Liberals generally live in a realm of their own mind's creation, so when we conservatives see them do crazy things or write articles detailing their illogical theories, we very rarely experience anything resembling shock.
Because liberals are unhinged, they project onto everybody else their own creepy obsession with the color of people's skin. Liberals go to bed at night with race on their minds and they wake up in the morning with race on their minds, and they believe this is normal for everybody.
In a country in which non-liberals are routinely accused of racism for such innocuous offenses as referring to people by their first names, referring to people by their last names, or protesting the increase of our national debt (see the Tea Party), there is very little from the left that can surprise us.
However, there is a particularly delusional column written by a Jamelle Bouie at The American Prospect titled "Racism Plays a Big Part in Our Politics. Period." The essence of his article is not simply that "racism plays a big part in our politics," but that conservatives are subconsciously racist towards Obama.
Here is a rundown of some of his more ludicrous claims, each one followed by my response:
1. "Obama can’t show anger [and] he can’t propose policies tailored to African Americans....In other words, he can’t remind white Americans that their president is a black man as much as anything else."
To say that Obama can't show anger because it will remind people that he is black is to accuse black people of being quick to anger. It is something that no non-liberal can get away with saying without being accused of racism.
Perhaps Jamelle Bouie is very new to politics and thus can be forgiven for not remembering that Obama's Justice Department refuses to prosecute black voting-rights violators. But that certainly is a policy "tailored to African Americans," is it not?
2. "[N]o one called [Bill] Clinton a 'food stamp president'...."
Why would they? When Bill Clinton took office in 1992, 20 million people were on food stamps. Over the next two years, 7.5 million people were added to the program. But in 1998, after four years of Republicans controlling Congress, 7.7 million people got off food stamps, creating a 200,000 net decrease of food-stamp participation under Clinton at that point. By the end of Clinton's term in office, there were 17 million people on food stamps. So all in all, Clinton, with the help of a Republican Congress, saw the participation in the food-stamp program decrease by roughly 3 million people. Clinton was hardly a "food-stamp president."
Then George W. Bush entered the White House. At the end of his eight years in office, as FactCheck points out, food-stamp participants gradually and steadily increased by 14.7 million. As far as absolute numbers go, Bush 43 was the food-stamp president.
Yet under President Obama, food-stamp participation has increased by nearly the same amount (14.2 million) as under Bush, but in less than half the time. These are record rates which, if continued, stand to double the increase of the Bush years, which would not only make Obama the "food-stamp president" in participation rates, but also in the number of participants. Obama does not seem to mind this, however, since his administration is actually encouraging more people to get on food stamps. It appears that Obama himself enjoys the title Newt Gingrich bestowed upon him.
3. "[R]ight-wing provocateurs didn’t accuse Clinton of fomenting an anti-white race war."
Again, why would Clinton do this? Clinton is not white, and the case cannot be made that he dislikes whites. Clinton never told his Justice Department to prosecute only white people in voter-intimidation cases.
4. "Of course, race isn’t the reason conservatives oppose Obama, but it shapes the nature of their opposition."
This is like saying, "Of course conservatives aren't racists, but they are."
5. "The right wing would have exploded against Hillary Clinton as well. But they wouldn’t have waged a three-year campaign to discredit her citizenship."
Hillary Clinton did not have a decidedly foreign childhood and adolescence, nor would she have spent millions fighting court cases asking to see her birth certificate, which she almost certainly would not have kept under lock and key for two years into her presidency. Saying someone is foreign, whether it's correct or not, has nothing to do with racism. Or am I a racist for daring to suggest that Nelson Mandela is a foreigner?
Were Jamelle Bouie not a leftist immune to independent thought, I might suggest to him that he be more open-minded to the possibility that, save for those occasions when we as a nation in collective ecstasy elect black presidents, people generally do not make judgments of others based on skin color.