The Washington Post
August 18, 2011 Obama: The Affirmative Action President by Matt Patterson
(columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner)
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama
as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass
hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will
wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many
into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's
most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life:
ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test
scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief
career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact
nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present") ; and
finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of
which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic
legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator.
And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the
white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's
"spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and
political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it
all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?
Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz
addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal:
To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an
outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant
terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because
Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to
have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even
if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass.
Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass -- held to a lower standard --
because of the color of his skin. Podhoretz continues:
And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so
articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all
of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president
and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama
phenomenon -- affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But
certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and
regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and
especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.
Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves
on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they
are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor
performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if
these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional
devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that
is affirmative action. Yes, racist.
Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his
skin -- that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism,
then nothing is. And that is what America did to Obama.
True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but
why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for
Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was
good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois ; he was
told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the
Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good
enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. What
could his breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama
speaks?
In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications
nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool
character. Those people -- conservatives included -- ought now to be deeply
embarrassed.
The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he
has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can
barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his
mouth -- it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and
over again for 100 years.
And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and
everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited
this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise
his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really,
what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so
how do we expect him to act responsibly?
In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the
temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand
that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty
and prosperity make sense.. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man
in the Oval Office.
August 18, 2011 Obama: The Affirmative Action President by Matt Patterson
(columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner)
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama
as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass
hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will
wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many
into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's
most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life:
ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test
scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief
career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact
nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present") ; and
finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of
which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic
legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator.
And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the
white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's
"spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and
political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it
all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?
Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz
addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal:
To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an
outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant
terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because
Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to
have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even
if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass.
Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass -- held to a lower standard --
because of the color of his skin. Podhoretz continues:
And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so
articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all
of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president
and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama
phenomenon -- affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But
certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and
regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and
especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.
Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves
on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they
are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor
performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if
these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional
devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that
is affirmative action. Yes, racist.
Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his
skin -- that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism,
then nothing is. And that is what America did to Obama.
True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but
why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for
Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was
good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois ; he was
told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the
Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good
enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. What
could his breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama
speaks?
In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications
nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool
character. Those people -- conservatives included -- ought now to be deeply
embarrassed.
The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he
has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can
barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his
mouth -- it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and
over again for 100 years.
And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and
everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited
this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise
his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really,
what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so
how do we expect him to act responsibly?
In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the
temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand
that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty
and prosperity make sense.. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man
in the Oval Office.
