Rice and Obama: the practical lessons
Condoleezza Rice’s statement that the United States has a “birth defect” because of slavery, and that her own elevation to secretary of state shows the “progress” that has been made and that partly overcomes America’s historic evil, though of course the progress can never make America right given that racism is America’s birth defect, raises rational concerns about the place and qualifications of blacks and women in high political office.
The grim fact is that the “nice” and “conservative” Rice and the “nice” and “post-racial” Obama—the very best that black America has to offer—have revealed themselves as unappeasable anti-Americans. This is true about Rice, because the “birth defect” of racism that she smugly attributes to America can never be cured, meaning that contemptuous remarks about America coming from high government officials such as Rice are justified forever. And it is true about Obama, because (as shown here) he has said that America deserves to be the object of the vilest, Rev. Wright-style hatred until America achieves a racial equality which cannot be achieved on this earth, meaning that vile America-hatred is justified forever. Based on these disturbing revelations about two black persons raised to unprecedented national prominence, there are reasonable grounds for a rebuttable presumption that any black person harbors a profound anti-Americanism, and that a black person in high national office will use that office to undercut and put down America.
Similarly, as a result of Rice’s endless glorification of her career success as the personal proof of American “progress” and “virtue” (meaning that America is only good because Condoleezza Rice is secretary of state), by which she makes own preening and smiling self, rather than America, the focus of admiration, there are reasonable grounds for a rebuttable presumption that a female in high national office will be motivated more by female vanity than by devotion to the common good.
From the above considerations I derive two practical proposals:
Look at the vague, indefinite way Scott of Powerline deals with Rice’s remarks, in the last three paragraphs of this blog entry. Obviously he’s trying to suggest something negative about what she said, but doesn’t want to come out and say it. All he does is link Michael Ledeen’s critical article on Rice at NRO, without indicating anything about what Ledeen actually says.A reader writes:
If anyone thinks that blacks will improve their image of America EVER, think again:Another reader writes:
Wow! Ledeen gets Condi on her victimhood stance. I am surprised. I thought no neocon or con would ever say anything really critical of a Bushie.Mark Jaws writes:
This is exactly why I advocate separatism.Ben W. writes:
Obama keeps denying that he has heard or seen things even when his handwriting is on a piece of paper.Sebastian writes:
Here is a opinion column in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review that further confirms that if Obama wants a national “conversation” on race relations, he may not like the results. I don’t think a mainstream newspaper would have carried such a frank editorial before Obama’s speech on race.LA replies:
Remember, the Tribune-Review is a conservative paper owned by that famous funder of conservatives, Richard Mellon Scaife. But yes, for a mainstream conservative paper to go into the figures on the racial differentials of violent crime is something probably unheard of.A reader sent this, by Peter Wierenga, March 27, 2008.
The Obama phenomena has risen to the level of religious, almost messianic fervor.Ben W. writes:
Interesting exchange between Jeremiah Wright and the New York Times, plus the original Obama interview with the NYT over the past year:
Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 31, 2008 03:52 PM | Send