Late last week I heard from a theologian of liberal leanings, someone with whom I have been in (often friendly) correspondence for years. He wrote me to voice his objections to my recent “diatribes” against President Obama. That didn’t particularly surprise me. What did surprise me is how he framed his objections. He didn’t take issue with the facts I’ve presented or even my interpretation of the facts. Rather, his concerns were expressed this way:
When I read your constant barrages aimed at the first black president, I think to myself, “Doesn’t Pete, the devout Christian, understand what it took to get to this place? And where would Pete have been in the years of the freedom struggle that finally eventuated in some measure of equality for African-Americans and even a black president?” Isn’t there some way you can temper your attacks on Obama with this history in mind?
In a follow-up note to me, he elaborated on this matter, saying, “The presidency of an African -American is a dramatic symbol of the advances in the struggle for human rights in this country so long denied to black citizens. Unless you have a record deep in the civil rights struggle, relentless attacks on this symbol will be seen as giving aid and comfort to, if not an expression of, the latent racism that is still much with us in this country. That is why criticisms of this president-as-symbol are not to be made in the same way as the conventional political fisticuffs.”
This was, I thought, an instructive, if discouraging, window into the modern liberal mind.
Set aside the fact that this country that is so filled with “latent racism” elected Obama by the largest margin of any Democratic since Lyndon Johnson in 1964 and that he took office with extraordinary good will from the American people.
For the sake of the argument, let’s stipulate that my criticisms of the president are, in fact, entirely justified based on the facts and the record. It would still not matter to him. Why? Because this “president-as-symbol” means he should be held to a different standard than a non-African American. Normal standards of truth, evidence and argument no longer apply. Obama needs to be treated with kid gloves — even if he makes false and malicious charges against others and, in the process, does great damage to our civic and political culture.
To put it another way: the theologian I heard from is insisting that my criticisms of President Obama need to be muted because he is a black man — and unless I have a “record deep in the civil rights struggle” (I was barely out of diapers during the Selma-to-Montgomery marches) criticizing him in the ways I have will “be seen as giving aid and comfort to, if not an expression of, the latent racism that is still much with us in this country.” So there you have it: laying out my philosophical and political disagreements with Obama, in the manner I have, is stoking racist elements in American society — and if I don’t want to be complicit in the rise of racial hatred in America, I need to “temper” my “attacks” on the president.
I pointed out to my interlocutor that (a) being a Christian doesn’t mean one must accept bad arguments and (b) accepting his critique is condescending. He has convinced himself that he is standing up for blacks and civil rights even as he is saying that we cannot treat them as equals. The rules that apply to others don’t apply to America’s first African-American president. Those who are advancing such a view are doing blacks no favor — and I for one cannot believe that President Obama would want to be judged by the color of his skin (which is what this theologian is insisting on) rather than the content of his character and the quality of his record.
The proposition that because Obama is the first black president we should treat him differently than we would treat a non-black is one many of us simply reject. A color-blind standard is of course at the heart of the case laid out by Martin Luther King Jr.
Ten days after President Obama took office, I offered four predictions, the first of which was this one: “while Obama is riding high, race relations will be excellent. But once Obama goes down in the polls and he does things that elicit criticism, be prepared for the ‘race card’ to be played. If it is, then race relations could be set back, because the charges will be so transparently false. If race was used by Obamacons against Bill Clinton, it will certainly be used against Republicans.”
That prediction has played itself out innumerable times since the dawn of the Obama Era. And it’s only going to get worse, as my recent exchange shows.
Our first affirmative action President is doing a very poor job,and P.W.'s analysis is right on target. Obama would never have been elected President if he wasn't black. He has exploited liberal guilt every step of his career,and unlike what most people say it speaks to our collective shame,not triumph, that this Machiavellian manipulator made it to the highest office.
Obama echos Whoopi: he is playing the damn race card. He just happens to be surrounded by a compliant media and constituency working actively to disguise it. n nSanford, Florida is on the verge of eruption, and Obama has his fingerprints on it, along with Sharpton, Jackson, NBC, and the rest. He spoke of his potential son looking like Trayvon (only if you accept a several year old, pre-profanity spewing, bird flipping, self-named no-limit-nigga") image of that candy licking cherub. His appearance in the Rose Garden was unscheduled, used a World Bank rep for four minutes as a prop (Fluke must have been unavailable), and then took what looks like a planted (and single accepted) question on Trayvon and racism to spend one third of this "event" waxing eloquent in what sounded like a pre-scripted talk. n nYet he's portrayed as being so adult, and so above it. Why did Crowley get hammered for doing his legal job, yet our President gets praised when he acts stupidly?
