Shorter Patterico Bigot: “Real Racism Is When Blacks Don’t Attack Obama”

Ken AshfordRace, Right Wing Punditry/IdiocyLeave a Comment

Seriously, this is the kind of bile you get from the right these days.  Here's the background:

During a sometimes-raucous session of what’s being called the “For the People” Jobs Initiative tour, a key member of the Congressional Black Caucus told an audience in Detroit Tuesday that the CBC doesn’t put pressure on President Obama because he is loved by black voters.  But at the same time, Rep. Maxine Waters said, members of the CBC are becoming increasingly tired and frustrated by Obama’s performance on the issue of jobs. Even as she expressed support for the president, Waters virtually invited the crowd to “unleash us” to pressure Obama for action.

“We don’t put pressure on the president,” Waters told the audience at Wayne County Community College.  “Let me tell you why. We don’t put pressure on the president because ya’ll love the president. You love the president. You’re very proud to have a black man — first time in the history of the United States of America. If we go after the president too hard, you’re going after us.”

The problem, Waters said, is that Obama is not paying enough attention to the problems of some black Americans.  The unemployment rate for African-Americans nationally is a little over 16 percent, and almost twice that in Detroit.  And yet, Waters said, the president is on a jobs-promotion trip through the Midwest that does not include any stops in black communities.  “The Congressional Black Caucus loves the president too,” Waters said.  “We’re supportive of the president, but we’re getting tired, ya’ll.  We’re getting tired. And so, what we want to do is, we want to give the president every opportunity to show what he can do and what he’s prepared to lead on. We want to give him every opportunity, but our people are hurting. The unemployment is unconscionable. We don’t know what the strategy is. We don’t know why on this trip that he’s in the United States now, he’s not in any black community.  We don’t know that.”

Now comes the ugly commentary from the author, Aaron Worthing:

Now, look, I gave most African Americans a mulligan on the last election. 

Note the superior attitude right away.  How big of you, Aaron, to give millions of people the benefit of your benevolent doubt.

I understood that after 400 some odd years of ugliness towards them that they were entitled to believe that the day had finally come where a black man 1) who was qualified to be president 2) might actually win the office. 

That's one of the most fucked-up and arrogant sentences in the history of punditry.  First of all, since when is possessing a belief in a black president an "entitlement"?  And even if it is, why does one have to endure "400 some odd years of ugliness" in order to hold that belief?

Oh, but it gets worse.

They were obviously right about the second part, and wrong about the first one. 

Aaron Worthing is saying, in all seriousness and with a straight face, that Barack Obama is not qualified to be president.  He's not saying that Obama is merely a BAD president; he's actually saying that Obama lacks the qualifications to be one.  Worse than that, Worthing is saying that black people were WRONG to think that Obama IS qualified.

Nutjob.  Now, if Worthing's point is that Obama is a bad president, that's his opinion.  But even then, he's still disparaging an entire race — saying that "they" are wrong — simply because "they" do not hold the same opinion of Obama as he does.

How is that not racism?

But if there is any doubt to Worthing's bigotry, read on:

But that decision—to believe Obama was more ready for the job than he evidently was—was a deviation from Martin Luther King’s dream.  They were judging him not by the content of his character—which demonstrated that he was not ready to be president—but by the color of his skin.  It’s wrong, but it’s human.

Interestingly, Worthing is the one deviating from "King's dream", for he is painting Obama's black supporters (the "they" in the paragraph above) with the same broad brush.  In other words, he's making an assumption – an assumption about "their" views of Obama — based on the color of their skin.  "They" — the black people — voted for Obama because of his skin color, says Worthing (and "they" were wrong to do it).

How does Worthing know this?  Does he have facts/figures?  Does he have special powers that allows him to see into the collective black mindset? And what makes him think there IS a collective black mindset?  Isn't that the hallmark of bigotry — to assume that black people voted for Obama because Obama was black… and not because of his character, or his policies, or any one of a dozen other reasons?  And how does Worthing explain the failed  candidacies of Jesse Jackson, Shirley Chisolm, and Al Sharpton, among others?

The notion that blacks voted for Obama because he was black is a tired, overly simplistic, and, yes, racist canard.  It re-enforces the pre-Civil Rights notion that blacks lack the capacity to vote and/or they can't or won't vote for the "right" reasons.  (Yes, Aaron, you DID say that blacks voted for Obama for the "wrong" reasons).

