Liberal historian blames Democratic election repudiation on racism

By Tom Quiner

The New Republic magazine is the liberal counterpoint to the National Review.

I happened upon an article they published yesterday titled, “Beyond Hope” where they assessed Barack Obama’s legacy.

The article interviewed five historians to get their views. Here was their set up:

Let’s start with the seismic political reversal that just took place. It’s hard to imagine a bigger shift for America than going from Barack Obama to Donald Trump. The two of them are polar opposites in almost every regard. But now, instead of seeing his legacy cemented, Obama faces the prospect of having his major accomplishments undone. How much responsibility do you think that he himself bears for creating the conditions that allowed Trump to get elected? In retrospect, are there things he could or should have done to protect and institutionalize his agenda more?

Here is how the first historian, Nell Irvin Painter, responded:

Nell Irvin

Nell Irvin Painter

“I don’t think it has anything to do with him personally, except that he’s a black man. The election of Trump was a gut-level response to what many Americans interpreted as an insult eight years ago, and have been seething against ever since. The only way you can see Trump as somehow Obama’s fault is Obama’s very being. It’s ontological.”

So despite the fact that Mr. Obama exceeded the percentage of the white vote that Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, and George McGovern received, and despite the fact that he received the same percentage of the white vote as Bill Clinton, Ms. Painter suggests the recent election is a reflection of racism.

She goes further, suggesting with her Phd word, ontological, that a racist philosophy is the root cause of the country’s revulsion towards the Democrats.

It never dawns on liberal elites like Ms. Painter, that things like economic stagnation, government corruption under the Obama watch, and one foreign policy failure after another has something with to do with Democrats’ fourth straight shellacking at the polls dating back to 2010.

For the record, since Obama’s election in 2008, Democrats have lost some 10% of Senate seats; lost 19% of House seats; lost 20% of state legislatures; and lost 35% of governorships … despite the fact that Obama remains personally popular.

May I make an outlandish suggestion? Perhaps policy failure has something to do with it?

Just a thought, m’am, and please don’t call me a racist for suggesting it.



  1. parrillaturi on December 14, 2016 at 11:30 pm

    Sorry, Ms. Painter. I hold an “Ontological” belief in natural rights, which are not dependent on the laws of any particular government. Having said that, I chose my rights to vote according to my core values. Sadly, Obama does not hold those values. I echo your sentiments, Tom. Policy failures dictated the outcome of this election. Obama beliefs what the media tried to inculcate in our minds, with respect to his so called, popularity with the majority, hence, his admonishment to John Q Public, when he attempted to sway our votes, in Hillary’s direction. His message did not resonate with us. A delusional mind, is nothing but tunnel vision. It sees what it perceives as success, without bothering to see what is actually taking place around it. Great post. Good read. Blessings.

    • quinersdiner on December 15, 2016 at 7:51 am

      Thank-you, sir!

  2. abcinsc on December 15, 2016 at 4:04 am

    So… Obama has been elected by white voters to the highest office in the land, but he remains an ontological victim?

    How convenient, takes credit for anything good happening and assigns ontological racist blame for the bad.

    There’s a whole lot of ontology going on here, and it’s not limited to the white community.

    • quinersdiner on December 15, 2016 at 7:51 am

      So ontologically true! 🙂

  3. d. knapp on December 19, 2016 at 7:38 pm

    She leaves out that whites voted for Obama TWICE! If Obama had been on the ticket, he might have won again. Despite the rotten job he’s done he maintains a high approval rating. Many speak of “liking him”. I just do not understand the whole “liking someone I don’t know personally thing.” Unfortunately, it was HRC on the ticket, and she got fewer black votes (by percentage) than any DNC candidate in memory. If the DNC had not had a coronation for HRC 4 yrs ago, they might have won. Almost ANY good candidate could have beaten Trump. He won b/c they ran someone who was worse than him. It wasn’t racism in white Americans. It was stupidity in the DNC that beat them..