The Racism of Reid and the Democrats

The recent political uproar caused by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev) comments about President Obama’s race bring to the fore the failure of the Democratic Party to stand by its presumptive principles. In an upcoming book, Reid is quoted as privately describing Obama as “light skinned” and “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,” when he ran against the current President in the 2008 Democratic primaries.

Unsurprisingly, the Democrats have rushed to protect the Majority Leader by accepting his apology and commencing an attack on the GOP. Even the vitriolic Al Sharpton, forever looking for an excuse to play the race card, has defended Reid. This stands in stark contrast to a similar incident involving former Republican Majority Leader Trent Lott, who praised the segregationist Senator Strom Thurmond. After stating the arguably ambiguous racist statement that, “…if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years,” Lott was summarily abandoned by Republicans and forced to resign.

Admittedly, the GOP has used this to their political advantage. Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele, who is black, has decried the Democrats’ double standard. However, regardless of whether Reid’s comments warrant dismissal or other punitive action, the incident highlights the increasing hypocrisy in the Democratic Party. Modern Democrats are largely out of touch with the fundamentals of the Democratic Party. While Democrats of yesterday argued for equal opportunity and treatment for everyone regardless of individual characteristics, Democrats of today clamor for special treatment for groups based on these same traits. In a discussion on McGovernism, the political philosophy of modern Democrats rising from McGovern’s presidential campaign in 1972, Norman Podhoretz, in his book “Why are Jews Liberal?,” develops this profound analysis:

…[W]heras the Democrats [since Roosevelt] had believed in treating individuals as individuals without regard to “race, creed, color, or country of national origin,” McGovernism’s embrace of quotas translated into treating individuals entirely with regard to race, creed, and color; and whereas the Democrats had interpreted the idea of equality as meaning of opportunity for individuals, McGovernism took it to mean equality of results for groups.

This new style of racism undermines the very premises on which the Democratic Party is supposedly built. Harry Reid’s comment is only the latest indication of the rampant prejudice and naked disparagement of minorities harbored by the New Left. This adds to a long line of questionable incidents within the Democratic fold; from the inclusion of former Ku Klux Klan member Senator Robert Byrd as one of the leading Democrats in the Senate (current President pro tempore) to the multifarious occurrences of race-baiting by the pernicious Al Sharpton and equally pestiferous Jesse Jackson.

The fact of the matter is the Democrats have long since failed to live up to their own professed high standards of equality. Reid’s snafu is indicative of how the party is only able to think in terms of race. A race-tinted world view is the operating paradigm amongst those who profess a desire to have an equal society. This colored perspective severely debilitates the party from not only forming the ideal society they supposedly envision but also from bettering the condition of those they allegedly aim to help.

It is appalling that the Democrats are continuously able to seize ownership of the race issue by dismissing both the blatant and subtle racism on the Left, while successfully portraying the isolated and peripheral racism on the Right as mainstream. It is even more embarrassing that the supposed leaders of the black and minority communities stand for this subterfuge. As embarrassing as it may be, the Democrats are nevertheless able to maintain their primacy as standard-bearers of racial protection due to their pandering to noble societal goals followed by their dismissal in favor of targeted handouts.

It is high time that Republicans reveal this illiberal agenda for what it is; and maybe win a few minority votes in the process. Republicans can and should proclaim how the rampant favoritism and paternalism of Reid’s ilk not only injure America’s minorities but are also dismissive of the founding American principles of equality. Rather than simply using Reid’s commentary as a simplistic but easy political ploy, they should capitalize on the opportunity to drastically change the debate on and ownership of race and equality in America. Unfortunately, as past experiences have shown, Republican leadership will most likely fumble once again.

Obama's "Stupid" Comment

Obama ate his words yesterday after issuing an apology to Cambridge’s Sergeant Crowley. Previously, Obama had maligned Sergeant Crowley and the Cambridge police for their arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. by stating that they had acted “stupidly”. Unsurprisingly, Obama’s ill informed statements added fuel to the fire. An editorial in the Wall Street Journal stated:

Mr. Obama’s broadside against local cops sends the wrong message to Americans of every race about how to respond to misunderstandings with police. His comments may also do more to aggravate than alleviate tensions between police officers and the minority communities they serve.

Obama’s commentary was out of line. While some, such as Karl DeVries at Reality Checkpoints, attempt to minimize Obama’s statement, it is clear that Obama’s behavior was anything but minimal. His un-presidential behavior raises a couple of pertinent issues.

Firstly, Obama implicitly assumed that racial profiling occurred. Without knowing the facts and admitting a pro-Gates bias (they are friends), Obama slammed the police for an act they did not commit. As argued in the prior post and supported by Officer Crowley’s account of the arrest, there were no racially motivated behaviors on the part of the police. (In fact, Officer Crowley is responsible for teaching fellow police officers about racial profiling.) Gates was the one who brought race into the picture.

