Are Liberals Racist for Calling Obama Sexist?

This morning, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters that President Obama is expecting an apology from Sherrod Brown, a fellow Democrat and U.S. Senator from Ohio. What did Brown say or do that the White House feels warrants an apology? In a nutshell, Brown accused the president of sexism.

You see, President Obama has been receiving some push-back from his own political party lately over some trade policies he's been pursuing. One of his biggest critics on the matter has been Elizabeth Warren, a Democratic Senator and a darling of the far left. In response to some of the stinging rhetoric Warren has been using to attack the president's policies, President Obama has publicly taken Warren to task, calling her out for dishonesty.

"She’s absolutely wrong," Obama said in a recent interview. He added, "The truth of the matter is that Elizabeth is, you know, a politician like everybody else. And you know, she’s got a voice that she wants to get out there."

Well, those words didn't sit well with Sherrod Brown, who backs Warren's position on trade.

"A number of those phrases he [Obama] used, I assume he wished he hadn’t said them because he shouldn’t have said them," Brown told reporters the other day. "I’m not going to get into more details. I think referring to her as first name, when he might not have done that for a male senator, perhaps? I’ve said enough."

The National Organization for Women (NOW) agreed with Brown. They heard sexism in what the president said as well.

"Yes, I think it is sexist," Terry O'Neill, president of NOW, told a reporter. "I think the president was trying to build up his own trustworthiness on this issue by convincing us that Senator Warren's concerns are not to be taken seriously. But he did it in a sexist way."

O'Neill added that Obama's "clear subtext is that the little lady just doesn't know what she's talking about. I think it was disrespectful."

So do Brown and O'Neill have a point? Is it sexist for our male president to refer to a female senator by her first name? Is it sexist for him to swat off her concerns as being invalid? If there is to be any shred of consistency under modern-day progressive standards, the answer has to be...Yes.

After all, the liberal movement has taught us in recent years that lots of things are sexist...

If you criticize a female member of the Obama administration, you're certainly a sexist. If you clumsily say "binders full of women" instead of "binders full of women applicants," you must view women as objects and not people. If you don't share Sandra Fluke's dream of free birth control for all, you're not only sexist, but you're also waging a "War on Women." If you're a female senator who loses her seat in Louisiana, it's because of sexism. If you don't believe we need new gender-based anti-discrimination laws to do what current laws already do, you must be in favor of discrimination. If you're a woman waiting in a long line to use a public restroom, it's because of sexism. And of course, if you dare scrutinize a candidate who could become our first woman president, you might as well be a male character from the television show, Mad Men. I could go on all day with this, but I think you get the gist.

We all know from Barbara's Boxer's famous 2009 exchange with Brig. Gen. Michael Walsh just how important the title of "Senator" is to our elected representatives, so why would our president publicly refer to Senator Warren by her first name, and in such a dismissive way?

Well, since she's not a conservative (which would of course negate all such logic), the answer has to be sexism.

But here's where things get messy: Modern day liberalism has also taught us over the past seven years that public criticism of President Obama is inherently racist. Thus, aren't Warren, Brown, and O'Neill all racists? After all, that's the standard that's been applied to everyone from the Tea Party to Bill Clinton.

So how does one sort all of these accusations, in the land of identity-politics, victimization, and politically correct sensibilities? After careful analysis, I created a points system that gave me the answers as to which progressive leaders are right, and which ones are wrong:

Senator Sherrod Brown earns one point for being a liberal. That affords him many PC protections that would never be granted to a conservative, but it doesn't get him particularly far on his side of the political spectrum.

National Organization of Women president Terry O'Neill gets two points: One for being a liberal and one for being a woman.

President Obama gets two points as well, for being a liberal who happens to be an African American.

The big winner today is Senator Elizabeth Warren who earns a decisive three points for being a liberal woman who's also a Native American from the Cherokee Nation. Well played, Senator. Well played.

The science is settled then: Our president is a sexist... and possibly even a racist... against Native Americans. And if you're offended or insulted by my analysis, you now know what it's like to be a conservative who is vilified with this nonsense each and every day.

I've got to tell you...I don't know how those who subscribe to this methodology can mentally keep up with it. I tried to get into the head of a bigot-baiter for the sake of writing this one column, and it left me totally exhausted. Wouldn't it be much easier and far more productive to just weigh conflicts and disagreements based on the merits of the actual arguments, rather than viewing everything through prisms of gender and ethnicity? What a novel idea!

I guess that when your arguments and ideas aren't any good, the presumption of bigotry is your last resort.

------------

If you’re interested in a signed, personalized copy of my novel 'From a Dead Sleep' you can order one from my website. It also makes a great gift!