Robert Henderson, Special to AR News, April 10, 2009
Part I, available here, described how Barack Obama has agonized over his multi-racial identity. Part II, available here, explored his deep resentment of whites, including his white mother and grandparents.
Mr. Obama’s ethnic interests are selective. He worries constantlyabout the “brothers and sisters,” but shows little concern for anyother group. He mentions Latinos briefly but always in the context ofhow they have linked their cause to that of blacks. There are also afew token waves at various types of Asians.
The one group whose ethnic interests he never considers is whites.He shows no awareness that they have any ethnic interest, at least nonethey have any right to defend. Early on in AOH (pp. 36–37.) he makesthis claim:
The victories that the sixties generationbrought about—the admission of minorities and women into fullcitizenship, the strengthening of individual liberties and the healthywillingness to question authority—have made America a far better placefor all its citizens.
Better for all? The “victories” of the sixties ushered inracial preferences that deny opportunities to whites. They broughtabout an immigration policy that is reducing whites to a minority. Theyrequired whites, especially men, to bow the knee to all sorts ofinsults about their motives, their history, and their very legitimacy.But whites, of course, have no interests, so all this is invisible toMr. Obama.
Sometimes his obtuseness to white thinking is astonishing. In AOH,he writes, “The process by which I was selected as the keynote speaker[at the 2004 Democratic Convention] remains something of a mystery tome.” (AOH p354.)
A mystery? How can it not have occurred to him that he was chosenfor one reason only: he was that great rarity, a black senator. Onewonders whether Mr. Obama actually believe what he writes about race orsimply uses race as a means to power.
Political Adversaries
When Mr. Obama’s ran for the Senate the Republicans put up a blackcandidate, Alan Keyes, to oppose him. Mr. Obama claims that “oneRepublican colleague of mine in the state senate provided me with ablunt explanation of their strategy: ‘We got our own Harvard-educatedconservative black guy to go up against the Harvard-educated liberalblack guy. He may not win, but at least he can knock that halo off yourhead.’” (AOH, p. 209.)
Whether or not that was the strategy it certainly flustered Mr.Obama. First, he could not play the race card. Secondly, he had anopponent who was not afraid to attack him personally. Here is a sample:
AlanKeyes, deployed a novel argument for attracting voters in the waningdays of the campaign. “Christ would not vote for Barack Obama,” Mr.Keyes proclaimed, “because Barack Obama has voted to behave in a waythat it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved.” (AOH p. 209.)
Mr. Keyes was probably referring to support for abortionrights, but Mr. Obama does not say. But perhaps most cruelly, Mr. Keyesplayed the reverse race card as it were:There was no doubtthat the man could talk. At the drop of a hat Mr. Keyes could deliver agrammatically flawless disquisition on virtually any topic. On thestump, he could wind himself into a fiery intensity. . . . He accusedme of taking a “slaveholder’s position” in my defense of abortionrights and called me a core, academic Marxist” for my support ofuniversal health and other social programs—and then added for goodmeasure that because I was not the descendant of slaves I was notreally African American. (AOH p. 210.)