Gasoline on the racism fire

By Matt Mackowiak

Without citing a specific circumstance or piece of evidence, former President Jimmy Carter poured gasoline on a brushfire last week by saying, "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man." Carter went on to say, "I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of the belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It's an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply."

For his part, U.S. Rep. Hank Johnson (D., Ga.) weighed in last week with the even more overheated prediction that people would soon be putting on "white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside."

There's no way to un-ring that bell. Charges of racism are like catnip for the media, and they usually serve only to inflame emotions, rather than to shed light on complicated issues.

The ease with which racism charges are leveled belies their devastating effects. It seems to cost the accuser nothing to call someone racist, even though it is one of the worst labels in our culture today.

To be sure, racism continues to exist in this country, although fortunately it is on the wane. It is still practiced in places, and it was displayed by a very small number of those attending the recent tea-party rally in Washington. They referred to the president as an "African" and an "undocumented immigrant" who should "return to Kenya."

In a crowd of 50,000 people, there are bound to be 100 whose views are despised by the overwhelming majority. Such views should be denounced by honest and fair-minded Americans. But to cheaply charge that all intense opposition to the president is born of racism is irresponsible and ludicrous.

Ten months ago, 53 percent of the American electorate voted for Barack Obama, giving him the largest margin for a Democrat in decades. Surely those who supported him weren't racist then. If they oppose his current policies on the economy and health care, are they racist now?

Is anyone who publicly opposes an African American at any time to be called racist? Are Republican leaders in Congress and governors across the country racist for opposing bailouts, the failed stimulus legislation, and government-run health care?

National Republican Chairman Michael Steele, who is African American, strongly opposes the president on policy day in and day out. Is he a racist?

Steele said in a statement, "President Carter is flat out wrong. This isn't about race. It is about policy. This is a pathetic distraction by Democrats to shift attention away from the president's wildly unpopular government-run health-care plan that the American people simply oppose."

Perhaps cooler heads are prevailing. The White House doesn't want to have anything to do with the racism allegations. "The president does not think it [the opposition] is based on the color of his skin," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters last week.

President Obama is being judged by his actions, policy proposals, and judgment - as he should be. The great fight for civil rights was waged so that one day a black person could run for president, be elected, and be judged based solely on his actions, rather than his heritage or skin color.

Obama wasn't elected president because he is black, and he isn't facing political problems now because of his race. To claim otherwise is false. And to falsely accuse someone of racism hinders our progress toward a society that is free of racial bias.