The Obama Agenda

Over the last seven years President Obama has revealed three major thrusts to his political agenda:

- Muslim accommodations -- by refusing to refer to jihadists or Muslim extremists by these appellations, by cozying up to the Muslim Brotherhood -- a clearly extremist organization, by offering only token resistance to the ISIS threat, by negotiating a sham agreement with Iran over its nuclear ambitions, by dissing Israel at every opportunity and insisting that it return to its 1948 borders, by admitting hundreds of thousands of Muslim "immigrants" into the United States preferring them over other religions, by staying mum as thousands of Christians are murdered and enslaved in Africa and the Middle East by Muslim extremists, by observing Muslim holidays in the White House, by repeatedly refusing to call terrorist attacks in this country by that name (workplace violence?) ... and too many more to mention.

- Black accommodations -- by inviting the Black Lives Matter radical organization to the White House, by saying the the Cambridge police force acted "stupidly" in the Chip Gates case, by refusing to condemn the recent rash of police officers killings by black miscreants, by saying that Trayvon Martin "could have been my son," by only proposing blacks to be Attorney General and to many other important government administrative positions, by continuously fanning the flames of racial divide by his speeches and his actions, by refusing to disavow Rev. Jeremiah Wright for his racist comments, by calling his grandmother "a typical white person" ... and too many more to mention.

- Gay accommodations -- by "evolving" to a position supporting gay marriage, by bathing the White House in rainbow lights after the gay-marriage decision by the Supreme Court, by removing the "don't ask don't tell" rule for military service, by naming an openly gay man to be Secretary of the Army, by having numerous gays as high-level advisory positions, by frequently pushing the gay rights agenda in speeches, by hosting a LGBT Pride event at the White House, by opening the Peace Corps to same sex couples, by backing gays as Boy Scout leaders ... and too many more to mention.

And there are other controversial causes he is also pushing ... but what, in fact, does the above track record suggest about the predilections of our president? One, possibly two are obvious. No more hints ...

Prejudice

As a tutor, one of my students is writing his college-application essay on prejudice ... which has inspired me to take up this same subject. Here goes:

"Prejudice" really means to pre-judge something or someone. After viewing N events or characteristics of a particular group of people, it is human nature to draw a generalization from the preponderance of a trait exhibiting itself in this experience. This generalization is not prejudice. Prejudice is applying this generalization to the next or N+1 person or event. As an example, if after a life among Irishmen, one concludes that this group has a tendency toward over-imbibing ... the generalization ... then upon meeting a next Irishman, one assumes that he is a sot ... this is prejudice. You have unfairly prejudged him without any evidence other than your prior generalization.

There is an unfortunate mix-up in the use of the term prejudice in today's society ... and that is to call any generalizations about WASPs, Jews, gays, Muslims, Asians, etc. "prejudice." They clearly are not ... unless of course the person making such a generalization cannot resist the temptation to apply it in the N+first case ... at which point it lives up to this societal condemnation. I know this is a subtle and difficult distinction to make, but, to me, it is a very important one. I rankle when I am accused of prejudice if I am making a generalization. This is because the accuser assumes that I cannot abandon this generalization when dealing with my next encounter under this generalization. I pride myself on being able to shuck my generalizations in such situations. (Interestingly, in this case, my accuser turns out to be prejudicial.)

Now let's test this definition of prejudice in the real world. When a Cambridge, Massachusetts policeman stopped Professor Chip Gates from entering his house thinking he was breaking in, President Obama said that "the Cambridge police acted stupidly." This is clearly prejudicial for Obama is applying one instance (questionable at that) to the entire Cambridge police department. He, of all people, should know better since, I assume, he has experienced the pain of prejudice in his past life. And now the flip-side ... the Obama administration's unwillingness to generalize with the term "Islamic extremists" or "jihadists" when dealing with ISIS and their ilk, tells me that they are confounded by the distinction made above. (Although, if I met one such militant dressed in black robes and carrying an assegai, I think I would myself tend toward prejudice.)