Beware the party of ‘acceptable racism’

During the 2008 election, Barack Obama received widespread support from people who wanted to “make history” by voting for the first black man to become president. This sentiment sparked a wave of enthusiasm that carried Obama into the White House.

But let’s face it: Voting for someone based on his skin color was — and is — flat-out racist.

We must not repeat the mistake of acceptable racism made in 2008 when choosing in 2024.

Imagine how differently Obama might have performed in the primaries if he had been white. Hillary Clinton would have faced six white candidates instead of five. Obama would have had to defend his poor record as the junior U.S. senator from Illinois — a record that included his infamous statement, “You didn’t build that,” which dismissed the idea that people achieve success without government assistance. Obama accomplished little during his brief tenure in the Senate, reflecting his belief in government dependency rather than individual achievement.

In many ways, Obama was this country’s first DEI president. Some have pointed out that DEI stands for “didn’t earn it.” The appellation certainly seems to apply here. Martin Luther King Jr. warned us 60 years ago that we should judge a person based on the content of his character, not the color of his skin. We’ve come a long way — and strayed far off track.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion ideology is very much racism on steroids. It has led to a fundamentally transformed America where we now applaud each letter of that abbreviation.

Consider the “E.”

In her very first (and possibly last) interview as the Democrats’ presidential nominee on CNN last month, Kamala Harris said she loves DEI — especially the “E,” which she said stands for “equality.” Not so! The “E” stands for equity, which is quite the opposite of equality.

If two students in the same class take a math test and one earns an A while the other gets a D, both had the same opportunity to complete the test and demonstrate their knowledge. When equity is applied, however, both students might receive an A or a D, regardless of their performance, to ensure that they are on the same level.

Another possible equity outcome could be giving both students a C-plus, averaging the two scores. In this scenario, neither effort nor results would matter.

It’s almost as if the old “participation trophies” have evolved into today’s equity outcomes.

And what about the “D” and the “I,” diversity and inclusion?

Say you're on a gurney being wheeled into the operating room for open-heart surgery. You are mildly sedated at this point as you look up and see a nurse walking alongside you. She has a reassuring smile on her face.

“Is my surgeon any good?” you ask.

And the nurse looks down and says, “Oh, don’t worry. She’s well versed in diversity and inclusion.”

When affirmative action was introduced in the late 1960s, people raised the same concern: Did professionals in highly skilled fields like medicine, law, or electronics earn their positions based on merit? Or were they chosen over more qualified candidates to make a business or organization appear more “colorful”?

This kind of acceptable racism leads to more division between races, not less.

In Tuesday’s debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, the race issue was shoehorned in among the questions.

Trump’s response to questions about whether Harris is Indian or black revealed his stance on race. He dismissed her changing racial identity, stating that he didn’t care what she identified as and would accept whatever she chose.

Harris, in her rebuttal, tried to portray Trump as a divider who pits races against each other. However, the Democratic left constantly determines right and wrong based on race, which is an undeniably racist perspective.

The left has dominated the conversation on race. In my book, “Obvious: Seeing the Evil That's in Plain Sight and Doing Something About It,” I highlight how conservatives often soften their criticism of the left on racial issues with euphemisms. For instance, they might refer to Al Sharpton as a race hustler. From the book:

[But] being a “race hustler” implies that you outsmarted your mark and caused him to fall for your scheme. The focus is deflected from you to the person hustled and outwitted. The same with being a “race baiter” — your adversary is lured into your trap and, again, duped. And someone who "plays the race card" just beat you at your own game. The hustler, baiter, and card player end up looking good, while the one played looks bad.

These phrases have been invented by the left to allow conservatives and middle-of-the-roaders to label people on the left. Have these phrases ever been used to describe anyone on the right? No. People on the right are always called “racist”; whether they are or not is inconsequential.

We must not repeat the mistake of acceptable racism made in 2008 when choosing in 2024. Kamala Harris has achieved nothing and remains an empty pantsuit. So what do the Democrats rely on? Race.

The Democrats will undoubtedly push the narrative of voting for a black woman for president and making history once again as a major factor leading up to November 5.

They can’t help themselves. They’re the party of acceptable racism.