The Democrats’ Hypocritical Sexism Towards VP Pick Palin
by Rachel Alexander | View comments |
Print This Post
If Palin was a man, we would not be hearing this kind of criticism.
Democrat Vice-Presidential candidate Joe Biden’s response to a question about the difference between himself and McCain’s Vice-Presidential pick Sarah Palin? “She’s good-looking.” Monday, the New York Times ran an article questioning Palin’s ability to serve as Vice-President because she has five children, including a newborn baby with Down’s Syndrome. The Huffington Post ran an article about her entitled “McCain’s Casting Couch.”
If Palin was a man, we would not be hearing this kind of criticism. The Democrats are hypocrites and willing to throw their own principles under the bus in order to win. Seeing everyone in terms of groups – women, minorities, handicapped, etc. – they have no qualms treating Palin differently because she’s a woman.
The reason why they’ve come out so viciously against her is obvious. Her success destroys one of their main accusations against Republicans, that Republicans are sexist. If McCain becomes president, which is looking very likely with Palin on the ticket, Republicans will beat Democrats to having the first woman Vice-President, and most likely the first President, since Palin will have a good chance at being elected President after McCain’s term(s).
The Democrats resent the strength Palin brings to the ticket. Palin’s hunting and fishing background and working class husband appeals to blue collar middle of America voters. Her prolife, socially conservative views and large family appeal to the Republican conservative base. Some of Hillary’s supporters who were leaning towards McCain may now vote for him because he chose a woman VP, unlike Obama who shunned Hillary as VP. And they’re probably pretty intrigued by the fact that Palin’s husband is now a stay-at-home dad while she works. Palin’s youth and Washington outsider status balance out Obama’s message of “change,” particularly considering Obama picked a longtime Washington establishment insider with Biden as his VP.
Although Palin is attacked for having little experience, she has executive experience as a governor and mayor. Obama has nothing but legislative experience. The fact that comparisons are now being made between Palin and Obama’s experience is revealing, considering Palin is only running for VP. Overall, Palin appears to have more experience than the Democrats’ presidential candidate.
The Democrats’ hypocrisy is compounded by their refusal to acknowledge amidst their attacks that Palin’s husband is a stay at home dad. Instead of acknowledging the progressiveness of this situation, and the fact that Palin is adhering to conservative principles by keeping a parent in the home, they lambaste her for choosing to run for Vice-President.
It goes without saying that Democrats are always saying there is nothing wrong with mothers who choose to put their children in daycare, so attacking Palin for running for office just because she has children is the ultimate hypocrisy. They're also suddenly silent about pointing out that the Vice-Presidential job consists of little more than attending funerals of foreign dignitaries.
Liberal talkshow host Alan Colmes pulled a column he’d written criticizing Palin for prenatal care of her Down Syndrome baby when he realized how hypocritical it was. If she’d just had an abortion, the left wouldn’t have bothered criticizing her.
The attacks on Palin’s daughter for having an out of wedlock child are equally despicable. Democrats insist that women have a right to privacy when it comes to reproductive decisions, yet they are attacking Palin and her daughter for the birth. Although Palin and her family are supporters of abstinence-only education, to attack her over a mistake like this is grossly unfair. Abstinence-only programs work the vast majority of the time. Just because someone falls through the cracks occasionally doesn’t mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Palin’s daughter is following her mother’s prolife views by keeping the baby and marrying the father. She will suffer plenty being known the rest of her life publicly for this incident; preventing her mother from running for Vice-President because of this mistake would be a grossly disproportionate punishment. Who amongst us doesn’t have a child, friend, or relative who has made a mistake much worse than Palin’s daughter, perhaps resulting in an arrest or jail? Relatively speaking, getting pregnant out of wedlock at a young age is sadly a common occurrence today.
Ironically, because of his own upbringing, Obama has said attacking Palin’s children should be off limits. Obama was born when his mother was 17, six months after she married his father, which was reportedly a bigamous marriage. Yet there has been little media attention given to Obama’s similar situation.
Another vicious sexist attack against Palin is the accusation that she’s only on the ticket because of affirmative action, implying that she’s little more than a pretty face. If that’s true, why is her approval rating as governor of Alaska at 80%? Why wasn’t this accusation brought up before, when her name was being vetted as a possible VP choice? Palin is writing her own convention speech, doesn’t sound like something a ditz would attempt. Claiming she is an affirmative action pick is a last-ditch attempt to smear her.
