Obama Chastises Black Men on Father's Day

[Pangloss]

I thought this was a strong example of Obama's ability to act as a strong and positive role model for black men (in the Bill Cosby mold). We've all heard the awful statistics of black families in the US, how most black children grow up to single working parents and how they're usually missing father figures. I think it's possibly one of the most serious problems facing my country at the moment, and I'm glad to see him stepping up on this issue.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080615/ap_on_el_pr/obama;_ylt=A0WTcW.r.1VIzvYANwxI2ocA

 

A common political view is that it's a move to try and deflect accusations of extreme liberalness, and that may have some truth to it, but I think it may very well be his honest opinion, which I think bodes well for the future.

 

What do you all think?

[insane_alien]

i think its good that he his showing up bad fathers for what they are but i think theres too much emphasis on the race, maybe it is only the way that article is worded but it sounds as if it is ONLY black people who run out on being fathers. Now, i am unaware of the statistics for the US so, maybe there are a disproportionate number of missing black fathers but it will be true that there are lot of missing fathers in all ethnicities. IMO this is a problem that trancends the colour of the skin and is a deeper societal problem.

[Sisyphus]

What's the rationale given by those claiming he's deflecting accusations of extreme liberalness? Does child abandonment have relevance to liberalism vs. conservatism?

[Pangloss]

i think its good that he his showing up bad fathers for what they are but i think theres too much emphasis on the race, maybe it is only the way that article is worded but it sounds as if it is ONLY black people who run out on being fathers. Now, i am unaware of the statistics for the US so, maybe there are a disproportionate number of missing black fathers but it will be true that there are lot of missing fathers in all ethnicities. IMO this is a problem that trancends the colour of the skin and is a deeper societal problem.

 

It is a disproportionate problem in the US (far more serious for blacks). So serious is the discrepency that in fact most (more than half) black children grow up in single homes in this country. (We've talked about this here before but I can dig up a reference if needed. Can probably google it pretty quick.)

 

But Obama actually presented it as a problem facing all races, just a particular one for the black community.

 

What's the rationale given by those claiming he's deflecting accusations of extreme liberalness? Does child abandonment have relevance to liberalism vs. conservatism?

 

The underlying premise of the criticism from the right is that he's just telling conservatives something they want to hear, and offering no real change in this area (but what would he propose, a law against family abandonment?). One conservative post I read on another board said something to the effect that the black vote is all sewn up, so he might as well go this route.

 

I think there's some truth in that; he's a politician, after all. But the art of politics is finding common ground with people who are inclined to hate you while stopping short of outraging your supporters, and in that sense this is an excellent choice. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is, I suppose, in the eye of the beholder.

[Sisyphus]

Is it something liberals don't want to hear, though? I mean, is there some segment of the liberal base that would be offended by the notion of not abandoning one's children? I'm not necessarily directing this at you, since clearly it's a common perception, but I really don't understand it.

[john5746]

Is it something liberals don't want to hear, though? I mean, is there some segment of the liberal base that would be offended by the notion of not abandoning one's children? I'm not necessarily directing this at you, since clearly it's a common perception, but I really don't understand it.

 

depends on who says it and how.

 

If Bush says the same thing, he is a racist and is insensitive to single women households.

[Pangloss]

Is it something liberals don't want to hear' date=' though? I mean, is there some segment of the liberal base that would be offended by the notion of not abandoning one's children? I'm not necessarily directing this at you, since clearly it's a common perception, but I really don't understand it.

[/quote']

 

Well I suppose one could make an argument that the liberal position would be that single parenting is a dictate of modern society, not a matter of responsibility. Some liberals might be offended by the notion that a charge of responsibility is being directed at those who can't be responsible even if they want to be, either because of economic realities or just a general lack of education.

 

I don't think it's a very good argument (meaning I think this is mainly just right-wing spin), for two reasons: There can be multiple reasons for the way things are (men aren't being responsible AND there are economic and educational realities to contend witH), and (more cynically and perhaps less realistically) men are the focus of the ire here, which fits the far-left meme of targetting (though in this case the men are of a minority group, therefore presumably less easily targetted by the PC crowd). (In other words, you'd think the far left would be okay with targetting men, because men are easy targets; that being a common right-wing meme about the left.)

 

These are just generalizations, though, and must be taken as such. In the final analysis, the point is that the conservative machine has picked this up and shoved it into the common CTR dialog, where it seems to be more or less holding. I am continually disappointed at the "reasons" raised by conservatives for objecting to Obama, but I am attempting to keep an open mind while awaiting more reasonable grounds. I don't really have a problem with people being hesitant or (what's the word I'm looking for here?) leery (? -- I don't mean fearful) about the guy, though.

