Hold Your Tongue, Mr. President

Editorial in today's Los Angeles Times called "Sparring Over Race" defends the appropriateness of Barack Obama weighing in on the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case in Florida. "Those offended by Obama's remarks appear driven not by genuine offense but by a desire to spar with the president," they write, adding that the president was "careful to say that he welcomed investigations." They conclude: 

It's possible to reserve judgment on those investigations, and to grant Zimmerman the presumption of innocence, and at the same time remind the nation that the lives of young black men too often have been undervalued by this society . . . That, we think, is what Obama was trying to do with his observation that Trayvon Martin could have been the son of the president of the United States.

(Not to quibble, but technically, that's not what the president said. "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon," were his exact words.) 

I totally disagree with the LA Times on this one. From the moment I heard Obama speak on this issue I thought it was wrong for him to say anything. In fact, the question should never have come up in the first place. There are thousands of murders in thousands of cities each day. Since when is the president expected to comment on local murders (and at a press conference in the Rose Garden for another event entirely, no less)? In the San Diego area police are investigating the brutal beating death of an Iraqi woman that appears to be a hate crime. Why isn't the president commenting on this crime? Because she's not black? Does the president have to talk about a crime only when it involves a black person? It's an absurd question, but apparently needs to be asked.

The point is, the president should not be commenting on local crimes in general, but especially crimes in which the facts are still being examined. But, OK, Obama was asked the question. At that point, it's incumbent upon him to hold his tongue. The correct response should have been: No comment. It's so easy. Just try it, Mr. President. "No comment." Or, if you must say something, say, “I can’t comment on an ongoing investigation," or, "The facts are not all in," or, "In our justice system, a man is presumed innocent until proven guilty . . .,” or...

Any of those responses would have been appropriate. Instead, reflexively--like he can't help it, like he has a cough or a hiccup--he has to pontificate. He has to expound. The word for it is demagoguery, which has to do with appealing to the emotions, fears, and prejudices of the public. And that's exactly what Barack Obama does in these situations. He does it instinctively. He literally can't help himself. 

There's a great article in NRO today by Victor Davis Hanson on Obama's demagoguery. Hanson identifies at least four times when this president has reflexively commented on an issue before the facts were in: 

• the arrest of Henry Gates at his home near Harvard (Obama called the arresting officers stupid); 
• the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (Obama said it was important for us to talk with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds);
• the Sandra Fluke/contraception controversy (Obama lectured the nation about how he didn't want his girls growing up hearing derogatory language about women.)
• Now this Trayvon Martin case.

 In each of those events, Obama opened his mouth before the facts were known. And in the first three of these situations, the "rest of the story" (i.e., the facts) actually contradicted the president's comments. We're still waiting for the facts about what actually took place that night between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. But what is clear at this point is that things are not as they first appeared. The picture of boy in the hooded sweatshirt that broke all our hearts is apparently that of Trayvon in grade school; when he died at age 17, he was actually 6'3" tall. That doesn't mean he should have been shot, it just means the picture is of a younger boy. And apparently it was Zimmerman crying for help on the ground before he shot Trayvon. And Zimmerman apparently had been hit from behind and his face was bloodied. Again--that doesn't mean this altercation had to end in Martin's death, or whether Zimmerman should have been following Trayvon in the first place, or whether the whole tragedy could have been avoided. What it means is, President Obama does not know the facts, so he should have kept his mouth shut. 

Isn't Obama a legal scholar or something? I heard he taught law somewhere. For a guy who was supposedly trained in law, he comes across as surprisingly ignorant. I'm appalled at his poor judgment, but I'm equally appalled at those (like the LA Times editorial writers) who try to justify it. 

"Sparring Over Race" (Los Angeles Times editorial, Marcy 27, 2012)

"Obama's Demagoguery," by Victor Davis Hanson

 "Playing the Race Card, Again," by Jonah Goldberg (Los Angeles Times op-ed, March 27, 2012)