Next month, I will mark 4 years blogging about politics, culture, government, and the human comedy/tragedy that one finds on the internet – specifically liberals and their never ending quest to redefine terms and twist language, making it a willing servant to their political agenda.
I am not one of those purists who started to blog in order to “have a conversation with myself” or “seek to know myself better.” I have never made any bones about the fact that I see this blog as a stepping stone to making money as a writer. In this, I have been somewhat successful thanks to those of you who have stuck with me through everything – all my apostasy, my curmudgeonly moods, my lame attempts at satire or humor, and my contrariness on many issues on which we have come to disagree.
Beyond anything I could have imagined, this blog has become an extraordinarily personal undertaking. I suppose that’s because writing is a very personal craft – a curse and blessing for which I had no clue 4 years ago when I started. I am blessed because many a fine folk have been supportive, encouraging, unstinting in their praise, and solicitous when I screw up – a happenstance that occurs far more often than I care to remember.
If my blog attracted only those who usually agreed with me and thought I was the bee’s knees when it came to commentary, blogging would be a marvelous daily exercise. But there is another side to blogging that most of us never talk about; the relentless, daily pounding of negativism, hurtful epithets, and outright spewing hatred that arrives in the form of comments and emails from the other side as well as other blogs linking and posting on something I’ve written.
We all like to think of ourselves as having thick skins and that such criticism rolls off our backs and never affects us. This is the macho element in blogging, one of its more unattractive and dishonest aspects. In this, some of us feel obligated to give back in kind, something I have done on too many occasions to count. Yes, I regret it. And believe me, I have often been the initiator of such ugliness.
Still, there are many bloggers on both the right and left who shame me with their equanimity in the face of the most virulent and nasty personal attacks. Ed Morrissey comes to mind on the right. The folks at Crooked Timber and Obsidian Wings on the left are generally cool in the face of such criticism as well.
But this is not a confessional post where I recognize my sins and ask forgiveness. I am what I am and doubt I will change. Rather, it is my intent to highlight the fact that despite my predilection for using violent language in my defense or to ridicule my political opponents, I have always granted them a certain rough integrity in their beliefs – that they are wrongheaded not evil; that they are arrogant and stupid, not unpatriotic or that they hate America.
If I have ever crossed that line (and I can’t think of an occasion where I have) then I do, in fact, regret it. Because in the give and take of political combat, things are often said that are not meant to respond to argument but rather to inflict pain. In this, I am as human as the next person and am not immune to being wounded by those who attack my integrity, honesty, character, and especially my writings even as I try and parry the thrusts in much the same way.
This is to be expected when dishing out as much sarcastic bile as I have poured on to this website the last 4 years. As a former leftist, I know exactly where the soft spots are, where to hit below the belt and make it hurt. Politics is a full contact sport and this kind of combat is not the “old politics” or the “new politics.” It is simply politics as it has been practiced and will continue to be practiced as long as free people are free to assemble in a free country.
I think a cracking good argument can be made that politics is much more civilized today than it was 50 or 100 years ago. Nevertheless, there is an element to political debate that is present today that was not present back then. And that is the deliberate misinterpretation of intent by the left in many conservative critiques of liberal dogma that has led us to this unhappy point in American history where any criticism levelled at a black Democratic candidate will eventually be deliberately misconceived (or stupidly misconstrued) as an attack on his race.
Allah at Hot Air has been all over the issue of the left deliberately twisting the intent and meaning of criticism of Obama to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion that the attack is racially motivated and, by extension, the attackers are racists.
Goldstein has written a book on his blog over the years in intentionalism and the deliberate rebranding and redefinition of terms and language in order to either cut off debate entirely or redefine the debate by surrendering logic and reason and buying into a false narrative created by the left that gives them the advantage. Goldstein shows how this is especially true in identity politics and how the rank dishonesty of deconstructionism has poisoned political debate.
There is little original thought I can add to either of those excellent critiques so I would like to explore this phenomena on a more personal level. Every anti-Obama post I’ve written on this site or anywhere else has elicited several comments alluding to me as a racist or implying that my criticism is racially motivated. All conservative bloggers have gotten this treatment to one degree or another so I am not alone in experiencing this. It doesn’t matter whether I am serious in my criticism or not. The de facto conclusion reached by these commenters is that the very act of criticizing Obama and that I don’t want him to be president can only mean one thing; it is the candidate’s race that is my primary motivation for opposing him.
As I mention above, I play pretty rough with my political opponents and make no apologies for doing so. And if calling me a racist was done as a regular part of the internet mud wrestling that goes on I wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.
But the intent of branding me with the scarlet “R” of racist is not simply to inflict pain but rather to stifle and cut off debate. There is no answer I can give to the charge, no proof I can offer, no words that would prove otherwise. The charge simply hangs there, tarring me and discrediting what I write in the minds of some who, although fair minded about most things, might buy into the liberal narrative and wonder if subconsciously I am some kind of closet klansman.
Denials only give credence to the charge. Having to disavow you are a racist gives the battle to your opponent because anything you might say to defend yourself can be twisted and deliberately misconstrued as more evidence of racism. On the other hand, silence denotes assent in many people’s minds so not saying anything is as good as being forced to walk around wearing that scarlet “R” on your bodice.