Exactly right.
I have a dear friend, who, like myself, is a christian. To her, any criticism of Obama during the 2008 election had to be based on race. I finally got tired of being accused a racist and sent her a lengthy email stating point by point my objections to Obama – his past associations, lack of experience, and his socialist leanings. I pointed out that the issue most of us had with him was his economic views (today, I would add his racial views, which were not fully apparent at the time, but are now). n nFor me, it was always his economic views. Never because of his race. We had a black Secretary of State, who I adored (Rice), and one who I respected (Powell). I would like to see Alan West as a possible VP candidate, although I due to our current entitlement issues, I would perhaps like to see Ryan. n nIt never had anything to do with race – just competence.
what is the difference between disagreeing with someone because of the color of their skin and agreeing with someone because of the color of their skin … seems to me to be the two sides of a racist coin …
This double standard or soft bigotry of low expectations outlined by your racist liberal theologian is having a corrosive effect on race relations.
Actually, this is nothing new. His supporters and much of the media have been grading Barack Obama on a curve since the day he was sworn in. The perverse logic of affirmative action leads them to treat a man they profess to admoire with the most insufferable condesension. And Obama must realize this. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that from the bottom of his soul, he despises these people.
Thank you for this column. I have received a very similar response from some Christian friends and family members, and as a result I have become more sensitive than ever to suspicions that criticism of Obama must proceed from some racist or other malicious tendency. n nI am becoming deeply concerned, not merely over efforts to brand criticism of this president illegitimate, but by the widespread (and I think increasing) tendency to identify all dialectical opposition as having its source in the raw drive for power. This I think is the outworking of a Nietszschian perspective for which there is no such thing as _logos_ or universal reason, only a universal longing for dominance by the powerful and submission by the less powerful. For those whose minds are–consciously or unconsciously–conditioned by this perspective, it is very difficult if not impossible to accept rational criticism or even acknowledge its legitimacy, because the world simply does not work through reason. Reason is strictly a tool of power in a Hobbesian world in which the enemy is always at the gates. n nIn such a world, genuine rational dialogue becomes impossible. Anything you say can and will be used against you. There are few if any real bridges between political opponents. n nWhat's really alarming about this perspective is that it's been absorbed on both sides of the political spectrum: both left and right have succumbed in various measures to the temptation to exercise power without _logos_. The necessary correlate is that the opposition is demonized, all are dehumanized, and we move ever closer toward the state of nature described in the _Leviathan_. n nWe are desperately in need of recovering _logos_ in thought and language, and demonstrating its integrity and effectiveness on an individual and communal level. A nation (or world) driven by raw power is not the one we want to build.
I wonder if your friend realizes he is displaying the soft bigotry of low expectations. I think you should probably share this observation with him when you get the chance. Meantime keep up the good work shining the light of truth on who is without a doubt among the worst presidents of US history.
The fact that Obama was elected president hardly disproves the existence of much latent racism in American society.
Obama had nearly 70 million votes and won three states that were part of the Confederacy. What's more, McCain and the Republican Party were generally polite to him. For example, once Obama dealt with his connections to Reverend Wright, the story was dropped. If racism were still a major issue, why were there no protests against Obama until a year and a half after he won the election? Could it be that it was about his policies and not his race? Nah, that would make to much sense.
So what would prove it or disprove it for you?r nr nThe claim of “latent racism” (whatever that is) seems to be untestable and unfalsifiable. We eliminated the legal barriers to segregation long ago. r nr nSo what evidence–if it could be found–would convince you that “latent racism” is no longer a significant problem?
Outside of an historical moment, and a political faction obsessed with passionate exhortations of an oppression 2 generations expired – how is something as superficial as the Presidents skin color significant? Does this Presidents skin color somehow invest him with some Virtue that is not possible in other human beings (whether they share his ethnic background or not)? How has this President brought the actual human Virtues of Prudence, Courage and Moderation into practice as a leader? How has this President failed to practice those same actual human Virtues?
