Never has America been more assimilated, integrated, and intermarried — as is evident in everything from politics to popular culture, from statistics to anecdotes. Yet from late 2007 to 2012, Barack Obama has been establishing new rules of racial referencing. In general, his utterances follow a disheartening pattern. When he is ahead in the polls, has won an election, and is not campaigning, then he emphasizes the unity of the country. But when he is running for president, or campaigning for others, or sinking in the polls, he and his closest associates predictably revert to charges of racial bigotry, albeit usually coded and subtle. America is redeemed when it champions the Obamas, but retrograde when it does not.
Advertisement
Obama’s race-based strategy is predicated on some unspoken assumptions: Any short-term damage incurred by engaging in racial tribalism can easily be later erased by soaring teleprompted speeches on racial harmony; the media will either not widely report his emphases on race or generally support his charges; a person of color can hardly be culpable of racial polarization himself given the history of racial discrimination in this country.
In a recent speech before a Latino audience, President Obama, in blasting congressional Republicans, recalled that he had run for office because “America should be a place where you can always make it if you try; a place where every child, no matter what they look like, where they come from, should have a chance to succeed.” The obvious conclusion from his increasingly frequent “look like” trope is that his critics predicate success in America on just the opposite criteria. That is, supposedly racist opponents do not wish every child to succeed, and so it certainly matters to them a great deal what Americans should “look like.”
Recently, First Lady Michelle Obama complained about a description of her White House infighting in an otherwise favorable account of the first family, written by a New York Times reporter. She suggested that the book’s criticism was unfair because “That’s been an image that people have tried to paint of me since, you know, the day Barack announced, that I’m some angry black woman.”
Oddly, the first lady did not cite anyone who, in fact, had tried to stereotype her as an “angry black woman.” To be sure, “people” have characterized her as “angry,” given her prominent role in the 2008 campaign, during which she repeatedly found herself in dramas of her own rhetorical making (saying Americans were “just downright mean”; never having been proud of America before the nomination of her husband; etc.). But no one suggested that her overt anger derived from being either “black” or a “woman.”
Again, these invocations of race always raise logical antitheses: Do only those who do not find Mrs. Obama “angry” escape her charge of racism? Second, the race-obsessed Mrs. Obama forgets that outspoken first ladies, especially those like herself who have refined tastes and are political infighters, are always natural media targets. The press savaged Nancy Reagan on topics as diverse as her purchase of new White House china, her reliance on astrology, and her legendary infighting with chief of staff Don Regan. Fairly or not, Mrs. Reagan never quite shook the stereotype that she had roamed the West Wing as a sort of Lady Macbeth with aristocratic appetites — a theme of Mr. Regan’s memoirs. It is likely that Michelle Obama will not either.
Attorney General Eric Holder has often found race a convenient refuge from criticism — most recently accusing his congressional auditors of racism, for their grilling him over government sales of firearms to Mexican cartel hitmen. Again, there is an obvious inference: To the degree that you do not criticize Eric Holder you are not racist; to the degree that you do, you may well be. Holder, remember, earlier called his fellow countrymen “cowards” for not sharing his own particular take on racial relations, as if all of a craven America had now become Barack Obama’s clueless Pennsylvania clingers. In exchanges over his office’s dismissal of voter-intimidation charges against New Black Panther Party members, Holder described African-Americans as “my people.” Again, note the natural corollary once we descend into these racial quagmires: If Holder can talk of his “people,” are those who do not share his racial heritage not then quite the attorney general’s “people”?
There is no 'race' only genetic variations (good for the species). Cultural variations are valid to the extent that they are amenable to societies to which they may or not adhere and there is a reciprocity of perspectives. The only point to 'race' is to continue the political/power/monetary nexus that drives those political anathemas.
America under our constitution, has to the credit of the world, made the case that 'all men are created equal and endowed by their creator.....'
No need to belabour the point. But this administration or any administration need to accept that fundamental truth.
President Obama knows that opposition isn’t racism but he also knows the more time you waste sword fighting that strawman, the less you are stabbing at and poking holes in his failed presidency.
And he gets the added bonus of rallying the base and swaying the clueless among the independent voters.
Despicable and effective, the only people you are going to convince of that are the ones who already know it. So please stop biting at the bait, stop the defensive and go back to attacking his legion of failures..
I wasn’t implying that Dr. Hanson or any readers cannot walk and chew at the same time. I’m merely stating it’s futile to get into the ‘we are not racist’ debate with the Left. Those who know it (on the right, middle, and left) know it. The nutcases refusing to accept it are unswayable. Another commenter stated its worth fighting the good fight to sway the ‘clueless’ but you must know that divisive racial politics in Clausewitzian terms is the Left’s ‘center of gravity’. They protect it so fiercely it’s impossible to penetrate. They will never budge on this. Dialogue is not possible, the Left controls the MSM and play by their own rules (lie, cheat, smear, do anything to vilify your opponent). Any attempt at such dialogue is wasted effort. The effort should focus on the issues the rational among the ‘clueless’ can be swayed on.
All that said…I would love to be proven wrong but if the success of brilliant African American conservative minds such as Walter E. Williams, Thomas Sowell, and Clarence Thomas have failed to dent the liberals racial armor, what good can us mortals do?
You know why know dent has been made? Because there are few out there ready to really debate the issue head on.
Let me be more specific - I know there are people on the right - mostly pundits - who would be ready, willing and more than able to debate the issue and basically clean the proverbial clock of any liberal they were debating on the issue. Presented with the clear facts, I would say that most of America would wake up and say "you're right, the Right is not made up of racists; the Right's policies and political ideology are not racist."
