Liberals Want Obama to be an “Angry Black Man”

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


The “Angry Black Man” Obama meme goes a while back to Bill Maher, who has kept saying that Obama needs to become an “angry black man” to win.

The meme has now gone wide with Michael Moore, who famously claimed that 9/11 would never have happened with black passengers, saying  that Obama was intimidated into being timid because of accusations that he was an angry black man.

Michael Eric Dyson, who unlike Maher and Moore actually is black, joined in the fun on (where else) MSNBC by claiming that Obama had been afraid of coming off as an angry black man. And the always reliably insane Ed Schultz agreed with him.

It was just very frustrating to watch a guy lie to the American people and not be counter-punched because we’re afraid he’s going to be called an angry black man. When I see the president, I don’t see a black man.

Except Schultz does see an “Angry Black Man”, because he attributes Obama’s poor performance to some neurosis about being an angry black man… when it’s actually Schultz who has the neurosis.

The liberal fetishization of black rage is a creepy thing and it is also inherently racist. Liberal commentators expect Obama’s anger to be racial rather than political. They keep thinking that Obama is the Incredible Hulk with a mild-mannered exterior and uncontrollable rage over the oppression of the black man pulsing within. All he has to do is step into a phone booth, tear off his suit and underneath he’s Huey P. Newton.

This is actual racial stereotyping and Moore, Schultz and Co. never seem to have considered that Obama has nothing to be angry about. Obama has become successful with a minimum amount of effort. He lives a comfortable life and a charmed one. He really has nothing to be angry about.

The public displays of black anger that liberals crave so much are wholly calculated, whether it was the Black Panthers who channeled the anger of urban liberals or rappers who channeled the anger of suburban white kids or Obama delivering fake angry speeches early in his career. These are displays and while they occasionally have anger behind them, it is not the “oppressed” anger that white liberals crave, but temporary frustration and occasional anti-social tendencies.

At the Huffington Post, an article declares, “It’s Time For Obama To Become The ‘Angry Black Man”. At the Daily Beast, white liberal Susannah Breslin writes of her frustration at Obama’s failure to channel her anger. “I wonder silently what happened to the hope-inspiring orator I stood in a line the length of several city blocks to vote for four years ago, a president so passive on tonight’s stage it seems he’ll do anything to avoid having voters dismiss him as an angry black man.”

But why not accept Obama as a politician engaging in a strategic debate with another politician instead of acting as the collective liberal Id? Is Obama’s career really supposed to come down to acting out the angry fantasies of white liberals and how do they imagine Obama feels about the calls to be more of, what white liberals, think a black man should be?

  • objectivefactsmatter

    "The liberal fetishization of black rage is a creepy thing and it is also inherently racist."

    Obviously! Unless they want to float the theory that "blacks" have not integrated in to American civilization and maintain their own cultural 5th column. That too is insulting collectivism unless you explicitly qualify your statements, which they don't.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      What they want to float is that blacks are the American Superego/Id due to their constant/total oppression. They are the moral conscience of the nation through their rage.

      It's the sum of liberal racism. Real black people are leftist and angry.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "What they want to float is that blacks are the American Superego/Id due to their constant/total oppression. They are the moral conscience of the nation through their rage. It's the sum of liberal racism. Real black people are leftist and angry."

        This is fairly radical collectivism. Collectivism is anti-American. The left is anti-American, but defend themselves with delusions about what America is and what it should be.

        The spawn of Soviet communism has taken root in America. At least the Soviets had their eyes wide open when they manipulated Muslims. Not these liberal morons.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Collectivism is all they can do. People occupy a certain station because of their race/class/gender, etc. They either react authentically in tune with their station or under a false consciousness.

          White people are privileged. Black people are angry. Race is destiny. That is the essence of their path.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Collectivism is all they can do."

            Exactly. Now if we can simply explain this to people, and how it conflicts in concrete ways with individual liberties guaranteed by the US Constitution and our traditional values, we might be able to get some of these fools to understand why socialism is delusional.

            Class actions are one thing as remedies to specific situations. Collectivism is like a permanent class action judgment against another class or classes. Affirmative Action was a class action and should have had twilight provisions. All such laws should have them, or be rejected in favor of seeking justice as individual litigants.

            This collectivism in the USA has to go, and we need to teach all of our children the evils of collectivism before their school teachers have a chance to indoctrinate them with these modern socialist lies.

