What level of compensation for a black man are some liberals okay with?

President Obama’s honorariums and book deals are still in the news. From Daniel Gross:

The news that former President Barack Obama will reportedly accept $400,000 to give a speech to Wall Street investment bank Cantor Fitzgerald has inspired a strange paroxysm of rage from writers on the center-left...

I'm not sure if Gross's omission was deliberate, but some of the hottest and most melodramatic takes have come from the far left. Zach Carter at the Huffington Post penned what could be best described of as a despondent screed:

Obama’s Wall Street payday will confirm for many what they have long suspected: that the Democratic Party is managed by out-of-touch elites who do not understand or care about the concerns of ordinary Americans....Obama refused to prosecute the rampant fraud behind the 2008 Wall Street collapse, despite inking multibillion-dollar settlement after multibillion-dollar settlement with major firms over misconduct ranging from foreclosure fraud to rigging energy markets to tax evasion. In some cases, big banks even pleaded guilty to felonies, but Obama’s Justice Department allowed actual human bankers to ride into the sunset.

Zach Carter’s problem is that the Obama Justice Department pursued settlements and guilty pleas from guilty banksters(1), but Obama didn’t have a Robespierre Moment and guillotine them in Zuccotti Park. Such an argument would (at least) be intellectually defensible, as it does bear (at least) a kernel of truth. But Carter, in his anger, makes the mistake of carrying on to say too much. The mask slips:

What’s most baffling about Obama’s $400,000 payday is the fact that he doesn’t need the money. He and his wife, former first lady Michelle Obama, reportedly received $65 million from Penguin Random House for their memoirs. ... and he’ll receive a handsome $200,000 pension from the federal government every year for the rest of his life. Several generations of Obamas will be financially secure.

Do you hear that? Barack Obama is making too much money. It's not where he's speaking, it's how much he's being paid.

Because there’s simply no logical connection between Obama’s failure to politicize the justice department and jail the banksters (partially true) and Obama’s income as a private citizen after leaving office, we can only conclude that it’s the level of income that is the primary irritant to some on the left.

The egregiousness of Obama’s compensations were enough for even self-professed (lefty) libertarians to object to a private citizen’s freedom to contract:

x

This article does a great job capturing the substantive issues raised by politicians enriching themselves with Wall Street speeches: https://t.co/mZojtXhCcB

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) April 27, 2017

Never mind that:

Obama’s speaking fee of $400,000 is the same fee charged by Larry the Cable Guy. Greenwald himself is comepnsated for speaking and represented by Macmillian. The “Wall Street” Investment Banking Firm of Cantor Fitzgerald was not among the firms implicated in the worst behavior leading up to the crash of 2008. Or, that headquartered in the World Trade Centers, Cantor Fitzgerald saw a loss of 658 employees on September 11, and when you suffer a tragedy like that, being graced with an Obama speech is the least you deserve. Obama, the President who finally established healthcare as a basic right in this Country (on the 44th try), is speaking on the topic of healthcare at a healthcare conference. Cantor Fitzgerald is not even a friend of Democrats, donating to Jeb Bush’s campaign. Obama passed Dodd-Frank, the toughest regulation of Wall street since FDR.

The objection from all liberal corners was thunderous, with Matt Stoller committing the post hoc ergo propter hoc and stating that the least scandalous Presidency in memory was corrupt(2):

x

What can elected Dems do? Condemn Obama? He's loved among the base. Not condemn obvious corruption? That looks bad to voters. Tough.

— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) April 26, 2017

And when faced with caterwauling from the left twitterverse, the only sensible thing for our elected officials to do was open up the circular firing squad. Bernie Sanders took time to condemn the speech (before it occurred). Elizabeth Warren also unfortunately chimed in as well:

x

Audio of Elizabeth Warren saying she’s “troubled” by Obama’s speaking gig/fee https://t.co/xA2m4Hy9zO

— Dave Weigel (@daveweigel) April 27, 2017

So here’s my question: what level of compensation would acceptable?

