Is This the Post Post-Racial Presidency?

Racial strife has been in the news for months. It has lasted while the Russian invasion of Ukraine, an Ebola scare, ISIS-ISIL-DASH, kidnappings, beheadings, prisoner releases, and an historic mid-term election have either come and gone or have been reported and pushed aside. But it wasn’t supposed to be that way. Racial tensions were supposed to be a thing of the past by this time.

America was supposed to reap a special benefit by electing Barack Obama President:  We would become a “post-racial” society. By virtue of his race and color, he was to lead us into a state of enlightened racial tolerance, and more importantly, understanding.

What happened? Within the last four months we’ve been treated to a reenactment of the Watts riots, but instead of having them in a major city, they came to us from a small suburb of St. Louis–Ferguson, Missouri--in the aftermath of a grand jury decision that was then used to inflame the emotions of some locals and many outside demonstrators bused in from around the country.

We’ve had an incident of death during an arrest attempt turned into an accusation of murder by racial profiling, against all the evidence presented to a grand jury which had returned an unpopular verdict of “no crime.”

Between the rioters and the soft-core race hustling by elected officials, race relations in the United States are as bad as they’ve been since the Johnson Administration. Did the Post-Racial Presidency never develop, or was it obscured by beer summits, George Zimmerman’s Eric Holder-forced trial, and dropped voter intimidation charges against Black Panther thugs who had already pled guilty?

Now there is the spectacle of our President, his Attorney General, and the mayor of New York City all making intemperate comments which at the very least implied that the police in New York and Missouri were guilty of malfeasance and/or that the grand jury process was flawed and has been flawed for two hundred years.

So now the President has seemingly appointed an even more flawed Al Sharpton as his “advisor on race relations.” Putting aside Sharpton’s many flaws, why does the first black President need such an advisor? He has even told us that his own life informs his understanding; the black experience is his OWN experience. Which leads us to the question: If our first black President believes he needs an advisor on race relations, why can’t he find a better one than Al Sharpton?