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:

• In the future, any black person running for, or being considered for appointment to, high national office must be subjected to special scrutiny to determine that he is not carrying an anti-American animus, by which he will use his high office to devalue and attack America.

• In the future, any female running for, or being considered for appointment, to high national office must be subjected to special scrutiny to determine that she is not going to degrade her office into a stage for her female vanity.

- end of initial entry -

LA writes:

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.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. The neocons are like Soviets, incapable of dealing with any critical truth about their own establishment, at most making vague, allusive comments that have to be read like tea leaves. And these people think of themselves as upholders of America and of freedom!

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.

“Through an aide, Obama, who won the group’s endorsement as well as the statehouse seat, did not dispute that the handwriting was his. But he contended it doesn’t prove he completed, approved—or even read—the latter questionnaire.”

As someone once told me, to cause doubt, deny, deny, deny …

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.

I see among many of the young a hopelessness that is almost tangible. Alongside that is an inability to trust others and to believe in ultimate truths and values. The mantra is that authority cannot be trusted and that the loudest voices in society want to do nothing more than “sell” something. Broken homes have created a generation with absolutely no one to look up to and to turn to for advice. So direction is lacking, commitment is rare, and despair is rampant.

Barack Obama strides into that void. While voicing “other worldly” themes he suggests “this world” solutions. His soaring oratory and his ambitious promises make his appeal to hope and his drive for change seem reasonable and attainable. He appeals to all that is innate and created in us in a longing for that “better country, that is a heavenly one” discussed in Hebrews 11. And he offers fulfillment in his election to the presidency at which time he will unleash the power of government to set things right in a world currently turned upside down. Thus he offers a messianic hope with the full weight and force of the U.S. government to back him up. For many right now, with the youth leading the way, this is a compelling combination. Heaven on earth is indeed appealing rather than having to wait.

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:

1. Original Obama interview with NYT explaining his attachment to UCC:

2. Wright’s complaint to the NYT:

3. NYT response to Wright:

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 31, 2008 03:52 PM | Send