A group of Hillary supporters has become so offended by the sexist attacks against Palin they released a statement denouncing them. Let’s hope they have some effect. Meanwhile, they haven’t been able to stop feminists like Arianna Huffington of the Huffington Post from spreading mistruths about Palin, like claiming that Palin is against “stem cell research.” This type of smear is dishonest and shows how low the left has sunk. The truth is, Palin doesn’t support government funding of embryonic stem cell research, as do most conservatives. And like most conservatives, she has no problem with adult stem cell research.
The Democrats’ sexist attacks against Palin will backfire. It would be one thing if there were legitimate reasons to attack her, such as if she had plagiarized numerous speeches as Biden has done. But to attack her because her daughter became pregnant early is hypocritically sexist at a time when the country is ready for a female Vice-President or President.
Listen to Rachel's interview on Political Vindication radio (first hour)
rachel@intellectualconservative.com
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/rachel-alexander-archives/
Read more articles by Rachel Alexander
[…] The reason why they’ve come out so viciously against her is obvious. Her success destroys one of t… […]
Pingback by Sexism And The Democratic Party | Political Vindication | September 3, 2008
"If Palin was a man, we would not be hearing this kind of criticism."
If Palin was Democrat and pro-choice, and had been Barack Obama's VP pick, you on the right would be howling in protest over her lack of qualifications and myriad of potential scandals, so please spare us the faux-indignation.
Please note that her approval rating is down to 65%, not the 80% that you state.
Comment by Dr Kilovolt | September 3, 2008
If Palin was a Democrat and pro choice, she would be opposed for supporting Democrat policies and abortion. She would not be attacked for being a female who should stay home and care for her children, nor would the media be requesting DNA tests to verify that all her children are biologically hers.
Regarding her "drop" in approval from 85% to 60%, I noticed there was no source to document this.
Oh, and by the way, what is the Democrat controlled Congress' approval rating by comparison?
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 3, 2008
"Oh, and by the way, what is the Democrat controlled Congress' approval rating by comparison?"
Way to change the subject.
"Regarding her "drop" in approval from 85% to 60%, I noticed there was no source to document this. "
65% figure is attributed to Gregg Erickson, reporter for Anchorage Daily News.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/08/29/DI2008082902052.html
"She would not be attacked for being a female who should stay home and care for her children…"
Care to provide some attribution for that one?
She isn't exactly unanimously popular on the Republican side. Gotta love this little blooper:
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/09/palin_means_its_over_peggy_noo.html
Comment by Dr Kilovolt | September 3, 2008
Look, Phillip, Dr. Kilovolt and the Dems are right on this issue. If women want to have children and stay in the workforce, they need to stay in jobs where they can arrive late, leave early, and take time off whenever Junior gets sick. If those jobs happen to be lower paying, well, that's the choice you make, especially when you choose to birth a child with Down Syndrome. Now, if Palin had chosen to abort, or maybe had only one child — like Hillary Clinton — then maybe she could hold down a job like Vice President of the United States.
Let's face it, Vice President is too important for a mother with five kids to handle! Probably any Cabinet position would be too demanding as well. Ambassadorships. Basically any job requiring more than 35 hours/week. This is common sense!
Comment by stutzenbach | September 3, 2008
"Oh, and by the way, what is the Democrat controlled Congress' approval rating by comparison?" Way to change the subject.
*** If Sarah Palin is presumably to be judged as somehow deficient for having only a 65% approval rating, it’s fair to ask “in comparison to what?” From Real Clear Politics: Congress has a 17.8% approval rating http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html
Of course, all this discussion of approval ratings is a bit silly. But I didn’t raise the issue. I just asked that if someone wants to have a silly conversation, they at least put that silliness in perspective.
"She would not be attacked for being a female who should stay home and care for her children…" Care to provide some attribution for that one?
