POST-RACIAL RACIST POLITICS
April 4, 2012
Racism in America began a slow steady decline during the 70's. We know this from the decline in the number of incidents involving "white-on-black" crime as well as the dialing down of hate rhetoric on the part of the white community.
During the Reagan and George W. H. Bush Administrations, racism, and discrimination in general, dropped noticeably. More minorities were hired in previously near all-white businesses, hate crime statistics lowered tremendously and only pockets of sporadic hate speech occurred (ironically, mostly in northern and the mid northwest states!)
Coming into the 21st century, America could truthfully be declared "post racial." But the far left, the media and special interest groups would not agree and refused to quell their repeated disagreements.
Enter Barack Obama into the national political limelight.
Since 2007, with then Senator Obama's campaign for the Presidency, through the campaign, his election and now after 3 years in the Oval Office, racism is back to the levels of the 50's only this time, it's not 'white racism.' It's the heated rhetoric being spewed from the mouths of such notorious "leaders" as the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, the Congressional Black Caucus, the New Black Panther Party, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the NAACP.
The hate rhetoric has been "dialed up" a hundred fold and our "Post-Racial President" refuses to jump in and urge calm and reason among the black community. Instead, he subtly, yet deliberately injects his hidden racism into the political dialogue when last week he made his now famous remark, "If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon (Martin)".
Meaning what? Well, it appears that it means one thing to the media and the black community and to the rest, well, they are still trying to figure that one out. The pundits have scrambled to find meaning in the comment, and have advanced many possible theses as explanations.
If the Jackson's, Sharpton's the nine outspoken black members of Congress and the New Black Panther Party are hearing Obama right, the President is saying "my son was murdered, a white man did it, help me out and let's go get him!"
Oh, never mind the fact that the "suspect," George Zimmermann, is Hispanic -- even though he has a white father. The media calls him a "White Hispanic" (first time that phrase was ever used). Doesn't Obama have a white mother? Wouldn't that make him a "white African-American"? No! He looks black so he is black! But wait a minute: Zimmermann looks Hispanic.
You get the picture? It isn't brown-on-black, or minority-on-minority violence we are talking about here. It is white-on-black, and that carries us back to the days of Jim Crow!
Some have chalked up Obama's declaration of Trayvon looking like his son to an old fashioned Clintonesque strategy of milking political gain by showing empathy in the face of personal tragedy. Others have argued that this was a political bouquet tossed to his base of support during an increasingly tough re-election campaign. Still others have dismissed the statement as mere political sound and fury, signifying nothing; an inconsequential remark likely to be forgotten.
A closer look at this statement, and a review of a lesser reported, but no less significant racially tinged comment in recent days leads an unbiased observer to question the good intentions of our unifying, healing, “post-racial” President.
In mid-March, Lovie Smith, head coach of the NFL Chicago Bears, taped a commercial spot for the Obama re-election campaign. Coach Smith characterized the 2012 election as a matter of racial solidarity, stating that Black voters have a duty to actively support the first African-American president. Smith finished his spot with a rhetorical flourish, saying, “Barack, we got your back.”
Consider the divisive nature of a Black football coach urging his fellow African-Americans to support a black president, all in the name of racial solidarity. (The reader might also consider the complete ruination of a Caucasian football coach who would urge his fellow white voters to support Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum in the name of racial solidarity.)
This blatant appeal to race is the type of campaigning that people have grown to expect from the likes of Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.
It is not the type of campaigning people have grown to expect from the cool intellectual, the professor-in-chief, the post-racial President Barack Obama. After all, Obama eschewed Black radicalism and presented himself as a friend of Oprah Winfrey and Whoopi Goldberg, heralding a new paradigm of non-racial politics, didn’t he?
In actuality, the appeal to race is a continuing theme of the Obama campaign style, and is likely to intensify as the calendar turns to November. Let us return to the historical record:
In 2008, the Reverend Louis Farrakhan stoutly endorsed Obama for President, stating that it was “America’s only shot at redemption.” Similarly, during the 2008 campaign, the public became aware of the race baiting and hating sermons delivered by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the future president’s spiritual mentor. It is clear from this record that then-candidate Obama agreed with the proposition that America is, and has always been a fundamentally racist nation.
Seeking to calm the storm after the revelation of the Reverend Wright’s remarks, Obama gave a speech on the issue of race in America, in which he referred to his grandmother as a “…typical White person…” who distrusted and feared Black males.
During this same general period Obama spoke disdainfully of working class Whites as bitter misanthropes “…who cling to their guns and religion.” After his election to the Presidency, Mr. Obama continued to engage in this type of reckless rhetoric. He accused the Cambridge, Massachusetts police of “acting stupidly” when they answered a call involving the celebrated Harvard professor, Henry Louis Gates, Jr. The president attributed racist intent to the responding officers, and belatedly invited them to the White House for a beer, in lieu of an apology.
President Obama’s speeches have always conveyed a certain racial connotation, one in which he seems to indicate his belief that America is a nation conceived in racism, not liberty. In his speech, “A More Perfect Union”, Obama asserted that the U.S. Constitution was an unfinished document, “…stained by the nation’s original sin of slavery”.
During the President’s widely derided apology tour, he regularly listed a catalogue of American sins, many of which could be traced to the root cause of White privilege. Certainly the President earnestly believes that he can open a new era in American relations with the Third World, because he is not stained with the sin of American racism.
If we hit the fast forward button and move closer to today, we can see that the Wall Street Journal headline of March 17, 2010 stated, “Obama’s New Partner: Al Sharpton”. Sharpton is introduced as Obama’s chief ally in marginalizing critical voices in the Black community, and the point man in keeping the base happy, as polls show that Obama commands a general approval rating of roughly 50% among the general public, but Black voters still endorse Obama by about a 96% margin.
What is most important in this development is the fact that Obama is now openly seeking the assistance of the Black radicals he once avoided. This might explain the reason that the President pounced on the Trayvon Martin issue like a cat on a rat, and appears to have accepted a racially charged political endorsement, from an NFL coach. (The National Football League has, as of today, made no official statement on the issue)
Currently, several police and sheriff's departments in Central Florida are on alert, as the New Black Panther Party and several other "special interest minority groups" speak of escalating "peaceful civil disobedience" and "self-defense" courses for all African-Americans. My son, an Orlando Police officer carries his riot gear with him at all times, prepared -- this time -- to ward off racial hatred from people who once were the hated.
Is this a preview of coming attractions? Will the nation see a continuing appeal to racial solidarity coming from an incumbent who claims to be a uniter, a healer, and the herald of a new and improved non-racial politics? More importantly, is this an accurate depiction of the future of the new, post-racial America?
As MSNBC's Ed Schultz said last Thursday, "If President Obama isn't re-elected, the streets of every major city in this country will be filled with bodies and blood." Now I wonder what group of people will start these riots?
We believe that the Constitution of the United States speaks for itself. There is no need to rewrite, change or reinterpret it to suit the fancies of special interest groups or protected classes.