 

Basically the right-wing objection to Obama's speech on black male responsibility is part and parcel with the "most liberal member of the senate" statements coming from the same group. It's obvious spin, and I don't buy it.

Edited June 16, 2008 by Pangloss

[Phi for All]

It is a disproportionate problem in the US (far more serious for blacks). So serious is the discrepency that in fact most (more than half) black children grow up in single homes in this country.

How much of the problem is abandonment, and how much is because Mom left Dad because he's in prison on drug charges? That may be what offends liberals.

 

I know blacks have a higher percentage of mothers who never married in the first place, but their divorce rate is disproportionately higher too and I've always thought much of that was due to the War on Drugs disproportionately targeting blacks.

[Rev Blair]

It's not just drugs, Phi, it's the ravages of poverty in general. The US war on drugs is incredibly harmful socially though. Treating a medical problem as a crime while enforcing a prohibition that targets certain segments of the population more than others and feeds crime profits is bad policy at best.

[Reaper]

I know blacks have a higher percentage of mothers who never married in the first place, but their divorce rate is disproportionately higher too and I've always thought much of that was due to the War on Drugs disproportionately targeting blacks.

 

Divorce rates are actually higher among whites, but that's going to take us off topic...

 

The US war on drugs is incredibly harmful socially though. Treating a medical problem as a crime while enforcing a prohibition that targets certain segments of the population more than others and feeds crime profits is bad policy at best.

 

 

One could wonder why we didn't learn from the first prohibition that was enacted??

[Phi for All]

Divorce rates are actually higher among whites, but that's going to take us off topic...

I looked at multiple sources which varied and the best averaging I could come up with was 9.8 percent of whites divorced, 11.3 percent of African-Americans, and 7.6 percent of Hispanics.

[Reaper]

I looked at multiple sources which varied and the best averaging I could come up with was 9.8 percent of whites divorced, 11.3 percent of African-Americans, and 7.6 percent of Hispanics.

 

You might want to read the study by the Barna Research Group, which concluded a 27% divorce rate for whites, and a 22% divorce rate for blacks (Hispanics and Asians got 20% and 8%, respectively). You need a subscription to actually read the article (as it was written in 1999), but here's a site with a summary of it (Read the 4th paragraph).

 

 

As this was done in 1999, do you mind showing me a more recent study which shows otherwise?

[Sisyphus]

That discrepancy might be accounted for by fewer blacks marrying in the first place.

[Reaper]

That discrepancy might be accounted for by fewer blacks marrying in the first place.

 

That actually doesn't matter, because statistical studies of this kind measure proportions and are usually corrected for factors such as the one listed above.

[Phi for All]

You might want to read the study by the Barna Research Group, which concluded a 27% divorce rate for whites, and a 22% divorce rate for blacks (Hispanics and Asians got 20% and 8%, respectively).

Surely an atheist site has an agenda, no?

 

 

As this was done in 1999, do you mind showing me a more recent study which shows otherwise?

I was using mostly The US Census Bureau spreadsheets from 2004, LegalZoom and DivorceForm.org but I now realize I was using the wrong numbers. There is a great difference between respondents who had "ever" divorced, and those who were "currently" divorced.

 

And as Sisyphus mentions, it seems many black couples that produce children never marry so they aren't part of the rate.

[Reaper]

Surely an atheist site has an agenda, no?

 

An atheist site, run by a member of a visible minority, that cites a Christian research group?? Well, maybe there is a vast atheist conspiracy then ....

 

 

I was using mostly The US Census Bureau spreadsheets from 2004, LegalZoom and DivorceForm.org but I now realize I was using the wrong numbers. There is a great difference between respondents who had "ever" divorced, and those who were "currently" divorced.

 

Ah, I see. Yeah, I was referring to the divorce rate, not all people ever divorced.

 

And as Sisyphus mentions, it seems many black couples that produce children never marry so they aren't part of the rate.

 

Maybe, but then how do you explain the fact that the ones who do marry are less likely to divorce then whites are? It seems to me that this perception is much more of a case of media sensationalism then to do with hard facts...

Edited June 17, 2008 by Reaper

[Phi for All]

An atheist site, run by a member of a visible minority, that cites a Christian research group?? Well, maybe there is a vast atheist conspiracy then ....

No conspiracy necessary. Just a group who wants the statistics to shore up their argument, namely that atheists are less likely to divorce than religious people.

Maybe, but then how do you explain the fact that the ones who do marry are less likely to divorce then whites are?

Black women are either better wives or more intimidating than their husbands?

 

Did you see that blacks are more likely to remarry after divorce than whites are? Most marriage studies show that second marriages are more likely to last than first marriages. This could account for much of your discrepancy.