Mr. Wehner's points have been fairly obvious since Obama appeared on the public stage. Since that ancient time, about 5+ years ago, Obama has played the role of trail blazer and symbolic victim, to perfection. He has received the most generous treatment by the media in America history. It's creepy really, but nearly 50% of the population still wants to believe he's "The One". If this election is very close it will be the ugliest and nastiest in U.S. history.
The theologian's argument are self evidently bad and your are right. n nWhat interests me is what if any reply you got from him to your arguments put to him.
NOTE to liberals: please refer to the distinction between CONTENT OF CHARACTER V COLOR OF SKIN.
Well it’s worth a thought. Obama may get away with a success on financial system survival and Iran containment and China may remain stable, and we’ll be ok, he'll be re-elected. Or not. Which would not surprise considering he is not actually doing anything helpful for the economy, and tends to buy in to the same universe of misconceptions ('tax the rich' etc) as he criticizes in others (subsidize the heck out of pet projects, but OURS only please').. The business that criticizing a Black President is racist is right up there with considering a man with mixed heritage in skin color, in nationality, and in religious instruction as a child, with an unusual name for this part of the world, must be un-American. n nNonetheless his very election is still worth celebrating for all of us, and some of the attacks upon Mr. Obama remind of those who called Ike a Commie. n
What can i say? Your friend is a gullible liberal chump, and a racist to boot. Get rid of him. Or, at least, treat him how he wants you to treat Obama. Tell him your expectations are lower for him, and if he makes a mistake, well, tell him you forgive him because you know he is mentally retarded. Tell him that, in your mind, he will ALWAYS be held to a lower standard because you don’t want to be seen as “anti-theologin,” nor stoking the flames of the latent anti-theologin racism that grips this country. See how he likes that.
Once Obama, A first Black man to be elected to the presidency by a highly Diversified, while still predominately White citizenry, was, by that election, Certified an Equal in the United States of America, his Race should thereafter be mentioned as frequently as how recently he got his haircut and with no more emphasis than that. Equal is Equal! Anything more and it becomes apparent his Race is to be used as a Crutch, placing him, by his own actions and those of his racial supporters, Back in the Black Victimology Swamp.____So, yes the author is vindicated in his prediction that as soon as Obama demonstrated feet of clay, that he was a mere mortal capable of mistakes (although to this day, none has been admitted), the Crutch comes out of the closet and serves as the thumb on the scale thereafter!
I was afraid that if his presidency tanked that it would set back civil rights to the 60's. Thanks to his interference in Trevon's case and calling Massachusetts policemen stupid, he along with NBC's edit gate are fueling speculative hatred. Dr. King wanted a world where one is not judged by the color of the skin, yet the theologian referenced in this article wants just that. We are supposed to judge the president and give him a handicap because of the color of his skin. Never mind that he is Harvard educated and a millionaire. He cannot do the job as well because he is black??? No, I refuse to do so. The first black Democrat that should have been president was Doug Wilder from Virginia. He was competent. I will judge the Obama presidency by the content of his character and currently it lacks a lot. I thought Bush lied, but he couldn't hld a candle to Obama.
Obama is not an "African-American" in the sense that the term commonly means. He is the son of a white American mother and an upper class Kenyan who was raised competely by the white side of his family. He has nothing in common culturally or ethnically with American blacks, who are descended primarily from West Africans. Further, Obama was raised in Indonesia and Hawaii, and hardly even saw a black person until he went to college. n nHe is not descended of people who were slaves nor did he experience any part of what black Americans experience living in America. Obama is the son of a white liberal family who has consciously adopted a black identity for professional and political advantage. His election was in large part fueled by the symbolism of black America's journey from slavery to the White House. Obama had a historic opportunity to bring America together, instead he chose to pursue the petty politics of division and resentment. In doing so, he has squandered the moral capital that he expropriated from those truly entitled to it.
I don't want to be argumentative but black leaders are holding on to the separateness of being black because it's all they have. The black population in this country has more serious problems than any other racial group. Many black leaders simply demand that we accept that this is the fault of someone, anyone, else.