Jason Whitlock's letter to Barack Obama

I cannot defend Whitlock's decision not to vote. That's the only aspect of the column that I have a problem with, but I have a huge problem with that.

If you are old enough to vote and you don't, I don't think you deserve to have an opinion on politics...

 

Sure. If both choices are unpalatable, you vote by not voting.

 

No, Simon, he said he NEVER participates. Ok, this year, if you hate all 3 candidates, that's one thing (but still wrong not to participate), but to never join in? Sorry, you start to sound like Charlie Brown's teacher to me once you open your mouth.

 

There are some reporters that spend most of their time covering presidential elections. I've heard some of them say that they don't vote for president because they want to avoid and appearance of conflict of interest (I guess it's their equivalent of cheering in the press box).

Of course, that doesn't excuse Whitlock because it sounds as though he avoids elections altogether.

 

Jason why do you hate America?

 

Exactly. As soon as I read "I’m a nonvoting, casual observer," I closed the link. I hate to be the one to say it and risk coming off being racist, but more black people than ever will vote this year ONLY because of Barack's skin color.

PS, I lied, sort of. I read the two graphs after the nonvoting part, and I laughed at this: "Without a unifying force, it’s my concern that we’ll never recognize and embrace ideas, policies and investments that will keep American culture ahead of its competitors."

THEN I closed the link.

 

If people write in Mickey Mouse on the ballot, why can't you write "none of the above"?

 

That may be true. I was merely pointing out that he does not come down on the side of black people on every issue. Far from it.

 

You do realize that is the key to Whitlock's popularity, right? He appeals to middle-age, white, suburban men.

 

I haven't liked either presidential candidate in the last two elections, but you still should vote... He talks about Obama should say how great America is, but if Whitlock feels that way, why doesn't he vote?

I liked the column, but the more I think about this, the more it bothers me...

 

That is true. Sort of like Howard Stern, though, he also has a huge following of people who hate him but want more fodder to rip him with. Most of that group, I would say, fits in the 18-34 group. Still, they read him.
He's got a massive niche, and when he writes stuff like this, he can easily fill both sides of the street.

 

I gotta tell ya - the amount of navel-gazing on this thread even throws me for a loop. <i> Where should it run? How should it run? What is the proper layout? What's the role of a sports columnist? </i> Sheesh. You know Whitlock's precious goods; he's starred on Oprah. File it under "star treatment" and proceed to the content while we wait for the inevitable letters to editor that questioned the column's propriety in the toy section.

My take on the column is thus: Instead of critiquing Obama's speech in some (or any) detail, he labels it as "typical." Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but Whitlock never proves it either way, unless you think he does so, indirectly, by his own letter/speech. He blows off, what, 3,000 words, with "eh, typical."

Beyond that, let us consider this paragraph:

<i> "This is a pain that only victims of parental abandonment can know, a pain that has caused me to write diaries and books trying to subdue it. It’s a pain that led me to Rev. Wright, a relationship with Jesus Christ and an association with a church that taught me many of the things my father should have." </i>

This is a fairly presumptive, Maureen O'Dowd impression at best, and total psychobabble horseshit at worst. Obama's a brilliant guy, whether you like his politics or not. You don't think he worked <i> anything </i> out sans Daddy? You're laying the guy's salvation at the altar of no Pops?

Talk about navel-gazing. Obama's on the cusp on something pretty extraordinary given the history of this nation, and Whitlock's trying to fill the hole in his heart and, by proxy, preach yet another lesson on the importance of the nuclear fanmily?

If anything's political, it's this column, which seeks to redirect, again, a national conversation about racial harmony toward some deontological discussion on black responsibility. Both discussions are valid but they're not the same. Whitlock routinely devalues the first - devaluing blacks in the process - by suggesting his race's apparent failure in the second precludes any other conversation, period.

Whether it's truly failure is questionable, whether said failure is relegated to one race is dubious, and whether it precludes other discussions is foolish.

But, of course, Whitlock routinely travels onto the turf of the first conversation - that's what his Barry Bonds material is all about. Which is why I accuse him of playing both sides against the middle; he wants to indict everybody, weigh in with a position on everything, and erect his own little utopia where everybody keeps it real and honest and whatever else it is radio talk show hosts try to con their audience into believing is a virtue.

As an intellectual position, it ain't bad. It's effective sophistry because of his bar stool, blue collar, "hardest working man" attitude. And he's staked out his position quite well. The arguments, to me, just don't wash.