Once again, as the Obama Administration fall under fire again, the ultimate go-to for Democrats and Liberals has been used. If you disagree with President Obama, and Attorney General Eric Holder, you must be racist. What else could it be?
At least that is the conclusion AG Holder wants America to draw.
Inherent in the words used by AG Holder is a verbal dexterity that is expected of someone at the top ranks of the Government. With just 2 sentences he is able to lay a blanket over a swath of people that may disagree with the policy and actions of the President. He covers them with a title of racist. A term, rightly filled with anger from the trials and tribulations of the 1960's, that since the political correctness movement of the 1990's has been used to end any further discussion upon its utterance.
Except that this is all claptrap. It is a means to silence opposition, to end debate, to force compliance. It is the solution to a problem that otherwise has no positive outcome for the Obama Administration.
Just for a second, consider the ultimate test to determine racism. Take the argument being made and replace the target with a person of the opposite color (or sex, ect). Is the statement/situation still bias? If so, then it is assuredly racist. If not, then it is just wool over the eyes.
Let's try this out.
'There’s a certain level of vehemence, it seems to me, that’s directed at President Bush' - is that racist? Well beyond being accurate, NO. You can substitute any President and the statement will always be true. Race is NOT a factor.
'You know, people talking about taking their country back [from President Bush, or Bill Clinton, or Jimmy Carter]. . . There’s a certain racial component to this for some people. I don’t think this is the thing that is a main driver, but for some there’s a racial animus.' - Still true? NO. Certainly there were and are people furious with the economic and international policies of each of President. Certainly there were people shouting how each president (and literally any president) was destroying some aspect of the nation during their tenure (like in the 60's and 70's). But none of them were about race.
Of course someone will say that's because they were all White. Fair enough. But even at the height of the Obama public opinion, in 2008, Politico noted the study by Stanford University and AP/YahooNews"Race is not the biggest factor driving Democrats and independents away from Obama. Doubts about his competency loom even larger, the poll indicates. More than a quarter of all Democrats expressed doubt that Obama can bring about the change they want, and they are likely to vote against him because of that."
Thus, from day one, negative racial impressions - within Democrats and Independents that President Obama won with large numbers in both 2008 and 2012 - have always existed and have not prevented his Administration from moving forward.
More importantly, the scandals and problems that AG Holder and President Obama are facing have nothing to do with race. Fast & Furious, NSA, IRS, Benghazi, VA, even the massively failed launch of Obamacare are all independent of any implication of race. In each case the issues are solely about the inefficient and incompotent administration of rules and regulations and operation of the Government.
With regard to President Obama's promises to circumvent Congress to enact partisan legislation the President prefers, the issue is with the powers of the Executive Branch. The rulings of the Supreme Court, which the Obama Administration dislikes, are about the power of the Executive Branch. Lastly, for AG Holder, the contempt charges he has faced, and the pressure on him currently is based solely on the performance of his duties and executing the law as it stands.
In each case, ANY President and AG can be substituted for our current ones, and the result will not change due to race. Bad governance is not impacted or decided by skin color, religion, or anything but performance. The failures of President Obama and AG Holder are strictly because they have failed in their duties. In fact, if anything, the media has downplayed their failures in comparison to other Presidents and AG's, arguably due to their race and the fear of being called racist.
But there is one more thing to consider. It is most aptly described by this meme found on Facebook
https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/pr...st-300x265.jpg Is it racism to disagree with the political view of one man, even of color, while you support the opposite political views of several men, also of color?
The groups, alluded to by AG Holder and often targeted by Democrats and Liberals - including Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Nancy Pelosi to name just 2 elected officials of note - that are berated as racist support many people of color. They just happen to hold political views separate of Democrats and President Obama. How does that make their support of political beliefs that are ensured by the 1st Amendment inherently racist? How is it racist when people of color are supported for their political beliefs, while other people of color are not supported due to their job performance? Where does race factor in?
It doesn't.
Ultimately, there is no question that race is a difficult subject for America. Racism, like homophobia, religious intolerance, and other prejudices, exists and affects people across the nation everyday. But, such difficulties are not a factor in the failures of the Obama Administration and its policies. While claiming so may sell newspapers and bring eyeballs to videos, even motivating some parts of the electorate, it fails any real analysis and lacks any proof.
To disagree with President Obama, like any president, is primarily an expression of our 1st Amendment rights and a reaction to the job performance observed by the public. To seek to eliminate valid objections and silence opposition under a banner of racism is a disrespect to the public and our political system.
http://www.mvass.com/2014/07/15/if-y...ell-not-quite/
|