This is not a question of whining about the unfairness of it all. I am pointing out a fact relevant to the debating of issues in this campaign and the relative merits of the two candidates. It is something Allah has pointed out with some heat and scathing criticism as he did in the post I linked above where David Gergen was caught making the same patently ridiculous charge about McCain’s “celebrity” ad being filled with codes and hidden meanings about Obama’s race:
In which the single dumbest, most paranoid racial charge of the campaign is recycled on national television by a former presidential advisor and current Harvard professor. I said it before but it bears repeating: If you take this logic to its conclusion, there’s literally no non-racist way to accuse a member of a minority group of having an outsized ego. Any synonym you can conjure – elitist, arrogant, “megalomaniac narcissist” (to quote Hitchens) – can all happily be dismissed as “code,” regardless of whether the subject might in fact (a) display his very own presidential seal, (b) be known to describe rural voters in terms that call to mind Cletus the slackjawed yokel on “The Simpsons,” and© oh, by the way, lead his very own cult with himself as godhead.George Will makes a point I made myself last week, that the irony of all these bad-faith charges of racism is that most of the GOP’s knocks on Obama’s ego are straight out of the playbook they used against “haughty, French-looking Democrat” John Kerry. Granted, there was no “Moses” ad for Waffles, but that’s because most people hated him; Obama is adored to an absurdly iconic extent, especially vis-a-vis his actual accomplishments (in Lindsey Graham’s words, “fame without portfolio”), which is why he gets goofed on as leading people to the Promised Land whereas Kerry got the windsurfer treatment. (Although there are plenty of goofs on Obama along the same dorky windsurfer lines to be found if you look around.) The real “tell” here, though, is what Gergen offers as further evidence to support his point – that McCain, when asked about affirmative action, said he opposes quotas. A perfectly mainstream conservative position, and certainly one McCain would also hold if he was facing Hillary, but because he’s facing Obama McCain’s no longer allowed to talk about it.
Getting back to the personal, beyond the political tactic there is a psychic cost born by the target of such attacks. The towering injustice of the situation is extraordinarily frustrating. But that is the commenter’s intent – to checkmate his opponent and either provoke a wild response or have the charge go unanswered and thus win the argument.
Those who accuse all liberals of being unpatriotic or un-American perhaps have no cause to grumble when an equally malicious lie like “racist” is directed at them. But having such an epithet tossed in my direction – especially as it has been done recently – I find to be reflective of a mindset that is terrified of open debate and thus resorts to twisting semantics in order to obscure a flawed critique. They can’t argue the issues so the magic word is applied and debate instantly ceases.
As I have written since the beginning of the campaign, this tactic will be hauled out at regular intervals and used to great effect. Allah might be able to define it. Goldstein might be able to analyze and critique its psychological underpinnings and origins.
But they can’t stop it nor can they mitigate its effects. It is the major reason we can’t have an intelligent discussion about race in this campaign or at any time. And the fault, dear lefties, lies not in the stars but with you.
9:49 am
. . .my curmudgeonly moods . . .
You’re implying there are times when you’re not curmudgeonly?
I think there are two sides to this issue. Yes, the Left throws down the racist accusation far too often. No question. But the Right too often pretends that race is a matter that is entirely in the past, no longer an issue.
The negative hits on Congressman Harold Ford were coded racist attacks. I didn’t see a lot of conservatives admitting that. This McCain attack ad is not racist, coded or otherwise. It’s juvenile, silly and self-defeating, but I don’t think it’s coded racism.
If we’re going to have an honest discussion then the Right will have to admit—as many do—that the GOP has used racist attacks in the past, that they reaped political profit from racism, particularly in the Nixon era. Conservatives can’t pretend their hands are entirely clean and demand that the Left unilaterally disarm.
I’m not exactly a Leftie myself, but I have no problem admitting that the Left uses race as a bludgeon. Will those on the Right admit that the Southern Strategy and its political sequelae were racist?
9:49 am
I have worked with people of all hues with no thoughts to race during my many years of business and baseball play.
But if it takes being labelled a racist for keeping this empty-suit moron from becoming our President, I will wear the label proudly!
9:53 am
Rick, you hit the proverbial nail right on the head.
!
I am so sick of the left making EVERYTHING about race, when Obama brings it up.
Why can’t anybody remember it was the Republicans who brought about the Civil Rights in this great land of ours, the dems fought it tooth and nail. I also truly believe that even though vast masses of dems claim they are for Obama and change, when they go into the voting booths alot of em will not be able to vote for a black man cuz their predjudices are strong, no matter how they like to claim they have done so much for the blacks in our country. Show me, I wanta see.
10:18 am
rick,
no te preocupes! no worries mate. i know you are being serious and are venting to stay stable, but the reality of the situation is many people are not stable out there, and though they may have a wit of intelligence to them, they use it with devious intent. not you, you are one of the most objective (sometimes too objective) bloggers that i have read.
so with the intent of cheering you up here is some sarcasm… enjoy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUx0VvZd5rI
10:20 am
Americans like modest Presidents. Modest canidates, George W. Bush, B.J. Clinton and Ronald Reagan tend to win. Pompus donkeys, John Kerry, Al Gore and Thomas Dewwy tend to lose.
Barack Obama is a man who has plenty of reasons to be modest, but simply is not. If calling BO arrogant makes me a racist, sobeit.
11:00 am
[...] Rick Moran has an excellent post up about being branded a “racist,” and the Procrustean bed of lefty interpretation. He mentions Allah Pundit, and Jeff Goldstein, in particular, as having articulated the defense against such practices. Posted by Dan Collins @ 10:00 am | Trackback SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: “Lefty Interpretive Teleology [Dan Collins]”, url: “http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=13099” }); [...]
11:31 am
I have not been called a racist in my 40+ years but I will wear that tag with pride and honor if it defeats the marxist Obama
I could care less what the “progressives” think of me.