            One can also show the evil of Sharia by analyzing through the collectivism paradigm. I can't believe any American would argue that Sharia can be just when it writes off entire classes of people. Even when they believe the lies about respecting other religions, they don't even pretend to respect women.

            "White people are privileged. Black people are angry. Race is destiny. That is the essence of their path."

            I agree, these are the implications of their rhetoric. They focus on this silly false narrative while embassies are burning throughout the world. This is a failure in leadership unlike any I've ever heard. It never could have gotten this far without socialist doctrine being taught to students without anyone challenging the fallacies. Who would have accepted this phony had they been schooled on collectivism versus individual liberties?

            I'm still pissed about this stuff. The only classes we can find that matter are the victim classes. They victimize themselves by banking on collectivism (class warfare). It's a zero-sum game doing so.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    "It was just very frustrating to watch a guy lie to the American people and not be counter-punched because we’re afraid he’s going to be called an angry black man. When I see the president, I don’t see a black man."

    No, it's because Obama can't attack Romney directly knowing that of the two of them, it is Obama who lies constantly and he needs surrogates to float the lies before committing himself. I'm sure they'll be trying to see how to undo the mess created by the debate with more creative lies from the Obama team.

  • shankypanks

    Of all Presidents before, Obama had the goodwill of a majority of Americans willing him to succeed. He has blown that big time and his poor performance in the first debate has nothing to do with the colour of his skin or that he didn't want to come across as an angry black man! He showed his boredom for the American people, like he couldn't be bothered to think this through as he's convinced they will vote for him anyway because he's just so great! He also showed that he is a vacuous lefty of the EU model. America, you do not want to go down that path!

    • janet

      but why?

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "but why?"

        Which statement are you questioning?

  • objectivefactsmatter

    "Of all Presidents before, Obama had the goodwill of a majority of Americans willing him to succeed."

    Indeed he did have the broadest support I observed in my lifetime.

    "He has blown that big time"

    Constantly.

    "and his poor performance in the first debate has nothing to do with the colour of his skin or that he didn't want to come across as an angry black man!

    But…the point is that the radicals with no discernment whatsoever need to have an explanation that they understand. This is what myopia looks like. Many of those non-discerning voters supported him purely because he was black while others supported him purely because they shared his delusions about what "transformation" was needed.

    Some of the supposed evidence supporting the need for transformation was connected to real and fabricated history concerning "blacks" in America.

    It's not like we've had any progress since the nation was founded. Just ask Howard Zinn (if you meet him in Hell) or Noam Chomsky. They'll tell you who the victims are. They're everywhere, and neatly classified too for easy digestion.

  • jmz

    in other words..blacks are not the animals and guard dogs that white libs wish they were…..

    white suburban liberal "get angry darkie…dont you know you are oppressed!?"

    black dem – "okays boss we be angry nows yassah!"

    • Questions

      The problem with liberals is that they are anti-white, not anti-black. I oppose liberals, but for reasons 180 degrees the opposite from those given by "anti-racist" chumps on the Right.

      Blacks, I repeat, will never be impressed by conservatives who trumpet their anti-racist cred. All we wind up doing is censoring our publications and think tanks of race realism. We will have done the dirty work of the Left all on our own. The joke is on us!

    • Ghostwriter

      jmz,both you and Questions should be ashamed of yourselves. You,jmz,because you use a stereotypical black dialect that goes back to the 19th century. That was more in the form of "Amos n' Andy" than anything that should be in the 21st century. And,Questions,you sound like a member of the KKK. Blacks are people too,not that you'd notice. You and jmz are just a bunch of vile bigots who attack black people. It's 2012,you two,not 1912. Your kind of appalling bigotry has no place in ANY sort of discussion.

  • piperlord

    Don't know about any of you guys, but I am SICK AND TIRED of these constant aggressors being able to always set the narrative in this country. The Left, once again, always wants it both ways. They MUST be defeated real soon to start – and keep working on 'em til they ain't no more! (election-wise)

    • Questions

      And I thought Breitbart was shrill.

  • janet jones

    obama is an angry man who has found an angry group with which to associate and set the world onfire.
    His white mother took him to be mentored and physically raped by frank marshall davis.
    Take all of our money. Divide us by race. Re-unite us under sharia law.
    Anger toward women. HELLO !!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Void_Moon

    Obama has nothing to be angry about.
    This "inept" fool will be laughing at his good luck, with Secret
    Service protection, and a huge pension, for the rest of his pathetic natural life,
    on a big estate, in Hawaii, no less.

    This may be the biggest scam ever, by a foreign grifter, on the American taxpayer..