This unfair and heinous assumption is quite harmful. While not fair to declare it as a black militant worldview, as some might, it speaks volumes about our President’s perspective. Up until this point, Obama should have been rightfully commended. He handled the race issue with tact and poise. He refused to be sucked into petty racial quarrels or speak the langue of backwards leaders such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Obama’s gaffe shows a first crack in his otherwise perfect veneer. While it is certainly laudable that he apologized (I always respect a man for admitting he is wrong), the slip-up has done damage to the post-racial worldview that Obama could have helped bring to America.

Secondly, this ties in with a much deeper issue; that of a titan struggle between those who accept and reject a post-racial America. Leaders such as Gates, Sharpton, and Jackson willingly or unwittingly need to maintain a worldview where American racism and oppression exist. Sharpton, for one, is adept at creating racial tensions where they didn’t exist before. On the other side stand the likes of Bill Cosby; leaders who recognize a history of racism, but also acknowledge times have changed and there are other factors that contribute to the plight of the black community.

While understanding the history of black oppression is essential and necessary, the past needs to be separated from the present. Gates falls into the common trap of seeing today’s events through a 1950s lens. While racial tensions certainly and unfortunately do still exist in America, they no longer predominate the interactions between whites and blacks. American leaders have a responsibility to ease these tensions and bridge the gap. However, Obama’s “stupid” comment only demonstrates another issue where the supposed uniting, bipartisan President has become a divider. His comment allied himself with the outmoded old guard of black leadership– a political mistake on one hand, but a historic mistake that will handicap his ability to change the racial dialogue in America.

Free Speech? I Think Not

Despite allegedly being bastions of liberalism, American’s elite universities are deplorably illiberal. Take the recent incidents at University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill. Former Congressman Tom Tancredo (http://teamamericapac.org/) was brought to UNC by an on-campus group to give a speech about illegal-immigration. Before he could even start a group of anti-dialogue leftists unfurled a banner across the podium. They chanted loudly and prevented Tancredo from speaking. (See Michelle Malkin’s blog for a video of the event http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/16/where-are-the-adults-at-university-of-north-carolina-chapel-hill/.) The speech was never given.

This is, unfortunately, just one of far too many examples of the left’s desires to quash free speech on America’s university campuses. This is a bit ironic if you accept the Democrats’ rhetoric that they are the supporters of free speech. The irony fades if you understand Democrats not as supporters of free speech, but abusers of the philosophical concept of free speech to establish their beliefs as the only acceptable dialogue. Democrats, and particularly Democrat organizations on these campuses, use the term ‘free speech’ as a ploy to signify the freedom for left-wing ideas. However, when dissenting views arise, the notion of free speech is cast aside. It becomes embarrassingly clear that free speech is not a true principle of the left, but a figure of speech.

This is terribly concerning. Our institutions of higher learning should be the exemplar of free speech. Politically active people on campus should, not by law, but by policy and ideology be committed to the open and free discussion of ideas and policies. There should be no more perfect place for the free movement of ideas than at these universities. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

These liberal groups, which have now become the majority on campuses, seek to do what their platforms supposedly rail against. They claim to be representative of minorities. They claim to speak for the oppressed. Maybe at one point they did, but unfortunately the term minority has lost its true meaning. ‘Minority’ is not supposed to solely refers to racial classes in America, but to any viewpoint, ideal, or characteristic that is not is not ‘mainstream’. Democrats have hijacked the term, and claimed unmitigated representation of minorities.

However, when a group or idea that was once a minority becomes accepted by the mainstream, its proponents no longer have a role in defending that minority. Now they become the oppressors as they seek to use the same ‘protect the minority’ language to further their partisan agendas. This is seemingly what has happened in the women’s and black’s rights movements. Two noble causes that fought for and justly gained equality some 50 years ago, now no longer have much of a purpose. Yet they push on with bankrupt and out of touch leaders such as Al Sharpton.

This is the same phenomenon that we see on college campuses today. These misguided youth are fed a steady diet of illiberalness from professors and national organizations. When professors post pictures comparing George Bush to a monkey, or laugh at students that express different beliefs, or prevent students from open discussion (all of which has happened to me) an altogether restrictive environment is established. Students are not taught to think liberally but to think Liberally. The difference is that true liberals are open to discourse and dialogue. They want to learn and hear each other out. However, Liberals are simply those that tow the Democratic Party line. The Democrats try to claim these two concepts are one and the same, but they are clearly not.

It is necessary for Democrats to be truly liberal, not just Liberal. This should be a matter of policy. I do want to emphasize that I am not so convinced this is a free speech issue. I think private institutions (on the issue of public universities such as UNC I think this is a bit more hazy) have a right to approve and disprove of who speaks on campus. Inappropriate and un-educational hatemongers, such as Ward Churchill, should rightfully be precluded from speaking and teaching. That being said, as a matter of policies these universities should keep true to their supposed mission and allow open and free dialogue. Disrupters of this, whether on the left or right, should be punished accordingly. Preventing someone from speaking is not an exercise in free speech. Differences should be settled and discussed by allowing both sides to have the podium- and both sides being able to hear the other.