11:33 am
I’m a moonbat and I agree with this sentiment.
I think many of McCain’s ads are pathetic personal attacks, but they’re clearly not racist. Leftists who call these ads racist are doing their cause a great disservice by diluting the word “racist” and making themselves look like idiots in general.
11:49 am
Rick,
Perhaps I’m missing something, but let me ask you a question.
If the Republican candidate was Condoleezza Rice and the Democratic candidate was Madeleine Albright, who would you vote for?
If your answer would be Condie, then you can safely (and neatly) put to bed any racial undertones in your opposition to Obama.
Sadly, the qualifiers that you’d feel obligated to attach to your answer to that question would no-doubt be reminiscent of conversations you’ve already had with regard to John McCain.
If that doesn’t do it for you, what if the Democrat’s candidate was Clarence Thomas, ignoring the glaring impossibility of that situation, and the Republican candidate was John McCain?
Frankly, I’m something of a racist myself. All other things being equal, I’d prefer a black candidate for the Republican nominee. Whether that’s residual white guilt or a perfectly normal American need to root for the underdog, I don’t know. I’m sure someone who doesn’t know me at all will be happy to explain it to me.
11:52 am
I for one and tired of being called racist for ideas which help all races while there is a race that will vote 90% for a candidate whether he or she is qualified or a drooling moron aka C McKinney.
Give me a break. If one wants to throw around epithets, I don’t give credibility.
Thanks for the opportunity to make that point for the unpteenth time.
12:02 pm
The liberal/left have made enormous political capital on race and racism. As long as it continues to work, they will continue to use.
12:05 pm
Great post, Rick.
12:09 pm
I have been called a racist any number of times, even before my opposition to Obama, so it’s nothing new to me. Of course, I always end up pointing out this is news to my Chinese wife and Ugandan daughter.
Of course, throwing it at McCain is really funny, considering his adopted Bangladeshi daughter is considerably darker than Obama.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/07/obama-talks-about-lifting-child-in.html
12:17 pm
I for one and tired of being called racist
Well, why would anybody do that to you? I’m sure that’s jus—
there is a race that will vote 90% for a candidate whether he or she is qualified or a drooling moron
That’s why Al Sharpton won so many primaries in 2004, I guess. Oh, wait. Let me go back and look at the beginning of this comment again…
12:24 pm
If the Republican candidate was Condoleezza Rice and the Democratic candidate was Madeleine Albright, who would you vote for?
If your answer would be Condie, then you can safely (and neatly) put to bed any racial undertones in your opposition to Obama.
Sadly, the qualifiers that you’d feel obligated to attach to your answer to that question would no-doubt be reminiscent of conversations you’ve already had with regard to John McCain.
If that doesn’t do it for you, what if the Democrat’s candidate was Clarence Thomas, ignoring the glaring impossibility of that situation, and the Republican candidate was John McCain?
Why is the first thing that comes to your mind the proposed candidates race? When I see those names, I think of their politics and positions and ideas on the issues that are important to me and not their skincolor, which isn’t important to me at all.
If the first thing that comes to your mind is someones skin color, then maybe you ARE a racist. Or maybe just a bigot.
12:40 pm
I think that the term “racist” will have less influence after this year, especially after the racist Black Liberation Theology becomes more exposed. James Cone’s book – Black Theology and Black Power – was the “seminal work that systemized black liberation theology”. In it he states – “Black hatred is the black man’s strong aversion to white society. No black man living in white America can escape it”, and tries to claim that “black hatred is not racism” by using one definition of racism from a Webster’s dictionary. Its racism…simple as that and Cone knows it.
Basically, the former victims of racism have now become the racists and I for one am quick to point out their racist behavior…probably before they can call me one. Obama spent about 20 years following that racist Black Liberation Theology doctrine, and avoids explaining why. Until he can explain why, I consider him a racist, since the evidence clearly suggests that he is.
12:45 pm
People do realize that McCain ran an ad with Obama’s head on a $100 bill in June, right? But I guess that was just to emphasize how good Obama would look on currency.
12:54 pm
The interesting thing is that so many appear to be ignorant of the actual meaning of the word “racist”. Look it up, folks, it doesn’t mean “someone said something about someone’s race that I think is wrong or made me mad”.
We play into that ignorance by advancing the argument.
1:11 pm
By the time I reached adolescence in the 70’s, I had been thoroughly “indoctrinated” by my parents, both staunch Republians, to ignore the color of a person’s skin and and treat them as an equal – essentially to be color-blind. When Political Correctness arose, along with it’s principle of Celebrating Diversity, it’s message was contrary to how I’d been raised. I never remotely considered myself a racist – quite the opposite. But now I was being told by the left that I was supposed to focus on the race of others in order to be “diverse,” which struck me as nothing short of blatant racism itself. I was quite liberal in my views at the time, as most foolish young people tend to be, but this was the one thing that made me question those views and eventually come to understand what my parents had believed all along. I’ve been a staunch Republican myself ever since.
For a liberal to call me a racist is like the pot calling the kettle black, so to speak (tongue firmly in cheek!).
1:13 pm
“Will those on the Right admit that the Southern Strategy and its political sequelae were racist?”
I believe that charge is overblown. See here:
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.928/article_detail.asp
1:32 pm
I used to be a high school teacher in the inner city. Many of my students were black. Most of my black students did the work and followed the rules. In fact I can say that with one exception, my very best students were black, most of them Haitian.
