Part 2

I review some of Obama’s statements and ideological pronouncements in the context of the speaker and the audience. I ponder why Obama so freely and indiscriminately says things that are so clearly wrong and so easily refuted—the history of the Berlin airlift; John F. Kennedy triumphing over Khrushchev; the tire inflating idiocy, we need to talk to our enemies, when in fact we’ve been talking continuously with them, that inflation-adjusted median income during the Bush administration was "down $2,000 since 2001” when in fact it was up, and it increased again last year.

All these can easily be demonstrated as false. Why say them?

Several possible answers arise: that Obama just isn’t very smart; that his staff and advisors are inept or that he really believes that what he says is true.  They are possible explanations but I find them unpersuasive. Obama is smart enough to know better.

We know that people tend to act in ways that have given them success in the past. Thus, I conclude that Obama has a high comfort level with his cavalier indifference to truth and history because he has never needed to be otherwise to advance his career. His audience never demanded precision on these matters. Obama operated on a level where truth was not a high priority.

If you goal is to get the masses rocking and rolling by screaming about racism and the patriotic duty of a small group of Americans to willingly embrace the confiscation of most of their earned income, then the truth about tax policy consequences and economics become an inconvenience. Why bother with reason? Emotion, Gorgias trumpets, is the better way to persuade. Moreover, counting on a fawning unethical media to cover for him, Obama can ignore the audacity of veracity.

Thus, in his carefully crafted mesmerizing brilliantly cadenced voice, Obama can avoid being held accountable for such inflammatory and deceitful words as those spoken to the National Council of La Raza convention in San Diego on July 13, asserting that the nation’s immigration system “isn’t working” and that “communities are terrorized by ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] immigration raids” and “nursing mothers are torn from their babies.”

Obama knew that he had an ideologically harmonious audience and a like-minded media that would absorb his words without concern about truth or character.  So much for the virtues of change!

The issue of race is particularly irksome to me, since race3 should be treated seriously and maturely and respectfully given the history of slavery in our country and the damage that history has done and can continue to do. It seems that more than 95% of blacks support Obama.

It is a stunning statistical improbability that such a percent of a particular group is in agreement with his positions on things that should matter, capital gains and estate taxes, energy development, his likely judicial appointments, the war in Iraq, the relationship between the United States and the United Nations and his attempted distinction between that war and the war in Afghanistan. It is quite amazing that 95% or so of blacks affirmatively adopt Obama’s values, such as his besmirching Middle America as people that cling to religion, the bible and guns. Is there another explanation for such a stunning percentage of support by blacks?

Who knows what to make of any particular poll or study, but one creative and insightful experiment was aired on the Howard Stern website, of all places. A reporter went to Harlem and interviewed people regarding this support for one candidate or another, except the reporter attributed to Obama Senator McCain’s platform. No problem. The respondents said they strongly supported Obama because of his commitment to win the war in Iraq, his anti-abortion stance and his astute selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate. Go figure!

Perhaps race does play a roll in such staggering black support of Obama.  Some advanced the argument that the dignity of blacks was on the line. It’s a matter of pride, some said. Maybe. I had great pride when Joe Lieberman was nominated to be the Democrat vice presidential candidate. That a Jew could achieve such stature made me extraordinarily proud to be an American, and, by the way, not for the first time.

But I’d never vote for Lieberman. Pride aside, I don’t like his policies. I don’t share his world views on most matters. That he was running with Kerry made such a vote beyond the pale. But I was proud.

As for blacks, why would their dignity ‘be on the line?’ No one is challenging their dignity. No one is saying they should not have pride that a black might rise to the highest office in the land. But pride and dignity seem to be quite selectively experienced. Where are black pride and dignity when conservative blacks run for office? I am at a loss to recall how black pride and dignity united to advance the confirmation of Clarence Thomas to the United States Supreme Court.

Rather, it seemed the black race groups considered Clarence Thomas to be an execrable Uncle Tom. In addition to price and dignity, one or more other explanations for blacks’ unified support for Obama’s must exist.

What is his audience thinking? My guess is that the answer has something to do with the leftist agenda of identify politics and a dash of resentment thrown into the cauldron of redistribution and preferences.

My analysis is that black support for Obama cannot be justified by a rational assessment of how his politics will affect blacks. Obama’s rhetoric about indifference to lax borders and illegal immigration will further deprive blacks of jobs. His anti free trade policies will hurt middle class and lower middle class blacks. His energy policies will lead to higher energy costs that will be devastating to blacks. Obama’s tax policies will sabotage the economy and any expectation for an imminent recovery, all of which will hurt blacks. Not only the rich will be affected.

Speaking of the rich, I understand why many if not all of the super rich blacks support Obama. They can afford the luxury of identity politics. They probably figure they can’t get hurt. Perhaps their money is safely—or so they hope—protected in layers of trusts and corporations that it can not easily be taken away. On balance, given their race preferences, perhaps they figure that  they make so much money another million or so taken away won’t hurt them. But for them to endorse policies that they know or should know will predictably deny economic advancement to their fellow blacks and undermine the standard of living of millions of blacks is ignoble.

Those who believe that they will soon be given more—and those pandering to them—are assuming that the rich will not stop acting as if they were rich or as rich. But what if the rich stop consuming and begin to reduce their earnings? They already pay 70-80% of all federal income taxes. If they reduce earning, their tax payments will decrease and the economy will dissipate like smoke from a campfire. Even if he is speaking only partially truthfully, Obama’s policies will subvert the blacks, no matter how much wealth he promises to steal from some and give to others. Do the math. There’s not enough money to pay for his fantasy world. Anyone who promises to rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul, of course, but if the number of Peters is drastically reduced, the Pauls are in serious trouble.