Promoted from the old blog from September 8, 2010 but relevant to last night’s SOTU address.
In any honest debate, both sides of a proposition are presented and examined and independent minds then judge which side presented the most compelling argument. The two sides are called by many names, for/against, positive/negative or thesis/antithesis. This is the basic structure for a high school debate, debates in Congress and should be something that we follow in our current socio-political discussions.
Being a person disposed to conservative philosophy and opposed to many of the policies of the Obama administration, I am very familiar with the charge that I oppose him “just because he is a black man”, that I am a racist and a bigot. Republicans and conservative positions and arguments are casually dismissed by the Left as illegitimate because they claim that the people making them are racists and bigots. This premise can’t be factually supported because there are mountains of evidence of conservative disagreement with Liberal positions, all the way back to the formation of the modern conservative movement in the late 1950’s. Opposition to the policies of Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton – and even Bush 41 and Bush 43 are legion…and even though Toni Morrison famously declared Bill Clinton “America’s first black president”, all these guys were/are genetically and painfully Caucasian.
For sake of this writing, I want to assume that the only possible reason that we oppose the President is that he is black, that our opposition is purely racial and for absolutely no other reason.
Why would I make such a ridiculous assertion? I do simply for the sake of argument. Asserting this thesis allows us to critically examine the antithesis. As proposed earlier, in a true and honest debate, a thesis has to be opposed by an antithesis. If we accept race as the only point of discrimination (choice) of a position, the thesis in this case would be that all Conservative/Republican opposition to the President can only be because he is black. If we accept that thesis, a reasonable antithesis would be that all Liberal/Democratic support for the President can only be because he is black. I believe that this is a legitimate point to examine.
Is it possible that a significant number of people voted for this president, not based on qualifications, policies or even his rhetoric, but based solely because they were enamored with the idea of having a black president? Was the elevation of Barack Obama to the highest office in the land more about a political movement (Liberalism) taking advantage of decades of race baiting and white guilt and the self righteous, selfish, narcissistic smugness of voters who chose feeling good about themselves over what was good for the country? I believe that there can be a strong case made that the answer to these questions is an unqualified “yes”.
It is apparent that the bloom is off the rose. Buyer’s remorse has set in. Indicators are
- The President’s polls have cratered since his inauguration, falling from an approval of 65.5 percent to 46.4 percent (Real Clear Politics poll averages).
- In polls taken this past week in Ohio, George W. Bush outpolled Obama 50/42 by PPP (a left-leaning pollster)
- Gallup found a historically large advantage of 10 points of Republicans over Democrats in the generic congressional ballot.
- Based on exit polling from 2008, Obama garnered 52% of the independent vote; in July of 2010 a poll showed that only 38% would vote for him now.
- Supporters from both sides are openly questioning their support – ranging from Mort Zuckerman on the left to Peggy Noonan on the right.
Ask yourself what qualities have been publicly given for Obama’s ascendance to the Presidency – proponents stated:
- He is brilliant!
- He is a rhetorical genius – so much better than that simpleton Bush!
- He is post-racial! Finally we can now have that conversation about race that we have been avoiding!
- He is a healer! No more of that nasty partisanship!
- He is a legislative genius! I mean, he was a Senator after all…
How are we doing on that scorecard?
- Obama is smart but there is no evidence that he is more intelligent than I am. Robert Weissberg of the American Thinker writes, “In a nutshell, the American public was lead astray by conflating outward appearances — “he seems so smart” — with underlying substance — “he is so smart.” What we saw wasn’t what we got… Recall that Obama’s demonstration of intellectual talent beyond a knack for self-expression never occurred…That Obama advanced the prestige academic ladder — Columbia then Harvard Law — without a public paper trail, moreover, only suggests help from affirmative action and sympathetic professors determined to help him to succeed. As for his two autobiographies, reasonable doubts exist about his personal contribution. The possibility of ghosting aside, however, even semi-literate celebrities can “write” books thanks to “as-told-to” co-authors hammering incoherent prose into shape.”