However, there was always one kid in every class who did not want to sit down, shut up and pay attention. Nor did they want to do the work needed to pass. If I asked them to conform to the rules of the classroom, I was called a racist. This happened like clockwork every year. I would fight this and I eventually win when the kid understood his racemail wasn’t going to work, at which point he would get with the program.
But I got tired of fighting all the time. That’s why I’m not a teacher any more. Why would I want to make no money, buy my own supplies, pay for my students’ lunch when they didn’t have money, tutor them after school and at lunch time, and generally work my ass off to be called a racist?
The great lesson Obama’s learning—and hopefully the left is FINALLY learning—is that this stuff backfires. But the only way it backfires is if we stand firm and refuse to capitulate to their brownshirt tactics. So stand firm, everybody, and this, too, shall pass. Chin up, Rick. We’ve got your back.
And by the way, your brother Terry did a great job with the Messiah last week. He administered quite a workover, in his amiable way.
1:51 pm
“Racism” has always been part of the liberal boilerplate. A few years back, I was having a political discussion with a very good, liberal democrat friend of mine and, since I am of Cuban descent and republican he stated, ironically:
“I dont get it. You come here with your brown skin and you associate yourselves with racists.”
Kettle, meet pot.
More a consequence of identity politics where they cannot reconcile that all dark skinned people are always right with the fact that you are associating with people who they see as always wrong.
No doubt they blew a circuit trying to figure you out…
ed.
2:05 pm
Getting back to the personal, beyond the political tactic there is a psychic cost born by the target of such attacks. The towering injustice of the situation is extraordinarily frustrating. But that is the commenter’s intent – to checkmate his opponent and either provoke a wild response or have the charge go unanswered and thus win the argument.
That pretty much cuts to heart of it. Frustration. And that’s why, as much as I dislike the Clintons and Ferraro, I couldn’t take any pleasure when JJ, Jr., Brazille and the rest of Obama’s crew kept flinging the racism charge at them, with the media gleefully piling on. Bill Clinton’s carrying a grudge, as he hinted today, and for once I hope he eventually, somehow, gets his political revenge.
2:07 pm
The accusation of racism, or the threat of the accusation, is designed to cause the speaker to stop making an argument not manageable by other means. The speaker is expected to apologize, to stop making the irrefutable argument, and to shut up.
The reason for that is the presumption that the putative audience believes the accusation. If the audience did not believe the accusation, could see it as a manipulative scam which wore out years ago, the tactic would have no power.
Well, folks. The audience isn’t believing it. It’s useless, except where the speaker hasn’t caught on to the fact that the audience, whatever it is, is ahead of him.
This horse is dead.
Forget it.
Let the lefties howl “Racism!!”, or any other label they use when you make a point they can’t counter. Nobody believes it any more than the accuser believes it. It’s all a scam and everybody knows it.
2:13 pm
“Why is the first thing that comes to your mind the proposed candidates race? When I see those names, I think of their politics and positions and ideas on the issues that are important to me and not their skincolor, which isn’t important to me at all.
If the first thing that comes to your mind is someones skin color, then maybe you ARE a racist. Or maybe just a bigot.”
I believe that the first thing that came to my mind was how to make an analogous comparison where the roles in contention (black candidate vs. white candidate) were reversed. I then picked hypothetical candidates that met those “qualifications” to demonstrate the point that it is not about race at all.
I think my question to you, Sgt Ted, is are you some kind of facist? By your logic, misapplied to my post though it was, the first thing that comes to your mind is rank, evidenced by your nom de guerre. Military rank to be specific. It doesn’t take many rhetorical twists to make that lead straight to Heinlein-quality facism.
Words are fun. They can be twisted to do all kinds of thing. But he who lives by the sword, etc…
2:16 pm
Jay @ 1:11
Good points. Diversity for Dems does have its rules, e.g. being “rich” is bad and so they need to be punished. I visit the Afrosphere (blogosphere was too white for many African-Americans…don’t ask how color can be seen on the internet) a lot since seeing Rev. Wright, and terms like “hankie head” and “house negro” are used there to insult blacks who are not “Field Negros.” Then there is Whoopi and the N-Word…sheesh!
2:32 pm
Its McCarthyism, pure and simple.
2:42 pm
I often wounder how the dems found success in labeling Republicans racist. Especially when you honestly look at the history of the GOP.
From the first Republican President elected (Abraham Lincoln) to the legislative Republicans that where instrumental against dem opposition in passing the Civil Right Bill that LBJ signed.
And the dems love to use Republican opposition to affirmative action as proof of racism (a reporters question to John McCain). But if you where to apply just a little honesty to the opposition you would see that it is anything but racist. In fact it accounts for people not to be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. You could even make the argument affirmative action promotes racism.
Like any minority (American Indian) I grow tired of the assumption that I should belong to a party whose ideology I completely reject simply because my skin color is not white. I also grow tired of being called racist because I disagree with a non white candidate political ideology. I for one am glad John McCain is fighting these untrue accusations.
3:10 pm
Luke,
I have looked at the history of the GOP. Your argument is massively flawed.
3:14 pm
Luke: “I often wounder how the dems found success in labeling Republicans racist. Especially when you honestly look at the history of the GOP.”
How about Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms, for starters?
If Abraham Lincoln was running for office today, he would be excoriated on blogs such as this.
3:15 pm
One thing that Republicans have perfected is the art of playing the victim. Victims of affirmative action, of secular humanists, of feminists, of coastal elites, and on and on and on.
This post? Exhibit #43.
