In his March 22 column “Obama, race and his opponents” Ned Barnett decried a presumed tendency toward racism among conservative opponents of the president. In effect, I think he created an umbrella argument whereby those who disagree with his worldview can be branded as racist, thus negating their argument by association rather than logic. I suspect George Orwell would be proud.
I submit that there are plenty of reasons, sans some Freudian predisposition to racism, to question the actions of the president and his subordinates.
For one, his administration’s systematic removal of U.S. forces from the Middle East helped create the vacuum filled by ISIS and other terrorist forces. (I don’t argue that the situation is entirely his fault. I do think that he greatly exacerbated it.)
Two, his administration, and by association, his party, appear to be heavily anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian. This is a profound shift in diplomatic relations with a key ally.
Never miss a local story.
Three, his attorney general publicly declared that he would not enforce laws which he thought were wrong. Oddly, I somehow thought the job of the attorney general was to enforce the laws of the nation, not preside over those laws as moral arbiter.