The “racist” angle, going forward

Juan Williams authored a thoughtful op-ed today about how Obama should be judged as POTUS.

If his presidency is to represent the full power of the idea that black Americans are just like everyone else — fully human and fully capable of intellect, courage and patriotism — then Barack Obama has to be subject to the same rough and tumble of political criticism experienced by his predecessors. To treat the first black president as if he is a fragile flower is certain to hobble him. It is also to waste a tremendous opportunity for improving race relations by doing away with stereotypes and seeing the potential in all Americans.

Yet there is fear, especially among black people, that criticism of him or any of his failures might be twisted into evidence that people of color cannot effectively lead. That amounts to wasting time and energy reacting to hateful stereotypes. It also leads to treating all criticism of Mr. Obama, whether legitimate, wrong-headed or even mean-spirited, as racist.

This is patronizing. Worse, it carries an implicit presumption of inferiority. Every American president must be held to the highest standard. No president of any color should be given a free pass for screw-ups, lies or failure to keep a promise.
————
During the Democrats’ primaries and caucuses, candidate Obama often got affectionate if not fawning treatment from the American media.
———

Bill Clinton got hit hard when he called Mr. Obama’s claims to be a long-standing opponent of the Iraq war “the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.” The former president accurately said that there was no difference in actual Senate votes on the war between his wife and Mr. Obama. But his comments were not treated by the press as legitimate, hard-ball political fighting. They were cast as possibly racist.
————-

There is a lot more at stake now, and to allow criticism of Mr. Obama only behind closed doors does no honor to the dreams and prayers of generations past: that race be put aside, and all people be judged honestly, openly, and on the basis of their performance.

President Obama deserves no less.

That would be nice, huh? To be able to judge Obama on what he does and how he does it without being called a racist (if you’re white) or an Uncle Tom (if you’re AA).

Williams has called for fairness and race-free judgment before. He explicitly called on the Obama campaign and the candidate himself to disavow racial campaigning and race-baiting and Larry Johnson quoted anotherWilliams article back in June in the wake of the Rev. Wright controversy.

To deal with this controversy effectively, Mr. Obama needs to give another speech. This time he has to admit to sins of using race for political expediency. . . He has to say that, as a biracial young man with no community roots, attaching himself to Rev. Wright and the Trinity congregation was a shortcut to move up the ladder in the Chicago political scene. He has to call race-baiting what it is, whether it comes from a pulpit or calls itself progressive politics. . .

Mr. Obama also has to raise the bar for how political criticism is handled in his camp. Step one is to acknowledge that not every critic is a racist. His very liberal record and his limited experience, like his association with Rev. Wright, is a fact, not the work of white racists. Just as he calls for the GOP not to engage in the politics of fear over terrorism, Mr. Obama needs to declare that he will refrain from playing the racial victim, because he understands such tactics will paralyze political debate and damage race relations.

Yet not criticizing Obama wasn’t nearly enough as the campaign wore on. Not to vote for him was also racist in a way that could easily be kept hidden. Back in October, NQ talked about the dreaded “Bradley effect” that the media endlessly speculated would be proof that whites would not vote for Obama.

The WaPo says if BO does not win in November, it will be in large part due to racism.

If Obama loses, I personally will feel disappointed, frustrated, hurt. I’ll conclude that a fabulous opportunity has been lost. I’ll believe that American voters have made a huge mistake. And I’ll think that an important ingredient of their error is racial prejudice — not the hateful, snarling, open bigotry that terrorized my parents in their youth, but rather a vague, sophisticated, low-key prejudice that is chameleonlike in its ability to adapt to new surroundings and to hide even from those firmly in its grip.

I particularly object to this part:

And I’ll think that an important ingredient of their error is racial prejudice — not the hateful, snarling, open bigotry that terrorized my parents in their youth, but rather a vague, sophisticated, low-key prejudice that is chameleonlike in its ability to adapt to new surroundings and to hide even from those firmly in its grip.

So a racist doesn’t even have to know he’s a racist? He can hide it from himself and unconsciously come up with fake reasons not to vote for Obama? So anyone not voting for Obama will have to spend the rest of whatever time is devoted to hashing out this part of American history trying to prove a negative.

Trying to prove you aren’t a racist? Just for not voting for BO? Aaaauuuuugggghhh!!!

