Reader Email: Choosing Obama Based on Race is Fine

By Selwyn Duke

Today I'm responding to a reader who is quite dismissive about the truth regarding race and Barack Obama.  He is A.F. and writes:

Hi Mr. Duke

I know its a little late because this article came out in late March, I was itching to comment on it. After reading it, I was left asking, "Well, what's your point?" when you said that Ferraro's comment on "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position." And?

If George Washington was a black man, he would not be the first President of the United States. If Lincoln was a black man, he would have been a slave. If Ronald Reagan was a black man male, he would not have been in his position. Etc, and so forth. The point is, Obama is in his position because of race, but EVERY OTHER President has also been in their position because of their race!

Race mattered sir, race mattered since the founding, and race still matters today. White men have benefited from their dominant position in society for more than half of this country's existence. If they had not been white men, they would not have benefited in the same way, or at all. They would not have been our Presidents, our politicans, or our businessmen. So to somehow twist this into saying, "Obama is only winning and has gotten this far because he's black," is stating something that is in plain sight yes, but its indirectly missing something else: Every President since the founding of our country has gotten that far and won because they were white.

All affirmative action is doing is being conscious of this fact, and rightly placing people who have been historically invidiously discriminated against for the history of the country to positions that, in a country that truly believed from its founding that "all men are created equal" would have already been occupied by them.

Dear A.F.,

Your email is the very quintessence of speciousness; meaning, it seems to be logical or correct but actually is not so.  I strongly suspect that you're missing the nuance I will provide because you're blinded by racial patriotism, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and allow that perhaps you just didn't examine the issue from all sides.

You make two basic mistakes.  First, understand what our goal is in this election: To choose the best possible of, admittedly, very lacking candidates.  Now, your first error is that you confuse limiting "job applicants" based on race with choosing among them based on race.  I'll illustrate the point with an analogy.

Let's say you wanted to find the best -- or at least a highly competent -- basketball player.  How would your chances be better, if you limited your pool of candidates to blacks and chose the best among them, or if you included one white guy in the group and then chose him simply because he was a novelty?  Obviously, the chances that this one white guy who was chosen based solely on race was a great basketball player would be pretty slim.

Now, let's analyze what would happen if you chose from your pool that was limited to blacks.  Sure, it would be entirely possible that the best basketball player in the world was white, in which case it would be impossible to find the best.  However, since you would be choosing based on merit from your pool, you would at least be able to get a good player, maybe a great one, and perhaps even the best. 

This doesn't mean that you would find this type of discrimination more palatable on an emotional level, but feelings aren't good indicators of reality.  And the reality is that such a practice would allow you to achieve your goal, that of getting the best possible of the candidates.

Barack Obama is that novelty, an empty vessel who millions of sheeple are glomming onto simply because of his race.  Sure, most of us would like to have a better group of candidates, in the same way that you obviously wish candidates in the days of yore included blacks and maybe women.  However, because of our twisted, cultural-affirmative-action mindset, we aren't even choosing based on merit from the lacking viable candidates we do have.

The second mistake you make is more elementary.  Even if you were correct in saying that today's practice is the equivalent of what you bemoan about the past, your argument would still be invalid.  You would in essence be saying, "Because we made a mistake years ago, we must make the same one today; because we have always had flaws, we must retain them."  That would be a very destructive tradition, indeed.  It is, quite frankly, stupid.  It's to imply that we can never change for the better, can never learn from the past.  And, if that is so, then we might as well just throw in the towel right now.

You should bear in mind, A.F., that we're engaged in a serious endeavor here.  Namely, electing a person who will shepherd us through increasingly difficult times, an individual who will take the helm of the world's only remaining superpower.  We're not deciding who is going to get the extra piece of cake in the lunchroom today.   So, let's proceed like mature adults, OK?  Applying a quota mentality is destructive and threatens the nation all of us occupy.  And if you can't rise to such a challenge, you should do the country (and yourself) a favor and refrain from voting.

