Perfect.

How can one distinguish such similar manifestations of irrationality?

Our media has yet again dug up the wearisome bastion of pragmatist irrationality to enlighten us with more of his wholly predictable socio-political analysis.

“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, that he’s African-American,” Carter told “NBC Nightly News.” “I live in the South, and I’ve seen the South come a long way, and I’ve seen the rest of the country that shares the South’s attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African-Americans.”

“That racism inclination still exists, and I think it’s bubbled up to the surface because of 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,” Carter said.

Being as collectivist as they come, Carter cannot begin to grasp the abstract concept that some people don’t view man in terms of groups - let alone on such a crudely obtuse metric of assessment as a man’s race. We have no way of knowing if Carter’s racist charge is an honest (yet debilitated) assessment, or if he merely intends to obfuscate and undermine any opposition with the time-tested art of smearing.

” He grouped Wilson’s shout of “You lie!” during Obama’s speech in that category, according to AP. “I think it’s based on racism. There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president,” he said.

According to whom? Or is this just Carter’s projected hunch? There may be a sliver of mindless brutes who’d utter such nonsense, but I’d be shocked if a staunch, charismatic republican who happened to be black would not have received the same percentage of the country’s vote as did McCain.

This conflict is predominately about ideals, not skin color. Granted the ideals in opposition are seldom to be explicitly defined, the lingering sense-of-life rooted in freedom and rights, retained by a portion of Americans, is what’s fueling this rebellion. I think it goes without saying I’d vote for a candidate who promoted Capitalist ideals regardless of his race, sex, religion, age, where he was born, how many wives he has, how many cats he has, how many guns he has, where he lives, where he wants to live, what he drinks, what he smokes, what he snorts, or any other imaginable attribute - so long as he understood individual rights and the proper role of Government, he’ll have my adamant financial and ideological support.

It’s an insult to all Americans for Carter to insinuate that they’re incapable of separating a candidate’s genetic lineage from his political philosophy.

Again, is this the honest opinion of a senile collectivist, or an argument from intimidation?

Next, we get this inspiring bromide from Jimmy.

“The president is not only the head of government, he is the head of state. And no matter who he is or how much we disagree with his policies, the president should be treated with respect.”

I suppose Carter would also prescribe Jewish citizens being hauled off to Nazi gas chambers by the Gestapo afford Hitler the same respect?

Respect is a form of esteem granted to another individual based on shared values and in appreciation of his character and integrity, not a automatic and causeless emotion granted by hierarchy of command, and certainly not a permanent emotional blank check immune to continual scrutiny, and covering any tyrannical whim. Respect and obedience are two entirely different concepts. Respect is earned. Obedience is volitional.

The other noteworthy tidbit in this piece is this quote by Michael Steele, chair of the Republican National Committee (whom the group-think author very quickly identifies racially).

“Injecting race into the debate over critical issues facing American families doesn’t create jobs, reform our health care system or reduce the growing deficit. It only divides Americans rather than uniting us to find solutions to challenges facing our nation,”

For some reason, I’m guessing the solutions Steele alludes to don’t include complete deregulation of health care, abolishing the welfare state, and establishing a strict separation of Government from our economy as a whole. When one party’s play of the “race” card is met with the other playing the “create jobs” card, we’re in bad shape.

Related Reads:
Is Disagreement with Obama Racism?

(edited 09.29.09 to add related links)

…was apparently let out of the bag.

Obama’s racist/marxist Green Jobs thug seemed to fit the administration’s statist mold in all but one aspect - he’s too honest. Recognizing the potential for Jones to undermine their dictatorial yearnings by being a a bit too open about his ideals, the Obama administration decided he should go.

Too bad - the last thing we need is more statist politicians in office who effectively conceal their destructive wishes for America. I wish more bureaucrats would explicitly verbalize their ideals - perhaps that would arouse more serious dialogue amongst our intellectually lethargic culture.

If nothing else, at least Van Jones is honest and doesn’t betray his ideals on stage - for that I applaud him.