Progressives and Obama's Acceptable Blackness
By Miguel A. Guanipa

On the eve of Clarence Thomas' Supreme Court nomination, a cry went out 
throughout the land. It was that of fire breathing liberals who could not 
believe that a conservative president would dare appoint a conservative judge 
to the highest court in the nation. Although the president had picked someone 
of African-American descent, who was also more than qualified to fulfill the 
role of Supreme Court Justice, such considerations were swiftly trumped by the 
fact that Mr.Thomas was not pledged to walk in lockstep with the abiding 
progressive weltanschauung; in other words, he was not viewed by liberals as 
the "right" kind of black man.   


Likewise, many from the left frowned disappointingly at President George W. 
Bush's choice of General Colin Powell for the office of Secretary of State.  
Some even referred to Mr. Powell as a modern day Uncle Tom, congenially 
submissive and overly accommodating to the erratic whims of his war hungry 
superiors. The same Colin Powell was not long ago lauded by the main stream 
media for his ringing endorsement of now president elect Barack Obama.


Another promising black American named Condoleezza Rice, who later assumed the 
role vacated by General Powell, also had to endure condemnation from the 
acerbic tongues of the liberal elite, who simply could not countenance another 
breach of their presumed monopoly on diversity by an impudent Republican 
president. Moreover, like her predecessor, the newly appointed Secretary of 
State also appeared equally comfortable with the preemptory offense rationale 
upheld by the same hubristic regime


And so progressives -- who periodically like to commend themselves for the 
sincerity of their empathy with the plight of all minorities -- have been 
mostly engaged in unsuccessful attempts to frustrate and overturn what 
otherwise, could have been hailed as truly historic appointments. Ironically, 
their most notable accomplishment is that in the process, they have robed the 
black community of rare opportunities to celebrate some rather significant 
milestones in this country's heartbreaking journey of race relations.


Now that a black man, with decidedly leftist fringe credentials, has been 
chosen as future president of the United States, liberals fancy themselves 
playing a part in the shaping of history.  In concert with their anointed 
figure head, they successfully orchestrated what they deemed to be the proper 
conditions under which African-Americans are granted the opportunity -- 
permission? -- to rejoice in the advancement of one of their own.  More 
importantly, the diligent -- and at times inglorious -- efforts of that 
self-congratulatory aristocracy of closet anarchists known as  progressives, 
have also yielded what the media gleefully proclaims is a widespread assent to 
their utopian social compact.  


But as with every grandiose vision, there is never a want of colossal ironies.


Consider the Freedom of Choice Act, which Barack Obama has promised to sign 
into law as soon as he takes office. Its innocuous name belies the fact that 
F.O.C.A. will aggressively seek to standardize unrestricted national access to 
abortion on demand.  Planned and unplanned babies safely residing in the womb, 
and at any stage of development, will be legally stripped of their status as 
persons. As such, they will not enjoy the constitutional benefit of protection 
from the state.  


Our founders naively allowed a derivative ontological exception in order to 
justify the enslavement of another group of voiceless citizens. And this irony 
is compounded by the  cruelly indifferent statistics which report that the vast 
majority of unborn children, aborted daily in this country in the name of 
choice, are disproportionably representative of the same demographic group from 
which Obama enjoyed the most enthusiastic support during this past election 
season.


Secondly, Obama will be taken to task by his equally extremist peers in 
congress, for a swift passage of the so called Fairness Doctrine. As with most 
pieces of legislation Democrats seem to have a penchant for crafting, this one 
is ostensibly worded to deliver exactly the opposite effect of what its title 
purports to champion. 


In short, public air radio broadcasters will be required, at their own expense, 
to grant equal time to those in the opposition for retaliatory expositions of 
their views, despite the fact that historically, such views have failed to 
guarantee sustained interest from a sponsorship willing audience. As it is a 
well known fact that conservatives dominate in the medium, what is billed as an 
equal opportunity for all voices to be heard, is simply a targeted attempt by 
progressives to gradually silence the kind of free speech they find personally 
objectionable.  


The irony here is that this foreboding development constitutes a betrayal of 
one of the most foundational freedoms guaranteed by the constitution, which 
again, the  once disenfranchised ancestral kin of Obama's most loyal 
contingency plainly understood, having endured personal battles for the right 
to speak in a free society without fear of retribution.


And finally, the crown jewel of Obama's looming progressive initiatives:  
compulsory redistribution of wealth from the few "haves" to the many 
"have-nots", succinctly outlined for one "Joe the Plumber" in a rare 
pre-coronation unscripted moment. 


Intended to assuage economic disparities, such schemes only tend to inflame 
social tensions, especially amongst those who rightly perceive their roles as 
equal participants in what is admittedly a less than perfect system. With any 
luck, the measure will not be a catalyst to something Obama -- I think -- wants 
to avoid: the furious resurgence of racially motivated class warfare.  


But Obama's ideological entrenchment in what is nothing more than a socialist 
template, may have blinded him to the fact that he has been presented with a 
unique leadership opportunity -- as the first African-American elected to 
office -- to promote the time tested principle that equal participation 
generally means an equal stake in prosperity and advancement. Ironically 
(again) this is a principle for which Obama's own personal journey, and that of 
those who came before him - under the auspices of a Republican administration 
no less -- present a rather compelling case.


It was, after all, Obama himself who once declared that he did not wish for 
people to elect him simply because of the color of his skin. He may rest 
assured that that is the least of the reasons why progressives -- who will soon 
be requiring that their agendas be expeditiously implemented - have seen to it 
that he become their leader.

Page Printed from: 
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/progressives_and_obamas_accept.html
 at November 22, 2008 - 06:30:44 AM EST 
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to