The myth of white racism

Editor: Is Obama in the position of Jackie Robinson, needing only tolerance from bigoted whites in order for his genius to prevail? Such was the implication, intended or not, of a Dan Haley column in the Denver Post 8/26, with which I sharply disagreed. Below, my colleague Ken Davenport deflates a far more blatant version of the same fallacy, this one from Jacob Weisberg. Of related interest is John Dendahl's post earlier this week (scroll down on our home page) flagging an important National Review piece about the darkly race-colored glasses with which the "real" Barack Obama views America and the world, according to his own autobiography.

Ken Davenport writes:

The Wall Street Journal highlights in its editorial today a quote I've read often over the past few days. It's from a piece by Jacob Weisberg that appears in the current Newsweek -- that supposed "mainstream" newsmagazine. Weisberg says this about the possibility that Obama might lose the election against John McCain:

Only some "crazy irrationality over race" could prevent Mr. Obama from winning the White House. If he does win, America will have reached post-prejudice Nirvana. "If Obama loses, our children will grow up thinking of equal opportunity as a myth," Mr. Weisberg continued. "To the rest of the world, a rejection of the promise he represents wouldn't just be an odd choice by the United States. It would be taken for what it would be: sign and symptom of a nation's historical decline." Wow. Vote for Barack, or America is as irredeemable as many foreigners believe.

Wow is right. According to this narrative, a common one among Obama supporters, the sole reason that Obama might lose is because he's black -- and the fact that he's black should be a primary reason to vote for him in the first place. It makes little logical sense, of course -- to say on the one hand that he's the victim of prejudice and then to say that prejudice is a perfectly good -- even necessary -- justification to elect him. But so goes the emotion-powered politics of the left.

We know, of course, that racism is being practiced in this campaign -- but it isn't white racism. Its black racism, aided and abetted by a core of guilt-ridden whites like Jacob Weisberg. Blacks voted for Barack Obama 90:10 over Hillary Clinton in the primaries not because they had analyzed the Obama platform and policies and preferred them over those of Hillary Clinton, but because of the color of his skin. Period.

Obama is, in fact, largely where he is today because he is black, not in spite of it -- though as Geraldine Ferraro found out, you can't say that out loud even in today's America. So sensitive are we to even the suggestion of race that we simply can't be honest about it. And neither can Jacob Weisberg -- who suggests that America is so backward still that if Obama loses, it will be a sign of our nation's "historical decline". Oh, please.

I believe that white racism in this country is largely a myth. Yes, I admit that it still exists in the deep south to some extent, but not to the degree that the left says it does. As the Journal points out:

Virginia elected a black Governor two decades ago, and Illinois has had two black Senators. America has had two black Secretaries of State, and major corporations are run by black CEOs. No other Western democracy has done as well at opening up political, business and other arenas to minorities.

The truth is that white racism is part of an Obama narrative that is designed both to mobilize whites into casting "guilt votes" to prove our "progressiveness" as a culture, and to inculcate Obama from criticisms of all kinds and on all issues. Part of the lasting bitterness of the Hillary Clinton supporters is that every time Clinton tried to hammer Obama on policy, his supporters subtly trotted out the race card to blunt her attacks. Now that McCain is attacking Obama on taxes, energy policy and national security, you can bet that they will again be trotting out the "racism" charge against McCain in an effort to intimidate him.

It won't work, because McCain -- like an increasing number of Americans -- understands that the stakes are simply too high in this election to avoid a serious evaluation of Barack Obama on the merits. McCain knows he hasn't a racist bone in his body, and he will not be falsely bullied into changing his campaign to one of softballs and cream puffs, though the left will try and force him into just such a move. He will persist in hammering Obama on the issues and on his (lack of) experience, and will be justly rewarded for it -- because Americans instinctively know that this country is not "racist to the core". A racist nation would hardly nominate a black man for the nomination of the Democrat Party, would it?

Perhaps Jacob Weisberg should take off his own shroud of guilt and consider this: Is it not possible that if Obama loses in November it will be because he is simply not qualified to be President of the United States?

