[img]1|left|||no_popup[/img]
If Barack Obama loses the election, an elderly professor argues in the current edition of The New York Review of Books, the blame properly will be placed on the heads of millions of white bigots.
Mr. Obama’s defeat would be entirely unrelated to his vision of governing, or his views on any crucial current event, the old man writes.
Unvarnished racism will be the villain, not political or philosophical disagreement.
I thought, for a moment, I was digesting an ugly KKK screed from the 1950s in deepest Mississippi.
But the good black and white citizens of this once maligned state have grown up and become far more tolerant and accepting of each other in the last 50 years than this angry white academic who probably has poisoned many unsuspecting young minds in the last half-century.
He maintains that it is racist, for example, for a white to oppose affirmative action.
Andy’s Handy Dandy Arguments
Andy Hacker is a 79-year-old professor emeritus of political science at Queens College. In a rambling, disorganized, nearly incoherent story in The New York Review of Books, Prof. Hacker contends that minimal racial progress has been achieved since the glorious days of Dr. King when the civil rights movement reached its epitome.
Oh, is he an axe-grinder.
The slightly slanted, aptly named academic has written three books on why unalike people cannot get along with each other. Darn those nagging distinctions between boys and girls.
The Prof has been in this bad mood most of his life. I was going to say “dark” mood, but I feared he would label me a racist for injecting hues into the discussion.
Amazingly, he seems to think many white Americans — especially conservatives — could segue directly into the Klan without missing a beat.
A Tiny Concession
While conceding that “most” Americans admire Oprah, admire Tiger and respect Colin, Prof. Hacker says it is just a phony shield intended to deflect skeptics.
“[R]acism persists,” he writes, “albeit not publicly voiced, especially in the belief that one’s own [race] is a superior strain.”
Prof. Hacker says polls are worthless.
Can’t trust white people, the good professor asserts. They talk one way and vote another. Sure, says Prof. Hacker, “70 percent of whites told a New York Times/CBS News poll in July that they felt the country ‘is ready to elect a black President.’ Of course, that’s what people feel obliged to say today. Yet some might have followed up with ‘but not Barack Obama.’ The surveys can’t measure white apprehension over having a black man at the head of their government.”
And how, praytell, does this bitter old buzzard know what only is available to an angry liberal?
Only One Kind of Person Knows
How does he know that vanilla-colored Americans, along with the mercurially growing Hispanic population, which regards itself as white, are preparing to gang up against Mr. Obama on Nov. 4 because the color of his skin represents a threat to America’s traditional way of life?
More than half a century in the classroom is Prof. Hacker’s implied answer. Either that or white magic, known as black magic in pre-Hacker times.
Here is the old man’s formula for a victory by Mr. Obama:
“[N]eeded, in my view, are two parallel campaigns: a quiet one to assure a maximum black turnout, and a more public one to make the most of the white backing the Obama-Biden ticket already has. His rallies, appearances and advertisements would benefit from featuring white faces, and they should be accompanied by endorsements from white military veterans, union leaders, police chiefs and firemen. His black supporters will know what is going on, and not take this as a rebuff.”
After completing the story, I ran to the sink to wash. Thoroughly.