It does not matter what Obama says or does. Regardless, wingnuttery is going to find a way be victimized by it. So if Obama mentions that he does not look like a typical person one might find on US currency, when it was the McCain camp itself that ran an ad with his likeness on what appeared to be US currency, well of course Obama is just a bad guy trying to paint his opponents as racist. And thus wingnuts are just victims of charges of racism.
It’s a classic wingnut strategy. The parts get moved around to fit the the particular opponent. But at bottom its the same story, different day. A classic example is the Jesse Helms ad from 1990 – you know the one – “You wanted that job ….”
And that’s the strategy in 2008. Wingnuts as the victims of Obama’s elitism and, now, his racism.
This post is one tiny part of that strategy. As Rick says: “And the fault, dear lefties, lies not in the stars but with you.”
See, if you lefties would just stop being so mean, and if Obama would just stop responding to ads about him, then wingnuts wouldn’t be victims anymore. But until you stop it, they are going to continue to be victims. So stop it. Or you will make them cry.
3:29 pm
I’ve been a Republican for a few decades now and I’m still looking for the “codebook” with all the Republican “codewords”, all of which I suppose are racist. Does anybody have a link ? .. or a copy ?
3:33 pm
never ending quest to redefine terms and twist language, making it a willing servant to their political agenda.
What on earth do you think conservatives have been doing the last 25 years? It’s like you have no memory and certainly no sense of proportion, very, very cult like.
How blind can you get? Look up “Newt GOPAC memo” and see a classic case of using language, not to sell someone on your ideas but to manipulate minds.
Today’s entire conservative movement is condtioned in deception. Maybe that an outgrowth of the fact that the number one funder of the right the last 30 years has been Sun Myuing Moon. I bet your handlers never told you that when they had you foaming at the mouth over Soros, did they?
I have news for you, where I live most republicans are proud racists. Proud of it.
You proudly live in an alternate reality that is taking our nation and the world to hell.
3:40 pm
Of course, throwing it at McCain is really funny, considering his adopted Bangladeshi daughter is considerably darker than Obama.
Rove/Bush threw it at Mccain in 2000 over his daughter and you loved Bush for it. Is there a conservative alive who is not massively uninformed hypocrite?
4:20 pm
Ha, how ironic. When I accuse McCain of not being qualified to be president I get slathered with base, ridiculous accusations that I’m not patriotic.
4:20 pm
The right definitely has a far better record on race issues than the left. One need not go back to the days of Abe Lincoln. Just in the modern era :
1) George Wallace, a segregationist, was a Democrat.
2) Robert Byrd, a former KKK Kleagle, is still in the Senate.
3) The GOP elevated two blacks to the position of Secretary of State, and an Indian-American to be Governor of Lousiana. Democrats have no blacks or Indians who have gotten this far.
4) FDR interned Japanese (necessary at the time, but something the left hopes no one rememebers).
Clearly, the GOP has the better race record.
4:21 pm
T,
That’s funny, the way I recall it, the contract with America stated in explicit terms what the Newt congress was going to try to accomplish. Whereas, Clinton got all coy with the meaning of such rarely used words as “is”. Go peddle your nonsense elsewhere. Republicans do not hide our intent. We state exactly what we intend to do, whether it is Reagan with the Soviets or Bush with the terrorists. The one glaring exception to that was Bush the Elder on taxes and look what happened to him for raising those taxes. Democrats on the other hand try to make themselves look more moderate than they really are election after election because they understand that their ideas will not prevail with the majority of Americans if they do not. We do not want massive entitlement programs and redistributionist economics. We do not want to answer to the UN or any other global entity. We believe in God; we support the right of individuals to bear arms; we believe in a strong defense; we believe in American exceptionalism; we believe in the free market and we support myriad other things that you do not, except when you are making campaign speeches in elections.
In short, we do not like your ideas and you know it. Thus you lie and undermine the meanings of words to disguise your intent. We do not do that.
4:22 pm
Didn’t you wingnuts get the memo?
The new definition of a ‘racist’ is someone who uses logic and facts to win a debate with a leftist.
That is what a racist is. You better shut up and go along with this definition.
4:24 pm
Strom Thurmond was a DEMOCRAT when he ran on a segregationist platform. Democrats like to lie about this, but it is true.
Jesse Helms didn’t do anything overtly racist.
On the other hand, George Wallace and Robert Byrd have done far worse things than Jesse Helms ever did.
The Democrats are clearly the more racist party.
4:47 pm
Twok must have learned his history from Jonah Goldberg. Only a conservative could be so proudly and wilfully ignorant of U.S. political history. Did you ever stop and think why Strom Thurmand became a Republican? Do you think Lyndon Johnson’s embrace of Civil Rights legislation had anything to do with it? Why not regale us with your version of the 1968 Democratic convention, wherein Humphrey threw his lot in with Strom, promising a “law and order” (code for anti-Negro) campaign in exchange for his support? Oh wait, that was Nixon at the Republican convention. Ever ask yourself why Strom and Jesse found themselves perfectly at home in the Republican party right into the new millenium?
4:50 pm
This post is way too long. Get it down to one screen.
4:51 pm
Interesting group of circular arguments. I guess we are all racist. I like the fact we live in a country that lets us make the comments. Good article and good posts – I enjoyed the read.
4:53 pm
If there would be one bright spot to having the Messiah in the Oval Office, it is the fact that He would do to the so-called civil rights lobby what the pants-down Presidency of William Jefferson Clinton did to radical feminists. Is there a political group that took a harder political hit than NOW did with its mindless 24/7 defense of Hilly the Hun’s husband? One longs for the NAACP and others in what is arguably Washington’s meanset and dirtiest lobby to take a similar political tumble.