Barack's great deception

In 1995, Barack Obama published an autobiography that has sold like hotcakes and helped make him and his wife quite wealthy people. Titled Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, Obama's book got rave reviews, just like the national address he delivered in defense of his 20 years following the spiritual leadership of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. I wrote at FamilySecurityMatters.com about the Wright speech when it was delivered back in March. Now a writer with the pseudonym Michael Gledhill has written a devastating comparison of the Barack Hussein Obama appearing in Dreams and the one now appearing regularly on your TV screen and about to be officially the Democratic Party's candidate for president. It is titled "Who Is Barack Obama?" and can be found in the September 1 print issue of National Review and at this link.

Numerous analysts of Obama's writing and speechifying have noted the same strength and weakness: well-formed rhetoric pleasing to the eye or ear but lacking substance. Dreams is full of substance -- but little or none that a patriot would recognize as suitable background for a U.S. senator, let alone for someone aspiring to lead our country as its president.

Just like his wife Michelle, the Barack Obama of Dreams was a bitterly race-conscious person with a high dislike for the United States. Or in the concluding words of Michael Gledhill, "Dreams from My Father reveals Barack Obama as a self-constructed, racially obsessed man who regards most whites as oppressors. It is the work of a clever but shallow thinker who confuses ideological cliché for insight – a man who sees U.S. history as a narrow, bitter tale of race and class victimization."

I am reminded of the supreme irony of the demeaning remarks Obama recently leveled at Justice Clarence Thomas. In contrast to Thomas's, Obama's youth (as well, by the way, as that of his America-hating pastor Wright) was Easy Street. As an intellectual and patriot, neither Obama nor Wright could carry Thomas's briefcase.

Change we can shudder at

In watching a biography of Obama on Fox News, I was struck by the mindset the man has. He has no economic training, no desire to be part of the “establishment”. More likely, he wants to be the Hugo Chavez of America. Though he pays lip service to “bringing people together”, what I can read between the lines is hatred of “the rich” and of “white people”, the two groups somehow melded, in the same way many see all black people as poor. His having an epiphany at a Jeremiah Wright church service is the case in point. Rev. Wright’s views are well known.

The logic (perhaps subconscious) of Obama's call for a “Civilian National Security Force” becomes clear: it will become an officially sanctioned armed mob of the have-nots to prey on the haves. The same thing happened in South Africa when the blacks took over there. They called it “affirmative shopping”.

To Obama, with little economic understanding, the economy is a fixed pie, and it’s time for black people to seize a bigger slice. In Obama’s eyes, this is “justice”, defined as “equality”: equality NOT equal opportunity! All one has to do is look at Venezuela to see where Obama might take the United States.

The tragedy of course is that it will push the country toward chaos and poverty. The economy is NOT a fixed pie but an elastic one. The capital flight and contraction in the economy will bring massive unemployment and an unprecedented economic downturn, shortages and lines for basic necessities.

True to the Venezuelan model, Obama could then blame “greedy businessmen” for the situation, holding kangaroo courts, making examples, etc., blaming everything and everyone except himself and his policies.

Bashing Bush won't help Dems

As Democrats begin their convention in Denver, you will be surprised to learn that John McCain has already chosen a running mate: George W. Bush. It has become the new talking point that voting for McCain amounts to “four more years of Bush”. When Joe Biden gave his first speech last Saturday in Springfield, Illinois, as the new vice Presidential choice of Barack Obama, he said of McCain: "You can't change America when you know your first four years as president will look like the last eight years of George Bush's presidency." Since Obama's disastrous trip to Europe and his poor performance in the Saddleback Church debate he's been in a slide, with polling for the first time actually showing McCain ahead. As it becomes increasingly apparent to the American public that the emperor is wearing no clothes, the strategy has started to shift. The first element on this change is the Biden selection, which was made to placate critics who have pilloried Obama for his foreign policy gaffes and lack of substance. Obama needs an attack dog so he can stay above the fray, looking like the post-partisan candidate he is pretending to be. Biden will do that role well, though the public will quickly tire of his verbosity. And already, according to Gallup, the selection is not expected to help Obama in the polls.

