Anyone listening to talk radio after "Super Tuesday" might be convinced America had arrived. America was finally the "color blind" society many civil rights activists have been awaiting. Barack Obama’s success to that point was seen as evidence that society had made the shift. A person’s color did not matter.

Many believe a color blind society will be the ideal outcome of more than forty years of civil rights progress. Unfortunately, the people who think that way are likely not people of color. People of color, that is, people who are not "white" may be happy that a so-called color blind society made Barack Obama a viable presidential candidate. However, the same people will probably be quick to react, negatively, if a white person fails to "respect" their color.

As a white male, I am stepping into the deep stuff with statements like the ones above. Regardless, I stand by them, and I think my experience, education and training give me the necessary expertise to make those statements. Read on and see if you agree.

I was introduced to discrimination in late fifties. A young black man worked for an electrical supplier where my dad did business. He was a frequent visitor to our home and helped my father with some of his projects. However, I noticed my dad called him by his first name, and he always called my dad Mr. Jackson. One day I asked my father why, and his response was very pointed. I cannot remember the exact words, but it clearly meant this person was not his equal. That did not sit well with me, and I never forgot it.

My professional career started in 1970. I became a police officer in a medium sized town in north central Texas. It was a time when racial tension was high, and police departments around the nation were trying to find ways to lessen those tensions.

Our leadership worked with the community to establish lines of communication. One tactic was to set up meetings between police officers and members of the minority community. We had "rap sessions" where we tried to talk openly about issues and problems.

One evening we were discussing our hopes for the future of race relations. I expressed my hope that in the not too distant future our children could be friends and even date across racial lines without prejudice or negative reaction. To my surprise, the black members of the group were the ones objecting. They did not agree that was an acceptable goal.

As I matured and my horizons broadened, I found new opportunities to grow and learn in the areas of racial understanding, bringing about positive change in racially charged environments and addressing institutionally supported discrimination. In 1991 I was introduced to an internationally recognized conflict resolution organization dedicated to developing leaders who could facilitate social changes in organizations and communities.

I dedicated eleven years of my life to this organization’s approach to celebrating and embracing diversity. I led workshops for state agencies in the northeast, trained public servants in Texas, published articles about dealing with racism in law enforcement and was invited to speak at President Clinton’s 1997 White House Conference on Hate Crimes. In short, I was a poster boy for the enlightened white male in the diversity training community.

I was one disillusioned poster boy when I shut the door on my diversity training and advocacy activities. After almost thirty years of trying to make a difference, I like to think I helped hundreds, if not thousands of people lay aside their differences, stereotypes and outright phobias. Unfortunately, few of those people were people of color, or for that matter, a member of any oppressed group.

In my experience, most people of color have more difficulty moving beyond their biases than most members of the majority. It is not just the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons who revert to name calling and threats when someone has the temerity to treat them as an equal instead of a member of an oppressed group. It is also the Henries, Cheryls, Shaniquas and Joses.

I readily admit my position is based on anecdotal data. However, it is a lot of anecdotal data, and it is backed up by the reaction to current events. The response to the revelations that Barack Obama’s spiritual mentor preached hate from his pulpit was disappointingly what I expected.

Obama’s remarks in response to criticism of his pastor, and the remarks of such people as former Mayor Ron Kirk of Dallas defending Obama on Mike Gallagher’s radio show clearly demonstrate the position of many Blacks in the United States today. People of color have a "right" to say hateful things from the pulpit, from the radio and from the campaign stage. And, typical white people are just expected to put up with it.

Rampant Rationalization

Republican has become synonymous with conservative, even religious conservative, over the past three decades. Critics, liberals, progressives, Democrats or whatever, constantly attack "conservatives," pointing out any character flaw or mistake and crying hypocrite. Our defense has always been sinning does not mean we are hypocrites. It just means we are human. This defense was blown completely out of the water on March 4, 2008 in Texas!

Thanks to Rush Limbaugh and a few other talking heads, an unknown number of Texas Republicans voted in the Democrat Primary in an attempt to derail Senator Obama’s seeming juggernaut. Their actions proved that they at least are hypocrites. The rest of us, unfortunately, may be seen in a similar light.

I would like to think this was simply the result fear or frenzy over the challenge we face in November. However, I am afraid that like our elected officials, many of us are becoming hard to distinguish from those we allegedly despise. A liberal, progressive, secular Democrat would likely have little problem lying to further his party’s goals. Apparently, many so-called conservative, Christian, Republicans felt the same way.

It is, disappointingly, a sign of the times. Rationalization and situational ethics are the standards in the United States today. Politicians on both sides of the aisle can rationalize their ethics away. Regrettably, it seems many Christians can as well. If it furthers a cause that is RIGHT in our minds, we seem willing to bend the rules or simply lie to achieve that cause.

Critics of this article will undoubtedly argue no one really lied. No one really sinned. Simply using a tactic a Democrat might use to damage another party’s candidate is not wrong. It is just politics. In fact, it sounds like something Teddy Kennedy would endorse in a similar situation.

Thanks Rush!