The Affirmative Action President by Matt Patterson

As liberal as the Washington Post usually is, here's a writer who finally calls it like it is. Look for some of my comments that I'm going to write in bold red.


-----------------




By Matt Patterson - Washington Post


January 8, 2012 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? It's obvious by now that he can't and hasn't. I think it's OK not to really have such experience so long as you surround yourself with those who do. Having said that, it's not enough to simply surround yourself with those with experience; you must follow their advice. So Obama not only has no experience, but he's surrounded himself with cabinet members who have just as much experience has he does in their appointed positions. Talk about the blind leading the blind.


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. What I also find interesting is that no one remembers Obama. No students.... no professors.... no staff. That and no school records that he's been willing to release to the public. Again, just sayin'....


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? Considering Obama's lack of experience, what else did we have to go on? Besides, isn't it natural to think that because you associate with someone that you at least share some of the same values?

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. And I totally agree with that statement. 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. Besides, wasn't it liberals who fought hard to keep segregation? Wasn't it liberals who fought to keep slavery?


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. What's sad is that this is partly what MLK fought to end; not only judging a person based on the color of his skin, but being treated differenly based on the color of your skin.

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 this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks? And it's not only in the way he speaks, but you can see it clearly in his non-verbals; the way he poses for pictures and wants so badly to be in the spotlight. If you listened to his speach after Bin Ladin was killed, it sounds like he's trying to take credit for finding and killing Bin Ladin. Sorry, Mr. President, but it was our intelligence community (of which you bashed during Bush's presidency) that found him and our SEALs that killed him.


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. And I think they owe America an appoligy. 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. True that! He speaks well with the teleprompter, but has a very hard time finding words when he doesn't have his second wife to help him out. 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 is also the current problem in Europe. They are failing because of Marxism and we're headed down the same road under Obama.


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? What I love about Bush in this is that Bush has enough class not to respond. In fact, when asked why he's sad nothing, Bush responded that he's been there and understands the pressure Obama is under. Bush said that Obama doesn't need his criticm even though I think that Bush would have every right to. And when are the Democrats going to stop blaming Bush and start blaming the REAL source of our current problems; namely Chairman Maobama?


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.