*** How about http://messageboards.aol.com/aol/en_us/articles.php?boardId=528628&articleId=1812318&func=6&channel=Member+Guided+News&filterRead=false&filterHidden=true&filterUnhidden=false
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-74095
http://www.indymoms.com/posts/palin-needs-to-stay-at-home
http://www.city-data.com/forum/2008-presidential-election/419365-conservative-republicans-should-tell-mrs-palin.html
http://dateline.radioamerica.org/?p=155
Do you really want to contest the fact that certain people opposed to Palin are criticizing her for not staying home and taking care of her children, while no such criticism was leveled at Joe Biden after his wife died and he took office anyway? Biden was lauded at the DNC as being heroic for balancing the demands of his motherless, injured child with his duties in Washington, while Palin is criticized for having her husband care for the kids while she assumes the office of VP? This isn’t even arguable.
“She isn't exactly unanimously popular on the Republican side.”
*** Another silly observation. No one ever is. It’s amazingly naïve to think that anyone would be “unanimously popular” with any party, Democrat or Republican.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 3, 2008
stutzenbach: all that's missing is a call for Sarah to be returned to barefoot and pregnant status, with a DNA test thrown in just to make sure she's actually breeding her own genetically deficient offspring instead of euthanizing them.
And we all thought the Dems couldn't get any more hypocritical, or unsavory, than they already are.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 3, 2008
Stu - Are you being facetious? If Palin were male, would you still feel the same way? If not, you're taking a double standard when it comes to men v. women.
Comment by Rachel Alexander | September 3, 2008
I'm pretty sure stutzenbach was making a satirical point. Either that, or he's producing the talking points for the DNC … which, when you think about it, is a non-satirical form of satire.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 3, 2008
"Now, if Palin had chosen to abort, or maybe had only one child — like Hillary Clinton — then maybe she could hold down a job like Vice President of the United States."
How about that, choosing to not murder her child disqualifies her from the vice presidency, but had she aborted it, well, I guess she gets a gold star.
Comment by Mountain Man | September 3, 2008
After Sarah Palin's speech tonight the Democrats attacked saying she was too shrill. The men on CNN said maybe she was, but the women to their credit jumped on Wolf and said that was just sexist talk. They had heard that before. Men are bold women are shrill.
If this keeps up the Democrats will hold their convention in 2012 in a phone booth.
Comment by jfking | September 3, 2008
"If Palin was Democrat and pro-choice, and had been Barack Obama's VP pick, you on the right would be howling in protest over her lack of qualifications and myriad of potential scandals"
I doubt anyone on the right would be suggesting that she should stay home with her kids instead of run for VP, or running her daughter's name through the mud for being a teen pregnancy statistic - even if she were a radical left wing Democrat. For the sake of comparison, we could examine how Hillary Clinton was treated in general by "the right" - I don't remember any politically motivated firings or hirings being brought up, nor any salacious sex stories, both of which the Clintons have plenty enough of to go around. And even if that were the case - that the right were doing those things, and Palin were a leftist Democrat - the right would be crucified by the media and apologies, retractions, and career-ending banishments would be issued.
In a similarly ironic silence in the face of "progress", I didn't see Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton coming out in the primaries in 2000 or 2008 to endorse Alan Keyes for president - a man who could probably be described as "more black" than Barack Obama, given that both of his parents are of "African-American" ancestry.
But Sarah Palin and Alan Keyes just aren't cool. Electing a black man who sports an "R" by his name and doesn't believe in reverse-racism in the guise of "equality" or wealth redistribution in the guise of "justice" isn't progress - Alan Keyes just doesn't understand the "black experience". Electing a woman who sports an "R" by her name and doesn't believe in infanticide under the guise of "freedom" or taxpayer-funded proxy parenting under the guise of "liberation" isn't progress - Sarah Palin just doesn't appreciate the struggle of women in society. For you see, if Alan Keyes had REALLY been black and Sarah Palin REALLY been a woman, they would never hold such positions - so there must be a defect with them. Sarah Palin must have a penis, and Alan Keyes must be a closet whitey. And that's no progress at all!
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | September 4, 2008
This is just all so delightful. Every last slam being made against Palin are those that were they being made against a female Democrat, we would be hearing howls of outrage. Not so here though. The presence of that "R" means Palin is become Attilla-the-soccer-Mom.
What pleases me the most is that Palin is just so *normal* - with all of the same concerns, trials and tribulations, as anyone. She can say "been there, done that" to any little thing one of us might mention.
