The columnist Michael Kinsley once defined a "gaffe" as an occasion when a politician accidentally tells the truth. In our age of political correctness, some would place Geraldine Ferraro's remarks into this category. Long known for speaking candidly, Ferraro recently remarked that "if Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position."
There's a molecule of truth in this. Obama's appeal is that he is an African American who doesn't sound one bit like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Blacks are inspired to see one of their own have a serious shot at the presidency. Whites are relieved that Obama doesn't seem to be motivated by the kind of chronic resentment that seems all too prevalent in black America.
Taken this way, Ferraro is stating the obvious. It's equally obvious, by the way, that if Hillary was male--and not married to Bill Clinton--she wouldn't be in her position. Hillary came to national prominence not through her own efforts but through the success of her husband. Virtually all her "experience" prior to being elected Senator is in fact Bill Clinton's experience. She wouldn't even have been elected to the Senate without Bill. So she too owes a great deal to her gender and her "first wife" position.
In a deeper sense, though, Ferraro's insinuation is completely wrong. In reality Obama's political success is due to far more than race. He brings some unique and very attractive qualities at a time when the country wants and needs them. Obama is a man of unquestionable intelligence and grace, and this is why the affirmative action label seems especially unjust when applied to him.
To me Ferraro's comments illustrate two things. First, they show the depths to which Hillary flacks are willing to go. It's typical of the Hillary camp that a sidekick like Ferraro attempts to plunge the knife into Obama while Hillary feigns ignorance and plays nice. Second, Ferraro's attack illustrates how some prominent liberals deep down think that all blacks are only capable of advancing because they are black.
In a way liberal support for racial preferences can be understood as an attempt to cope with this situation. We often hear liberal activists say, "If it wasn't for affirmative action there would be virtually no blacks in top universities." The implication of course is that blacks on their own merits are incapable of getting into Harvard and Berkeley.
The cruel irony of affirmative action is that it reinforces and strengthens liberal perceptions of black inferiority. Athough Obama seems smart enough to have gotten into Harvard, it's quite possible that affirmative action policies were partly responsible for his admission. Consequently policies of racial preference have the effect of placing an invisible question mark alongside the achievements of all persons of color.
When Clarence Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court, it wasn't the Ku Klux Klan or the skinheads who said, "He's just there because he's black." It was the liberal Senators and activist groups that said this. Now Ferraro is saying the same thing about Obama.
Perhaps the day is not far when African Americans will wake up and start asking, "Do these politices of racial preferences actually hurt more than they help?" and "Isn't it time we stopped assuming that liberal Democrats like Ferraro and Hillary are our natural allies?"
Reader Comments ( Page 2 of 12)
16. Fred made an interesting remark. While I'm skeptical of a third party surge, I do see the Democratic party rift: the old-time party hard-liners, and the new, loosey-goosey, more youthful, tired of the same old crap group. It's easy to place which candidate is which.
The Clintons have built up party support amongst all the big wheels for years now. I believe that is the only reason why Hillary is still in the race. It's given her the money and the elected Dems' support that she needs to continue.
Obama's campaign is the quintessential grass-roots campaign, with some old timers, some newbies, and plenty of youths.
About affirmative action? Well, I work in a hospital where 60% of the employees are black. Years ago, practically all of the managerial positions were held by white people. It's different now, and I think this place is running pretty well.
All the whites are crying and telling stories about how 'unqualified blacks are getting admitted to schools or being employed over white people.'
That is simply not the case. The greatest percentage of the time, the candidates are equal, and the black may be admitted because of affirmative action; but 40 years ago, in most places in the USA, he wouldn't have been considered. That is the hard reality of what people of color have had to face in the country for decades.
My brother's wife is a dean of a 2 year college, and she says the college weighs all candidates equally, and affirmative admissions occur only if the racial mix is skewed significantly towards white students.
All that being said, I think that Ferraro was simply wrong in her statement, for the most part.
That young man made a big impression at the 2004 convention, and he's been riding a wave ever since. (Good metaphor, since he is from Hawaii).
Linda at 1:17PM on Mar 14th 2008
17. Well, the fact that I pretty much agree with Dinesh today is troubling. I may have to re-evaluate my positions.
I can't stand Hillary. Dinesh can't stand Hillary. Maybe I need to take another look at her...
Nah, she's toxic.
I guess even Dinesh can be right once in a while.
Godless Heathen Brian at 1:24PM on Mar 14th 2008
18. "If Hillary was white--and not married to Bill Clinton--she wouldn't be in her position." --Dinesh
_____________
Okay, Dinesh...I can overlook the fact that you should have used the auxiliary verb "were" instead of "was" when talking about Hillary's race, but I cannot excuse the fact that there is no "if" about her being white.
Saying, "if Hillary were white" is like saying, "if George W. Bush were a man"...
Well, okay, maybe we can say, "if George W. Bush were a man". Poor example.
Maybe you meant to say, "if Hillary were a man"?
I think you get my point here.
Bottom line, Dineshy? Hillary IS white. Now fix that sentence to say what you really mean, because I'm just as confused as all get-out by this "if Hillary was white" clause. WTF are you talking about? She IS white!
Paul at 1:38PM on Mar 14th 2008
19. I've noticed more than two Pauls leaving comments on this blog, so I think I'll use my full name from now on. If it doesn't say "Paul Berror" at the bottom then it just aint me.
Paul at 1:45PM on Mar 14th 2008
20. testing...one, two, three...check! Check! Check!
day-oh! day-oh!
Is this thing on?
