Stupid is as Stupid Does
One very clear sense I came away with from the recent Tea Party is that we conservatives are pretty sensitive about being called racists. Judging from reactions all across the country this is a common sentiment.
The flip side is that we are beginning to recognize that those who fling that mud have as much credibility as the boy who cried wolf. The danger here is the same as the wolf crier; when an actual case of racism happens we will have been so desensitized by the constant stream of false charges that no one will take genuine allegations seriously.
My Great Aunt Carrie was also my third grade teacher. She was one of those no nonsense lay teachers at St. Rose Elementary through most of the 60's, 70's, and into the 80"s.
Unlike some of the nuns Aunt Carrie never relied on corporal discipline, because she could cut you down to size with a sharp verbal jab a hell of a lot quicker and more effectively than the time it took to wrap knuckles. I still remember her comment on profanity, not that I ever used any at that age, but it was classic, something along the lines of "the use of a bad word just shows you are too stupid to use the right word".
I'm developing a similar sense about discussing race with Democrats, to paraphrase; calling someone a racist just shows you are too stupid to argue. I swear in watching the recent "dialogue" about tea party folk that, if continued on its present trajectory, we are approaching the point where leftists will equate racist and constitutionalist.
What else can you conclude when a conversation on health care goes something like this:
Me: I just don't see how mandating the purchase of a service meets constitutional muster.
Liberal friend: I just don't think you like the idea of a black man in the White House.
WTF? As if I would find socializing health care acceptable if John Edwards proposed it? How does that make any sense? Bad ideas are colorblind. Like the sign at the Tea Party said, "it's not the color of his skin, it's the content of his policies".
There is absolutely no question the racist smear is the oldest, most overused, misapplied, and war weary smear the left uses against conservatives. This in spite of the fact the great emancipator Abraham Lincoln, Republican, you know, the party founded on ending slavery, Jim Crow laws were originated by Democrats, and all those civil rights laws in the 60's would never have passed without Republican votes. Details, whatever.
So the only question is not whether they hurl racist smears or not but why. Taranto of the Wall Street Journal offers up as good an explanation as any I've seen. Basically, they have to as a matter of political survival.
the meat:
The political left claims to love racial diversity, but it bitterly opposes such diversity on the political right. This is an obvious matter of political self-interest: Since 1964, blacks have voted overwhelmingly Democratic. If Republicans were able to attract black votes, the result would be catastrophic for the Democratic Party. Even in 2008, the Democrats' best presidential year since '64, if the black vote had been evenly split between the parties (and holding the nonblack vote constant), Barack Obama would have gotten about 48% of the vote and John McCain would be president.
the potatoes:
The election of Barack Obama made nonsense of the idea that America remains a racist country and thereby necessitated an intensifying of attacks on the opposition as racist.
By all means do read the whole thing. or if you are more into video, and can stand Bill O'Reilley, go here
He cites a column by one Charles Blow of the New York Times who took it on himself, as a black columnist, to visit an actual Tea Party, the one in Dallas. Predictably enough he belittled the organizers for such blatant manipulation and forced diversity as well as black and other minority participants, calling the whole thing a minstrel show. Ah that famous liberal tolerance.
Blow is quoted enough in Taranto's piece for you to get the full flavor (and I won't sully this blog with a link to the NYT).
But for dessert I am happy to share what Alphonzo Rachel, one of the aforementioned Tea Party black participants, response: click here Zo go see this.
The flip side is that we are beginning to recognize that those who fling that mud have as much credibility as the boy who cried wolf. The danger here is the same as the wolf crier; when an actual case of racism happens we will have been so desensitized by the constant stream of false charges that no one will take genuine allegations seriously.
My Great Aunt Carrie was also my third grade teacher. She was one of those no nonsense lay teachers at St. Rose Elementary through most of the 60's, 70's, and into the 80"s.
Unlike some of the nuns Aunt Carrie never relied on corporal discipline, because she could cut you down to size with a sharp verbal jab a hell of a lot quicker and more effectively than the time it took to wrap knuckles. I still remember her comment on profanity, not that I ever used any at that age, but it was classic, something along the lines of "the use of a bad word just shows you are too stupid to use the right word".
I'm developing a similar sense about discussing race with Democrats, to paraphrase; calling someone a racist just shows you are too stupid to argue. I swear in watching the recent "dialogue" about tea party folk that, if continued on its present trajectory, we are approaching the point where leftists will equate racist and constitutionalist.
What else can you conclude when a conversation on health care goes something like this:
Me: I just don't see how mandating the purchase of a service meets constitutional muster.
Liberal friend: I just don't think you like the idea of a black man in the White House.
WTF? As if I would find socializing health care acceptable if John Edwards proposed it? How does that make any sense? Bad ideas are colorblind. Like the sign at the Tea Party said, "it's not the color of his skin, it's the content of his policies".
There is absolutely no question the racist smear is the oldest, most overused, misapplied, and war weary smear the left uses against conservatives. This in spite of the fact the great emancipator Abraham Lincoln, Republican, you know, the party founded on ending slavery, Jim Crow laws were originated by Democrats, and all those civil rights laws in the 60's would never have passed without Republican votes. Details, whatever.
So the only question is not whether they hurl racist smears or not but why. Taranto of the Wall Street Journal offers up as good an explanation as any I've seen. Basically, they have to as a matter of political survival.
the meat:
The political left claims to love racial diversity, but it bitterly opposes such diversity on the political right. This is an obvious matter of political self-interest: Since 1964, blacks have voted overwhelmingly Democratic. If Republicans were able to attract black votes, the result would be catastrophic for the Democratic Party. Even in 2008, the Democrats' best presidential year since '64, if the black vote had been evenly split between the parties (and holding the nonblack vote constant), Barack Obama would have gotten about 48% of the vote and John McCain would be president.
the potatoes:
The election of Barack Obama made nonsense of the idea that America remains a racist country and thereby necessitated an intensifying of attacks on the opposition as racist.
By all means do read the whole thing. or if you are more into video, and can stand Bill O'Reilley, go here
He cites a column by one Charles Blow of the New York Times who took it on himself, as a black columnist, to visit an actual Tea Party, the one in Dallas. Predictably enough he belittled the organizers for such blatant manipulation and forced diversity as well as black and other minority participants, calling the whole thing a minstrel show. Ah that famous liberal tolerance.
Blow is quoted enough in Taranto's piece for you to get the full flavor (and I won't sully this blog with a link to the NYT).
But for dessert I am happy to share what Alphonzo Rachel, one of the aforementioned Tea Party black participants, response: click here Zo go see this.
Comments