No wonder the Democrats are running so scared; that is to say, since every last Democrat candidate is something of a parody of normalcy, they don't know how to respond. Where is the "issue" to smear her with? Why, there isn't one.
Comment by Last Angry Man | September 4, 2008
What scares the Left the most is that they're looking at the 45th president of the United States — a woman who isn't Hillary Clinton. This train is on the tracks and won't be derailed by a hypocritical, self-serving media.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 4, 2008
I often wonder how members of the MSM can be so blatantly partisan and yet look at themselves in the mirror without blushing. They are supposed to report the news in an unbiased sense, not attempt to manipulate it for their own political belief's sake.
Then again - referring back to the Liberal Academia thread - they are virtually all products of highly Liberal J-schools, so I suppose it's no stretch of the imagination to see how they have convinced themselves that abrogating their own professional ethics in such a way is acceptable.
Odd…being something of a student of history, I recollect the same kind of manipulation occurred under the regime of Josep Stalin. That truths aren't absolute, they're all highly flexible, and to be used to achieve your goals.
Comment by Last Angry Man | September 4, 2008
"abrogating their own professional ethics" — the MSM doesn't view this as an abrogation. They view it as a fulfillment. To them, there is no history without a proper ideological prism through which it is viewed. There are no independent, objective facts, since there is nothing objective in this world — only subjective evaluations. There are no ultimate truths, only relative ones. Their mission is to guide the nation and change the world for the "better" (as they define better).
They are teachers and educators, and we, the ignorant masses in flyover country, are their pupils. As the NY Times editors say, there is no news unless we say it is news.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 4, 2008
Phil: all of the above which frightens the hell out of me. These people have virtually nothing in common with me. That they determine what is and is not important as "news," and view all truth at relative is very troubling indeed.
Then again, I can't say I'm surprised. A great part of my journey towards Conservatism has been listening to the Democrat avowed penchant for Relative Morality.
I believe the Biblical phrase is, "be thou either hot or cold. Be thou lukewarm, and I will vomit thee from my mouth."
Comment by Last Angry Man | September 4, 2008
Phillip,
Regarding your post #6 above, I believe DK was challenging you to provide proof of a negative; i.e., that conservatives are equally guilty of disqualifying women with families on the basis they neglect familial duties. He wasn't challenging you to prove liberals are guilty of it, only that conservatives are innocent of it. This is the "He who is without guilt …" argument. Clearly, he believes conservatives are uniformly opposed to women in the workforce, when, in fact, conservatives of that stripe are a minority even less common than liberal-chauvinists.
This is a nonsense argument because it supposes you (we) support such morons simply because the ideas he alludes to are espoused by a tiny minority of conservatives, because of the conservative antipathy toward radical-feminism, and because 'family' and 'family values' have been a battlecry of the right. The demise of 'family' has indeed been one of our causes, but that in no way precludes women having family and career given they can manage the former without sacrificing the latter. This, however, is really no different than saying we men need to balance work with family; ensuring we don't put our families in jeopardy through an unhealthy imbalance and abandoning our women to the drudge of home and kids. No one here (or on the left) is suggesting men and women, alike, should stay home and forget earning wages or pursuing careers that make sense, make a contribution, or make family life richer than simply scratching an existence out of the dirt. Taking DK's argument to its logical conclusion, everyone of us is guilty of having 'abandoned family' for career and trivial pursuits.
Apparently DK can't see the difference between disputes with radical-feminism and women having jobs outside the home. To him, all conservatives fit his mental mold of the knuckle-dragging, woman-despising chauvinist; whereas, all we have been saying is feminism has lost its way. Where feminism was once about women having choices, it is now only about women having 'feminist-approved' choices; choices that are often destructive of both women, marriage, and family.
Personally, I have always supported women getting out of the house. 35-years ago I put my kid-sister to work helping me install air-conditioners as part of the family enterprise. I always supported her independence and did what could to nurture it. That experience not only helped her break out of the 'helpless' female mold, it made her the handi-woman her husband defers to. Today, she is a competent and successful real-estate agent, wife, mother of two (including one with disabilities), and elder-caretaker. She's also a determined feminists; one with whom I sparring regularly regarding the excesses of her ideology. Does that make me less conservative? I don't think so, but, if it does, I am not alone and DK still has us figured all wrong. Now, before you tell me he's being deliberately obteuse, I know that. But let's assume he's just stuck in the liberal mind-warp that can't see beyond its own poisoned preconceptions.
