Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Explicitly racial group: "Everyone who doesn't agree with us is a racist."

One of the adages I like when talking about confirmation bias is, "when all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." In other words, there's a strong tendency in all human beings to see what we're looking for, what we want to see. If our only tool for interpreting society is racism, we're going to see racism in every societal interaction.  So it should come as no surprise that an explicitly racial group, a group based on skin color, taking its name from the skin color of its members, looks at the opposition to President Obama's policies and sees ... racism.

Congressional Black Caucas staff: Opposition to Obama is racist
"This is probably the toughest presidential term in my lifetime," Rye said during CSPAN's Q&A yesterday. "I think that a lot of what the president has experienced is because he's black. You know, whether it's questioning his intellect or whether or not he's Ivy League. It's always either he's not educated enough or he's too educated; or he's too black or he's not black enough; he's too Christian or not Christian enough. There are all these things where he has to walk this very fine line to even be successful."

Honestly, isn't everyone tired of this schtick yet? Let's be brutally frank for a minute: if Barack Obama were white, we would be talking about whether Mitt Romney could defeat Hillary Clinton's re-election bid. Barack Obama, in 2008, was the black John Edwards. Barack Obama is President, and John Edwards is not, because the vast majority of Americans abhor racism and go out of their way not to practice racist behaviors, or behaviors that they might perceive as racist. Barack Obama had absolutely nothing in his background to qualify him for the Presidency over a John Edwards. Barack Obama had absolutely nothing in his background to qualify him for the Presidency, period. He won because of his skin color, because enough media-Americans and Democrat-Americans decided it was time for an African-American President instead of a Woman-American, and enough independents and Republicans were appalled by the profligacy of the second Bush administration to go along.

And now he's being opposed for his policies. His health care proposals are loathed by the same people that loathed "Hillarycare" in 1994. His economic proposals are to the left of Al Gore's and John Kerry's, so he's got all of the opposition that they had, plus more of the "middle," who thought that Gore's and Kerry's policies were ok, but any further was bad. He's got the same kind of support that the equally disastrous, but much whiter, Jimmy Carter had, coming down the stretch in his own failed administration.

In other words, there's not a scintilla of evidence to support the idea that opposition to Obama's policies and re-election campaign, for other than a trivial minority, is based on skin color.


Of course, Rye did try to provide some evidence and, in the process, demonstrated how racist her worldview is, while saying nothing about Obama's opposition.
She said that "a lot" of conservative opposition is racially-charged, citing the use of the word "cool" in an attack ad launched by Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS superPAC.

"There's an ad, talking about [how] the president is too cool, [asking] is he too cool? And there's this music that reminds me of, you know, some of the blaxploitation films from the 70s playing in the background, him with his sunglasses," Rye said. "And to me it was just very racially-charged. They weren't asking if Bush was too cool, but, yet, people say that that's the number one person they'd love to have a beer with. So, if that's not cool I dont know what is.
So "cool" is now a racial slur. Right. Let's conduct a little experiment here: close your eyes, count to 10, and then say the name of the person you most associate with the term, "cool."

If you're over 65, I'm guessing that you said "Elvis Presley" or "Marlon Brando" or "Frank Sinatra." If you're between 45 and 65, you like came up with "Arthur Fonzarelli" (or just "the Fonz"). I'll confess that I don't know who you came up with if you're younger than that, but you're in the Obama demographic anyway.

Q: What do those men all have in common?
A: They are all nearly as white as Elizabeth "Fauxcahontas" Warren.

Claiming that "cool" is a racist term is obviously nonsense to anyone not steeped in the racial grievance industry. To one who is, anything is a racist term, if applied in a pejorative way to a black man. But that makes her position explicitly non-falsifiable. Any evidence that can be offered to her that Obama's opposition is not race-based can be explained away with ad hoc special pleadings. "Cool" is racist. "Proud" means "uppity" so it's racist. "Obama Isn't Working" apparently evokes "the stereotype of the 'lazy,' 'shiftless' black man" and is therefore racist. (Notice that it's the "unbiased" left that thinks about black men as "lazy...shiftless" and assumes racism on the part of those who don't think about black men that way.) Calling him by his full name is racist. Wondering whether he was born in Africa (a claim that he himself made for 17 years) is racist. Opposition to tax hikes is racist. Opposition to the individual mandate is racist. Commenting on how much time he spends golfing is racist. Calling him the "food stamp President" (because the number of Americans receiving food stamps is at an all time high) is racist.

Essentially, in the eyes of those who see the world through the eyes of the CBC, any criticism of a black man is inherently racist.

And I ask again, isn't everyone tired of this schtick yet?

Labels: , , , ,



Post a Comment


<< Home

Links to this post

Links to this post:

Create a Link