I have reached a point in my political thinking where I’m beginning to hope the Mayan’s were right and December 21st is the end of civilization. At least this one.
We have finally reached such a superficial level in our debates that what we do is no better than a playground argument between two seven year-old children engaged in an “are too, am not” exercise in logic. I can’t believe that the sheer weight of reality and facts haven’t collapsed on top of what is the thinnest of rational foundations.
In an argument, if I were to support the position of a Caucasian solely because they were Caucasian, I would be taking a racist position. In America, that hearkens back to the post-Civil War days of white race superiority/black race inferiority. In our current conversations, nothing illustrates true racism more than crying “racist” every time Obama or another a black member of the “progressive” political establishment, including President Obama, is criticized. This has become the ubiquitous and “one size fits all” defense that is reflexively offered by “progressives”.
It is time that we consider the possibility that the true racists are not the people criticizing the Administration but the ones who are defending it. Just as my theoretical support for a white person simply because they were white – regardless of the correctness of that position – is clearly racist, defense of a black person in the face of legitimate issues simply because they are black is as well.
Nothing illustrates this more acutely than the current kefluffle over UN Ambassador Susan Rice. We addressed the dichotomy of the charges against Susan Rice vesus those of Condi Rice here, that theme was expanded on by Eliana Johnson at National Review:
That didn’t take long. U.N. ambassador Susan Rice has yet to be nominated as secretary of state, but prominent Democrats are already denouncing opposition to her potential nomination as racist on the basis of remarks by Republican senators that she may not be qualified for the job. Would that they had been so sensitive to racial overtones back in 2004, when the African-American nominee for secretary of state, the Republican Ms. Rice, was denounced on the Senate floor and pilloried in racialist cartoons.
Rice’s nomination, noted the Washington Post, garnered “the most negative votes cast against a nominee for that post in 180 years.” As the Senate debated her nomination, Senator Barbara Boxer charged that Rice “frightened the American people” into supporting the Iraq War; Senator Jim Jeffords accused her of being part of an effort to “distort information” in the service of “political objectives”; and Senator Pat Leahy, who voted in her favor, endorsed her by saying that her tenure as national-security adviser lacked “strong leadership, openness, and sound judgment.”
But the remarks of Senate Democrats paled in comparison to the material served up by America’s humorists. Syndicated cartoonist Ted Rall depicted Rice proclaiming herself Bush’s “house nigga.”
But it isn’t even this hypocrisy that is appalling, it isn’t even the willing ignorance of history that makes this situation untenable, it is the use of the charge of racism to avoid even once scintilla of objectivity that is so maddening.
“Susan Rice should have known better and if she didn’t know better, she is not qualified,” Mr. McCain said on “Fox and Friends.” “I will do everything in my power to block her from being the United States secretary of state.”
Cue Democratic Rep. Marcia Fudge, the new chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, who shot back that the attacks on Ms. Rice were racially motivated. “There is a clear sexism and racism that goes with these comments being made by, unfortunately, Senator McCain and others,” said Ms. Fudge. Fellow CBC member James Clyburn of South Carolina concurred, telling CNN that Ms. Rice’s critics were using “code words” that “those of us—especially those of us who were grown and raised in the South—we’ve been hearing these little words and phrases all of our lives and we get insulted by them.”
Clear sexism and racism from John McCain and Lindsey Graham? The same John McCain who chose a woman as his presidential running mate in 2008, denounced birthers, refused to make Jeremiah Wright an issue in his campaign and adopted a daughter from a Bangladeshi orphanage? The same Lindsey Graham who has pushed harder for comprehensive immigration reform than anyone in Congress except . . . John McCain?
[Just a note, Jason Riley is a black man, married to a white woman, Naomi Schaefer Riley, who was subjected to a bit of racism last year when she accurately wrote that collegiate “black studies” programs are nothing but a bunch of "left-wing victimization claptrap."]
As a pure theoretical exercise and contrary to the facts, let’s assume that Senator John McCain is a racist. Let’s also assume that Susan Rice did, in fact, exhibit incompetence in her job. Does the fact that McCain holds racist views (in this hypothetical exercise) change the fact that Rice acted incompetently?
No it doesn’t.
No more than accusing the President’s critics of racial motives will change the fact that his policies have not worked. Even as repugnant as it would be and even if racism is a factor in the accusation, incompetence is incompetence.
There is no black incompetence that is different from white incompetence, there is only incompetence. Dumbass is a racially neutral condition.
Race simply cannot be the universal excuse for being either right or wrong. When it is used in this manner, it is in fact, racism. Refusal to see past the way that charges of racism are being superficially applied to the realities of the moment is an invitation to disaster.
Logically, we must consider that there has been the evolution of a new racist class every bit as intent on urinating on Martin Luther King’s grave as was the KKK.
This time the white hood is covers the head of the “progressive” movement in America.