Comment by Bob Stapler | September 4, 2008
Bob: You may be correct about his original intention, in which case your comments are spot-on.
I've spent many a long battle here at IC debating the "race matters" fringe of conservative thought. I've yet to find anyone in the Left denouncing the Loonies on their side. At best we get silence, or something like "well, that's not my personal opinion, but I can understand their anger and thus their heart is in the right place even if their words are at time more than I would say".
Contrast this with the way I and others have directly confronted the idiots on the Far Right. We can recognize the difference between debating a policy and defaming an individual. To the Looney Left, these are just subsets of the same thing.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 4, 2008
Phil,
I wouldn't go so far as to say that racism is a defining characteristic of the extreme right. Some perhaps, but by no means a majority.
Racism appears uniformly across the political spectrum, just in different guises. Of course, the racism of the Left is "soft" racism, as in, "We know that you have been oppressed for centuries and you can't make it on your own. You need our help. Here, take this money so we won't feel so guilty."
If I recall correctly, our opposition to the paleo-right was that their entire worldview is steeped in slogans and theory, with nary a practical application to be found, despite repeated pleadings. Racism is only hinted at, never explicit.
But of course, you are correct in your assertion that the left makes no attempt to reel in their crazies. "Nope, can't judge them. They have a right to their opinon, free speech, y'know." However, they feel free to judge, belittle, and try to marginalize conservatives (or rather, a caricature of convervatives). Hmm.
Comment by Mountain Man | September 4, 2008
"However, they feel free to judge, belittle, and try to marginalize conservatives (or rather, a caricature of convervatives). Hmm."
MM, yeah, that's my personal experience in debating many (most) on the far Left.
Here's a response I just made to someone at the message board I work at, in which their previous post conformed to what you just stated:
"Ian, I live in the greatest concentration of Democrats in the US, in the Bluest of Blue states. I have never even once gotten into a conversation with a Democrat, in which anything with even a hint of Republican to it doesn't lead to an angry, spew-filled, rant against the Anti-Christ, the Republican party. And I do mean an in-your-face, ad-hominem-filled, full-blown rant. I have literally had to tell some of the people to either get out of my personal space and calm down, or I would break important parts of them.
Your opinions are, as always, highly valued. But I have to tell you that my personal experiences utterly diverge from anything an Eddie says; and I am a multi-generational native, who's family has been here since 1642. I have more than a little vested interest in seeing that this nation is well-managed. If a Democrat makes a good point, I accept it. This is irrelevant to Democrats, as I may - may - vote Republican, therefore I am a minion of darkness.
My experience here is that the more Liberal [the person you debate], the more it is expressed to you that there is something mentally defective with you if you diverge from their opinion. All truth is relative, and inconvenient facts about their favored candidate are completely ignored, while those of the opposition are hyper-inflated. Innuendo and outright falsehood are raised to the level of "fact." All Morality is provisional, and if you don't "get" that, you are a dirty stinking Neocon.
For all that you are politically acute, there is a vast difference between reading about it, and experiencing it full-blown. "
Comment by Last Angry Man | September 4, 2008
"I wouldn't go so far as to say that racism is a defining characteristic of the extreme right."
MM — I think the Far Right involves a lot more than the idea that we should only live in or associate with groups with a common genetic background. However, I find this focus on genetics/race to be a very persistent theme within the “kith and kin based natural hierarchal social order” crowd. My point was that rather than walk away from this issue, or make excuses for it, I and others have spoken out against it. By contrast, the Left practices its own form of racism which the Daily Kos, Moveon.org, etc. ignore or excuse. And that is a major difference between us and them.
You correctly described my view that the “entire worldview [of the paleo Right] is steeped in slogans and theory, with nary a practical application to be found, despite repeated pleadings.” But I view this as a tactic of the Far Right so their “racism is only hinted at, never explicit,” not a mitigating factor to allow people of good conscious to excuse their behavior or beliefs.
