Chris Matthews is at it
again. That thrill that ran up his leg
when Barack Obama erupted upon the national scene has apparently intensified
and resulted in brain fever. Now that
the president is beset by a trifecta of political scandals, Matthews is still among
the few blaming these problems, in part, on racism.
This former Congressional
aide may, however, soon find himself surrounded by congenial souls. For the moment, the mainstream press is up in
arms about having been targeted for federal investigation. Its members feel betrayed that their favorite
politician apparently approved a fishing expedition into their telephone
contacts.
But wait. Liberal reporters remain reluctant to
identify the Benghazi affair as evidence of official mendacity. Like the president, they seem to want the
whole business to go away. Why else
would they not be in a lather when e-mails confirm that what the president’s
press secretary told them was flat-out false?
The answer seems to be that
they fundamentally agree with Matthews that criticism of Obama must be
motivated by racism. This charge has
been made many times because it betrays the deep allegiance of liberal
journalists to a liberal government.
There can be no doubt that
the press wanted to see Obama elected president. There can likewise be no doubt that reporters
felt virtuous in helping to raise the first “black” to this office. By the same token, they are invested in
making sure he does not stumble and by association impugn the abilities of
African-Americans.
In this, liberals
congratulate themselves on their lack of racism. They take pride in being Barack’s most
reliable allies because they believe this unequivocally demonstrates their lack
of bigotry.
I, on the other hand,
contend that their behavior proves the exact opposite. This is because they totally misunderstand
the meaning of “racism.” They believe the
word applies only when on has a negative attitude toward blacks or other
minorities. They are wrong!
In fact, people are racist
when they are either prejudiced or discriminate because of race. Although this formulation may seem to confirm
the judgment of the Matthews crowd, it does not. Their mistake is in assuming that bias is
only negative.
The truth is that bias can
be either for or against a group of people.
Yes, one can be prejudiced against a particular category, but one can
also be prejudiced in its favor. One can
also discriminate to assist a group and not just to hurt it.
Liberals understand this
very well with respect to whites. Thus,
they regularly complain that Caucasians are “privileged.” In other words, they interpret the alleged
benefits light skin color confers as due to prejudice in its favor.
If this is true, then
allowing Barack Obama or Eric Holder to get away with behaviors that would
destroy the careers of whites or Asians is undoubtedly discriminatory. To make excuses for conduct that would
otherwise be considered reprehensible clearly betrays a bias on their behalf.
People who are genuinely
open minded judge individuals according to the same standards irrespective of
skin color. Martin Luther King opined
that some day he hoped his children would be judged by the content of their
character—not their race. This attitude should
still apply today.
But I would add that we
should also judge people by what they do.
When they lie about the death of an American ambassador, they should be
called out on the carpet. When they
remain passive after the IRS intimidates their political foes, they must not
plead ignorance. At the very least, they
should have made inquiries when the charges first arose.
Barak Obama is, at minimum,
culpable of administrative negligence.
At maximum, he is guilty of treasonous manipulation. I am
not sure these are high crimes and misdemeanors, but they are surely worthy of
condemnation. To pretend otherwise,
merely because of his race, is blatantly racist.
So is defaming those outraged
by his conduct merely because of their race!
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
No comments:
Post a Comment