Today, Mitt Romney received a less-than-cordial reception from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People when he had the temerity to suggest that he would cut some government programs that killed jobs, including Obamacare. The crowd booed loudly when he mentioned Obamacare, prompting the media into spasms of ecstasy.
CNN’s Jim Acosta gleefully reported that the speech received “one of the most negative reactions” of Romney’s entire campaign.
Members of the NAACP complained that Romney was “patronizing” for talking about the free market, and that he “made a serious misjudgment relating to the health care reform.” “I don’t think he has any way to even remotely relate to the everyday citizen, let alone African-American citizens,” said one member.
The NAACP itself released a statement smacking Romney with a rhetorical 2×4:
“We are pleased that Governor Romney addressed our convention today,” stated NAACP Chairman Roslyn M. Brock. “This morning Governor Romney laid out his policy agenda for this nation. Unfortunately, much of his agenda is at odds with what the NAACP stands for – whether the issue is equal access to affordable health care, reforming our education system or the path forward on marriage equality. We appreciate that he was courageous and took the opportunity to speak with us directly.”
“While we are glad that Governor Romney recognized the power of the black electorate, he laid out an agenda that was antithetical to many of our interests,” stated NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous. “His criticism of the Affordable Care Act – legislation that will improve access to quality health care for millions – signals his fundamental misunderstanding of the needs of many African Americans.”
There is a good reason the NAACP felt the need to issue this statement. It’s not because of Obamacare – that is not a racial issue. It’s not because of Romney’s feelings on education reform, including school choice, which would benefit the black community – that’s not a racial issue either. It’s certainly not because of Romney’s views on same-sex marriage – his position is far closer to that of the majority of the black community than Barack Obama’s.
No, the NAACP released their vicious statement for one reason and one reason only: they’re racist. Romney’s white. Obama’s black. And the NAACP’s entire goal is to portray Romney’s campaigning in the black community as a quixotic attempt to woo away traitorous African Americans.
Jealous’ statement, in particular, demonstrates the NAACP’s racism. According to Jealous, Romney “laid out an agenda that was antithetical to many of our interests.” And yet Jealous issued no such statement after members of the Obama administration visited the NAACP. This despite the fact that under Obama, unemployment in the black community has risen from 12.7 percent to 14.4 percent. This despite the fact that more black Americans are on food stamps now – some 9 million – than at any time in American history. Estimates now suggest that some 90 percent of black children will use food stamps at some point during their lives. And while 84 percent of Americans overall are earning more than their parents did at the same age, among middle class blacks, just 23 percent garner more wealth than their parents. A full half of middle class blacks will probably fall out of the middle income range and into the low income range. Over half of blacks raised in the bottom quintile in income end up their as adults, even though just a third of whites do.
Now, is this evidence of increased racism over the past few decades? Or is it evidence that liberalism has failed – and that Barack Obama’s brand of liberalism has accelerated that failure?
Yet the NAACP maintains that it is Romney’s agenda that is “antithetical” to that of black Americans, not Obama’s.
Yes, the NAACP is liberal. But would they have booed Romney were he running against Hillary Clinton? Would they have issued a statement condemning Romney if his opponent were Joe Biden?
Of course not. Ben Jealous and company are upset with Romney for daring to criticize a black president – even if that black president has thrown the black community under the economic bus. Racial solidarity is no reason to support a candidate. It shouldn’t be a reason to condemn one, either.