After New York Police Commissioner Bill Bratton chose a black man to replace another black man as his deputy, a reporter asked Mayor Bill de Blasio if the replacement “had to be a person of color.”

“No,” the mayor claimed.

That’s not a little white lie. This is a case where whites need not apply.

Across the land, racially charged disputes are grabbing headlines. Broad swaths of life, including school admissions, crime statistics, income and poverty levels, hiring and firing, are seen increasingly through the prism of skin color and ethnicity.

Race riots, that urban staple of the ’60s and ’70s, are making a comeback. They rattled the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson, Missouri, after a white police ­officer shot a black teenager. More ­violence is expected if, as seems likely, the officer is not indicted.

Desperate to hold on to power, some Democratic candidates spent election season trying to scare black voters to the polls. They claimed shootings like the one in Ferguson and the 2012 Trayvon Martin case in Florida would become common if Republicans prevailed. At the bottom of the barrel was the scurrilous comment by Harlem’s Rep. Charlie Rangel that some in the GOP “believe that slavery isn’t over.”

So it goes six years after America elected the first black president. That history-making moment was supposed to usher in an era of peace in the melting pot.

But that’s not what happened. Instead, a strong plurality of people believe race relations actually are growing worse under President Obama. In a time of stark political polarization, that agreement stands out as a rare piece of common ground among whites, black and Latinos.

Thanks to last week’s election rout, the debate is settled over whether Obama is a failed president. From the lackluster economy to global troubles, his obvious shortcomings are legion.

Yet race relations were one area where it seemed safe to assume he would leave a positive legacy. His ­meteoric rise sent hopes soaring that the scars of the past would be erased the moment he took office.

He had compared himself to the Great Emancipator, Abraham Lincoln. He announced his candidacy from the same spot Lincoln had announced his, in Springfield, Illinois, and took the oath on Lincoln’s Bible.

“Not only is Lincoln one of my political heroes,” Obama told USA Today in 2007, “but, like Lincoln, I served for seven years in Springfield in the state Senate, and it’s there I learned how to legislate; it’s there that I developed many of my political ideas.”

Much of the nation shared his optimism. An NBC News exit poll in 2008 asked voters how they thought race relations would fare under Obama. Some 47 percent said they would get better, 34 percent thought they would stay about the same, while only 15 percent expected them to get worse.

But last week, another NBC exit poll captured the bad news. Only 20 percent said race relations had improved under Obama, while 38 percent say they are worse.

Blacks are especially disappointed. Nearly 60 percent had high hopes in 2008, while only 19 percent now say things are better. A whopping 43 percent say things are worse.

Other polls found an even more lopsided view. A survey for Investor’s Business Daily found that nearly half of all adults think race relations are worse under Obama and 1 in 4 believe they are “much worse.” Only 18 percent say they are better.

While the problems are too entrenched to pinpoint a single source of failure, the president cannot ­escape responsibility.

After all, he appointed and has supported Attorney General Eric Holder, who took office by calling the country a “nation of cowards” on race.

That was provocative enough, but Holder routinely injects racial charges into political and legal issues, as if nothing has changed in 50 years. He sent a small army of FBI agents to Ferguson and declared the police force guilty of bias, even before an ­investigation.

He complained last April that he and Obama had been subjected to unique criticism, then denied he was talking about race. In July, as election season heated up, he charged that he and Obama were subjected to “racial animus.”

Then there’s Al Sharpton, who has the ear of de Blasio, Holder and Obama despite being notoriously ­divisive. Asked by The Washington Post how Sharpton, baggage and all, became so close to Obama, an aide said: “There’s a trust factor with The Rev from the Oval Office on down. He gets it.”

OK, then. That says it all.

Thank de Blasio for ‘lone wolf’ terror

Two weeks after a radicalized Queens man attacked cops with a hatchet, police say his computers reveal his dramatic turn toward terrorism. But they also say there might not be any way to prevent such “lone wolf” attacks.

“I’m not sure if the answer to that is yes,” Deputy Commissioner John Miller said when a reporter asked if there was anything cops could have done.

Maybe, maybe not. But one thing is sure: Mayor de Blasio’s gutting of a program that searched for radical Muslims where they live and pray lowers the odds of police success. And that raises the odds terrorists will strike again.

What could ‘Cuo’ wrong

In sports and politics, winning is everything. Just ask Andrew Cuomo.

The governor’s performance over the last year muddied his record, and his campaign had all the excitement of watching paint dry. The really vexing part was that the damage to his reputation came from unforced errors, especially his decision to prematurely pull the plug on the Moreland Commission.

His 54 percent tally against Republican Rob Astorino gave him a respectable win in a Republican wave year. But which Cuomo will New York get in the second term?

There is one hopeful sign. In a radio interview after the election, Cuomo challenged teachers unions to bring it on, saying he was determined to improve “performance in education.”

“Did that upset the teachers union?” he asked in his rhetorical style before answering, “Yes, it does.”

He also talked recently about the education “monopoly,” a signal that he still supports charter schools. His finest hour so far came when he beat back Mayor de Blasio’s ham-handed attempt to squash them.

The fly in the ointment is that Cuomo owes his election to city voters, most of whom are union-friendly. The governor’s margin over Astorino in the five boroughs was greater than his total margin, meaning Cuomo effectively lost the rest of the state.

You can be sure de Blasio will claim credit for that and seek payback by demanding city control over its taxes, schools, rents and minimum wage.

So Dem-on-Dem fights are guaranteed, but still unclear is whether Good Andrew or Bad Andrew will show up. I’m not sure he knows.

Look, up in the pie!

One question for that Brooklyn guy who delivers pizza by drone: Should I tip the drone?