5:01 pm
Twok: “Clearly, the GOP has the better race record.”
Twok again: “The Democrats are clearly the more racist party.”
And yet the GOP is unable to get a significant percentage of blacks to vote for their candidates . . . I wonder why that is?
I would say that it is because they are the best judges of what party is more likely to be concerned about the issues of importance to them.
Your argument seems to be that blacks aren’t smart enough to figure out that their best interests lie in supporting Republicans.
5:02 pm
[...] RICK MORAN ON bogus charges of “racism.” [...]
5:04 pm
And that’s why, as much as I dislike the Clintons and Ferraro, I couldn’t take any pleasure when JJ, Jr., Brazille and the rest of Obama’s crew kept flinging the racism charge at them, with the media gleefully piling on.
Sorry, but I have no sympathy. They are simply reaping what they sowed. They played the same game with misogyny. Remember how we hated Hillary! because she was a woman?
5:08 pm
Not all Republicans are racist. Of course. But again, playing the race-race card is part of a larger strategy of wingnut victimhood. It goes back as least as far as Nixon, or even farther.
And in this election, it plays not on racism, but on resentment. And that is what Moran is doing here. Nobody likes being called a racist. But if you can convince people that they are being called racist, and unjustly so, then they can justify their dislike of Obama not on the ground that they are racist, but that they are being unfairly tagged as racist. And this motivates certain people to vote, and vote in a certain way.
Again, the issue is resentment, and playing on the resentment. It’s what’s motivated conservatives every election since 1968, and perhaps earlier. Resentment against gays, minorities, feminists, secularlists, judges, Hollywood types, and on and on and on.
And if lefties are necessarily wrong about every accusation of racism they make, then there cannot be any racism at all, no matter how nasty people get about Obama. It’s kind of like when Bush says we don’t do torture. We don’t do torture because what we do is by definition not torture. Because we do it.
Obama’s not playing the race card. But wingnuts are playing the victim card. And playing it well.
5:26 pm
Rick, there have been a few times where you and I have parted ways on certain issues but in this one we are in lock step. I have tried to discuss with some of my liberal friends the empty suit that I see as Obama and without once even noting the color of his skin I have been called a racist and with that my every word, as far as they are concerned, is without merit.
The fact is I could be crowing to the heavens about the color, hue, and shade of his skin but not one word about that would remove the fact that he is a hard-core left wing partisan political opportunist with a blank sheet of paper for a resume.
And you can parse your words all you want and it will not change the fact that Obama has played his entire campaign strategy on race. It revealed itself on the day he announced his candidacy for the office of President when he asked the Reverend Wright NOT to stand with him on the podium. And it has reared its head, at his command, virtually every week of this long campaign.
5:26 pm
“Ever ask yourself why Strom and Jesse found themselves perfectly at home in the Republican party right into the new millenium?”
Perhaps because it is a party less racist than the one that ran George Wallace for President, and still has a KKK Kleagle as its seniormost Senator, even today?
Sorry, but the GOP of the last 40 years has had no one with the racism resume of Byrd or Wallace.
Biden and Hillary’s anti-Indian statements greatly exceed George Allen’s, as Allen’s was about an individual, while Biden and Hillary were talking about the whole group.
5:28 pm
BTW, perhaps we can all agree that women are more racist than men.
Men are more likely to date interracially than women are.
5:40 pm
Nobody likes being called a racist. But if you can convince people that they are being called racist, and unjustly so, then they can justify their dislike of Obama not on the ground that they are racist, but that they are being unfairly tagged as racist. And this motivates certain people to vote, and vote in a certain way.
Well, there you are: racist if you are and racist if you aren’t. If you don’t vote for O!
6:39 pm
As I blogged in “Did Obama just call me a racist?” back in December of 2006:
“Are some voters not going to vote for me because I’m African-American? Those are the same voters who probably wouldn’t vote for me because of my politics,” Barack Obama told ecstatic New Hampshire voters yesterday. Being one of those voters who probably wouldn’t vote for him because of his politics, we were naturally offended at his suggestion that people like us are racists. Swept up in the locals’ devotional hysteria, however, the media didn’t seem to notice. Folks hear what they want to hear.
6:58 pm
“Well, there you are: racist if you are and racist if you aren’t. If you don’t vote for O!”
You’re not necessarily racist if you don’t vote for O. You are just more likely to be racist. Conversely, you are not necessarily an ageist if you don’t vote for McCain, you are just more likely to be an ageist.
The purpose of Moran’s post here is to plant the idea that there is no possibility that anyone who doesn’t vote for Obama is a racist. Sorry for the double negative. In that sense, he is the same as those he criticizes. Oh, and he is a victim too.
Again, not all dislike of Obama is race-based. But some is. I have met very few lefties who believe that all wingnuts are racist. But I have met many wingnuts who believe there is no chance that of the millions of Americans who will not vote for Obama, not one is a racist.
The other weird thing is that wingnuts believe that only their subjective interpretation counts. To many of them, if a black man perceives something as racist, and a white man does not, the black man’s perception does not count, because the white man disagrees.
Here is Moran on the subject: “And that is the deliberate misinterpretation of intent by the left in many conservative critiques of liberal dogma that has led us to this unhappy point in American history where any criticism levelled at a black Democratic candidate will eventually be deliberately misconceived (or stupidly misconstrued) as an attack on his race.”
See, the black man is either being stupid or deceptive in maintaining that what he is perceiving is racist. And how do we know this? Because Moran said so.
