A number of people have tried to make the argument that Dr. Cornel West's larger critique outside of his attacks on Obama's racial identity were valid. I think this is sort of silly--it's not like you somehow get a pass on birtherism if they argue the president hasn't done enough to address unemployment. But more importantly West's economic critique was pretty light on the substance--it's not like he attacked Obama because he believed financial reform was too timid or because the HAMP program was a total failure at stemming foreclosures. Even here, West just called him a "black puppet of Wall Street oligarchs." Then there's this:
I was under the impression that he might bring in the voices of brother Joseph Stiglitz and brother Paul Krugman. I figured, OK, given the structure of constraints of the capitalist democratic procedure that’s probably the best he could do.
West complains that Obama "feels most comfortable with upper middle-class white and Jewish men who consider themselves very smart, very savvy and very effective in getting what they want." And yet West's recommendations for people Obama should listen to are...two very smart upper middle class Jewish men. Or don't they count as Jewish if West likes them? Maybe Stiglitz and Krugman are "the good ones?" What possible interpretation of these remarks isn't profoundly ignorant at best?
There are many persuasive critics of Obama's economic policies from the left. But you don't get credit just for having an opinion if your reasoning is shoddy or weak. And frankly it's kind of shocking that anyone on the left would defend something that includes reasoning like this.