There seems to be an assumption that Americans, in general, are racist.
———–
Saying racism is the ONLY reason Obama might not win assumes both that Obama is completely unassailable as a candidate and that a majority of whites are unassailably racist in their hearts. Neither is true.
———-

Saying a national election can be lost due to (white) racism indicts a majority of that population before any vote is cast, particularly since no one can legitimately point to exactly WHICH whites would be responsible. So, they’re all potentially guilty. That’s simply prejudice.

Then there was the nice little poem that Rev. Lowery recited at the end of the inaugural benediction:

Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man, and when white will embrace what is right.

Wow. The good will and votes of millions of whites still means whites need to “embrace what is right.” Think the Rev. recited this without it having been vetted? Not on your life. Oh, and to all the “yellow” who need to be “mellow,” I guess that means you’re too uptight. Chill out and stop taking all the top places in schools.

In October, NQ quoted several media pundits maintaining that white racism would hurt Obama.

As this campaign begins its way-too-slow descent to November, I’m seeing more and more “it must be racism” op-eds and articles. If Obama loses – an unbelievable thought to supporters – then the ONLY explanation is white racism. Since Obama is so clearly the best candidate, the theory goes, everyone must realize this and only those offended by his race(s?) would not vote for him. An article at realclearpolitics provides a helpful list of some pundit-speak on this theme.

And it could become a rage the likes of which America has not seen in a long time, if ever. It will first and foremost come from within black America. The deep emotional connection that nearly every black American has to an Obama victory is difficult for even empathetic non-blacks to measure. A major evangelical pastor told me that even evangelical black pastors who share every conservative value with white evangelical pastors, including pro-life views on abortion, will vote for Obama. They feel their very dignity is on the line.

That is why the growing chorus — already nearing unanimity — of liberal commentators and politicians ascribing an Obama loss to American racism is so dangerous.

Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic: “White racism means that Obama needs more than a small but clear lead to win.”

Jack Cafferty of CNN: “The polls remain close. Doesn’t make sense … unless it’s race.”

Jacob Weisberg of Newsweek and Slate: “The reason Obama isn’t ahead right now is … the color of his skin. … If Obama loses, our children will grow up thinking of equal opportunity as a myth.”

Nicholas D. Kristof of New York Times: “Religious prejudice (against Obama) is becoming a proxy for racial prejudice.”

Gerald W. McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, in a speech to union workers: “Are you going to give up your house and your job and your children’s futures because he’s black?”

Clarence Page said on Sept. 24, the “bubba vote” would be a racist one.

What is Barack Obama’s biggest remaining obstacle on his road to the White House? A nationally prominent Republican sums it up in a word: “Bubba.”

Anyway, as Armey implies, Obama fared worse in the primaries with white working-class males and their wives than he did with other identifiable groups of voters.
———–

Yet even Bubba knows something about political correctness these days, so he won’t always tell the truth to pollsters.

Later in Sept, the Sun-Times said Obama’s polls would be even better if it weren’t for whites. NQ had an article on that too.

. . . The issue is really about modern-day “racial misgivings” rather than the straight-up, hate-filled “racism” we associate with hanging nooses of bygone days. Many whites surveyed associated blacks with being “lazy,” “violent” and responsible for their own troubles. Blame these deep-seated racial beliefs for Obama’s inertia in the polls. He’d be way ahead if 40 percent of white Americans didn’t have negative views of African Americans.

Yet, today, after yesterday’s extravagant inaugural, Williams hopes people will judge Obama by his actions and work ethic and innate ability and decisions. No offense Mr. Williams, but that hasn’t been the case to date, and I seriously doubt that will be the case in times to come. Personally, I think opposition to Obama and/or his policies will continue to be framed according to race. Why not? It worked before and a good strategy is used until it stops working.

Way back in June, Mr. Williams said:

Mr. Obama needs to declare that he will refrain from playing the racial victim, because he understands such tactics will paralyze political debate and damage race relations.

Whatever Obama understands or doesn’t understand, that race angle is an awfully convenient way to “paralyze political debate.” Wanna bet it gets trotted out?

Should we start a pool on when the first “opposition to the administration is racist” positions are staked out? If the inaugural benediction still calls on “white to embrace what is right” then I think that’s a pretty good indication that all the good will from whites is still not enough.