Liberals have a racial answer to everything they find inconvenient about our president.
Liberals really are a single-minded lot: In their view, the only possible explanation for a person hoping that Barack Obama loses his next election is racism. All things political are analyzed through a filter of skin color, putting today’s left directly at odds with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream that his children “will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”
Conservatives might argue that leftists are hypocritical on this score, that they are judging Obama by his skin color and judging his critics by what they perceive to be the content of our characters — based on nothing but our opposition to a far-left president who happens to be black.
But what they are demonstrating is not hypocrisy, it is projection. Liberals assume that since race is so important to them, it must be equally important to the rest of us, that it must, if you’ll pardon the pun, color our every political thought. This is of course particularly true of the liberal elite who suffer deeply from what Hayek termed the “fatal conceit,” a symptom of which is believing that all intelligent people must think as “Progressives” do — and that all people not intelligent enough to think as they do are suited to be ruled by them.
The moral yardstick for the American left is now “the color of your character.”
To liberals, when it comes to non-leftist critics of Barack Obama, the fact that many of us are not black means little less than that we wish the South had won the Civil War.
But when the subject is Barack Obama, the fact that his skin is black (despite his mother having been white) trumps all; nothing that our president does or says reflects any conceivable flaw in character, intellect, wisdom, or even policy.
As most of President Obama’s fundraising seems to come from Hollywood and Manhattan, two opinions from the former are instructive as to liberal, and particularly black liberal, thinking. In an interview with Ebony magazine in February, actor Samuel L. Jackson made clear the depth of his political analysis: “I voted for Barack because he was black. Cuz that’s why other folks vote for other people — because they look like them.” Project much, Samuel?
Apparently Mr. Jackson forgets that in the 2008 election, by getting 43 percent of the white vote, Barack Obama did better among whites than any Democrat had in more than three decades. Presumably few of those roughly 30 million white voters who cast ballots for Obama did it because they thought he looked a lot like them.
And on Thursday, actor Morgan Freeman — desperately seeking a way to give race-centric liberals like Mr. Jackson a political indulgence in the unlikely event that reality inclines them against voting for Obama again — told NPR, after noting that “[Barack’s] mama… was [a] very white American,” that Obama “[is] not America’s first black president — he’s America’s first mixed-race president.” I suppose this means we are allowed to consider half of his failures.
Who would have thought that melanin is to economic incompetence what Teflon is to cooking incompetence — though only for Democrats. Thus, the left explains black conservatives like Congressman Allen West, Kevin Jackson, Larry Elder, Dr. Alveda C. King, Star Parker, and Herman Cain as some combination of idiot, sellout, and race-traitor. (Examples here, here, here, and unfiltered, cask strength stuff in first comment here.)
In other words, black Democrats are right because they are black but black Republicans are wrong because they are Republican.
The left lives in an Orwellian world of racial Doublethink:
To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. [George Orwell, 1984, Part 1, Chapter 3.]
Although it is most obvious when liberals disparage conservative blacks, their response to any criticism of the first black president (apologies to Bill Clinton) makes plain that while there are bad apples in all parts of society and politics, the Democratic Party is the true home of racism in America — as it has been for most of the years since the Ku Klux Klan was founded as the earliest Democrat community organizers.
I was reminded of this in a more-personal-than-usual way several days ago when during my radio show, back-to-back liberal callers accused me of being xenophobic and racist.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?