But for sure I know that pretty much everyone on the Left will refuse to have this debate for the simple fact that they know their proverbial clock will be cleaned.
So I think the best way to handle it is to have specific responses ready whenever the race card gets thrown. It's a way to address the issue head on, but then also to say what you have to say and then move back to more pertinent issues.
The more it's done - and done well - the more Americans will wake up and it will become a non-issue except to race baiters who fortunately are few in numbers.
BTW, in further defense of my position, I will tell you this:
I used to be a moderate liberal who voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 (my first election). I didn't fully buy into the "Republicans are racist" meme, but there was still a part of me that doubted them (even though I, too, didn't believe in affirmative action).
Long story short, after 9/11, and after having already abandoned long before that my support for Clinton because he's a pervert, and then for the Democrats after their temper tantrum after the 2000 election as well as their reaction to 9/11, I was a woman without a political party. An independent, as they like to call us.
So I started listening to talk radio and browsing conservative websites. And through reasoned and logical argument, I found myself to be an "independent conservatarian".
So it is possible to convince some people - mostly independent people who really are independent. I would say your average run of the mill American falls into that category and can be persuaded, not necessarily to become a card carrying Republican (GOP is on my list), but to become an independent conservatarian like myself who doesn't buy into any race cards and any race baiting of any kind because now I know the truth.
It wouldn't be an easy thing to do, but just because it's not easy, doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.
Interesting trajectory your arc of awareness followed. I too had a conservative epiphany, I was always anti conservative but never knew why and found I was always mad at the liberal pundits on the Sunday morning talk shows…why can’t the liberals do better? Why do they always really on the emotive when the conservatives were presenting them facts?
Of course now I know that ALL the liberals have is the emotive. They cannot respond with logic and fact because they do not have any.
Over the past 5 years despite my dislike of GWB, I’ve moved over to the independent conservative side just like you. So you are right, if we can do it, so can the rest of America (excluding the hopeless 15% liberal ideologues).
I think that Obama's racial politics *is* certainly one of his greatest failures, and probably (combined with his narcissism) reveals one of his primary character flaws.
Actually, Obama's racial politics is his only great success, keeping us wary, distracted and off-guard as he moves in for the kill, behind the headlines. The definition of racism has expanded to include a tone, a gesture, a glance, and any word in the dictionary, spoken "the wrong way." We are paralyzed and terrified of risking our careers and our reputations with a single misplaced syllable. Everything is proceeding according to plan.
robl, with all due respect, Obama ran on the platform of being a new age uniter. His record on that, as so well described by VDH, has been a complete failure. It should be pointed out.
Obama's base is impervious to logic. The "clueless" independents may well be swayed by a fair and well-reasoned reminder that Obama's "legion" of failures is not limited to his economic ones.
robl, with all due respect, Obama ran on the platform of being a new age uniter. His record on that, as so well described by VDH, has been a complete failure. It should be pointed out.
Obama's base is impervious to logic. The "clueless" independents may well be swayed by a fair and well-reasoned reminder that Obama's "legion" of failures is not limited to his economic ones.
Obama knows, too, that his base loves the race racial issue, whether they're minorities or not. As with other ideologies they cling to, they just can't seem to move into the 21st century regarding race. Only yesterday an angry Minnesota liberal screamed at Michael Medved, in the context of Newt's debate performance, that any mention of food stamps was racist code. Medved let him rant and then let him go saying only that he was obviously an Obama supporter. Holder, and Clinton, told us we needed a national discussion about race. We still haven't had one - at least not on an adult level. Conservatives, of any race, should not shy away from the subject - or ignore it as some here have suggested.
Are you serious? You would actually want a national discussion on race moderated by the likes of Holder and Clinton? That would be akin to suggesting a discussion with you about the "fact" that you beat your wife. The American public has spoken thru actions which indicate that they are not race obsessed as are the left's political types. We don't need politically motivated "national discussions". Here, however, is a suggested topic for discussion. What is the justification for the disgusting plantation mentality on the part of Democrats as directed toward black Americans?
Bob, I was trying to point out that the very people who call for such "dialogues" won't hold them on an adult level. I guess I should have been clearer; I'm on your side.
Fast and Furious is the perfect metaphor for this administration's take on race. This program resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Mexicans. Yet, to the President and Holder, this is no big deal. They never even bring it up. After all, they’re only Mexicans, they're not their "people."
Yet, when I dare to object to this most disastrous of Presidents, his policies and his administration, I have been called a racist.
An article I wrote on racism for American Thinker in June, cost me the friendship of an African American woman, who had been family to me for 37 years. She called me a racist for saying Obama was the worst President ever, and I refused to forgive her for judging me by the color of my skin and not the content of my character.
We recently had a very liberal friend stop talking to my wife over a discussion on the war in Iraq. It seems to me that those who boast how open minded they are turn out to be narrow minded, unwilling to hear another's perspective and accept views that are not their own. I do not wonder why the idea of racism is perpetuated.
Mr. Gensert, your article is spot on. What I'm wondering is why that woman or any person of color wouldn't be upset that the 'first black president' is en route to destroying the greatest and most fair country that's ever existed.
I think that anyone who brings up race at all is a racist. Mr. Obama, his wife, Mr. Holder and their associates have all demonstrated how racist they are against Caucasians, which by the way includes people of Spanish descent. They can't care about people from Mexico if they sell automatic weapons to the drug cartels that are destroying Mexico. They must be bigoted against Mexicans.
I am inclined to agree with that, particularly if it's a close race & accusations start flying about voter fraud.It'll be a case of Dubya & the hanging chads all over again.
