Misleading claims of racism muddy policy debate

Despite the best wishes of Americans, the society that was the first in history to declare that “...all Men are created equal...” is still a long way from being race neutral. While our classless roots, legal equality, and general social acceptance of ethnic and racial diversity demonstrate genuine progress, it appears that the race issue is still a handy tool for manipulation of public sentiment and the justification of official favoritism.

Race is again being pushed into the limelight of public debate, often in the hands of disingenuous commentators, who are using it to confound dialogue on issues that are already complex and volatile enough.

The media coverage of the 2008 Presidential elections illustrated a strategy by which race was used as a distraction from critical issues. Obama’s nomination and election was celebrated as a milestone in American race relations. It was heralded as a giant step towards a color blind society. The mainstream media blathered on about their darling, celebrating “the first black American President,” actually making Obama’s color a more prominent issue than his character, his politics or his agenda.

Some were insightful enough to notice that this approach was an inversion of Dr. Martin Luther King’s reproach to judge people, “...not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” By making Obama’s race such a dominant issue in the media, we merely distorted rather than discarding the loathsome tradition against which Dr. King fought. In 2008, it was the President’s “blackness” which absolved him of the dispassionate character analysis to which our leaders must be subjected.

In the present, there is a lively, if not heated public debate over a number of policies which are being foisted on the public. Among them are:

• The outrageously bloated 2010 budget which blithely acknowledges a $1.2 trillion deficit;

• A carbon tax that will explode the cost of every service, product and commodity used in America, thereby crippling our economy while having no impact on global carbon emissions;

• The nationalization of our health care system, that will ultimately make the state the sole provider of everything from regular checkups to cancer treatments – and whose costs will inevitably inflate without some draconian form of rationing.

Obama joined the race-baiting fray by stating that his Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, was selected specifically because of her “empathy,” rather than her jurisprudence. Sotomayor fed the racist flames by saying, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman...would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male...” as if gender or race has any bearing whatsoever on the strict interpretation of the Constitution – a document that assures equality under law as the sole, indispensible basis for impartial justice.

As regular citizens take to the internet, the airwaves, and the streets; or march on DC and attend town hall meetings to express their justifiable anger over these hasty and frightening developments, the mainstream media irresponsibly fans the embers of racism, for reasons that cannot rightly be labelled responsible journalism.

When bumper stickers are sold that urge people to pray for Obama, including the bible reference of Psalms 109:8, everyone (including yours truly) has to weigh in. So far I have read nothing from anyone who is willing to engage in a rational assessment of the use of this scripture in this context.

Cliff Albright of The Examiner takes the predictably disingenuous approach of most liberal apparatchiks, by implying that anger at Obama is restricted to slack-jawed racist yokels. To add undue legitimacy to his faulty assertion, Albright employs a Supreme Court quote related to the Dred Scott case, “...that a Black man has no rights that a White man is bound to respect.” To his credit, Albright has the decency to point out that the quote is 160 years old – hardly an accurate indication of the mood today (unless race baiting is your goal).

Cathleen Falsani of USA Today takes a less hysterical approach, writing, “Whether it's clever, funny or downright dangerous is a matter of opinion. Clearly, though, it's certainly not very nice.” Falsani recommends that if people want to pray for Obama, they refer to 1 Timothy 2:1-2 which reads, (NIV):

“I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone;
For kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.”

So what does The Psalmist write in 109:8?

May his days be few; may another take his place of leadership.
May his children be fatherless and his wife a widow.
May his children be wandering beggars; may they be driven from their ruined homes.
May a creditor seize all he has; may strangers plunder the fruits of his labor.
May no one extend kindness to him or take pity on his fatherless children.
May his descendants be cut off, their names blotted out from the next generation.
May the iniquity of his fathers be remembered before the Lord; may the sin of his mother never be blotted out.
May their sins always remain before the Lord, that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth.

The first thing of which to remind ourselves is that much of what is written in the Bible is intended to be allegorical. While this perspective is not held universally, many would agree that among the author’s of the Bible, David was one of the most symbolic. Taking that into account, this verse can be applied, not to Obama and his family personally, but rather to his ideology and its adherents. Consider how this verse applies instead to Socialism (of whom Obama is currently the principal advocate) and its disciples (those who promote or seek to personally benefit from Socialist policies).

In this context, the verse is not only an appropriate prayer, but should also be the fervent wish of every rational, moral, lover of liberty and the American Ideal. The tried and true strategy of socialist advocates has been to confuse reasoned debate with emotion. This is their only viable strategy since reason always reveals the lunacy of their agenda. They claim victimization by the natural hierarchy of aptitude. They promote need as superior to property rights. They insist that equality of outcomes holds eminence over equal protection under law. Ultimately, Socialists win by undermining the objective merits of reason, logic, morality, integrity and prudence, with the decay of envy, fear, greed, shame and misplaced compassion.

Lest the racist label of public opposition to Obama’s policies confuse us, let’s remind ourselves that in 2008, the black man won – quite handily. Also, a number of polls have indicated that Obama, as a person, is generally liked by a comfortable majority of Americans – that majority includes mostly white people. But in polls that query voters about Obama’s policies, his numbers drop precipitously.

If we are to continue our progress towards a color blind society, shouldn’t we hold the race baiters on the left to the same scrutiny with which we successfully resisted the supporters of Jim Crow and school segregation? It is no more rational or just to employ the race card against decent white people who demand a voice in policy decisions than it is to use it to keep racial minorities silenced.

The fight for genuine equality and impartial justice that began in 1776 is still being waged today. As a natural result of that fight, African slaves were freed and their progeny have won equal lawful standing with Americans of European descent. Any prejudice Blacks currently endure can in no way be justified as being of an official nature.

However, there still exists a minority whose rights have received the least official or media support. The rights of this minority have been assailed, circumscribed and usurped at every turn – mostly at the hands of opportunists who have used racism as grounds to expand government intervention in private affairs. The most abused minority of all has been under assault for all the years since our founding.

That minority is the individual.

It is time to take to our collective bosom, the most maligned, abused, ignored and disenfranchised demographic in our society. When the individual receives the same public defense, media focus and official protection as the arbitrary, divisive demographics employed to pit us against one another, then race, culture, ethnicity, gender, disability, income and sexual preference will finally be retired as grounds for special treatment – whether preferential or prejudicial.