When America elected President Obama there was great hope that the country had taken a giant leap into the post-racial era.  Months later, we have to wonder whether the election of America’s first American President who happens to be black  is exacerbating—not quelling—this country’s painful dialogue on race.

Exhib it A:  Former President Jimmy Carter recently joined a chorus of Democrats describing any criticism of the President as racist.  “I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he’s African American,” Carter recently said on NBC.   C arter then added that Representative Joe Wilson’s(R-South Carolina) recent shout of “You lie”  during President Obama’s address to Congress was “based on racism.”

Carter’s tact is obvious: Unable or unwilling to address the very serious concerns about President Obama’s health care proposal, he simply took to attacking the other side.    Nothing solicits a knee-jerk response from the American public like shouts of racism.  By extrapolating racism, Carter placed himself on center stage and may very well have helped his party take back ownership of the health care debate.

But at what cost? Serious questions remain about President Obama’s health care proposal—not least of which being whether President Obama’s health plan will bankr upt the country.  These concerns resonated with millions of  Americans across this landscape.  So pervasive were these concerns that they birthed an entire grass roots movement. All of these concerns are obscured when complex policy issues are distill ed into the color of our President’s skin. That’s precisely what occurred when Carter stated that criticism of the President’s health care policy was motivated by race. This debate is about policy—not the color of the President’s skin.

Former President Carter certainly understands that  It's through the friction of diverse ideas that fears are raised to consciousness for examination.  This is how democracy functions—by allowing people who disagree to engage in a meaningful and intense debate.&nb sp; Indeed, preventing people from discussing diverse ideas only stimulates hatred.  It is through the friction of diverse ideas that fears are raised to consciousness for examination.  This is how democracy functions—by allowing people who disagree to engage in a meaningful and civil dialogue.  

The same lessons apply here: Just as silence does not equate to social justice, impassioned dissent does not equate to racism. The friction of diverse minds is the lifeblood of democracy.

There was something so unique about the hope that carried President Obama into office.  He promised a new national dialogue based on the friction of diverse minds. Sadly, his own party undermines that hope when they label and dismiss the president’s critics as racists--merely because they deign to disagree. This week Carter may have helped the Democrats dominate the news cycle. He also reminded us that the hope of a post-tribal America—so beautifully embodied by the election of President Obama—remains a distant dream.