7:43 pm
[...] the eyes of almighty Jackson, Sharpton and company. Which is the point, I suppose. Rick Moran says it better than I can. [...]
8:51 pm
[...] No Quarter: If We Were to Psychoanalyze Mr. Obama Ed Driscoll: Air Force Duey Right Wing Nut House: On Being Called a Racist Rightwing News: Interviews With 3 Professional Dating [...]
10:00 pm
Rick, I remember you from the Superhawk days when you had that awful all-blue template (like somebody else I know).
It’s funny but one of the arguments that really brought me over to the conservative side in the 1980s was an explicitly anti-racist argument. I had always supported welfare and despised the traditional conservative argument that it amounted to theft. But when Robert Bartley and Jude Wanniski made the case that welfare was actually destroying black families while pretending to help them, I suddenly “got it” and became a neoconservative.
We do have to accept that there will be lots of charges of racism from the idiot chorus, but we’ll be in some pretty interesting company, including Bill Clinton, formerly known as the first Black president.
10:41 pm
Twok: “Men are more likely to date interracially than women are.”
Exactly who are these men dating?
What a dork!
11:09 pm
Rick, this was an excellent post. But may I add to it?
While we are told that there needs to be dialog between the races to finally end any bigotry that still exists, we have to ask why that dialog never seems to happen. And the answer is simple: it is the pendulum theory. The harder you pull the pendulum to one side, the farther it swings to the other side. Affirmative actions and set asides were designed to level a playing field in areas were there was inequality. But as the pendulum was dragged farther and farther to one side, as it swung back, it went farther in the other direction. As the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of this nation started to demand not equality but preferencial treatment due to skin tone, those who suffered because of it became frustrated, angry and resentful. The pendulum was swinging too far and resentment was building for those who were tuggin on it. And special treatement is not equality, no matter how you try to cut it.
I have long said that I oppose Senator Obama because he is a empty shell. He is a PR campaign and as such, is sold like CocaCola. It may not be good for you but look at the pretty bottle. And don’t the commercials make you feel good?
When I use this analogy, I am labeled a “racist”. By people who, judging me soley on my physical appearance, determine that due to the color of my skin, I could not be anything but.
But to be honest, it really isn’t Obama’s fault. He is only using tried and true tactics that were implemented years ago to discourage any real equality. Equality was only the goal of a few, such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. For the rest, who rode his coattails, the goal was “payback”.
So now we have such stupid things as apologies for slavery. Never mind that anyone who was a slave, or who owned a slave, is long since dead. Nevermind that every ethnic group in America at one time or another suffered discrimination; the Irish, the Poles, the American Indian. Nevermind that slums originated in Irish neighborhoods or that genocide was committed against American Indians by the Buffalo Soldiers. How many black Americans are even aware of who the Buffalo Soldiers were much less the atrocities they committed? You will never hear anyone apologize for those acts of racism. You see, there is no power in it.
I asked a friend one time if he knew how many slaves were murdered by white slave holders. He said probably in the thousands but didn’t really know. Then I asked him if he knew the approximate population of the American Indian when the slaves were freed and what the population was 50 years later. I got the standard blank stare.
Yes, racist still exists in this nation. And it is a good business. Keep it alive, don’t allow it to die a natural death, and the pimps who line the pockets and increase their bank balances will still have jobs.
Juan Williams, who I disagree with on many, many things, is also one of the few men who see things for the way they really are. He said that the very fact that not only a black man, but also a woman could run for the highest office in the land, speaks to how far this nation has come and how it has grown. Unfortunately, I fear that Senator Obama, with his “and did you know he’s black” and other comments will set the process back 25 years.
There are those who see the race card as the golden calf, to be paraded around and worshipped and giving the owner of the calf all the power.
But the pendulum will swing back. Oh, no, not like it was. But eventually, and none too soon, just calling someone a racist to end dialog will no longer hold the power it currently does. And constantly reminding one segment of a sin of their fathers will lose all importance. It will become as absurd as accusing your mate of cheating on you because your father cheated on your mother.
When that happens, we will have true equality and the race pimps will be ranked amoung the unemployed. But until then…...
12:21 am
By the end of this campaign, being called a racist will be about the same as being called a nazi. It won’t mean anything. Intelligent people already realize it’s not a real charge, it’s just meant to shut the other side up, and it’s not working any longer. The more Obama’s camp tries to foster the idea that any criticism of him must be racist, the less impact the charge will have. He’s a presidential candidate. It’s fair game to critize him. It’s fair game to criticize him unfairly, as has happened to GW Bush, Clinton, Kerry, Dole, GHW Bush, Mondale, Dukakis, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon… It ain’t tiddlywinks he’s playing, and everyone knows it.
The more he complains about the heat, the less presidential he looks. And the more he tries to hide behind his skin color, the less credibility “racism” will have.
Really, I can’t think of a better service he could provide for the country than to rid us of the last veistiges of black victimhood. I don’t think that’s what meant by be a post-racial candidate, but it looks like what he’s going to do.
3:10 am
Is it impossible that you might be a racist?
Could it not be conceivable that you perhaps might be construed as racist?
Be it beyond ken that R Moran be viewed as less than racist?
By bringing it up, have you painted yourself into a corner? Or do you want to be a punching bag?
I guess you are white.
3:21 am
The purpose of Moran’s post here is to plant the idea that there is no possibility that anyone who doesn’t vote for Obama is a racist.
I want you to cite the exact phrase in Moran’s post that justifies your interpretation of it.
