I wonder if the vicious beating at a McDonalds restaurant in Maryland might have presidential political implications.
Two young black women - teenagers really - attacked a white "transgender woman". A transgender woman is a person that was or still (depending on the level of surgical or chemical modification) is a man, going about as a woman. Like the rest of us, transgenders have various calls of nature, which, when they are in public, going about as women, they respond to in public toilets reserved for women. This particular transgender may or may not have met one or both of his attackers in the women's restroom before the attack. So far as it went, the incident was a common crime. As with much common crime, depravity, folly, and brutality highlighted what can be wrong, weird and terrible about our sinful species. Normally (or in a saner society) none but the prurient or debased would want to know much more about this case other than, perhaps, that arrests were made and justice done.
But this ugly incident could end up being more than that. Special-needs sexual practitioners, in which category "transgenders" can certainly be counted, are much in the public debate. There is building pressure from a determined minority to force the government to legally deconstruct the institution of marriage to allow for so-called "gay marriage". The president of the United States has made it as clear as he believes politically advisable that he supports this pressure. Part of the president's political base, the left/progressive wing of American politics, has for some reason decided this issue is a great test of civil rights and is determined to push the question at this moment, at all costs.
At the same time the president's approval rating among black Americans has already dropped to 85%. This is at first glance (and in actuality) a huge majority. But when one remembers that George W. Bush received about 10% of the black vote, context comes into view. More black Americans oppose Barack Obama than supported George W. Bush. This is interesting. Economic issues must play a role in these numbers, but I wonder if cultural and perception issues may not be more important. Mr. Obama is seen to be very supportive of illegal immigrants. Are most black Americans? I believe not. The president is strongly pro-abortion; black America is strongly not. And now this nasty incident appears that could quite possibly - if pushed far enough - come to be portrayed as a civil rights matter in the national spotlight.
No sane person can support violent assaults. But will this president, with his so-far impressive track record of saying the wrong thing about matters upon which he has no need to opine, be able to keep from saying the wrong thing in this case? Will he stupidly say the reasonable thing - that men pretending to be women really should stay out of the Ladies' Room? Will he mouth the equally stupid, but more politically correct (and far less reasonable) thought that men dressed as women have the right to go wherever they choose, and only bigots would challenge the idea? If he says the first, what will be the reaction of the gay community and its supporters? If he says the latter, how will the black community react? It is a ticklish spot and history indicates Mr. Obama hasn't the wit or finesse to handle such dilemmas. He cannot win if he opens his mouth. Will he please his opponents and try? Or will he escape his nature this time? Will this crime be driven offstage by a liberalist media that sees the political danger their man faces, while his advisors (who know both his limitations and his lack of self-awareness) keep the president's mouth shut until the moment passes?
Tough call. There are young black women involved, charged with a crime. If presented properly by their defense counsel, the case could be about their right not to have white men walk into their toilet and harass them. It doesn't matter if it happened that way; it could be so asserted. Traditionally under such circumstances, Sharpton and Jackson would show up to melodiously and passionately say stupid things in front of large crowds. But a drag queen, that is a "transgender", beaten for going about as a woman? For this sort of thing prominent academics publish verbose accusations in the best tradition of Communist show trials. But will they now? Can they? Bullying a special needs sexualist - isn't this according to current fashion a greater crime than treason? Are not "haters" - the term for anyone that harms a deviant for any reason, just now in season? Yet what's a good liberalist to do? Will the gay community stay quiet? Will they demand a public branding of the two young black female thugs? Can it be done without mentioning their race? If not, will various parts of the president's base square off and go to town in an escalating game of racecard rock-paper-scissors?
Who knows? It's a royal wedding week, gas is four bucks a gallon, the Mideast is turning into an even bigger stain, the economy is in the tank, and America's full faith and credit is being debated around the world. Maybe this small and shabby story will fade away. It is nothing much really, other than bizarre, pathetic and sad. But still, if the stars line up, two black "haters" and a white drag queen could have an interesting effect on the political fortunes of the most powerful man in the world.