- Obama’s rhetorical skills are largely a result of his use of a teleprompter, even Chris Mathews of MSNBC agrees – “You go to a meeting with him I’m told, businessmen are invited to meet him at the White House, he hauls out the d*mn teleprompter, and he reads it to them. The teleprompter is a problem for this guy. I think it’s his menace”. To further this point, Weissberg continues, “Begin by recognizing that this facility (smooth rhetoric – ed) is relatively unimportant in many fields supplying America’s leaders. Especially in the military, “talking a good game” is far secondary to courage, sound decision-making under duress, tenacity, leadership, understanding human nature, and an ability to organize complex endeavors with limited resources.” Good point…
- Post racial? Race is everything. It is used to hammer and silence opponents – racism! The DOJ declined to accept a default judgment against the New Black Panthers, the DOJ is currently pressing three separate lawsuits for “discrimination” against the State of Arizona, the Maricopa County sheriff, Joe Arpaio and the Maricopa County Community College District – anyone but me think that this is all in retaliation for SB1070?
- This is the most partisan presidency and congress in history. The axis of Obama, Pelosi and Reid has conspired at every turn to ignore and demonize the minority and to use every arcane procedural tool to ram legislation through the process along party and ideological lines.
- Democrats have been told not to talk about Obamacare or financial reform in the mid terms. Democratic House candidates are running away from Obama and this legislation. They have instituted legislation that even they admit that they didn’t read, didn’t know what was in it, how to implement it or what it really costs. From Weissberg again, “Skill at legislative logrolling, drafting well-crafted legal briefs, years of adeptly administrating an organization and similar traditional politically relevant skills were similarly never in evidence. His legislative record was virtually non-existent; at most he was an above average skilled Chicago political operative in a world of hundreds with similar talents.” Hardly genius stuff here… those 143 days of experience in the Senate is really paying off for the President.
After this, what is left to insulate the President from criticism? Nothing but the race card…
We are all familiar with the visions of strength and competence of a black president created by Hollywood. Morgan Freeman (Deep Impact), Danny Glover (2012), Dennis Haysbert (“24”) are all African American actors who have helped to condition society for the election of a non-Caucasian president. People will say, “Well, this is only Hollywood fantasy” but it appears to be an indicator of a high level of societal acceptance of the idea of this eventuality. These movies and TV series were highly successful, and in the case of “24”, were critically acclaimed. They weren’t protested, no boycotts were initiated, and their creative concepts were treated as commonplace. “24” was almost universally supported by conservatives and seen by many as a “Republican” TV series because it reflected the feelings of most Conservatives about terrorism. In 2007, Newsweek’s Devin Gordon wrote: “Depending on your perspective, ’24’ is either a neocon sex fantasy or the collective id of our nation unleashed.”
We are now seeing that Obama could be our first (and hopefully last) “affirmative action” president. I’m sure that I will be excoriated for that statement but it is a provable fact that affirmative action has abandoned its propose as an avenue of opportunity and a repudiation of racial inequality and has become a statistics based quota system more attuned to assuring “diversity” and equality of outcomes rather than creating opportunity. We should no more make a slow, vertically challenged white man the starting center for the Lakers anymore than we should make a black man an astronaut who isn’t a scientist, an engineer or a pilot, simply because whites or blacks are “under represented” in these classes. While it might make us feel good about our egalitarianism, doing either would create disaster.
In 2008, a group of Liberal/Democratic political opportunists and their co-dependent, low self-esteemed, narcissistic partners elected a Hollywood vision of a black president, someone strong, wise, fair, competent, driven by what is best for the country and proud of America, a man who was strongly and visibly pro-American and willing to stand firm on his beliefs, one who was smart and articulate and capable of representing the country on the world stage to our benefit. Since that isn’t what we got, the evidence would seem to indicate that his success was because he was black and presented a political opportunity for the Left, not because he was qualified.
People supported Obama to claim power and to attempt to assert a false moral superiority over those of us who voted against the man, his policies and his vision, not his skin color. Borrowing from Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s fall is because those “chickens are coming home…to roost.”