It doesn’t take much digging to find out that the Intercept is funded in part by by Wall Street dollars, or that Bernie Sanders spent more on corporate jets than any other candidate. But both the Intercept and Bernie Sanders are held up by some on the left as enemies of the elite. John F. Kennedy was already a billionaire in today’s dollars when he ran for President. Franklin D. Roosevelt, the greatest President of the 20th Century and such an enemy to the banks they actually plotted a violet coup against him, was extremely wealthy and part of a political dynasty, both of which we liberals apparently must now loathe. And Warren and Sanders are at least as wealthy as the Obama’s when he was a Senator. This isn’t a criticism of Sanders or Warren. Or the this guy:

FDR yachting with the Astor’s during the height of the Great Recession (1935), as he had done several times before, including before his Inauguration.

So what’s the deal?

What’s so different about the Obama’s?

Critics of this speech will say it’s bad "optics”; Democrats are perceived as out of touch, so a Democrat making a lot of money is bad form.

But optics is just a term ostensibly neutral observers use to justify bias. Optics is purely subjective, and justified per se. Optics is what can make someone who is passed off as a grown man justify the following two tweets twenty-four hours apart:

x

CILLIZZA, LAST NIGHT: We should scrutinize Chelsea Clinton, a personCILLIZZA, TODAY: Let's not jump to scrutinize Ivanka Trump, WH advisor pic.twitter.com/tMeJOrHahm

— Rob Flaherty (@Rob_Flaherty) April 25, 2017

“Optics” is what makes it acceptable for Donald Trump to golf six times in his first month in office, while Obama golfing a fraction of that time was considered a national scandal. “Optics” is what allowed Donald Trump to become one of the fiercest and most tenacious critics of the Obama’s vacation habits, yet shameless vacation on the taxpayer’s dime far more that his predecessor.

Now add in negative media coverage about vacations.

But here’s the problem with liberals buying into “optics”, best summarized by Melissa McEwan:

x

I spend every day covering a pres who won b/c of "optics," only cares abt "optics," & leverages emphasis on "optics" to destroy this nation.

— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) April 27, 2017

Donald Trump is arguing for suspending part of the First Amendment. Seriously. And before you say that it can’t happen, let’s review the past year again. Liberals have precious little media bandwidth to resist, and they’ve spent the past week navel gazing over “optics”.

And the best part of playing the optics game is that Democrats can never win, because “optics” is purely subjective.  Let’s take a politician like Senators Sanders or Warren, both of whom are known to be fierce critics of income inequality and Wall Street. What if they were President? Or a candidate for President? What happens when they vacation under the National spotlight? If Democrats concede that “optics” matter by defending “optics”, they’ve lost the argument. Democrats were slow to learn under President Obama that you can’t accept the framework that deficits matter(3). What constitutes a high deficit is purely subjective. And the minute you argue over what is an acceptable number for the deficit, you’ve lost, because you’re conceding that it matters in the first place, and therefore warrants action (which can always be deemed insufficient). So why is it so hard to resist the framework of “optics”? Because “optics” stems from our internal biases. That's why it wasn't okay for a black President to golf, but it is okay for a white one.

Now before anyone gets upset, I want to make it abundantly clear that no one is saying anyone quoted in this article was motivated by racial bias. People like Carter are champions of economic justice. But no one will also say that we live in a just and fair society, and that biased frameworks affect "optics". By arguing optics, liberals are simply perpetuating these frames.

And lastly, one final quote from Daniel Gross again:

If the only thing keeping progressivism afloat is the virtue-signaling of our best leaders, we’re in trouble.

Our past champions were rich, far richer than the Obama’s, and certainly not pure.

So how hard is it to simply argue for crushingly higher taxes on the rich, instead of criticizing peoples’ income? That's a frame Republicans can't win.

______________________

(1) Wouldn’t that mean Obama prosecuted the banksters?

(2) Corrupt because of something done after the conclusion of the Presidency?

(3) I’ll defer to Paul Krugman on what level of deficit matters and when.