Racial Psychodrama
Twelve years ago, the most popular man in American political life was an African-American — Colin Powell. A four-star general who had served as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and as national security adviser, the Brooklyn-born Powell had presidential timber written all over him. A number of leading Republicans — Bill Bennett and Jack Kemp leap to mind — talked him up at the time. New Hampshire polls of Republicans in 1995 showed Powell leading the pack. Powell declined to run and Robert Dole got the Republican nod that year, ultimately losing to Bill Clinton. Exit polls suggested that Powell would have defeated Clinton by 50 to 38. (I did not climb on board the Powell bandwagon because he was insufficiently conservative for my taste — a judgment that has been amply vindicated.)
It's important to remember this history lest the ascension of Barack Obama to the presidency be interpreted as evidence that "only now," 45 years after Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech, is the nation ready for a black president. Yes, it's wonderful that we're ready now. But it's equally or more wonderful that we've been ready for a long time. We've had two black secretaries of state (not that the Republicans who appointed them get any credit for that), black CEOs of major corporations, black TV stars like Oprah Winfrey advising millions on how to live with integrity (as she sees it), black radio hosts (on all sides), black movie stars, black doctors and lawyers and teachers and astronauts. Yes, segregation and racism were facts of life within living memory, but this country set its face against that history hard and fast and almost completely. It has been for so for my entire life.
I'm proud of my country for living down its racist past. And pace Michelle Obama, there has been a lot to be proud of — even in that category — for a very long time. What is less admirable is the sycophancy one sees among some. Shelby Steele has identified the tendency among some whites to seek "racial innocence" at the hands of blacks, and we certainly saw it in play throughout the drama of Obama's campaign. "Bargainers," Steele explains, "make the subliminal promise to whites not to shame them with America's history of racism, on the condition that they will not hold the bargainer's race against him. And whites love this bargain — and feel affection for the bargainer — because it gives them racial innocence in a society where whites live under constant threat of being stigmatized as racist. So the bargainer presents himself as an opportunity for whites to experience racial innocence." Some whites are so pathetically grateful for this bargain that they quite lose their heads. Instead of being truly beyond race, and treating African-American candidates exactly like everyone else, they demonstrate their continuing racial consciousness by shameless toadying.
Something like that afflicted the press during this election year. Nothing would be permitted to impede Obama's victorious procession toward the White House. He was a green first-term senator? We won't mention that (even when we decry Sarah Palin's lack of experience). He skirted 130 decisions, voting present, during his time in the Illinois Senate? No problem.
He broke his promise to accept public financing of his campaign? Just evidence of his fundraising "prowess" (AP) or ability to "set records" (New York Times).
Early in his career, he was listed as a member of the socialist New Party? New Zealand papers picked up on it. Didn't make it into our major media. He supported the most extreme abortion agenda of any candidate in modern American history and then lied about it? Not relevant. He enjoyed close ties with ACORN, a group that is facing criminal charges of vote fraud in a dozen states? Yawn.
As for his thoroughly repellent associations with Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, and others, it was considered very bad form to mention them. Even John McCain refrained from raising the Wright issue for fear of having his "racial innocence" compromised.
As a result of this racial psychodrama played out in our national politics (among other reasons), we are now about to have the most left-wing president in history. We can only hope, for his sake and for the country's, that his left-wing positions were adopted out of expedience, not conviction, and that President Obama will decide that success requires him to tack to the center.
To find out more about Mona Charen and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
|
 |
Comments
|
5 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
When Obama discusses becoming your President he's not thinking about what he is really
going to do for you, only what you can do him and his pockets, which are very deep. His
plans to raise Capital Gains and Corporate Taxes. Do you think companies will be hiring
when Obama gets through with his ‘tax & spend?' I don't think so? Obama has no
background in balancing budgets nor does he care? What he's really saying is he will add
trillions of Taxpayers' money to an already depressed economy! Politicians have been
borrowing from foreign countries to pay for these already failed projects by establishing
more programs and a health care government program that will be the icing on the cake
thus bankrupting of America!
