Another scurrilous use of the race card that various Democrats and progressives are making is the charge that conservative Americans will vote against President Obama because of his color. Don't be absurd! The only color we object to is the tint of the president's ideology. We don't want a "red" or "pink" president. As far as the color of his skin is concerned, aside from the obvious fact that we already elected him once, it is insulting for anyone to think that white Americans are so stupid as to vote against the re-election of a good president because of his pigmentation. We don't care if a president is black, green, or purple; we care if he or she does a good job in office. The number of white Americans who will vote against Obama because he is black can't be much larger than the occasional bigoted oddball who would refuse the services of a black physician. In fact, I would venture to say that -- given a recent Quinnipiac poll in Pennsylvania that showed blacks favoring Obama by 97 to 1 -- there are probably more blacks voting against Romney because he is white than there are whites opposing Obama because he is black.
Speaking of the nearly unanimous black preference for Obama, what do you suppose explains that? Surely race is a factor, but it's not the only one. Even when Democrats have had a white nominee for president, he generally has won close to 90 percent of votes cast by blacks.
Clearly, Democrats have been able to lock up the black vote. This is a remarkable political phenomenon that political scientists will be studying for a long time. What makes it so remarkable is that Democratic policies have done so much to harm black Americans and hold them back. It was Democrats who held out longest against civil rights. It was Democrats, progressives, liberals, and their urban renewal projects that obliterated so many thriving black business districts and demolished thriving black neighborhoods.
It was the same Democratic alliance that, under the guise of fighting a "War on Poverty," created what policy analyst Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation aptly dubbed "the incentive system from hell" -- ironically named government "welfare" programs that incentivized the breakup of black families, thereby depriving millions of black children of the opportunity to grow up in stable homes with supportive, intact families.
In alliance with teachers' unions, Democrats have ignored the educational needs of young black children and colluded to deprive them of opportunities to escape from dysfunctional, ineffectual schools. What more cruel way could there be to thwart the progress of black people than by depriving them of a sound education? How can anyone look at little black children sobbing and their mothers looking hurt and betrayed when they lose a lottery for the far-too-scarce slots in charter schools that give these children the best chance to receive the good education that gives them their best hope for success in adulthood?
In city after city, liberal politicians have adopted the Curley strategy (named after former Boston Mayor Michael Curley). By keeping black Americans dependent on welfare handouts in exchange for their votes on election days, Democratic politicians have weakened, undercut, and destroyed the economic vitality of some of our major cities. The losers, of course, are the residents of those decaying cities -- predominantly black Americans.
keyboard shortcuts: V vote up article J next comment K previous comment