[Reaper]

No conspiracy necessary. Just a group who wants the statistics to shore up their argument, namely that atheists are less likely to divorce than religious people.

 

Well, that has actually been shown to be the case so far. Given that this study was done by a Christian group trying to prove that religious people are somehow more moral by virtue of being Christian is quite telling. Note that this result shows up consistently too, as a more recent study shows: http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=170. Of course, it depends on which denomination you are referring to; Catholics are actually much lower, while Jews and Born-Again's are the highest of the bunch. Atheists and other "non-religious" fall somewhere in between (This time, they lumped them all together to inflate the original figure, of course, what is to be expected from a Protestant religious group with an agenda...)

 

 

 

Did you see that blacks are more likely to remarry after divorce than whites are? Most marriage studies show that second marriages are more likely to last than first marriages. This could account for much of your discrepancy.

 

Well, I did not actually look at the specifics of how this study was conducted, so I cannot say or conclude whether this actually causes the discrepancy. However, I doubt that this would affect the statistic given though; the only way it could possibly be skewed like that is if the questions were really ambiguous.

Edited June 17, 2008 by Reaper

[Pangloss]

Semantics and statistics, guys, none of which any of you collected anyway. What's relevent is that a lot of black children are growing up to single working moms.

 

Anyway I think you got your answer there, Sisyphus. This conversation actually made me re-think my assessment that conservatives are off base in suggesting that liberals eschew responsibility -- just look at all the rationalization going on right here. Was I wrong, guys?

[Reaper]

Semantics and statistics, guys, none of which any of you collected anyway. What's relevent is that a lot of black children are growing up to single working moms.

 

Yeah, lets get back on topic now.

 

Anyway I think you got your answer there, Sisyphus. This conversation actually made me re-think my assessment that conservatives are off base in suggesting that liberals eschew responsibility -- just look at all the rationalization going on right here. Was I wrong, guys?

 

Do you mind clarifying here? You seem to be jumping to conclusions here (i.e. Non-Sequitur).

Edited June 17, 2008 by Reaper

[Phi for All]

This conversation actually made me re-think my assessment that conservatives are off base in suggesting that liberals eschew responsibility -- just look at all the rationalization going on right here. Was I wrong, guys?

It was a nice try, but the statistics quibble was hardly rationalizing away the responsibility of black fathers to their families. I'm not even sure the stats are relevant to that, since divorce doesn't mean "dead beat" or that a divorced father never visits his children.

 

I'm pretty liberal socially but you'd never get me to rationalize why a black father, or any father, would stop seeing and supporting his family whether he married the mother of his children or not.

[Pangloss]

Anyway I think you got your answer there, Sisyphus. This conversation actually made me re-think my assessment that conservatives are off base in suggesting that liberals eschew responsibility -- just look at all the rationalization going on right here. Was I wrong, guys?

Do you mind clarifying here? You seem to be jumping to conclusions here (i.e. Non-Sequitur).

 

Sure, but I'm not jumping to any conclusions here, I'm just bracketing the problem really. And to answer Phi's question as well:

 

It's not just drugs, Phi, it's the ravages of poverty in general.

 

How much of the problem is abandonment, and how much is because Mom left Dad because he's in prison on drug charges? That may be what offends liberals.

 

These statements were in response to the suggestion that it's not the fault of black fathers that they don't stick around to raise their kids. I.E. it's not daddy's fault he's not around, because he's in prison on drug charges; it's not daddy's fault he's not around, because of the "ravages of poverty".

 

But I do understand that both Rev and Phi support the general concept of personal responsibility, and the arguments they're making don't automatically obviate all personal responsibility. You're just adding additional variables to the mix. That's where liberals and conservatives often clash, when (for example) conservatives misinterpret the expansion of variables to mean that the ones already understood to exist are no longer relevent.

 

But that doesn't mean that some liberals don't actually feel that way. The world is full of idiots. And Obama has to win their votes too.

[Reaper]

Thanks for clarifying Pangloss, I see what you mean now, and I do actually agree fully with your statement given.

 

But that doesn't mean that some liberals don't actually feel that way. The world is full of idiots. And Obama has to win their votes too.

 

Ah, one of the many pitfalls of democracy. Maybe we should just start transitioning to a meritocracy instead .

Edited June 17, 2008 by Reaper
multiple post merged

[Sisyphus]

Maybe we should just start transitioning to a meritocracy instead .

 

Agreed. And I shall be the Chief Deemer of Merit, for, according to my system, I have the most merit of anyone.

[Pangloss]

Well I for one welcome our highly qualified overlords!