Look at the hundred thousand people at his 'parade', spending Taxpayers' money! Look at
almost 2 years he traveled around the country, burning up millions of Taxpayers' money. Do
you think he was thinking of saving Taxpayers' money for America's future! I DON'T THINK SO!
IT WAS ALL ABOUT BARACK OBAMA!
Common sense should tell you, the Taxpayer, that all this spending could have been put to
good use, like paying off debts, feeding the poor and homeless, and putting people back to work!
“FAIR TAX” AND “CHANGING VOTING LAWS” should be top Priority before December, 2008! This is
Taxpayers, of all races, solutions to eliminating property taxes, public schools, colleges, pet
projects, housing projects, welfare, public health, people living off system, and non-profit
organizations.
Does anyone know what will happen to America when interest isn't paid? Do you recipients
of these social and welfare programs actually think you're going to be able to continue
having illegitimates and continue living off social and welfare programs since you've elected Obama?
Your vote for Obama was for the wrong reasons!
Bailouts of Fannie, Freddie, and AIG” is another catastrophe! Since 1977, all politicians,
CEO's and so-called managers should be made to pay all these billions, as this isn't
Taxpayers' responsibility. The politicians took it upon themselves, like all other failed
programs, to take care of themselves and their buddies, rather than looking after Americans.
Taxpayers know that politicians should only get $12,000.00 yearly. These positions were
supposed to be occupied by public servants, not a lifetime of drawing big salaries,
retirements, freebies, trips around the world, and offices all over America. Amazing!
Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out this deep recession and the trillions of dollars
of debt (and growing each minute) is definitely not going to be solved until the following critical
issues are put into law to protect America!
"Fair Tax", to include property taxes, "Change Voting Laws", "Eliminate social and welfare programs", "Eliminate the 'good ole boys clubs' that plagues politics", "Eliminate non-profit organizations (these people have lived off Taxpayers long enough)", "Eliminate all Lobbyists""Send the 'Tax & Spend Politicians' to foreign countries where they 'took it upon themselves to send America's jobs!" These people shouldn't be allowed to return to America!
WAKE UP AMERICA BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!
It's past time to give America back to everyone paying their ‘fair share' of taxes!
'DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HARD-WORKING TAXPAYERS NEEDS TO COME TO AN END!'
Comment: #1
Posted by: Shirley deLong
Fri Nov 7, 2008 4:57 PM
|
|
|
|
Ma'am;...Race is one way of looking at life, and conservatism is another... Neither is particularly accurate in telling you what is right, who is right, and what is effective... Each is like an ideal, a moral form, which is only as good as the good it does for people... So what is the good of conservatism, as a form??? What is the good of racism, as a forrm??? You look through your form and you see humanity in a certain light... It makes you feel confident in your judgements... Can you judge your judgements???Can you think critically of your forms???? I mean, if the form we were talking about was a particular scientific theory, then experiments could lend certainty to them or dispell them for good... How do you test your moral forms???To me the only test is the good that comes out of them... What Aristitle said: That good was the goal of government because it was the goal of all human activity is true of all our forms... The form of government is no different than the formof economy, or ultimately, the form of production, or the form of shelter that people have... It is always the best they can concieve, and never the best possible... It is the conception, the form itself that holds people back frrom progress, and they progress when they can exchange an old form for a newer and better form... Conservatism is a form suggesting no change is needed, that the past was better than the future, and that no change is better than any change... Might I suggest, that as a form, conservatism is wanting... Yet it is also a form of relationship that works for a specific group of people who have something and fear change will snatch it from them... As a way of seeing the world it is blinding... As a form of relationship it may not be worse than any other, or more unatural, because all people are naturally conservative... The thing is, when many many people feel the need for change, and a handful use a moral form called racism, or conservatism to justify not changing with others, then the forces of change, which are natural as well, go nose to nose with conservatism until something gives... Worry about that... Some times change will not be denied... If you folks say don't change, and it causes us to suffer a great military defeat, or if the economy goes so far south so fast that people end up starving in the streets, it is going to mark every conservative... Is it worth hanging onto to a failed form when all of life shows it cannot be justified??? You do not have to make a religion (another form) out of natural bodily functions... Nor would it make sense to make a religion out of denying natural bodily functions... Change is a natural condition of mankind, and if forms cannot change, or will not be allowed to change, they all the sooner become history... Give up your failed forms... Think about how to relate informally with humanity... It may learn you some essential survival skills....Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #2