Paul at 1:46PM on Mar 14th 2008
21. Dear Mr.D'Souza I think you create problems in your own head and you answer them
yourself. It reminds me of people with a compulsive-obsessive disorder.You try to blame everybody who does not agree with you because you have an answer allredy in your head, then you pass judgement and think "Hey I am not taking any sides!"
I think the last thing we need in this country is a paranoia.
Congratulation You joined the exclusive paronoid club with Lou Dobbs, O'Railey, Gllen Beck,Ann Culter,Rush Limbo and Shawn Henedy.
Dariusz at 5:59PM on Mar 14th 2008
22. "She wouldn't even have been elected to the Senate without Bill." --Dinesh
___________________
If any of Dinesh's readers are even slightly inclined to believe that statement then they are just plain stupid.
Dinesh...please be so kind as to actually PROVE your above statement of "fact".
Please PRVOVE that Hillary Rodham would have never risen to prominence and then aspired to the highest elected office in the land without the help of Bill Clinton.
How do you know that Bill Clinton hasn't actually hindered her rise to the Senate? How do you know what she is capable of without Bill Clinton? Does your Christianity give you some sort of middle eye that sees what others can't?
Dinesh, sometimes you just astound me with your arrogance. You must really regard your readers as being completely brainless, don't you?
Oh, wait...that's right...you're addressing a primarily Christian GOP audience. THAT explains it!
Paul Berror at 1:58PM on Mar 14th 2008
23. I think the point that Geraldene was trying to make with her comments, and I agree with them, is that Obama is getting black voters to support him in grossly disproportionate numbers compared to the demographics of the rest of the voters. Look at the last primary in Mississippi...90% of the states black voters indicated that they had voted for Obama rather than Hiliary. Did that translate over into the rest of the population...Well, you know the answer to that one, a big resounding "NO" it did not.
While I do not have the direct numbers for the rest of the states with sifgnificant black populations that Obama has taken in the primary, though if memory serves they all have the same BASIC disproportionality about the strict black vs. white voters.
Why then, for as they they say numbers don't lie, (my paraphrase of the quote)is Geraldene wrong for saying what she did, and pointing out the truth? Where is the ninety percent of the non-black voters carrying him on their shoulders to a overwhelming landslide victory in this contest?
charlieofthepcu at 2:12PM on Mar 14th 2008
24. "if Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position."
Dinesh: Of course! What could be more obvious?
Bob at 2:22PM on Mar 14th 2008
25. If Hillary was female, but not married to Bill Clinton, she would never be where she is.
Bob at 2:31PM on Mar 14th 2008
26. "All blacks are only capable of advancing because they are black." --Dinesh D'Souza
___________________
How completely unfair for you to extrapolate Ferraro's comment like that. Nowhere does she even approach such a statement. Dinesh, taking someone's comments completely out of context and then adding your own conclusions about that person's thoughts is typically called "intellectual dishonesty".
Please, Dinesh, show us how you're actually not intellectually dishonest by citing any remark from history where Geraldine Ferraro (former vice presidential candidate who rose to such a position without the help of Bill Clinton OR her husband) even came close to saying such a thing or hinting that she actually assumes such a racially slanted pose.
You've taken her observation of the current political landscape (within the very narrow Democratic presidential primaries) and painted it with the broad brush of racism.
And the picture you've generated isn't very appealing...the picture of you, that is.
(Y'know, that profile of you that we're compiling.)
The REAL racism comes from the 9 in 10 blacks who will vote for Obama simply because he is half African-American.
If 90% of the white voters in the US said they would only vote for the white candidate then every major metropolitan area in America would likely erupt in pointless, needless rioting with shouts for white America's destruction and death!
A vote for Obama is a vote for African-American racism. Now THAT, Dinesh, is a provable fact.
Paul at 2:36PM on Mar 14th 2008
27. Are there no honest voters out there, of any color, who will simply admit they are voting for a candidate because of his or her color? Why is it, whenever I ask a black person if they're voting for b/o because he's black, they make all kinds of other excuses for voting for him? Even more curious, when I ask whites the same question, they act like they've been caught doing something illegal and rationalize eloquently about the wonderful 'hope and change' he promises to bring, instead of admitting the white guilt they're trying to offset. It reminds of a dinner party several years ago during the O.J. trial. We were four couples together for dinner and as the conversation grew more animated, the colour divide suddenly happened. Though we are all close friends, what we had been unaware of for most of dinner was now obvious. The two white couples believed O.J. was guilty; the two black couples defended his innocence.
fanmanaf1 at 2:45PM on Mar 14th 2008
28. Someone had to say what Ms. Ferraro said, so that this discussion could be had. We must confront the reality of our feelings, so that we can confront them head on.
I also feel that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama had it in them to be right where they are, regardless of gender or race, because they are energetic, smart, ambitious and capable.
The toxic attitude on this board is absurd! We have to talk about these things and it would be best done civilly, for the sake of credibility.
abbot at 2:59PM on Mar 14th 2008
29. "Instead of admitting the white guilt they're trying to offset." --Fanman
________________
White guilt? White guilt for what, exactly?
I'm white. I feel no guilt.
White people vote for black candidates all the time.
Fanman, please show us the basis for your conclusion that white people will vote for Obama simply out of guilt. If you can't then your remark is just pointless bluster...like cotton candy...big and pretty, but nutritionally worthless.
Paul at 3:04PM on Mar 14th 2008
30. Yo Paul, sort of blustery like your "pointless, needless rioting with shouts for white America's destruction and death!" I started the sentence with 'Even more curious', a clear admission that I don't have the answer. That's why I asked for honest answers from honest voters. I just don't think change for change's sake is a smart bet.
fanmanaf1 at 3:16PM on Mar 14th 2008