The second element of the new strategy is to run against George W. Bush. This is understandable, since McCain's approval rankings are far higher that the president's -- who is still mired somewhere in the 30% range. Obama has now wagered that he can tar and feather McCain with Bush's problems -- energy prices, housing and, since Iraq is going well, Afghanistan. The success of the surge has reduced the importance of the Iraq War for the average voter, who now believes that we will win. The theme that Obama is now sure to take is that because of Iraq, we took our eye off Afghanistan -- and we're losing there. It will be a hard sell.

In any event, we'll be hearing a lot about the McCain-Bush ticket and the "four more years of failed policies." It's a neat try, but it won't work for the following reasons:

1). Though Bush's approval ratings are low, it is a mistake for Obama to assume that polling data show the real story. Approval polls are notoriously difficult to administer, and are frequently wrong. When Harry Truman had a 37% approval rating in April 1948 the pollsters were certain he was toast, and that Dewey would be shoo-in in the November election. What the approval rating didn't show was that in radically uncertain times -- in that instance, a post-war economic slump, an ascendant Soviet Union and a fragile Europe -- the electorate often rejects uncertainty and change. This is particularly true with choosing a president, who is above all else, the nation's commander in chief. And, while Bush has a low overall job approval rating, his "favorability" marks are much higher. In a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll taken August 15-18, 2008, 45% gave the president either a "Very Positive", "Somewhat Positive" or "Neutral" rating. (Source:PollingReport.com.) It is thus no gimme that running against George W. Bush in the 2008 election is going to succeed.

2). The Bush record is actually quite positive in many areas, despite the constant criticism from the left. The facts speak for themselves: Since 9/11, the Bush presidency has been defined by the threat of Islamic terrorism. His domestic and foreign policy has been geared toward protecting the homeland from further attack, while destroying terrorist networks and their state sponsors. Since 9/11 we have not had another attack on U.S. soil. We have destroyed the Taliban, deposed the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, and dramatically eroded Al Qaeda's infrastructure and leadership capabilities. The war in Iraq -- though poorly prosecuted in the beginning -- has turned around, and if progress continues at its current pace, will prove to be a resounding success, creating a democracy in the heart of the Middle East. The economy grew steadily over the first six years of the Bush presidency, and many of the primary problems today -- housing and energy -- cannot be blamed solely (or primarily) on the President.

I would argue against the conventional wisdom that being associated with George W. Bush is an anchor around the neck of John McCain -- and he should use the McCain-Bush comparisons to his advantage. He could do so by communicating effectively the tremendous success that the Bush Administration has had in the war on terror, and place the blame for the mortgage mess and the failure to expand domestic oil production on Nancy Pelosi and Congress where it belongs. He should do what Bush himself cannot -- be an assertive advocate of the record.

If McCain were smart, he'd run toward George Bush and not away from him.

Ironies in Jackson puff piece

"I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man." So said Dr. King on the day before he was murdered in 1968. The quote appears in a photo caption with today's long, largely uncritical piece on Jesse Jackson in the Rocky. Jackson is seen next to King in that picture. M. E. Sprengelmeyer does a pretty good job of recapping Jackson's epic gaffe from this June when his raging jealousy and resentment of Barack Obama burst out in a comment (unknowingly recorded) about wanting to "cut his nuts off." But the article would be better journalism had it given us those four exact words, instead of the delicate euphemism the writer substituted.

Sprengelmeyer also fails to acknowledge the dark side of Jackson's 40-year career as a race-guilt hustler, with all the vast personal enrichment, prestige, and sexual license which are now uncomfortably contrasted with Obama's moral uplift speeches -- and which face extinction if America elects a black President.

That's the real source of Jesse Jackson's hot-mic indiscretion. Unlike MLK, he's worried about plenty, and he fears one man very much. Hence the castration fantasy. CNN's question to viewers a few weeks ago, quoted by Sprengelmeyer, "Has Jesse Jackson become irrelevant?", is in process of coming true with Obama's nomination, and will take hold with cold finality on Nov. 5 if Obama wins.

Another irony in this fawning three-page spread on Jesse the Great cropped up in the sidebar on lessons he allegedly learned from patching up a welfare-reform dispute with Bill Clinton at DNC 1996: "Set aside differences while the television cameras are on, deal with internal squabbles later." Bet he was wishing he'd taken his own advice on the Fox set, after the firestorm broke earlier this summer.