Scott Spiegel

Jonathan Martin of Politico notes that, even though racism against the president is supposedly widespread, “it’s still a sensitive enough issue that the [Democratic] party doesn’t broach it directly.”  By “sensitive,” of course, he means “far-fetched, ludicrous, and laughable.”

Representative Hank Johnson (D-GA) claims that in Senator Joe Wilson’s outburst toward the president last week, Wilson “kind of winked at that element” of the U.S. that disrespects Obama because he is black.  I’m not sure what criminal statutes are on the books for “kind of winking” at an “element,” but I do know that Democrats’ charges of racism until recently have been so timid and indirect, because they know that if they made them openly, they might have to produce actual evidence of racism.

Lately some of the attempts to label opposition to socialized medicine and trillion-dollar deficits as racism have gotten more blatant.

The Reverend Jeremiah Wright was just caught on video snarling, “I think the racists in the right wing are upset because poor people are about to be helped.”  And it wasn’t even during one of his weekly sermons!

Jimmy Carter weighed in on the subject over the weekend: “[A]n overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man… [and] a belief among many white people… that African Americans are not qualified to lead this great country.”

MSNBC bloggers recently wrote, “Whether it’s fair or not, there is a perception growing that race is driving some elements of the opposition to Obama.”

Maureen Dowd wrote of Wilson in the New York Times, “[F]air or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!”  Oh, the New York Times doesn’t need to be fair!  Stop being so hard on yourself!

According to Dowd, who was praised by liberal bloggers everywhere for finally stating openly what they believed but didn’t feel comfortable expressing, “Wilson clearly did not like being lectured and even rebuked by the brainy black president presiding over the majestic chamber.”  Note to Dowd: None of the conservatives in Congress did, and it had nothing to do with Obama’s being brainy or black—it had everything to do with his being wrongheaded and pompous.

Dowd lamented “the frantic efforts to paint our first black president as… socialist, fascist, Marxist, racist, Commie, Nazi; a cad who would snuff old people.”

I don’t know—some would say that taking over banks, car companies, and the health care industry is a bit socialist; wanting to “spread the wealth around” is a bit Marxist; having a spiritual mentor who railed against white people in church for 20 years is a bit racist; nominating former communists as czars is a bit Commie; receiving material support from groups that beat up health care protestors at townhall meetings is a bit Nazi; and planning to set up government panels to ration end-of-life care implies a willingness to snuff old people.  Then again, some don’t write for the New York Times.

Dowd added, “Wilson’s shocking disrespect for the office of the president… convinced me: Some people just can’t believe a black man is president and will never accept it.”  Yes, and the “shocking disrespect” for the office of Congressman at mostly white Senators and Representatives’ townhall meetings has convinced me: Some people just can’t believe white people can be in Congress and will never accept it.

Dowd charged that Obama is “at the center of a period of racial turbulence sparked by his ascension” and that “this president is the ultimate civil rights figure—a black man whose legitimacy is constantly challenged by a loco fringe.”

For liberals, the equation is “challenged” plus “black” = “victim of racism.”

I suppose we need to inform Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, Walter Williams, Sonja Schmidt, Mychal Massie, and other fantastic black conservative and libertarian commentators and harsh Obama critics that their opposition is based on mere black self-hatred.

It was also insinuated by major media outlets that the massive tea party held in Washington over the weekend was fueled by racist resentment of a black man in the White House.  As amply documented by photos of the event, however, signs protested the actions of not just Obama but: Bush, Congress, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Steny Hoyer, Saul Alinsky, government, and the mainstream media, among many other targets.

Tea party signs protested Medicaid and Medicare’s insolvency, passing on trillions of dollars of debt to future generations, providing health care to illegal immigrants, paying for abortions through health care legislation, excessive taxes, cap-and-trade schemes, government takeover of the automobile industry, and the appointment of czars.  (Take that, NAACP!)

Finally, signs supported tort reform, health savings accounts, a flat tax, gun rights, the war on terror, and a strange, unheard-of cult called “Liberty.”

Notably absent from protest signs were calls for the repeal of the Civil Rights Act and the resegregation of water fountains.  As Obama correctly observed in one of his health care speeches this summer, “This is not about me.”

As for the occasional reference to race on protest signs, Martin writes, “Republicans see an important distinction between Obama critics who are genuinely worried about his… policies and those whose fears go beyond the president’s liberalism…  But for some Democrats, it’s difficult to make that distinction when conservative marchers take to Washington bearing images of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Obama that read, ‘He had a dream, we got a nightmare.’”  And for some Republicans, it’s difficult to make a distinction between signs comparing King and Obama that would be acceptable to liberals and those that would be branded “racist.”

