Here's my response to your comment to Mr. Redmond's post, as well as a response to a portion of his post. For some reason, it wouldn't let me comment over there.
It's legitimate for African-Americans and all Americans to be proud that we have overcome at least a modicum of racial animosity by electing an African-American president. Only about 40 years ago police officers were pulling over African-Americans and shooting them in the head as they raced their pregnant wives to the hospital. Only about 8 years ago, racists at Bob Jones University barred interracial dating. Yes, it's no longer the '60s. And it's no longer Y2K. But because racism is becoming taboo, that's no reason to forget our recent history. So given our checkered racial past, it's a pretty big deal that America is the first rich country to elect an African-American president.
The reason people aren't waiting for an Asian-American president, at least as much as they were for an African-American one, is because Asian-American's were not, at least not on a large scale, lynched. They were not enslaved. Sure, there was the Japanese internment. And as indefensible as that is, it was at least in response to Pearl Harbor. The suppression of African-Americans is indefensible on any level. So the analogy between Asian-Americans and African-Americans is weak.
The larger point, though, is that Mr. Redmond did not vote based on race, though it would be difficult to criticize him if he had. I would prefer if people didn't take race into account in determining whom to vote for, but it's understandable why so many African-Americans did.
But I do have some concerns about Mr. Redmond's politics of reproduction. If he thinks there is a biblical reason to oppose gay marriage, why would that apply to the state? I think a federalist response is the perfect one. If you don't like gay marriage, move to a state that outlaws it. But I don't see any biblical reason to outlaw gay marriage at all, let alone to outlaw it nationally.
As to abortion, that was a non-issue in this election. Abortion is already the law of the land. And as Prof. Jack Balkin argued on his blog, Balkinization, Roe v. Wade is unlikely to be overturned, regardless of whom McCain would have appointed. So what is he afraid Barack Obama, as president, is going to do to advance abortion? Besides, McCain's position on abortion is (fasten your seat belt) to leave it up to the states. So why would Mr. Redmond, who based on his post is no federalist, support McCain, who takes a federalist position on abortion? Voting against Obama on the abortion issue seems to me to be indefensible.
1 comment:
Here's my response to your comment to Mr. Redmond's post, as well as a response to a portion of his post. For some reason, it wouldn't let me comment over there.
It's legitimate for African-Americans and all Americans to be proud that we have overcome at least a modicum of racial animosity by electing an African-American president. Only about 40 years ago police officers were pulling over African-Americans and shooting them in the head as they raced their pregnant wives to the hospital. Only about 8 years ago, racists at Bob Jones University barred interracial dating. Yes, it's no longer the '60s. And it's no longer Y2K. But because racism is becoming taboo, that's no reason to forget our recent history. So given our checkered racial past, it's a pretty big deal that America is the first rich country to elect an African-American president.
The reason people aren't waiting for an Asian-American president, at least as much as they were for an African-American one, is because Asian-American's were not, at least not on a large scale, lynched. They were not enslaved. Sure, there was the Japanese internment. And as indefensible as that is, it was at least in response to Pearl Harbor. The suppression of African-Americans is indefensible on any level. So the analogy between Asian-Americans and African-Americans is weak.
The larger point, though, is that Mr. Redmond did not vote based on race, though it would be difficult to criticize him if he had. I would prefer if people didn't take race into account in determining whom to vote for, but it's understandable why so many African-Americans did.
But I do have some concerns about Mr. Redmond's politics of reproduction. If he thinks there is a biblical reason to oppose gay marriage, why would that apply to the state? I think a federalist response is the perfect one. If you don't like gay marriage, move to a state that outlaws it. But I don't see any biblical reason to outlaw gay marriage at all, let alone to outlaw it nationally.
As to abortion, that was a non-issue in this election. Abortion is already the law of the land. And as Prof. Jack Balkin argued on his blog, Balkinization, Roe v. Wade is unlikely to be overturned, regardless of whom McCain would have appointed. So what is he afraid Barack Obama, as president, is going to do to advance abortion? Besides, McCain's position on abortion is (fasten your seat belt) to leave it up to the states. So why would Mr. Redmond, who based on his post is no federalist, support McCain, who takes a federalist position on abortion? Voting against Obama on the abortion issue seems to me to be indefensible.
Post a Comment