President Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court points to a dilemma that will likely plague his presidency: How does a "post-racialist" president play identity politics? . . . Somehow we all simply know -- like it or not -- that Hispanics are now overdue for the gravitas of high office. . . . [Y]et it was precisely the American longing for post-racialism -- relief from this sort of racial calculating -- that lifted Mr. Obama into office.

The Sotomayor nomination commits the cardinal sin of identity politics: It seeks to elevate people more for the political currency of their gender and ethnicity than for their individual merit. (Here, too, is the ugly faithlessness in minority merit that always underlies such maneuverings.) Mr. Obama is promising one thing and practicing another, using his interracial background to suggest an America delivered from racial corruption even as he practices a crude form of racial patronage.

(Emphasis supplied.) Steele's essay is many things at once - offensive (Sotomayor is meritless? Because she is Latino?), wrong (Obama won not because of the promise of "post racialism," whites did not vote for Obama more than any other Dem candidate, A-As and LATINOS did).

Shelby's essay is also deeply ironic - if Shelby Steele were NOT black, no one would even know who he is - he is a circus show - a black Republican. He is identity politics - an African American who makes a living at decrying identity politics for Republicans.

First, the offensive. Objectively speaking - Sonia Sotomayor is the most experienced judge nominated for the Supreme Court in a century. In what possible way does Sotomayor have less merit in Steele's eyes than Samuel Alito? It's very simple - Alito is a white man and Sotomayor is a Latino woman. That is how Steele thinks. He is a sexist and a racist.

Read this passage from Steele:

Judge Sotomayor is the archetypal challenger. Challengers see the moral authority that comes from their group's historic grievance as an entitlement to immediate parity with whites -- whether or not their group has actually earned this parity through development. If their group is not yet competitive with whites, the moral authority that comes from their grievance should be allowed to compensate for what they lack in development. This creates a terrible corruption in which the group's historic grievance is allowed to count as individual merit. And so a perverse incentive is created: Weakness and victimization are rewarded over development. Better to be a troublemaker than to pursue excellence.

Forget for a moment the inherent racism in the passage. Consider his description of a person who finished at the top of her high school, college and law school classes -- "Better to be a troublemaker than to pursue excellence." It is as if Steele was describing himself. Is Steele racist in way that Rush Limbaugh can emulate? Or is he merely playing a role for his white Republican overlords? Only he knows.

However, Republican may not understand that folks like Steele are headed for the ashbin of history. Steele writes:

I have called Mr. Obama a bound man because he cannot win white support without bargaining and he cannot maintain minority support without playing the very identity politics that injure him with whites. The latter form of politics is grounded in being what I call a challenger -- i.e., someone who presumes that whites are racist until they prove otherwise by granting preferences of some kind to minorities. Whites quietly seethe at challengers like Jesse Jackson who use the moral authority of their race's historic grievance to muscle for preferential treatment. Mr. Obama has been loved precisely because he was an anti-Jackson, a bargainer who grants them innocence before asking for their support.

What is amazing about this passage is Steele's own inherent assumption about white racism in voting. Steele asserts that Obama made a "bargain" with white people and that allowed him to win the Presidency. If Obama made such a "bargain," then he got cheated. As has been written by me and others - White votes did not deliver Obama to the White House - the Emerging Democratic Majority did:

The thesis forwarded by Judis and Texeira has been confirmed in this election. Women (56%), African Americans (95%), Latinos (66%), young voters (66% (among whites (54%)) and college graduates (53%) form the new Democratic majority. Older white voters remain Republican voters. And, as Texeira and Judis noted this has policy ramifications:

[T]he 2006 election represented a shift in American politics, away from the right and toward the center-left, on a range of issues that go well beyond the Iraq war, corruption, and competence. Voters in 2006 returned to viewpoints on the economy and society that inclined them, even leaving aside the war, to favor Democrats over conservative Republicans.

The 2008 exit polls show that the Emerged Democratic Majority is progressive and Democratic in its views on issues. 54% of the country agrees with Obama on the issues (50%) or think he is too conservative (4%). 63% disapprove of the Iraq War. Barack Obama won a majority vote on the issues of energy, Iraq, the economy, and health care.

Steele has a mindset where people who look like him must perform in a certain way to "earn" their keep with their white Republican overlords. But their need for him is fast ending. Republicans no longer need token anti-minority commentators. They need genuine outreach, ESPECIALLY to Latinos.

In short, the Shelby Steele/Rush Limbaugh/ Glenn Beck anti-Latino/African American/Asian/ "Other" Era must end for the Republican Party.

The Southern Strategy had its day - it is over. The interesting thing to me is Karl Rove at one time tried to usher in this new period for the Republican Party. George W. Bush was going to be the figure that led to the New Emerging Republican Majority - that included Latinos, Asians and yes, more African Americans.

But that dream died. And the Shelby Steeles, Rush Limbaughs and Glenn Becks are insuring there will be no resurrection. I am not sure if this is due to actual beliefs or merely driven by personal financial considerations -- but the effects will be the same - irreparable damage to the Republican Party.

Speaking for me only