Moral Health

So what should we make of the poll informing us that some whites will not vote for Obama because he is blacks?  The correct answer is: Not much.  And this shall become even more evident later on.  Oh, to be sure, not voting for Obama simply because he is black is a morally deplorable reason.  But the truth of the matter is that any number of morally deplorable reasons for not voting for him, just as there are morally deplorable reasons for voting for him.  It is now, and has always been, a fact of life that people vote as they do for reasons that are morally objectionable.

Suppose for instance one voted for Obama because one holds that we should exploit the African nations; and it will be much, much easier for Obama to do this, since he is black.  Well, needless to say, this is a morally despicable reason for voting for Obama.  Which is worse: not voting for Obama because he is black or voting for Obama because he is black and, therefore, with the hope that he will exploit the nations of Africa?  I take it to be manifestly obvious that it is sort of silly to suppose that one of these reasons for voting is more morally despicable than the other.  The reason for voting for Obama is just as horrendous as the reason for not voting for him.

Not only that, the reason for voting for Obama can be easily enough construed as racist.  So it is not as if all moral criticism falls by the wayside if a person chooses to vote for Obama.

And I wish to allow that those blacks who are voting for Obama because he is black do not really mean quite what they say.  What they really mean is:

He is black and certainly no less competent than the alternate candidate—indeed no less competent than other (past or present) presidents.

I assume that blacks would not be rallying behind Obama if he were demonstrably an idiot.  The very idea that it would be better to have a demonstrably dumb black as president rather than a demonstrably talented white as president is, in addition to being morally reprehensible, downright incomprehensible, assuming moral decency in both cases.  It is obvious, however, that Barack Obama is no idiot.

Getting back to the poll, though, I fear that it is another instance of sensationalism.  Either that, or people are much, much dumber than I would have ever have imagined.  Let me explain.

Suppose that someone had asserted that racism simply no longer exists in the United States.  Well, I assume that all but the terribly naïve would have insisted that such a claim is straightforwardly false.  Presumably, the racism that continues to exist in the United States was in place during the primaries.  Yet, Barack Obama won the nomination for the Democratic Party.  And here is what the first paragraph of the newspaper article says:

Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks — many calling them “lazy,” “violent,” responsible for their own troubles (my emphasis).

So precisely what we know is that Obama won the nomination for the Democratic Party notwithstanding the fact that one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views towards blacks.  But this truth seems to have gone unnoticed.

Instead, what we get is that the percentage of white racist democrats may be sufficient to prevent Barack Obama from winning the election, owing to the two and one-half percentage points that they constitute.  But it is actually worse than that.  What we get is the following inference: from the fact that (1) a person (a white Democrat, in particular) harbors objectionable views regarding blacks, it follows that (2) the person is high unlikely to vote for Obama.  Alas, this inference is far less plausible than one might initially suppose.

There can be little doubt that at the height of the Civil Rights Movement, there were whites who admired Martin Luther King, Jr. who nonetheless harbored quite negative sentiments regarding blacks generally.  A further more substantial problem is this: There is a real and fundamentally important difference between having a critical view of life in communities and being racist.

There is no logical incompatibility between having a negative critical view about the nature of life among blacks, very generally construed, and thinking that a particular black is ever so suitable for a given job of excellence.  Indeed, a profoundly self-respecting black, no less, could have precisely that thought.

I do not doubt for a moment that there are whites who are racists.  The problem has to do with how do we construe being a racist, and the poll suggests that merely having a negative view of blacks counts as being racist.  Well, that is too simple-minded.

By definition, a justified criticism is negative.  It is also the case, by definition, that a justified criticism is not racist.  The poll is not sensitive to this difference.  I have lots of criticisms of the black community.  Indeed, I hold that notwithstanding the existence of racism, many of the problems that exist in black communities is owing to blacks themselves.  In any case, not a single one of my criticisms against various black communities applies to Obama.  And not a single one of those criticisms would be a reason for not voting for Obama.  But I am black—so of course I can’t be racist.  Whew ! ! !  That was close.

Now I ask: What is the point of the article: “Poll: Racial views steer some white Dems away from Obama”?  Not surprisingly, the suggestion is that if Obama loses the election, and the vote is close, then the explanation for Obama’s losing the election will be none other than racism.

