Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> Discriminations

Legal Commentary

: Discriminations

Some Good News For Liberals

In the past week or so Obamaphiles have been dismayed to see their messiah?s candidate?s lead in the polls diminish dramatically. (See Rasmussen daily tracking polls here.)

Most observers attribute this decline to a highly publicized series of rapid flip-flops on major issues, nicely summarized by Dick Morris here:

? After vowing to eschew private fundraising and take public financing, he has now refused public money.

? Once he threatened to filibuster a bill to protect telephone companies from liability for their cooperation with national security wiretaps; now he has voted for the legislation.

? Turning his back on a lifetime of support for gun control, he now recognizes a Second Amendment right to bear arms in the wake of the Supreme Court decision.

? Formerly, he told the Israeli lobby that he favored an undivided Jerusalem. Now he says he didn't mean it.

? From a 100 percent pro-choice position, he now has migrated to expressing doubts about allowing partial-birth abortions.

? For the first time, he now speaks highly of using church-based institutions to deliver public services to the poor.

? Having based his entire campaign on withdrawal from Iraq, he now pledges to consult with the military first.

? During the primary, he backed merit pay for teachers -- but before the union a few weeks ago, he opposed it.

? After specifically saying in the primaries that he disagreed with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-N.Y.) proposal to impose Social Security taxes on income over $200,000 and wanted to tax all income, he has now adopted the Clinton position.

Some Obama supporters reply that there have been no flip-flops, that accusations of flip-flopping are just more noise from the Republican ?attack machine.? Others acknowledge they did occur but insist that?s a Good Thing, because the new, more popular positions will make Obama more electable. Obama himself characteristically denies any change (these alleged changes are not, I suppose, changes we can believe in), saying in effect that his positions have been misinterpreted, taken out of context, etc., and that his recent statements have simply been more nuanced explanations of what he has been saying all along.

But, liberals, take heart! All is not bleak on the liberal landscape. On the one issue that most concerns us here, Obama has been steadfast, unwaffling, and consistent: just as he always has, he continues to support governments and private entities dispensing benefits and burdens to individuals based on their race, ethnicity, or sex.

True, there is a certain tension between Obama?s rigid support for racial preference policies and his occasional rhetorical nods to a post-racial America that, like his earlier bi-racial self, is neither black not white, etc. But since he has never opposed any racial preference policy and has re-iterated his longstanding opposition to state initiatives that would require states to treat their citizens without regard to race, most people now recognize that rhetoric for what it is: rhetoric.

ADDENDUM

When Obama?s lofty rhetoric falls to earth, it conflicts not only with the policies he supports but also with what he says when he?s not speaking in rhetorical flourishes. As I?ve noted a number of times, such as here, here, and here, when Obama answers questions about affirmative action what he says is usually ?a textbook model of waffling obfuscation.?

Full post as published by Discriminations on July 16, 2008 (boomark / email).