Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama's Big Ferguson Failure
The National Interest ^ | November 25, 2014 | Robert W. Merry

Posted on 11/25/2014 1:10:09 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet

"This is precisely what presidents of the United States should not do in such circumstances."

President Obama’s statement issued in the White House pressroom minutes after the announcement of the Ferguson grand jury’s decision not to indict officer Darren Wilson wasn’t just a botch. It was a tragic botch.

On the surface, the president sought to strike a measured and balanced tone, and he hit many of the right notes in his brief statement—to wit, we are a nation of laws, the decision was the grand jury’s to make, there is no excuse for violence, and so on and so forth. But in the course of his remarks, he denied seeking to do what he obviously was doing, which was using those tragic events in Ferguson, Missouri, as a springboard for a broader discussion on lingering problems in American race relations. In doing that, he undermined his own call for calm and negated his suggestion that we should bear in mind that “we are a nation built on the rule of law.”

There are two fundamental prisms through which to view the heart-rending story in Ferguson. The first is that it was a tragic episode in which an unarmed young black man, Michael Brown, lost his life in an altercation with a police officer and that the matter, like all such matters, had to be parsed and adjudicated through the local criminal-justice system. That meant waiting for all evidence to be gathered and weighed before rushing to judgment. It meant further that we ultimately must place our trust in the justice system, which certainly isn’t perfect, but it is all we have—and is likely to be carefully pursued particularly when it is under intense and emotional public scrutiny, as it was in Ferguson. Viewed through this prism, there is no call for conflating this delicate and difficult process with any broader national problems in race relations. In fact, it is inappropriately incendiary to do so.

The other prism presents a different picture, one that sees the Ferguson events as a reflection of a serious national problem of white racism within law enforcement and in the criminal-justice system. Viewed through this prism, Michael Brown’s death not only should bring an indictment against Darren Wilson, but represented an indictment against elements of American society. The two aren’t separable, in this view. Michael Brown didn’t get a fair break from the police officer during that altercation, and if Wilson wasn’t punished through the criminal-justice system, then that represents automatic evidence of something seriously wrong with the criminal-justice system. This is the underlying view of Reverend Al Sharpton and other agitators who use allegations of racism to whip up emotions in what President Obama calls “communities of color.”

These two views rendered by these two prisms have been clashing in Ferguson since the beginning, and everyone knew that when the grand-jury decision was announced, whatever it might be, that clash was going to become extremely intense. In such circumstances, presidents of the United States have a fearsome obligation to refrain from saying or doing anything that could intensify the emotions involved.

By conflating the events in Ferguson with ongoing problems of racism in America, Obama embraced the second prism and intensified the emotional situation in Ferguson, irrespective of all the disclaimers he carefully inserted into his statement. This is precisely what presidents of the United States should not do in such circumstances.

One crucial question here is whether Michael Brown’s fate was sealed by an underlying problem in American society or was the result, in significant measure, of his own actions. Another is whether the grand-jury decision was further evidence of racist sentiments lingering in the American body politic or a measured, conclusive examination of the evidence.

If the latter, then there is no reason to use those events as a springboard for a discussion of American racism. If the former, then there is every reason to use the Ferguson events not only as a broader discussion point, but also to question the entire justice system in Ferguson and St. Louis County.

That’s what Obama did. “We need to recognize,” he said, “that this is not just an issue for Ferguson. This is an issue for America.” He said the Ferguson events “speak to broader challenges that we face as a nation” and noted “a deep distrust” between law enforcement and communities of color.

Obama emphasized that “there’s never an excuse for violence, particularly when here are a lot of people of goodwill out there who are willing to work on these issues.” Then he added:

“On the other hand, those who are only interested in focusing on the violence and just want the problem to go away need to recognize that we do have work to do here and we shouldn’t try to paper it over. Whenever we do that, the anger may momentarily subside, but over time, it builds up and America’s isn’t everything that it could be.”

That was the crux of the Obama statement. If you don’t recognize problems in race relations and if those problems aren’t addressed effectively, then black people are going to get angry when events happen such as those in Ferguson, and those angers are going to erupt into violence. Thus did the president seek to put the onus on the country for any violence that erupted in Ferguson. In doing that, he actually placed some of the onus on himself.

If problems of lingering racism exist in America, then those problems should be addressed, and few Americans are better positioned to do so than Obama. But, if the Ferguson events can’t be attributed to racism, then they shouldn’t be used to spearhead discussions on any broader problem—and certainly shouldn’t be used in ways that could exacerbate racial tensions in Ferguson.