But here is the problem: Since we are talking about only a very small margin, then any small group of individuals united by a given set of beliefs could determine the outcome of the election.  Sufficiently many Asians could make the difference.  Sufficiently many black funamentalists could make the difference.  Sufficiently many of the National Rifle Association could make the difference.  And so on.  Once it is conceded that a small group can make the difference, then it follows that any small group can make the difference.  And the folks at Stanford University who conducted the the poll did nothing at all to rule out the possibility that other small groups might make the difference.

This is unconscionable.  The charge of racism is a very serious one that should not be made unless we have been careful to rule out reasonable alternatives.  The folks at Stanford did no such thing.  And they clearly knew better.

Suggesting racism without warrant is as unscrupulous and reprehensible as denying racism when it is present.

Bitterness and nastiness is the name of the game.  Even the pretense of truth and goodwill has taken a back seat to bitterness and nastiness.  That aptly characterizes the political life in America.  America has survived many things.  However, I do not whether it will or can survive the bitterness and nastiness that has come to be definitive of the political life.  I would, in fact, be surprised if it could.

America has become the country that values freedom above all except when things go wrong, then it is necessarily someone else fault—the fault of the system.  Bitterness and viciousness contribute mightily to this approach.  And this mindset has become characteristic of American politics.

So in America people should be free to eat whatever they choose.  Yet, fast food restaurants are to blame for the problem of obesity—and not the individuals who frequent those restaurants.  I may be missing something, but to the best of my knowledge no one—not even poor people—have to frequent a fast food restaurant.  Indeed, it is an insult to the poor even to suggest that cannot fathom that eating 2 big Macs, or whatever, day after day will result in weight gain unless one is an extraordinarily active person. (more…)

There are some things that only history can decide.  It may very well turn out that the contributions of Barack Obama to the good of the American society will equal or surpass those of Martin Luther King.  Yet, if there is one thing, more than any other, that I am unequivocally clear about, it is that no one should invite the comparison between Obama and King unless as a matter of fact Obama has delivered such a level of moral excellence to the American society.

It is thus irresponsible on the part of the Left to treat Obama as the next Martin Luther King.  Indeed, it is utterly fulsome to do so.  Worse, it trivializes the life King.  Thus, I find the tendency on the part of the Left to invite this comparison fulsome and unforgivable.

Now, I cannot help but think that if Barack Obama did not want this comparison, then it would not be in the air at all.  What bothers me to no end is that there is every indication that Barack Obama has acted, and continues to act, in ways that invite this comparison.  And this amounts to none other a form of insufferable arrogance on Obama’s part.

I hold that King’s legacy is sui generis—that is, utterly unique.  In a like manner, I hold that Elie Wiesel’s legacy is sui generis.  The circumstances that give rise to either individual are unique.  What is more, it is simply impossible to know in advance whether there shall be a comparable set of circumstances.  And for precisely that reason, it is impossible to know in advance whether any black shall be the next Martin Luther King or whether any Jew shall be the next Elie Wiesel. (more…)

Quite simply liberals should be tripping over themselves to endorse Sarah Palin.  This is because she represents the very ideal of the liberal platform.  And that is why liberals have been so hostile towards her.  First of all, since Palin is a woman, then it follows as a conceptual truth that she has been oppressed.  She has 5 children.  Clearly, her husband’s only concern has been to keep her barefoot and pregnant.  Obviously, Palin has suffered from oppression without even realizing it.  Feminists tell us that this sort of thing happens all the time.  So, to begin with, Palin is rightly deserving of the support and sympathy of all sensible and right-thinking women—women who are no longer slaves to the sexist mentality.

Now, I do understand Sarah Palin—God bless America!—has precious little experience.  But I seem to recall that liberals believe mightily in affirmative action.  To hear liberals tell it: All of this talk about qualifications is none other than a way for white men to keep women and minorities out of power.  So what if a person doesn’t have experience?  After all, look at all of these old white men with lot and lots of experience.  And look at where we are.  Clearly, experience isn’t all that people make it out to be.

Someone without experience may be just what we need in order to bring a fresh perspective to issues.  Behind those burning bushes of desire there was a gift from God—not in the form of a lamb, but in the form of a woman without experience.  God bless America! (more…)