We’re in a Catch-22. If we use a possible future harm to justify an action which then prevents that harm, then we simultaneously destroy the evidence that we made the correct choice. Political opponents can always claim the action unnecessary and no one can demonstrate otherwise. Paradoxically, the more successfully one averts disaster, the more one’s actions appear unnecessary. If the phenomenon prevented is very rare, many will question its very possibility. It’s like that old joke, “Why do we have so much fire proofing? We never have any fires.”
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Many have simply judged the content of Mr. Obama’s character or his lack of leadership experience. On that basis, they believe he is unqualified for the highest office in the world. Most folks I know who do not support Obama would gladly vote for a black man if he were the right person. Most often, names like Colin Powell, J.C. Watts, Lynn Swann, Alan Keyes, Condoleezza Rice, Thomas Sowell, and Walter Williams come up, as they do in Merida’s piece toward the end.
Will this election reach the point where any and all criticism or opposition to Barack Obama will be labeled “racism”? It seems the Illinois senator still prefers to avoid that. What the Washington Post article — by dropping in nothing more than a few random stories — really shows is that if Obama ultimately loses in the fall, it will be due to his views, inexperience, and lack of authenticity, not because of his skin color.
Seems Barack knows this, as do most Hoosiers and Americans. It’s time for the media to admit it, too.