Leave it to the New York Times to publish a steaming load of horse crap disguised as an editorial.
The aptly named Charles M. Blow, wrote this, and it's overwhelming message is:
America is still a racist country. It's why, even with the elevation of a black man to the highest elected office, the plight of American blacks has not improved. It doesn't mean to be, but it can't help itself. Obama was supposed to hook us (blacks) up, but instead he pays attention to you white people -- who have a love/hate relationship with him which will invariably poison race relations in this country for many years to come, giving American blacks even more excuses not to work and succeed. Blacks are being victimized by one of their own (Obama) for the sake of white folks, and because white folk's racism is such a powerful, subliminal force that it can even make a good black man forget what color his skin is -- but then again, it's not like Obama was really one of us, what with that bi-racial crap that y'all lapped up -- so what could you expect?
Oh, and by the way; America is a racist nation.
He begins with this piece of crap, describing the Reign of Obama:
"So far, it’s been mixed. Blacks are living a tale of two Americas — one of the ascension of the first black president with the cultural capital that accrues; the other of a collapsing quality of life and amplified racial tensions, while supporting a president who is loath to even acknowledge their pain, let alone commiserate in it."
Translation: Obama is not "authentically" black. He doesn't understand what it is to be black, really. Raised by white people, educated in elite, white schools, Obama doesn't understand the 'hood. He cannot communicate with us because he is not one of us. This is the argument that a Je$$e Jackson or Al Sharpton would have used against Obama a decade ago (in much the same way they used it against Alan Keyes, Ward Connerly, Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza Rice, et. al.), the only difference this time is that Barack Obama actually managed to win an election, something even they never believed could happen. Then, of course, he was always black (so much so that his half-white heritage was never mentioned again after the election). Until he wasn't. Why isn't he? Try this one:
"Last year, blacks dared to dream anew, envisioning a future in which Obama’s election would be the catalyst for an era of prosperity and more racial harmony. Now that the election’s afterglow has nearly faded, the hysteria of hope is being ground against the hard stone of reality. Things have not gotten better. In many ways, they’ve gotten worse."
Translation: Where's the reparations I was promised, dammit? Obama hasn't given anything to black people, Mr. Blow says. Of course, policies like Cash For Clunkers, Porkulus and Onmibus, all the Mortgage renegotiation schemes, propping up unionized labor with Government funds, all the Health Care nonsense, are, arguably, policies that were specifically aimed at the black community. They failed of their purpose because of the realistic limitations of government power in a free society, and because they were fundamentally bad policies (although the jury is still out on Healthcare). They were designed to hand out benefits quickly, before anyone would notice they were welfare-by-another-name.
But, what makes Mr. Blow believe blacks are actually entitled to anything? I mean, other than 50 years of white liberal excuse-making and mollycoddling, and all the patronizing bullshit of several generations of so-called "Civil Rights Leaders"? Worse, what makes him think they're entitled to anything at a time when the productive class is losing it's security?
According to Mr. Blow, Mr. Obama has been stopped dead in his otherwise-well-meaning tracks by the spectre of racism (hey, wait! I thought it was because he didn't understand black people?). Obama will never get a chance to 'do' for the black community because America is a racist country that doesn't care about the black community. In fact, American racism runs so deep and is such a pervasive and powerful force that:
"This means that Obama can get away with doing almost nothing to specifically address issues important to African-Americans and instead focus on the white voters he’s losing in droves. "
In any universe other than Mr. Blow's, you could accuse Mr. Obama of being a 'realist'. Of course, Mr. Blow then nullifies his own nonsensical assertion (again!) when he writes just a few lines later:
"The hard truth is that Obama needs white voters more than he needs black ones. "According to my analysis, even if every black person in America had stayed home on Election Day, Obama would still be president. To a large degree, Obama was elected by white people, some of whom were more able to accept him because he consciously portrayed himself as racially ambiguous."
Nothing like accusing people of racism, Mr. Blow, and then conceding that accusation is groundless. Don't they teach you not to undermine your own arguments within two paragraphs at the Times? Obama wouldn't have been elected without white votes, and his socialist utopia will never come close to realization without them because...guess who he needs to accede to it, and then pay for it? When he says "tax the rich" do you really think he means anything other than "Tax Whitey"?
But having made the accusation of racism in spite of the logical evidence against it, Mr. Blow then goes on to make himself look even more ridiculous:
"In a study to be published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences this month, researchers asked subjects to rate images of the president to determine which ones best represented his "true essence." In some of the photos, his skin had been lightened. In others, it had been darkened. The result? The more people identified him with the "whiter" images, the more likely they were to have voted for him, and vice versa."
There's that "Obama isn't really black" theme again. But, really; you didn't just go there, Charles, did you? I was beginning to have sympathy for you, misguided comm-symp that you are, but not any more. I'd tell you to be ashamed of yourself, but it's apparent that it would do no good. After all, you managed to write an opinion piece which contradicts itself every other paragraph, and then took a paycheck from the Times, so shame is not one of your strong suits, is it?
If that was the only rhetorical club in your arsenal, Mr.Blow, and the only message you really wanted to deliver, perhaps you should have saved a lot of newsprint, and maybe even not taken that check from Mr. Sulzberger in his time of need.