Weeks before the 2008 Presidential election, the mortgage bubble burst and the economy began to spiral out of control.
It was a credit crisis of historic proportions and would color the election that November.
This was the Republicans’ fault, or at least George W. Bush’s. No one really liked either, so they were easy targets.
But it was clear at that point, regardless of who was elected – the experienced John McCain, or the fresh-faced hope and change candidate Barack Obama – the economy wasn’t going to be appreciably better four years later.
No amount of presidential magic was likely going to change that.
I said at the time that whomever was elected would be a one-term president, not because neither McCain nor Obama had the skills or leadership abilities to be a sufficient president, but because the economy would be so unstable, no sitting president could weather such a storm.
Even a black one.
It was historic when Barack Obama became the president. A victory for race relations they said. A step toward equality for all.
Now, facing approval ratings Jimmy Carter would be disappointed with, Barack Obama is having to scrape and claw his way to re-election.
He was billed as the man capable of changing Washington. Now, it looks like he’ll be changing his Washington address.
But let’s make one thing unequivocally clear: if Barack Obama isn’t re-elected, it isn’t because he’s black.
I understand the fear from the left: if Obama isn’t re-elected, he’ll be viewed as a failure and it will be a cornerstone in the argument for people who believe he never should have been president…at least those who thought he was less qualified because he was black.
Let’s be clear about this: such a racist view was hardly the mainstream opinion, even among the staunchest of conservatives and Republicans.
But it’s the false choice we’re left with: Either re-elect president Obama, or the country is racist.
It will be a terrific strategy for our soon-to-be-former President. Already, Bill Maher has jumped on the chance to remind people what a black failure it’d be if Obama isn’t re-elected.
Ironically, this heinously and pathetically ignorant. How many people would truly believe that if Barack Obama fails, it means a black man or woman shouldn’t be re-elected as a result?
As if one man’s failures represents the qualifications of an entire race.
Intuitively, the only people convinced black people are less qualified to be in the White House after Barack Obama are people who already believed that. Those people are already outliers in the political realm.
Plus, identifying an entire group of people with one vile person is the strategy of the left. No one is better at pinning an ideology on a group of people based on the worst parts of one person than liberals.
If anyone would think black people are less qualified to be president after Barack Obama, it’s them.
More to the point, Barack Obama is locked in a dead heat with Mitt Romney because the country remains in shambles almost four years after the biggest credit collapse since the Great Depression.
Obama could lose because he hasn’t shown he deserved to win, either as a leader or as a policy maker. Yes, his approval ratings have fallen among working white men, but that doesn’t mean it’s because that constituency suddenly became racist (remember, Obama won in 2008 due in large part to his ability to woo working white people away from the GOP).
They stopped supporting him because he stopped living up to his word.
It’s a convenient excuse for liberals, one they make often: racism. It’s a red herring for when they can’t explain something, or when they simply want to blame someone else for their own failures.
Barack Obama isn’t losing to Mitt Romney in swing states because he’s black. He’s losing because he’s not doing his job well. Any connection between the two is a simple coincidence, even if it does re-enforce negative racial stereotypes.