But here's the objective truth: Obama got the votes (from all races) because he was an energetic figure who excited the country.  But if Obama hadn't won the 2008 Democratic nomination, African-American support would have gone to Hilary Clinton because she was also focusing on issues the mattered to blacks.  It's that simple.  Yes, Aaron, despite your bigotted beliefs, black people *are* capable of choosing candidates based on the issues, rather than skin color.

And even if the fact that Obama had black skin was a FACTOR for SOME black voters, that doesn't amount to a repudiation of King's dream.  This has been addressed over and over again, but bigots like Aaron Worthing keep recycling the myth.

Seems like someone is looking at black voters through a racial lens, Mr. Worthing.  And it isn't Maxine Waters. After all, she recognizes that black people CAN disagree with Obama (she is one herself).  No, the bigot here is you, Mr. Worthing.

Having made wide-scale assumptions about black people and the reason why they are behind Obama, now comes the part where he tries to hide his bigotory:

But just how long is this going to go on?  Can’t we all agree that black people are proportionately speaking just as likely as white people to make a good president, but not the idiot presently in the White House?

No, apparently not, Mr. Worthing.  You just got through saying that a man who graduated #1 from Harvard Law School, and was a sitting Senator, and was duly elected by a majority of voters, isn't qualified to be President.  Pray tell, what black person would be, in your eyes?  Seeing as how minorities statisticially swing to the left, I don't think YOU would find it possible to reach the conclusion that black people are "proportionately speaking just as likely" as white people to make a good president.

He warbles on….

And at the same time, how is this whole fake dog whistle episode is not racial discrimination?  After all, would this be done to a black man?

For instance, as much as liberals are freaking out about Perry’s religion, Obama sat in a racist church for twenty years and the media barely batted an eye.  He took the title of one of his books from a racist sermon, and again barely a reaction.  Blatant racism—or at least tolerance of blatant racism—was excused from Barack Obama, and yet Perry is defamed with selective editing in order for liberals to claim he is a racist.  There can be little doubt that they wouldn’t have tried anything like that with Herman Cain?

Here's the problem with Aaron Worthing (and there are many).  The only "blatant racism" he specifically acknowledges seems to exclusively exude from black people (and Worthing apparently has an odd definition of "blatant").  He never seems to see it in white people. And it doesn't take a genius to figure out why.

UPDATE:  Not surprisingly, Worthing's thinly veiled racism is resonating with overt bigots and racists.  In the comments section, you'll find things like:

The average black IQ is one standard deviation lower than the white IQ (85 vs. 100), for reasons largely related to their origins in an African climate that required less intellectual capacity to survive compared to a cold and icy European climate.

Given that higher intelligence is found at the extreme right of the intelligence bell curve, there are markedly fewer blacks at that level than whites. Even if the population of whites and blacks were equal, there would be five times as many whites with a 115 IQ or greater than blacks because more whites (16%) fall into that category than blacks (3%).

Given their low intelligence and other negative attributes, it is entirely rational for blacks to vote for the party that gives more handouts and get mad when those handouts do not materialize. Of course, right now, they are extremely loath to go against their affirmative action President in White House for racial reasons.

Yup.  The bell curve bigots — they're still around.  Aaron, if your message is striking a chord with people like this, then you really need to reconsider your message.  Or at least openly admit your bigotted stance.

UPDATE #2:  Worthing addresses my criticisms by, well, NOT addressing them.  He starts off by making the patently false claim that I bought into the Rick Perry/black cloud controversy.  Well, obviously, you can read the blog.  Never mentioned it once.   Worthing is, quite simply, a liar.

But does he deny that he paints black voters in the 2008 elections with the same brush?  He does not.  He does not, because he cannot.  Does he deny that, in doing so, he is making a judgment about a group of people based solely on the color of their skin?  He does not.  He does not, because he cannot.

All he manages to do is eke out a weak "Hey, I said that whites can be bigots, too."  Yes, Aaron Worthing, you did say that.  But you never write about them.  When you write about racism, you only write posts about black racists.  Why is that?  

You know…. it's almost like you threw in a sentence about about white-on-black racism so you can point to it later and say "See???  I acknowledge that there is white-on-black racism".  Which is exactly what happened!  Isn't that interesting?