It is a dumb question, but not nearly as dumb as the question, widely pondered (and answered in the affirmative) by the mainstream media, of whether Republicans are anti-women. There is plenty of hard evidence that Obamanomics has not only been disastrous for Blacks and Hispanics; it has been far worse for minorities than for White Americans. If Obama were the CEO of a private company, he could be sued for the “disparate impact” of his employment policies on Blacks and Whites. Just compare labor statistics at comparable points in the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama (i.e., July 2004 and July 2012):
- Unemployment has increased more for Blacks than Whites. Black unemployment has climbed 310 basis points (14.1% vs. 11.0%) while for Whites it has climbed only 270 bps (7.4% vs. 4.7%).
- The labor force participation rate has declined more for Blacks than Whites. The Black rate has dropped 290 bps (64.3% to 61.4%) while the White rate has dropped 250 bps (66.5% to 64.0%).
- The Employment Population Ratio has declined more for Black men than White men. The Black rate has declined 560 bps (63.3% to 57.7%) while the White Rate has declined just 480 bps (73.2% to 68.4%).
Obamanomics has been similarly disastrous for Hispanics and for workers with less education and lower incomes. So the evidence that Democrats are anti-Black is compelling—far more compelling than the suggestion that Republicans are anti-Women. Furthermore, there is no doubt that Romney and Ryan’s pro-growth, pro-employment policies would be positive for blacks and Hispanics, and very likely more positive for them than for Whites.
