Obama and the Democrats are proposing the largest expansion of government since FDR’s New Deal. Their government-run healthcare system would cost more than any social program to date. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the plan would send our already sky-high national debt to unsustainable new levels. Citizens would be forced to surrender more of their income to supplement those who can’t afford health care or simply don’t want to pay for it. Free market choice would be significantly stifled and government bureaucrats with no knowledge of patients’ conditions would be making personal medical decisions from 3,000 miles away. So, why is Obama facing so much opposition? Obviously, it’s racism.
If you couldn’t taste the sarcasm in my last statement, I’ll pause to allow everyone to catch up and gather their thoughts.
Now that we’re on the same page, does anyone else detect a distinct aroma of absurdity? The left’s golden boy is facing major opposition for the first time of his life. Obama skated through the political battlefield his entire life, winning primaries and general elections while opponents either dropped out or faced massive political obstacles. Look it up. And in 2007, he rose to popularity at a time when Republicans were at an all time low.
But, now that Obama faces his first political slap in the face, the left has pulled out their secret weapon, one that they’ve kept tucked away since Obama came on the scene. In a nutshell, here’s the message: If you disagree with a liberal president who happens to be half black (but also half white), you are a right-wing racist. The concept is so ridiculous, it’s almost inarguable. But I’ll give it my best shot.
Not long ago, the health care debate was about, well, health care. It was about how much the public wants or does not want the government to run their lives. But, as soon as Al Sharpton heard there was fight involving Obama, he began to hint at how some are still ‘uncomfortable’ with a black president. Then, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee told the media that some people don’t support government run health care because the President ‘looks like’ her.
Then CNN and MSNBC picked up their microphones and went into battle. They started asking guests if race was an underlying reason for the opposition. Never mind that this battle raged on long before anyone knew who Barack Obama was. But, that doesn’t stop anyone in the news from throwing ‘racism’ around like the catch phrase of the week. And it has spread like wildfire ever since.
Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, however, wins the award for incoherent argument of the week (as she often does) for her article ‘Obama Opponents Can’t Accept a Black President.’ No Maureen, opponents can’t accept Obama because they’re OPPONENTS OF OBAMA. By her title, I can infer that she must be arguing one of two things: (1) that Obama’s opponents oppose Obama (ya think?), and Obama is black or (2) anyone who doesn’t support President Obama’s policies is a racist who doesn’t like any blacks at all. Then, Dowd goes on to say that when Rep. Joe Wilson yelled ‘You lie!’ at Obama, she heard ‘You lie, boy!’ So, what I gather is that, in addition to her inability to craft a philosophically logical title, Maureen Dowd has paranoid schizophrenia that projects nonexistent words into her ears.
I use Dowd as an example of the gross paranoia plaguing the American left at the moment. Something with no racial tone, overtone, undertone, or side tone somehow becomes a racial attack because we have a President who happens to be black. I, for one, am proud that our country was able to elect a black man as President. But that becomes tainted when race is infused in every issue. Martin Luther King Jr. dreamt of a day when men would ‘NOT be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.’ Crying ‘Racism!’ at every turn does nothing but move further from that goal. I disagree strongly with Obama’s healthcare proposal, because of the plan itself, not because of skin color of the man who presented it.
I fully understand that there is a large element of racism in this country; whites toward blacks, blacks toward whites, and the list goes on and on. Did this play a part in the 2008 election? Absolutely. I recently had a ‘wise’ and ‘highly educated’ college professor point out that 9 of 10 white southerners voted for John McCain. I didn’t check this statistic but I took him at his word. But, his wisdom conveniently faltered as he failed to mention that over 90% of blacks, nationwide, voted for Obama in 2008. So, would Obama have won by a greater margin had he been white? Probably not. He likely would have lost votes. So, does racism play a part in politics? Yes, but it plays heavily on both sides.
But calling someone a ‘racist’ because they disagree with a policy, that happens to be proposed by an African American, is nothing but a scapegoat. It is scapegoat for a failing plan that proposes the most radical shift in American capitalism we have ever seen. Why would anyone be surprised that there is heavy opposition to the policy? But then again, why would anyone be surprised that some members of our society would be quick to infuse racism in the most unrelated of issues.
As I wrap this up, let me just remind everyone that Bill Clinton, while he was renting the White House, tried to pass the same legislation that Obama is attempting. It was met with the same opposition, if not more. So, tell me this… Was America, then, just uncomfortable with a white president from Arkansas?