The president added to all this with his characteristic tendency to patronize people out in the country grappling with difficult situations, whom he seems to presume need his peculiarly sound counsel from a higher plane of wisdom. “I also appeal to the law enforcement officials in Ferguson and the region,” said the president, “to show care and restraint in managing peaceful protests that may occur….As they do their jobs in the coming days, they need to work with the community, not against the community, to distinguish the handful of people who may use the grand-jury’s decision as an excuse for violence. Distinguish them from the vast majority who just want their voices heard around legitimate issues in terms of how communities and law enforcement interact.”

Two points emerge here: First, since when do law enforcement officials in Ferguson or anywhere else in America need presidential admonitions to refrain from working against their own communities? Second, and more important, you have to wonder where Obama gets his idea that, when riots begin, law enforcement can carefully isolate out the violent ones while benignly countenancing peaceful demonstrations. The lack of realism here is stunning.

Even as the president spoke, the violence in Ferguson was reaching the level of a riot. “I really don’t have any hesitation in telling you that I didn’t see a lot of peaceful protest out there tonight,” said St. Louis County police chief Jon Belmar. At least a dozen buildings were set ablaze, and an estimated 150 gunshots were heard by the time the New York Times filed its first story on the violence. The Times quoted Tammy Ruffin, 54, a local resident “standing in stinging smoke that swept over her house,” as saying, “It’s horrible, horrible, horrible, horrible. I knew this was going to happen.”

It seems she knew something her president didn’t fully comprehend. What he also didn’t comprehend was that these incendiary situations out in the country call for caution and restraint on the part of presidents. By conflating events in Ferguson with broader matters of race relations, he attached himself, however unwittingly, to unfolding events in Ferguson.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: blacks; darrenwilson; ferguson; missouri; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 last
To: Red Badger
Hahaha!

Great graphic!
The PimpPrez just keeps SHININ' ON, doesn't don't he? Harhar, I am being bad.

21 posted on 11/25/2014 4:27:26 PM PST by cloudmountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
In doing that, he undermined his own call for calm and negated his suggestion that we should bear in mind that “we are a nation built on the rule of law.

as if he really meant it....

22 posted on 11/25/2014 4:31:39 PM PST by uncitizen (I weep for my country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThePatriotsFlag
It is simpler than that...black culture, black parenting. Father a drug dealer, in and out of prison, Brown high in pot at twice the legal limit, strong arming store owners minutes before his death stealing from them...and this is the cop’s fault? What can’t they admit they have a problem and quit trying to lay it on whites. 72% born out of wedlock, 93% of blacks killed by blacks.....the evidence is staggering.

1. Daddy-less homes
+
2. Failure of "daddy" to teach sons to deal with adult male authority
+
3. Failure of black "daddy" to teach sons to deal with adult male WHITE authority

=

WELFARE,
FAILURE,
PRISON.

It's simple arithmetic.

23 posted on 11/25/2014 4:35:32 PM PST by cloudmountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: cloudmountain
It's simple arithmetic.

That's the problem. They don't understand the mathematics.

The entire black population of the US comprises approximately 13% of the total.

That's counting every single man, woman, child, baby and elderly person.

If the male population segment of that sector is like the rest of the world, then we are talking only 6-7% of the population at large.

If you exclude the children below 16, babies, and elderly above 60 years old or so, then that number drops to maybe 3% of the whole.

Cut that number in half, dividing the good people from the bad, then you have at best 1.5%.

Not good odds if you want to start a war with anybody..........................

24 posted on 11/26/2014 6:21:36 AM PST by Red Badger (If you compromise with evil, you just get more evil..........................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
It's appalling that so few in a group count for so many in prisons.

Those men, all men and women in prison, KNOW: you do the crime, you do the time. They were all taught right from wrong and have the brains and backbone to take the straight and narrow.

That they stray from God's path is something THEY have to reconcile with their Maker, when the time of their death finally arrives. They understand the arithmetic and why they CHOOSE the path they take is a subject for the shrinks, sociologists and men-of-the-cloth.

It's still my contention that the lack of dads in their lives has a big part to do with their failures. They know the odds too. It's THEIR life, their soul. May God give them the grace to walk the straight and narrow--BEFORE they have to do so from prison experience.

WHO in his right mind would want to hire an ex-felon?

25 posted on 11/26/2014 6:43:38 AM PST by cloudmountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: cloudmountain
They were all taught right from wrong and have the brains and backbone to take the straight and narrow.