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Fri Nov 7, 2008 7:03 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Shirley deLong; Ma'am,... If you consider that the top 1/2% take in more wealth that the whole bottom half in this country, it might be a clue to you that income, actually, wealth inequality is the problem... Now, we have survived periods of time when the top income brackets paid a ninty percent tax... All that meant was that people lower down the economic ladder were not saddled with so much tax... Some one has to pay the price of government. Military and police together take a huge part of the budget, and no rich person seriously wants to be without those... The thing is, what should be obvious to you: that the government is broke, and the people are broke, and the rich are flush, and there is mutiny in the crew, -should lead a normal person to consider that a little reassignment of wealth is in order... The rich can afford to live with less, and the poor can take no less... Further, their title to their property and their wealth is no better than the ability to government to defend their title... If the government is shot, they are in trouble... That is why they pay taxes, because government defends their rights, but if they choose to not pay their defenders, and do not support their goverment with money while one without money must defend the government with his life, then sooner or later their non paymment of their dues will cut them out of society all together... Now, you know, and I know that they don't need government... They have as many private police as there are public police... In addition, they actually own the army, and can call on the army to defend their wealth even if the rest of the government falls... I guess that means we could be in danger of some Caesar... In fact, so long as we have paper money, they don't have any thing to pay their troops but the property they could just as well pay their taxes with... We could make all their money worthless tomorrow if we choose. So, I don't know why they are pushing the game toward an inevitable bad end when it could go on indefinetly if they would string it out... Ma'am, do you know why??? Is there some rational reason other than greed why they will not pay for the society they benefit more from than anyone??? Do you suppose they want to drive this people into a perpetual servitude??? Remember this saying from Europe, when the Swiss used to provide mercenaries to all the nationsat war... Pas L'argent, pas le Swiss... No money, no Swiss. If the rich expect the government to defend their wealth, they must pay the government for the act....Thanks.....Sweeney
Comment: #3
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Fri Nov 7, 2008 7:49 PM
|
|
|
|
Two thoughts on your column. First, I was in Arizona a few months ago and happened to strike up a conversation with a man I have known since the early 1970s. He is Caucasian and in his mid 70s or so. The conversation naturally migrated toward the upcoming fall election. Most of the conversation was civil and went back and forth between McCain and Obama. The one thing I remember most about the conversation was the man's last statement to me: "But he's a nigger." Nice to see racisim in the US is dead and buried!
Second, I loved your last paragraph about moving to the center. Although I too support more of a centrist position, I find it odd that you can seemingly ignore the past eight years: unheard of debt and deficit spending, an ultra right wing society that believes it knows what is best for everyone else, one of the most corrupt administrations in our history, an arrogant and amoral vice president. I could go on...... The Bush presidency is the reason that I refuse to call myself a Republican any longer, a person who has never registered as a Democrat in the past, I might add.
Comment: #4
Posted by: John Carroll
Sat Nov 8, 2008 8:11 AM
|
|
|
|
Ms. Charen-
I am in an English AP Language and Composition class and for the past few weeks each person in our class chose a columnist to follow (pre-election). I noticed a pattern that in the five columns I annotated of yours, you mentioned something about Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac. What is their significance to you, and why, for this one column, were they not mentioned?
p.s. I enjoyed your point of view on this column- interesting take.
-Chelsie
Comment: #5
Posted by: Chelsie G
Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:36 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Author’s Podcast
|