As one prescient and widely photographed sign at the protest read, “It doesn’t matter what this sign says—you’ll call it racism anyway.”

In light of Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings this week, in which the controversial nominee must face tough scrutiny from senators of both parties on her judicial philosophy, temperament, and fidelity to the rule of law, political commentators on the left are naturally busy suggesting harsh, delegitimizing questions for… Frank Ricci!  The lead New Haven firefighter in the Ricci v. Destefano racial discrimination lawsuit, who will testify in the hearings, has been attacked by Slate magazine, among others, for having previously brought lawsuits against former employers for discriminating against him due to his dyslexia and for firing him for being a whistleblower against his department.

Ignoring the fact that Ricci’s earlier lawsuits have zero legal bearing on the arguments in the Ricci v. Destefano case and that the Supreme Court recently overturned Sotomayor’s ruling against Ricci, why should the other 17 firefighters in the lawsuit suffer if it so happens that Ricci was lawsuit-happy with his previous employers?

Speaking of those other firefighters, Lieutenant Ben Vargas, who will also testify at Sotomayor’s hearings, is the Hispanic firefighter who joined 17 white firefighters in the lawsuit against the New Haven fire department.  Vargas shares some superficial similarities with Sotomayor: both are Hispanic; both were born and raised in the U.S.; both have Puerto Rican parents who came here because they were poor.  Both grew up in troubled, high-crime, urban neighborhoods in the Northeast; both found a way out of their circumstances through hard work in their chosen career paths.

That’s where the similarities end.

Vargas considers himself an American first and foremost; as he said in an interview with the New York Times, “I love my people.  I love my culture…  But I am so grateful for the opportunity only the United States can give.”

In a speech on Hispanics in the justice system, Sotomayor said, “America has a deeply confused image of itself that is in perpetual tension…  [We] insist that we can and must function and live in a race and color-blind way that ignore these very differences that in other contexts we laud.”  Which other contexts are those, Justice Sotomayor—putting out fires in a racially sensitive way?

Vargas was hired by the New Haven Fire Department in 1994 as a result of a discrimination lawsuit brought by black firefighters, but he opposes affirmative action in principle and would prefer to have been hired in a race-neutral context (and believes he may still have been hired if he had been afforded a colorblind assessment).

Sotomayor admits that she benefited from affirmative action and continues to support the policy.

Vargas, as a result of joining the Ricci v. Destefano lawsuit, received no support from the New Haven Hispanic firefighters’ association, of which his brother is a member.  Vargas had the courage to leave the association.

Sotomayor served for 12 years in leadership positions, including setting policy, on the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, which, among other dubious accomplishments: (1) defended during her tenure several Puerto Rican separatists who had injured five legislators in a terrorist attack on the U.S. House of Representatives and (2) has a close working relationship with ACORN, the community organization that has been indicted numerous times for violating federal and state laws.

Vargas, after joining the Ricci lawsuit, was physically attacked by a fellow black firefighter in retaliation for his action.

Sotomayor upheld, with summary judgment, New Haven’s dismissal of the promotion exam on which Vargas and 17 white firefighters excelled, a dismissal motivated by the fact that no black firefighters did well enough for imminent promotion.

Vargas was ridiculed by fellow firefighters as an Uncle Tom for joining the lawsuit.

Sotomayor had no qualms about slapping down Uncle Tomás for thinking he could advance in his career based on his merits.

Vargas bravely remained in the New Haven fire department despite the tension and resentment displayed toward him by other firefighters.  He fought his battle for five years, until most of the department eventually came around to his position.

Sotomayor raised enormous controversy over her position and angered Americans who believe disparate racial results alone should not be used to conclude that discrimination has taken place.

The New Haven Hispanic firefighters’ association publicly reversed its opposition to Vargas’ position when the Supreme Court decided to take up the lawsuit, even before the Court decided the case in his favor.

Sotomayor’s position, presumably influenced by her experiences as a “wise Latina,” was abandoned by the Latino organization that represents Vargas’ profession.

Finally, the Supreme Court ruled in Vargas’ favor and overturned Sotomayor’s summary judgment 9-0.

In the New York Times interview, Vargas said, “I want [my three sons] to have a fair shake, to get a job on their merits and not because they’re Hispanic or they fill a quota.  What a lousy way to live.”

In her aforementioned speech, which tacitly supported Hispanic and female quotas in the federal judicial system, Sotomayor said with respect to her profession, “[Some believe] that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law…  I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases…  [We] may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning…  Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences… our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging” [emphasis added].

What a lousy way to judge.