Philippine Daily Inquirer: “Stupid” Anti-Obama Voters Motivated by Racism
I call it intellectual bankruptcy. Yes, I’m talking about the most read English broadsheet in the Philippines. The Philippine Daily Inquirer, or at least its editorial board, is intellectually bankrupt.
In its stupidest editorial published on Nov. 8, the Inquirer states that “to those of us on the outside looking in”, those who voted against Obama’s socialist agenda are racist. The country’s largest newspaper didn’t mince words in exposing its intellectual bankruptcy, as it states:
“To be sure, there were other, complicating factors. The formation of the Tea Party was both an asset and a liability to the Republicans: It helped drum up support and get out the vote, but at the same time it helped select primary winners who had little or no chance of widening their narrow bases enough to win district or state elections. The increasing resistance to Obama, strictly on the basis of his color, is another factor; to those of us on the outside looking in, the battle cry to “take back America” is unmistakable code for a racist attack on Obama’s “difference.”
This merely confirms my assertion that Conrado de Quiros, who’s part of the Inquirer, and the Obama-worshiping intellectuals at the PDI and other media outlets in the country are dead wrong in their evaluation of the agenda of the first-ever black president of the most powerful country on earth. Such an “outsider” observation clearly exposes the Inquirer’s ignorance of the founding principles of America. By suggesting that the American voters were motivated by racism, the Inquirer is simply trying to argue that Obama’s defeat was purely emotional and anti-intellectual.
With its anti-intellectual “racist” rhetoric, the Inquirer is belittling the intelligence and confidence of the American voters, even calling them “stupid” for trying to take back America from the claws of statism or socialism. It suggests that the Americans didn’t vote for the founding principles of America- that they didn’t vote for limited government, lower taxation, and reduced spending. That they voted for Republicans simply because they hate Obama “strictly on the basis of his color” and because of his “difference.”
The editorial further states:
“To those of us on the outside looking in, the net effect of that sense of vulnerability is decidedly ironic: America has just handed back part of the reins of government to the very party that created the economic and financial crisis in the first place.”
This statement is utterly wrong and fallacious. First, America’s vote against Obama is strictly not a vote for the Republicans. Philosophically speaking, America’s anti-Obama vote is a concrete expression of its desire to return to its Founding principles.
Here’s what I stated in a previous blog entitled Who Did the Americans Vote for:
Since America was founded on the concepts of individualism, individual rights and liberty, it is not the country’s intellectuals who will save America. It is the American people who will save and reclaim the first constitutional republic in mankind’s history, and they just did it two days ago when they voted out Obama’s democratic allies in Congress and nearly controlled Senate by a narrow margin.
The American voters didn’t vote for Republicans; they voted for the core principles of America: freedom and individual liberties. They voted for limited government, lower taxation, and reduced public spending, as well as a desire to return to America’s Founding principles.
Second, the Americans voted for the Republican candidates (a) to delay America’s march toward statism under the Obama regime, and (b) to buy them sometime to defeat the Republican theocratic agenda.
Philosopher Leonard Peikoff, of the Ayn Rand Institute, laid down the philosophical basis of a Republican vote:
“The Democrats for decades have been mostly the typical, compromising pols of a welfare state, making things worse, but relatively slowly, thereby leaving us some time to fight the theocracy-in-waiting. But Obama, the first New Left President, has introduced a new factor into his Party: a crusading egalitarian nihilism that is subverting and destroying the U.S., at home and abroad, much faster than anyone could have imagined a year ago. If his crowd is not ousted—and ousted big, if they get a green light to carry on their policy of “dictatorship as usual,” it will move us breathtakingly closer to the ugly end of our current road.
“But Obama et al., as is now evident, are not popular. The politicians who will profit from the egalitarians’ ever-bigger State, the men who will ultimately cash in on the Democrat efforts and achieve the full takeover of America, will be the Republicans.
“Judging by past experience, the Republicans this time, if elected, will do little more than preserve, and more likely worsen, the status quo they inherit. But the country’s loud rejection of the Democrats will certainly help to quell the Obama-ites for a while. And there is a more specific, albeit short-range benefit of a Republican win: two years of governmental paralysis—gridlock! when it is most desperately needed.”
Finally, the root cause of America’s financial crisis were the altruist-statist policies implemented in the United States, mostly by the Democrats. These altruist-statist policies are as follows:
* The original Community Reinvestment Act was signed into law in 1977 by Jimmy Carter (Democrat). Its purpose, in a nutshell, was to require banks to provide credit to “under-served populations,” i.e., those with poor credit.
The buzz word was “affordable mortgages,” e.g., mortgages with low teaser-rates, which required the borrower to put no money down, which required the borrower to pay only the interest for a set number of years, etc.
* In 1995, Bill Clinton’s administration (Democrat) made various changes to the CRA, increasing “access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities,” i.e., it provided for the securitization, i.e. public underwriting, of what everyone now calls “sub-prime mortgages.”
Bottom line? It forced banks to issue $1 trillion in sub-prime mortgages.
$1 trillion, i.e., a thousand billion dollars in sub-prime,i.e., risky, mortgages, in order to push this latest example of social engineering.
But wait: how did it force banks to do this? Easy. Introduce a federal requirement that banks make the loans or face penalties. As Howard Husock, writing in City Journal way back in 2000 observed: “Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race, to rate banks on performance. There would be no more A’s for effort. Only results—specific loans, specific levels of service—would count.” Way back in 1994, for example, Barack Obama sued Citibank on behalf of a client who charged that the bank “systematically denied mortgages to African-American applicants and others from minority neighborhoods.”
* In 1997, Bear Stearns–O firm (by the Democrats) of blessed memory–was the first to get onto the sub-prime gravy train.
* Fannie Mae & Freddy Mac (created by the Democrats)–were there near the beginning, too.
Like Obama, the Inquirer also blames the President’s defeat on America’s economic mess. “But the main factor that led to the rout was economic; joblessness was up, business confidence down, the prospect of an interminable muddling-through depressing. In their misery, Americans voted with (what was left of) their pocketbooks,” it concludes.
However, political and economic analysts like Nina Easton of CNN, which is sympathetic with Obama’s policies, already debunked such a stupid claim.
In his press conference today the president — pressed about public disapproval of his policies — repeatedly referred to an “emergency situation” that forced the need for a stimulus and the Detroit bailout. There’s a bit of déjà vu here: George Bush blamed his plummeting approval ratings on an unpopular war.
In fact, the economy was only part of the equation. Deep dissatisfaction with President Obama’s agenda — and especially healthcare reform, his signature achievement, and one that has nothing to do with emergencies caused by the financial crisis — fueled the intensity that has now given Republicans their biggest House majority since 1928.
Nile Gardiner, a Washington-based foreign affairs analyst and political commentator, also wrote in Telegraph:
The overwhelming repudiation of the Obama administration’s failing policies sends a clear message to the world that the American people will not accept the decline of the world’s most powerful nation. Now the hard part begins, and a very top priority for the new Congress must be reigning in the ballooning national debt, which the Congressional Budget Office predicts could rise to 87 percent of GDP by 2020, 109 percent by 2025, and 185 percent of GDP by 2035.
No, the anti-Obama American voters are not racist and stupid. To call them racist is to mock the Founding principles of America that brought peace, justice and economic progress throughout the world. To call them stupid is to vacuously mock a freedom-loving people for resisting slavery and dictatorship. It is you, editorial writers at the Inquirer, who are racist and stupid.