As for me, I not only know whom I'm voting for, I know when.  I cannot vote for the first president or the tenth, but I can vote in 2008.   I exist here and now, and I have a duty to apply the correct standards here and now.  I will draw from the wisdom of the past, but not its mistakes.  For, if I were going to do the latter, I could justify not only choosing candidates on the wrong basis, but also human sacrifice, cannibalism and slavery.

I will mention one more matter.  It's a little silly when people lament the fact that only white men occupied positions of power in our country's past.  All throughout man's history, from one end of the Earth to the other, it was common practice for a civilization's racial or ethnic majority to wield the power.  It is simply man's nature for people to support those with whom they identify.  Thus, lament human nature if you wish, but understand that it's nothing unique to white people's nature.  And it's ridiculous to hold one group's feet to the fire for something common among all groups.  That is, unless you ascribe demigod status to whites, where you assume that they possess a superiority of character and thus have an obligation to occupy a higher moral plane than everyone else.  If that is so, then the problem is simply that they don't live up to your lofty expectations.

                                   Protected by Copyright

Comments

[kelani]

you can make $20,400 in 3 weeks of join this programe. if i would you i'll try and visit the website which is www.getawayclub.net/getmereal. click and sign up and your life shall never be the same again....

[getmereal]

are you tire of working for somebody? without getting paid as well as you wish.
are you tired of working 10 to 12 hours per day without
sufficient payment?
or are you tired of stress you undergo at your working place. if yes if your answer join me on www.getawayclub.net/getmereal
experience working at home without stress, without any boss directing your life. you will also have free vacation to any part of the world while working. click here to sign up now www.getawayclub.net/getmereal
or copy and browse the link.

[democrat]

Selwyn, let's not jump to conclusions about this Harvard graduate being an "Affirmative Action" case. He is obvously more accomplished than most people, including yourself. And besides, affirmative action not only helps blacks, but it also assists other racial minorities and women from being excluded from obtaining positions based on their race or gender that otherwise they would qualify for. Most racists, such as yourself, always assume that blacks are the only beneficiaries of affirmative action and other categorized social programs. Let's not forget that if it weren't for the injustices imposed on minorities and women by white males who overwhelmingly and in most cases wrongly occupied positions of authority, we as Americans wouldn't have what you call an "affirmative action" mentality. And besides, this country is made up of many ethnic groups and women who do the majority of the voting, so why not allow them to have the opportunity to become an excellent executive, or a screw-up like the current executive? The one thing about oppression is the fact that it doesn't stay that way always, and thank God for that! And even though he isn't the candidate that I would have preferred, he's a lot better than the current President, and not to mention his current opponent!

[HardCore Conservative]

My family did not own slaves, we had nothing to do with that historical crime and should not be forced to pay for it in the form of affirmative action, reverse racism, white discrimination, and even reparations. (They actually tried that a few years ago). AF - your logic is flawed and your perspective is despicable. Shake that imaginary chip off your shoulders and earn your place by merit instead of false injuries - that is IF you can.

[Joshua Price]

Selwyn:

I know this is not 100% on point with this post, but I think it fits to some degree.

Did you happen to see the story at, I believe, Yahoo! yesterday talking about how Armstrong Williams and J.C. Watts can't rule out voting for Obama?

Very interesting from so-called "conservatives." I expected something like this from Williams, and in fact his words are very telling:

“I don’t necessarily like his policies; I don’t like much that he advocates, but for the first time in my life, history thrusts me to really seriously think about it,” Williams said. “I can honestly say I have no idea who I’m going to pull that lever for in November. And to me, that’s incredible.”

Now is it me or would you not immediately rule out voting for someone if you didn't like their policies?

If you take Armstrong Williams' words at face value you have no choice but to arrive at the conclusion that race is more important in his voting calculus than principles and policies.

That's wholly illogical and very imprudent.