8:01 am
Many fail to appreciate the “cry wolf” factor of the constant drone of accusations of racism. There are many on the left that have willingly forfeited any credibility they might have had in this area simply for the benefit of appeasing their constituency or securing solidarity among their intended audience. It is truly a shame when Jesse Jackson, who once worked along side a man like MLK in fighting real and heinous racism and bigottry, could have so much to contribute but is justifiably no longer taken seriously on the topic by a large number of Americans due to his blatant race pimping.
10:04 am
i believe that the “racist” label is often used like the “nazi” label and therefore falls under the same usage guidelines expressed in godwin’s law. perhaps you should submit a corollary?
10:13 am
“If that doesn’t do it for you, what if the Democrat’s candidate was Clarence Thomas, ignoring the glaring impossibility of that situation, and the Republican candidate was John McCain?”
As life-long Reagan Republican, if the Democrats turned from their usual lunacy and stunningly nominated the conservative, humble, patriotic and honorable Clarence Thomas, I’d cross-over vote for him as an endorsement of both him and the party that put him forward.
I think the points have been well-taken. Notwithstanding the current neck-and-neck race, I think the odds are pretty good that the first African-American President will be a Republican.
10:23 am
“By the end of this campaign, being called a racist will be about the same as being called a nazi. It won’t mean anything.”
Travis Monitor’s Obama Corollary to Godwin’s Law: Any discussion about candidate Obama will eventually end up being a discussion about race and racism. When an allegation about race is hurled, the conversation is effectively over.
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2008/08/obama-corollary-and-racemail-in-america.html
11:34 am
If you are a pundit blogger and have not be been called a racist/and had death threats you aren’t trying hard enough. They come with the territory.
Obama’s pathetic attempt to scare people into voting for him clearly isn’t working. It might be working when people talk to pollsters but it won’t work in the ballot box. Does he not realise there have been lots of senior blacks in the Bush administration? Or do they no count for some daft reason. Cries of racism are the last bastion of a coward.
12:10 pm
The irony is that the charge itself is racist.
You are being accused of racism simply because Obama is black and you are (I can only assume) white. If you were black or Obama white then writing exactly the same words would not be assumed racist by Obamaniacs. More tellingly if you were black AND Obama was white they would not. Therefore the people charging you with racism are using race as a criterion for deciding how to attack your posts. They are then racist.
12:55 pm
[...] of turning point on bad-faith accusations. I don’t quite buy it — it’s simply too valuable a political weapon — but stuff like this does offer at least a whiff of, er, hope and [...]
1:30 pm
Well, if Republicans like Bob Schaffer aren’t racist, they sure don’t know how to pass their enlightened values on to their kids.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/bob_schaffers_son_apologizes_f_1.php
5:05 pm
MSM loves to stir the “Racist” smear frenzy. But there’s hope because the Obamasiah has declared that THIS is the moment. And while we can’t quite confirm that the oceans stopped rising, all of us can move our minds to the “post-modern” “post-racial” age and treat the smear as a desperate and pathetic tactic worthy of a soon to be discredited clan of inbred, stone age neanderthals.
[pausing for the healing moment]
There, the white guilt has been lifted from my shoulders. Inoculated and free at last. And about time too. The last time I checked, my Latino American friends were quite pleased and proud of their country and required no reparations for grievances. Same for my Asian American friends.
One more thing we have in common is a mutual disdain for the “you owe me forever” posture of the Jeremiah Wright/Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton communities. Have these groups noticed that they repel virtually all the other ethnic communities?
I’m guilt-free and loving it!
11:03 am
Recently, I posted a message in our local newspaper online comment section and a conservative replied with the usual half-truths and misinformation, but the most interesting item was when he referred to Obama as the “Affirmative Action candidate.” Uh-huh. That pretty much summed it all up. I know not all conservatives and Republicans are racist, but between that guy’s comments and all the viscious anti-Islam/anti-immigrant sentiment of the last couple of years, it is all too easy to believe the GOP’s slogan this year is: “I’m not a racist, but…”
8:55 am
[...] of identity politics, isn’t it? As soon as things get rough, you throw out a foul label, it muddies the waters and all meaningful conversation is put to a stop while the accuser sneers and the accused is [...]
10:33 am
This is priceless. Don’t miss the ads and links.
10:35 am
[...] basis is precisely the sort of thing I always thought Protein Wisdom existed to oppose. As Rick Moran put it last [...]
2:15 pm
What a damn long winded and boring post to say ‘The black and liberals have warped society so much that even opposing them is a thought crime.’ Oh, you should also say you are a wimp who cries like a girl over the prospect of being called a racist.
The truth is Obama is so full of baseless anti-white black rage, and is as arrogant and self satisfied as he is unpreared or experienced for the job. Obama is okay with his racism as long as it doesn’t inhibit the growth in his wealth or power, and why? Because ‘racism’ (the desire to see the group you are most like succeed) is as natural as big stupid guys wanting to be jocks and hang around jocks, and whiny weedy kids to be emos and want to hang around other emos.
The truth is, the majority of white people don’t have anything to feel guilty for as they have suffered more from the legacy of slavery than blacks have. Blacks would be worse off in Africa, while whites would be much better off with blacks in Africa (less crime, less taxes, less political bullying, and social unrest).
The majority of white people did not own slaves, and white people’s only ‘crime’ has been to want to preserve a safe, low crime area with high scholastic & civility standards which black areas and countries do not possess. We are different peoples, and race exists and race matters. It is not that hard to understand.
Oh, and that whole ‘Blacks built america!’? B.S. any wealth created by them was destroyed, and much more when the south was raped by the north unconstitutionally.