There is yet another ‘false dilemma’ of the liberal mainstream which needs addressing and deconstruction aside from the famous ones such as the ones pertaining to Israel and a few others, which is that a critique or criticism of Barack Obama’s presidency is automatically racist. The whole point of history is to judge what happened in the past, and if we are not allowed to judge what happened in the past without being labeled as racist or because of a fear that we will be deemed racist or anything else by a morally and intellectually bankrupt liberal elite, then there is nothing more totalitarian than such a condition and situation.
The assumption of the liberal mainstream that a critique or criticism of Barack Obama’s presidency has to have racist motives or motivations behind it is an example of a “false dilemma” in the sense that the basic idea or suggestion is, either you support Barack Obama or you are a racist. It is all similar to the famous Bush false dilemma and dichotomy of “either you’re with the terrorists or you’re with us.” What if we don’t like either one of you? I should note that I voted for Barack Obama twice, but it was not an easy choice, because in a sense, there was no other choice at that time. Mitt Romney was utterly intolerable. And the first time around, the assumption was that foreign policy under Obama would take a departure from the Bush era, when in reality, nothing changed.
And the assumption that one either has to support Barack Obama or they are racist does not take into account the fact that Barack Obama drove up the national debt higher than any other president of the 21st century, allowed for a policy of global hegemony to take off instead of curtailing it, and as one of my friends said, Barack Obama killed more Muslims overseas than any other president in the history of the United States. What was the point of Libya, quite frankly, aside from destabilizing it and turning it into a hub for ISIS?
And his much-touted Iran deal, which ended up getting reversed, was more the result of an affinity for a secretary as opposed to having anything to do with a broader strategy that made sense or was sustainable. His health care plan was a lion which then turned into a pussy cat that ran for the hills. Upon reflection, there was nothing special about Obama, even though we were misled and were swept up by the mania and madness, given that Obama was merely a reflection and a typical embodiment of “the economic views of America’s top political echelon, which are…the views of people with primarily social sciences education and experience, ranging from law to political science, most of whom could grasp finance as seen by Wall Street, but have been detached from all aspects that concerned national manufacturing capability all their lives.”
Hence, as opposed to lambasting or falsely labelling anyone who undertakes a criticism or critique of the Obama presidency, one should instead ask what were the motives or the motivations behind Barack Obama’s complicity, involvement, and partaking in a policy of global hegemony which has now proven to have the disastrous effects which are now manifest? In essence, it was a hedonistic and stingy Cantor-Fitzgerald fueled presidency as well as a policy, one should add, that has led to a political and social crisis in the United States that has no forthcoming solution. Why couldn’t he do what a Bernie Sanders has done all this time, namely, to do the right thing as opposed to being lured into David Axelrod’s traps? These are the questions and the things to focus on as opposed to band wagoning with Bakari Sellers and Laura Coates and whoever else it is that cynically assumes that a critique or a criticism of Barack Obama’s presidency is automatically racist or has racist motives behind it. Far from it.