A real concern for all American citizens is that President Obama and his allies base horrific policy decisions on the false premise of persistent racism in America, using “disparate impact,” a “dubious legal theory that many argue is unconstitutional,” as Paul Sperry warned in an editorial at IBD way back in 2012.
At the time, Sperry wrote,
“President Obama intends to close ‘persistent gaps’ between whites and minorities in everything from credit scores and homeownership to test scores and graduation rates.”
Howard Portnoy of Liberty Unyielding wrote an article just today about such an overreach.
To understand the progressive mentality, consider President Obama’s comment reported in a recent detailed New Yorker article by David Remnick:
“There’s no doubt that there’s some folks who just really dislike me because they don’t like the idea of a black President,” Obama said. “Now, the flip side of it is there are some black folks and maybe some white folks who really like me and give me the benefit of the doubt precisely because I’m a black President.”
While most journalists who bothered to report on this statement have focused on the bit about Obama being seemingly oblivious to the notion that his policies have led to his current low approval ratings, the second part of his statement is equally as offensive. If some give Obama the “benefit of the doubt” based on his skin color, isn’t that also racist?
Why would skin color have anything to do with anything?
Either the president has good policies or he doesn’t. Anybody who takes his race into account, for better or worse, is racist, if racist means judging someone by the color of his or her skin.
While President Obama’s statement is undoubtedly true, he likely is inflating the numbers of those who “really dislike” him because of the color of his skin.
Consider David Remnick’s next point,
“Obama lost among white voters in 2012 by a margin greater than any victor in American history.”
Remnick is trying to link President Obama’s unpopularity with racist white people, which seriously makes no sense if one considers President Obama’s prior high approval ratings.
This mentality affects progressive policy-making and results in pain for all Americans.
Instead of policies that empower “protected groups” (i.e., everyone except for white men), disparate impact policies punish banks, employers and even teachers for standards that may “unintentionally” be discriminatory.
Amy L. Wax, Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, wrote about this “dubious legal theory” in great detail in a paper called “The Dead end of Disparate Impact.”
Wax writes in part,
“As applied to race and employment, the disparate-impact rule should be repealed by Congress or abolished by the courts…In the sphere of employment, the key questions are: “Why do some people compete more effectively than others for jobs and social rewards?” and “What can be done about it?” These questions are complicated and pressing, and the law of disparate impact does nothing to address them. It in fact only distracts us from finding urgently needed answers.”
These policies are bad for America and indeed the global economy. They also led to the recession in the first place. President Obama is no stranger to suing institutions for a perception of discrimination. A little reported but important article by the incomparable Neil Munro clearly illustrates how Obama was, in fact, “a pioneering contributor to the national sub prime real estate bubble,” as his actions helped lead America to the circumstances that led to the 2008 recession.