"why do people hate you?"

Remove all ads!

Obama was forced on the defensive recently during a visit to New Orleans, but the simplest but possibly one of the hardest questions came from a 10 year old boy "Why do people hate you?"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...bama-caught-guard-year-old-boys-question.html

now, I wouldnt say that I hate Obama, he hasnt done anything yet, but because of the Bush era, the US administration is really black listed (no pun intended),
Everyone knows what happened to New Orleans and how the bush admin was slow to aid the city and its people, surely that will have villified the government in the people's eyes, but I though a black president may have brought these people a bit more hope.

 

I would start here.

 

For the record, I don't think the federal government was unusually slow responding to Katrina (not compared to other emergencies, but face it, FEMA was slow, and integrating them with other groups didn't help any). I do think the state government did a terrible job, and I think the federal government had no oversight (resulting in scams galore from everyone involved), but not slow.

As for why people hate Obama, I think a large part of it is exactly what Obama said. Times are tight and people look for someone do blame. It's the typical curse of leadership: when things are going bad, you're to blame for all of it.

 

The best part of that article are the reader comments.

 

He could have easily said "The people who hate me are mostly Republicans, and they would hate any Democratic President." That may not be the best answer, but I think it would be the most honest.

The people from his own party who are complaining about him are finally realizing that he cannot just wave a wand and change things magically (I'd better be careful here.) Change takes time, and instead of criticizing someone who is helping them they should get behind him and realize that some things take time.

 

Except that there are a number of things that he just hasn't done. Things that he promised to do. Things that'd take nothing more than the stroke of a pen. Of course, the repercussions of those things would last, but they'll last no matter when they're done, which means it isn't a matter of 'working on it', it's a matter of not wanting to face the consequences of it.

 

I liked his answer. He could easily have used race, political party, and fiscal policy as the answer (I think most of the anger vented toward Obama are based on those three).

 

anyone see the south park episode?

"Obama said things would be different... I should have voted for McCain"

---------- Added 0 hours, 14 minutes and 22 seconds later... ----------

nice media, seems the whole story wasnt reported:

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/10/15/little-boy-asks-barack-obama-why-do-people-hate-you/

 

A Snapshot Of Tennessee: False Beliefs About Obama Persevere

Interesting article based on this poll:

On of the conclusions the report comes to is that this is primarily driven by partisan antagonism. It notes specifically that the R's are split between the moderate, centrist leaning wings (for whom health care reform, for instance, is important) and the utterly uncompromising 'oppose everything' right wing (among Tennessee’s Republicans, only 41 percent say that Republicans in Congress are doing enough to work with Obama - say 'no', that is).

From the poll:

i.e. those with more schoolin’ less likely to fall prey to birtherism, those Republicans that is.

Even more interesting perhaps is this poll [PDF], conducted by Democratic pollsters, which offers a glimpse at the Republican right wing. Not race drives them, but a genuine belief that Obama has a "secret agenda" to drive the country in a socialist direction. Their basic belief is that Obama - a former community organizer who seemingly came from nowhere - must have been propelled by some secret forces. According to the poll that is no small segment of the population and represents almost one-in-five voters and nearly two-of-three self identified Republicans. These voters want more opposition, not more cooperation. At the same time they hold very negative opinions of the Republican Party.

 

It's interesting that, in that poll, the uncertain numbers for every issue are either identical or very close between the general population and Republicans only.

As for the beliefs, some are grounded in a misunderstanding not of what's happened, but of the issue (such as socialism, most people who call Obama a socialist think buying the car manufacturers and promoting state health insurance ammount to socialism). Others are based on uncertainties from Obama himself (I'm sorry, but anyone who claims on national TV that there are multiple ways to heaven isn't really a Christian... or a Muslim for that matter).

Given that understanding, and how people will jump to believe those they agree with, and distrust those they don't, it doesn't surprise me that many believe the other stuff those people put out.

 

There's a sociological term for this, called "motivated reasoning". It basically states that you start with the conclusion (e.g. Obama is a Muslim, Iraq has WMD, we have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here, etc). You then disregard any evidence that would refute your conclusion, and embrace any evidence - regardless of how flimsy - that supports your conclusion.

 

Motivated reasoning -- I like the term. Why wasn't that term used during the Iraqi war threads?

 

I just recently heard of it. I read it in a Newsweek article a few weeks back.

 

Perhaps it was coined for the Bush administration....

 

Isn't "motivated reasoning" just another term for "a priori" reasoning? That term was used repeatedly in the Iraq war threads.

 

I don't think so. I always condered a priori reasoning to be presumptive - making a prediction beforehand. It does not necessarily discount evidence that doesn't support that reasoning. I define a priori reasoning as taking what evidence is available for predictive purposes.

 

A priori:

Basically, it's not based on evidence, but doesn't ignore evidence either. An a priori arguement, if properly presented and based on sound assumptions, is actually irrefutable, because it's basically the definitions of the terms used. For example:
Jim is a bachelor, therefore Jim is unmarried.

 

NOG, you are talking about a priori knowledge, which is not the same thing as the fallacy of a priori reasoning.

From The Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Put more simply. A person employing the a priori fallacy assumes the conclusion before looking at the facts, assuming that whatever he says will be taken as truth with no regard given to empirical evidence.

 

My point is that a priori reasoning isn't itself a falacy. It can manifest in falacious forms (usually that of a faulty assumption), but is not itself a falacy.

From SparkNotes:

See it's use in Dublin Philosophy Blog, philosophical jounals, or this complex "what is logic" page.

A priori reasoning is a fundamental part of philosophy and logic. A priori knowledge is that knowledge that is gained or proven through a priori reasoning, so if one is sound, so must the other be.

 

NOG, you are playing semantics. I am clearly referring to a fallacy of reasoning known as "a priori". That a priori means other things in other contexts is entirely beside the point. If an argument you or someone else makes is met with the words "a priori," you aren't being congratulated for your simple and irrefutable logic based on facts so self-evident that there is no need to check for empirical evidence to prove them. You are being accused of employing an a priori fallacy of reasoning.