In the neighborhood we once lived in, a 'family' moved in down the street, from California. Mother, shack-up boyfriend, and a boy, not the son of the boyfriend. The boy was the same age as my daughter, 11-12, and they went to the same school together. I watched this child grow up and he eventually wound up in prison. He was 'taught' to steal by his mother, who was a druggie and a thief herself. I was appalled one day when she was actually bragging about how much stuff they had shoplifted, and needless to say we never had much to do with them after that.

Another case, when I was a kid in the 60's, age 10-11 or so, I went to school in a small town where the school was grades 1 thru 12, all in the same building.

There was a family whose father was the coach, and the mother was a HS math teacher at this school. They had two children in the school themselves, juvenile and teen. Fine, upstanding members of society, or so we all thought.

Then one Monday morning they did not show up for class, none of them.

Over the weekend they had all been arrested in a nearby (60 miles) city, at a store that was a precursor to what today would be a Sam's or Costco. They were arrested for shoplifting, and we never saw any of them again, or at least I didn't, being kid, but I'm sure they had to have their stuff moved from their home by someone. This was a very small rural town.

Now in both of these stories both 'families' were white. One uneducated and barely making it day to day, the other both college educated and working full time. The results were the same.

It shows me that 'poverty' has little to do with crime. It shows me that 'education level' has little to do with crime. It shows me that 'familial status' has little to do with crime. It shows me that 'race' has little to do with crime. It shows me that a person that is never instructed in the ways of God and His Son, Jesus Christ is truly 'lost' to Satan.......................

26 posted on 11/26/2014 8:08:55 AM PST by Red Badger (If you compromise with evil, you just get more evil..........................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
It shows me that 'poverty' has little to do with crime. It shows me that 'education level' has little to do with crime. It shows me that 'familial status' has little to do with crime. It shows me that 'race' has little to do with crime. It shows me that a person that is never instructed in the ways of God and His Son, Jesus Christ is truly 'lost' to Satan.......................

Yes, indeed, so true and well put.

I live in an extremely quiet, nice neighborhood. Some years ago there were, all of a sudden a zillion cops down the street. Lol. Turns out the guy who owned the home was a BOOKIE. He had some 25 phones lines, all working at the same time.
I guess he "booked" one too many times. That's the extent of what I remember about this neighborhood. All quiet before and after that.

27 posted on 11/26/2014 2:09:30 PM PST by cloudmountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: cloudmountain

I think bookies are now, pretty much obsolete. Too easy to gamble on line and elsewhere, without getting your legs broke....................;^)


28 posted on 11/26/2014 2:26:46 PM PST by Red Badger (If you compromise with evil, you just get more evil..........................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
Bookies are still with us to some extent. The gambling state of Nevada has'em by the truck load. However, they are mostly just in Las Vegas and Reno. What pit holes they are.
Besides, bookies don't get THEIR legs broken. They get their goons to break the legs of those who don't pay up what they owe.

There is still much gambling. Even though it's ON-LINE now I bet the bookies still, somehow, get the scofflaws to pay up. The Chinese are inveterate gamblers and there are 1 billion+ of them. In fact, there is MUCH gambling in Asia.

The humble lottery, which many states have, is gambling. I always comment to people I see buying lottery tickets. I ask them if they know the "home version" of the lottery.

You take a dollar bill out of your wallet; go to an open window; tear the dollar bill into a ton of tiny little pieces; then THROW it out the window. I tell them they have JUST as much chance of winning the lottery with THAT method as with spending their hard earned money BUYING a ticket.
I always chuckle. They don't.

29 posted on 11/26/2014 8:36:00 PM PST by cloudmountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Liberals laugh about the Video of Sarah Palin speaking while a guy in the background is slaughtering a Turkey.

Now I get to laugh watching the Split Screen Video of King Putt lecturing us Stupid Peons while his fantasy Sons are slaughtering Ferguson.


30 posted on 11/26/2014 8:39:13 PM PST by Kickass Conservative (If you thought the Mulatto Marxist was bad, wait until the Menopausal Marxist is Elected.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cloudmountain

STATE LOTTERY:

A tax on stupidity. Payment of which is entirely voluntary..................


31 posted on 12/01/2014 6:06:33 AM PST by Red Badger (If you compromise with evil, you just get more evil..........................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
STATE LOTTERY: A tax on stupidity. Payment of which is entirely voluntary..............

Home version: Take a dollar bill, tear it into as many little pieces as possible. Take it to an open window. THROW the pieces out to the wind.

32 posted on 12/01/2014 6:10:37 AM PST by cloudmountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson