilarious.

No wonder the repubs are losing the senate and congress..you guys can't even figure out what is reality.


con·gress·man (kŏng'grĭs-mən) Pronunciation Key
n. A man who is a member of the U.S. Congress, especially of the House of Representatives.

You are wrong Ty.

[wist43]

The most liberal senator is the biggest canard.

Any ranking that has Obama #1 over Sanders is laughable.

Amazing how each time a dem runs for prez he is the most liberal. :roll:

Bernie Sanders??? Congressman Bernie Sanders??? The Socialist Congressman Bernie Sanders???

Obama isn't liberal... he's a Marxist nut. I don't even have to make the case - he's made it all on his own.

Like most things..you can't even get the basics right. It is Senator Sanders.

And, to put Obama as more liberal than Sanders is hilarious.

No wonder the repubs are losing the senate and congress..you guys can't even figure out what is reality.

I stand corrected... shows you how much I pay attention to "the game". Hadn't even noticed he had been elected Senator in 2006. Pitiful commentary on the citizens of Vermont. 16 years as a Congressman was bad enough.

That said, and as I've said, I'm not a Republican; and, in general, I don't get caught up in "the game". The "basics" as you say, are not keeping up with politics, the "basics" are contained in the Constitution... something no democrat has any reverence for whatsoever.

The Constitution is the most anti-Socialist document ever written. That is a "basic" fact that every democrat has to run from.

[bobblehead]

But there's a simple explanation for this. When a Dem knows he's going to run for president, he needs to get the kook, left-wing base on board in the primaries. So he has to tack left.

Or the republican base anticipates who the most likely Democratic candidate will be and skews the stats to make the nominee the most liberal senator.

Because, of course, Obama is more liberal than a self-described Socialist. :roll:

False....we all were 100% convinced that Hillary would be the nominee in 2007.

[BallHawk]

But there's a simple explanation for this. When a Dem knows he's going to run for president, he needs to get the kook, left-wing base on board in the primaries. So he has to tack left.

Or the republican base anticipates who the most likely Democratic candidate will be and skews the stats to make the nominee the most liberal senator.

Because, of course, Obama is more liberal than a self-described Socialist. :roll:

False....we all were 100% convinced that Hillary would be the nominee in 2007.

The NJ's rankings came out Janury 31st, 2008. I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that by this time Obama's lead in the primaries and strong momentum didn't have "100%" of us convinced Hillary would be the nominee.

[BallHawk]

Bump for an answer. :roll:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The most liberal senator is the biggest canard.

Any ranking that has Obama #1 over Sanders is laughable.

Amazing how each time a dem runs for prez he is the most liberal. :roll:

Bernie Sanders??? Congressman Bernie Sanders??? The Socialist Congressman Bernie Sanders???

Obama isn't liberal... he's a Marxist nut. I don't even have to make the case - he's made it all on his own.

Like most things..you can't even get the basics right. It is Senator Sanders.

And, to put Obama as more liberal than Sanders is hilarious.

No wonder the repubs are losing the senate and congress..you guys can't even figure out what is reality.


con·gress·man (kŏng'grĭs-mən) Pronunciation Key
n. A man who is a member of the U.S. Congress, especially of the House of Representatives.

You are wrong Ty.

Really? Perhaps your ODS cleared out the results of the 06 elections.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Why the absolutely irrational, uncritical support for a four year senator

he is not a 4 year senator. He was a Senator for 1 year, since then he's been almost entirely a presidential candidate, with all of his positions molded for a campaign.

oh well, maybe it just means America is a great country, the land of upward mobility.

[bobblehead]

But there's a simple explanation for this. When a Dem knows he's going to run for president, he needs to get the kook, left-wing base on board in the primaries. So he has to tack left.

Or the republican base anticipates who the most likely Democratic candidate will be and skews the stats to make the nominee the most liberal senator.

Because, of course, Obama is more liberal than a self-described Socialist. :roll:

False....we all were 100% convinced that Hillary would be the nominee in 2007.

The NJ's rankings came out Janury 31st, 2008. I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that by this time Obama's lead in the primaries and strong momentum didn't have "100%" of us convinced Hillary would be the nominee.

Ok, got me..we rigged the game, obama is a moderate. The reason the most liberal guy gets the nomination is because the party is run by radicals....not because the evil conservatives rigged the ranking system. I didn't realize that the "rankings" came out in 2008, but it WAS based on the votes of 2007. If obama isn't the most liberal senator by some ranking you can come up with post it. I don't care if bernie sanders is more liberal or not, obama is a way leftwinger and trying to change the arguement to "The game was rigged" is just silly.

[HarveyWallbangers]

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/02/media-credibility/?ref=opinion\n

[Harlan Huckleby]

Obama has gotten a big boost in three areas of media: news, opinion and entertainment. I think the news has been the fairest of the three, although Obama certainly has been propped-up against both Hillary Clinton and McCain with selective coverage. The breathless coverage of the Great Man blessing the adoring europeans, or the fawning over the Messiah's diversionary speech on race are two good examples.

The killer has been all the talk shows that obsessively skewered McCain as a befuddled old man and Hillary Clinton as the wicked witch of the west. Any "criticisms" of Obama from the entertainment shows have been cutesy and affectionate.