Candace Owen’s RłPS Into Øbama & Exposes This Little Lie | HO
In a recent exchange, Candace Owens, the conservative commentator, boldly dissected the current state of American politics, particularly focusing on the waning influence of Barack Obama within the Democratic Party.
She starkly criticized Obama’s role in shaping the party’s modern trajectory, emphasizing his contribution to identity politics and what she described as the stoking of racial divisions. In her view, Obama’s influence has significantly diminished, especially in light of the growing discontent among traditionally Democratic voting blocs, like working-class Black Americans.
Candace Owens didn’t hold back in her critique of Barack Obama, accusing him of being one of the primary figures behind the push for identity politics that, in her opinion, alienated large segments of the electorate. She argued that Obama, often hailed as the epitome of hope and unity during his presidency, played a pivotal role in fostering racial divisions instead of healing them.
Owens’ criticism extended to Obama’s behavior post-presidency, asserting that his celebrity endorsements and public interventions now seem increasingly out of touch with everyday Americans.
Owens contended that Obama’s persona—shaped around the idea of unity and transcending racial divisions—was exposed as an act. She pointed out that Obama’s privileged background (having grown up in Hawaii and Singapore, attending elite schools) was at odds with the struggles of many African Americans.
This, according to Owens, left Obama’s attempts to “connect” with Black communities feeling patronizing and hollow. She argued that when Obama campaigned for candidates like Kamala Harris, the public, especially Black voters, saw him as out of touch, and his efforts only reinforced the idea that he was no longer the unifying figure he once was.
Owens’ remarks come amid a broader political shift in the United States. The election of Donald Trump in 2016 marked the beginning of a populist uprising that continues to disrupt the political establishment. Trump’s rise to power, against all odds, is seen by many as a direct response to the perceived failures of the establishment, which included figures like Barack Obama.
What Owens and others like Patrick Bet-David (in a separate discussion) argue is that the Democratic Party, under Obama’s influence, became too reliant on identity politics. This focus on race, gender, and other demographic factors alienated working-class voters, particularly Latino and Black men, who had traditionally supported Democrats.
The Democrats’ embrace of what Owens calls “woke liberalism” became a turnoff for these voters, who began to feel that their economic interests were no longer being prioritized in favor of cultural and social issues.
One of the key points that Owens made is that Obama’s political capital is rapidly diminishing. Once the face of the Democratic Party, Obama no longer holds the same sway he once did. While he may have been a rock star in the political world during his presidency—frequently appearing on talk shows, enjoying celebrity endorsements, and even considered by many to be a symbol of racial progress—his influence appears to be fading.
Owens specifically cited Obama’s attempts to rally Black voters during the last election cycle, questioning the authenticity of his efforts. She suggested that Black Americans, particularly those in urban communities, are no longer responding positively to Obama’s message, as they feel disconnected from the experiences of his privileged upbringing.
In the current political climate, Obama’s interventions seem less like a rallying cry and more like an out-of-touch nostalgia act. The increasing rejection of elite endorsements, from celebrities like LeBron James to Obama himself, illustrates a broader rejection of the traditional political establishment.
Owens and Bet-David both assert that the political landscape in America has fundamentally shifted with Trump at the helm. In a sense, Trump’s success has marked the end of the era dominated by political elites like Obama. The rise of Trump and the Republican movement that followed represents a break from the political establishment.
The concept of “America First” and a populist approach to governance has resonated with large swathes of the electorate. In contrast to Obama’s focus on social justice and identity politics, Trump’s rhetoric, which emphasized economic nationalism and cultural conservatism, appealed to voters who felt abandoned by the Democratic Party’s embrace of progressive policies that seemed to favor minority groups over working-class Americans.
Owens and other commentators argue that the next 20 years could belong to the Republican Party if it capitalizes on this shift. According to Patrick Bet-David, the GOP has a deep bench of talented and influential figures—Donald Trump, JD Vance, Laura Trump, and even figures like Don Jr. and Charlie Kirk—who can sustain the party’s influence for decades to come.
An interesting angle to the debate about the decline of Obama’s influence is the impact of technological change, especially social media. The rapid dissemination of information has allowed for greater transparency and the exposure of political figures’ hypocrisies. In this new digital age, it’s easier to dissect and challenge politicians, particularly those who built their careers around identity politics.
Candace Owens and Peter Thiel, a prominent tech billionaire, both argue that the era of identity politics is fading, in part due to the ways in which technology has facilitated information-sharing.
Social media has made it more difficult for figures like Obama to maintain a façade of unblemished virtue, and moments like Kamala Harris’ changing accents, which seem contrived to appeal to different audiences, are exposed more readily than ever before. As Thiel suggested, the way forward may require a period of “truth and reconciliation,” where both politicians and the public can openly confront and address the errors and failures of the past.
Looking to the future, Patrick Bet-David emphasizes the importance of maintaining a skeptical and paranoid attitude within the Republican Party. This is a reference to the ongoing unpredictability of political dynamics, especially as Trump’s second presidential bid looms. However, he also speaks optimistically about the GOP’s prospects in the coming decades.
The Republican Party, according to Bet-David, has an impressive roster of potential leaders and a compelling narrative that appeals to the broad electorate. He sees the party’s message as one that could unify and sustain a coalition of voters, drawing from working-class Americans, ethnic minorities, and even disillusioned former Democrats. His confidence stems from the party’s newfound ability to harness populist sentiment while continuing to build a more inclusive and practical vision for the future.
Candace Owens’ dissection of Barack Obama’s political decline highlights a broader transformation within American politics. As the country moves away from the influence of figures like Obama, who helped cement identity politics as a cornerstone of modern liberalism, the rise of populist conservatism is creating a new era of political engagement.
The Republican Party, with its growing bench of leaders and its appeal to a more traditional, class-based form of politics, may very well dominate the political landscape for the next two decades. However, this new political era will require transparency, reconciliation, and a commitment to addressing the underlying issues that continue to divide the country.
