For nearly four years, criticisms of Obama’s policies, lack of business experience and Marxist proclivities have been labeled as racists attacking him because he’s black. And, of course, he has done nothing to defuse those ridiculous allegations. But let’s flip these allegations over for a moment.
If a white man with no business experience of any kind, on any level, were elected president and his economic plan increased government spending, increased government intrusion into private business and increased taxes on the so-called rich – what would criticism of him be because he is white? If this same white president employed failed Keynesian economic strategies, which resulted in his increasing our total national debt more than the first 41 presidents combined, in less than three years of his first term in office – would criticism of him be because he is white? If this hypothetical white president were driving us off an economic cliff from which economists say there is no return, would criticism of him be because he is white?
If, in less than his first full term, this hypothetical white president, increased food-stamp spending 100 percent – would calling him “the food-stamp president” be because he is white or because he is a dismal failure? If the increase in defense spending and transportation spending accelerated 11 percent each in his first three years, if Medicaid spending increased 27 percent in his first three years, and if food-stamp spending increased to $110 billion in his three first years would calling him “the food-stamp president” be because he is white? If food-stamp recipients increased by more than 14 million people in his first three years, raising the total number of recipients to more than 46 million, would disapproval of his economic policies be because he is white?
If this hypothetical white president’s white wife took lavish vacations, went on over-the-top spending sprees and behaved in ways that were categorically inappropriate – would criticism of her be because she is white? If millions of jobs were lost under this white president, if millions of people became unemployed under him, would criticizing him be unfair because he is white? If the true unemployment number under her white husband was above 10 percent for 40 straight months, would criticism be unfair because he is white?
If the white hypothetical FLOTUS spent $50,000 in one afternoon at one of the most exclusive, exotic lingerie shops in the world and spent $15,000 a day to use the same makeup man Oprah Winfrey uses – would condemnation of her be because she is white? If this hypothetical white FLOTUS falsified travel documents, fraudulently listing her daughters as “senior advisers” so that American taxpayers (millions of whom are unemployed) would be responsible for footing the bill for them – would criticism of her be because she is white?
When this essayist harshly and continually criticized President George W. Bush for his spending, for his determined efforts to have amnesty for illegal aliens, for his Medicare Prescription Program, for No Child Left Behind and for his “highway bill” – to mention just a few – was it because he was white? When we threatened to withdraw our support of him if he did not curb his spending, was it because he was white?
I could go on and on, but I’m sure you get my point. Everything Obama has been criticized for, I would criticize a white president for, and so would practically every other journalist who felt about these issues as I do. And my record shows, it wouldn’t matter if the president were Democrat, Republican, white, chartreuse, male, female or a frog – so why would it matter if they are black?
The truth is that it doesn’t matter to most people, nor should it matter to the rest. Race is simply the tool used to bludgeon the opposition into silence. Specific to that point, if we are racists for legitimately criticizing the Obamas, what are the very same people who called Condoleezza Rice racial epithets but never criticized her work? Just what should they be called? What do you call those who viciously malign Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas with every conceivable racial epithet known, not because of his judicial decisions, but because he dares to be a black conservative?