Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post is one of my least favorite columnists on their editorial page--only Harold Myerson eclipses Robinson's knee-jerk liberalism, though Robinson also enjoys occasional forays into racial politics.
Today's nugget though seems to me to be the kind of post-racial permission slip we've all been waiting for, and Robinson hands it to us on a silver platter:
"After Obama gave his prime-time speech to Congress last week, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal began his response with a patronizing, cringe-worthy riff in which he congratulated the president on being the first African American to hold the office -- as if we hadn't noticed."
Do you mean it, Gene? Really? Can we really stop referring to Barack Obama as the first African-American President, and Eric Holder as the First African-American Attorney General, and Lisa Jackson as the First African-American Administrator of the EPA? Does the fact that we have indeed "noticed" these things now release us a society of constantly referring back to them? I sure hope so, Gene.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
A reminder: this post is NOT an invitation for readers to give voice to their racially tinged opinions of our President. It is intended to highlight the views of a leading liberal columnist who has criticized a Conservative politician for using a phrase to describe our President that seemed to have become part of his official title "first African-American President". I am interested in taking President Obama up on his words of being a "post-racial President". I certainly will not tolerate racially dubious posts here.
I find it interesting how the Left went out of its way the past eight years to ignore that President Bush's administration included the first African-American Secretary of State (Colin Powell) and the first female African American Secretary of State. I guess we (as an American people) are not as post-racial as we like to think. I don't recall anyone using the title "first African American Secretary of State" or "first female African American Secretary of State" --especially from the opposing party (but my memory is not that great either).
Rather than practicing unilateral censorship, I would prefer that you allow posts of a dubious nature to stand and allow them to reflect the dubious intellect of the poster.
Censorship in any form is never good.
Smoothfur, your opinion is noted, and I think it is an excellent policy---for your blog.
I'm sorry--allow me to elaborate...
A few months ago, I decided to lift the veil of anonymity under which I had been writing. Up to that point, I maintained a personal standard of not writing anything I wouldn't be proud to associate myself with later in life--and I still maintain that standard.
What I have NO wish to do is defend the rantings of OTHER people. I am a youngish fellow with not insignificant ambition; I have not ruled out either elective or appointed office--and so may someday face either an electorate or a confirmatory body. While I will proudly defend what I have written, the internet provides a virtually infinite resource to those who would associate ME with the thoughts that happen to appear on MY site. I am acting in near-real time to see that they are denied this opportunity.
Good luck on your elective or appointed office aspirations, but keep in mind that like a blog, elective and appointive offices are part of the marketplace of ideas but unlike your blog you will have little or no control over the opinions expressed by others in that marketplace.
So now would be a good time to begin practicing how to live in a world of no censorship.
Post a Comment