In short, unlike the Left, I won’t excuse their beliefs in genetic uniformity because this tactic allows them to avoid stating their policy applications directly. Their philosophy has real world implications that are obvious, even if the Far Right Loonies won’t admit to them.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 4, 2008
Phil, I can't develop a rationale that suggests that someone is wrong to select a candidate by race until we truly become color blind in our society. The evidence is very strong that much of the black community support of Obama is race based. Are these Obama supporters racist? It they are not then how can a white supporter of McCain be called racist?
Like it or not we vote for politicians that hold positions that we support, unless race or gender comes in and position on issues is ignored. Remember that New Orleans is a "Chocolate City" which the media has designated as a non=racist designation.
The key to color blindness is an educated electorate, unfortunately we do not have one nor do we have the prospect of having one in our remaining lifetimes. Welcome to the Roman Circus where the one offering the most goodies wins.
I will probably move from my write in stance on the presidential to reluctant support of McCain due to his VP pick. I like people that recognize wrong doing and address it.
Comment by Mickey G | September 5, 2008
“Phil, I can't develop a rationale that suggests that someone is wrong to select a candidate by race until we truly become color blind in our society.”
*** Here’s the proper way to view this, I think. We all use things as shorthand checkpoints to get through life. We have generalized opinions about the stamina of the French to take on International terrorism, the empathy men show vs. that women typically show, the traits we assign to rural America vs. urban America, etc.
On a large scale, these things can be somewhat accurate. I’d be willing to bet a native of Alaska knows how to field strip an animal better than, say, a resident of New York City. Or, that a typical New Yorker has a better understanding of what kind of tie to wear with what suit than a cowboy in Montana.
The issue is, what do we do when we move beyond gross generalizations and begin to look at specific individuals? What I object to is the belief that in making these individual decisions we look first at a person’s race/ancestry/genetic similarities to us, etc., rather than at the common system of values we might share. I’d rather surround myself with people from all races who share my values than with people who share my skin color — but not necessarily my values.
This doesn’t require having a “color blind society”. It merely requires one to look at individuals instead of lumping everyone in the same category because they use SPS 15 when I need SPF 40.
Put another way, I offer you the same set of comments again that first got me into trouble with the Paleos who told me that my comments were entirely off base because “race matters”.
I offer you a substitute way of viewing the world. It’s one that has served me well, and has allowed me to develop genuine friendships with many people from a wide variety of divergent backgrounds.
It all boils down to a simple formula. When we meet someone for the first time, we tend to put that person into a category (young/old, black/white, attractive/ugly, educated/uneducated, etc.) so we can have an initial frame of reference. We use that frame of reference to then begin a longer-term (and more precise) evaluation of them. The trick is to put each person in the proper fundamental category so that all of our subsequent evaluations are meaningful.
Now, most people divide up the world incorrectly. They want to hire someone "young," marry someone "beautiful," only listen to someone "from the right school," and so forth. Thus, for example, by focusing only on a young person for a new hire, they miss interviewing older, potentially better candidates. Not only do they limit the pool of people they could hire/marry/take advice from, etc., they maximize contact with someone who could potentially injure them or lead them astray.
I've avoided this by focusing on the proper fundamental question when I first meet a person. I still see the same young/old, pretty/ugly, etc. attributes as everyone else, but I base my initial judgment of their worth on another variable, the fundamental one. I ask myself the simple question: Is this person an a**hole?
A black a**hole will screw you differently than a white one, a pretty one differently than an ugly one, and so on and so forth. But the net effect is that you will always get screwed. By dividing up the world properly, I limit the opportunity for people to do injury to me while, at the same time, broadening the possibility of having contact with positive, productive people.
It will also have the additional salutary benefit of removing any and all PC considerations from your daily life, because in the final analysis I don't really care about a person's color, sex or other qualities. What I really want to know is the answer to that single, simple question. Understanding it tells me everything I need to know.
Take care, Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 5, 2008
Mickey G,
As much as we’d like to pretend we are a color-blind society, there remains a strong element of race in our politics. The proof of this is not to be found so much in the selection of white candidates by a mostly white party, but in the selection of a black candidate in a mostly white party despite obvious shortcomings that ought to have precluded his selection and little initial name recognition. The selection by both white and black Democrats is guided by two things: white-liberal guilt and black-liberal frustration over the failures of Shirley Chisholm and Jesse Jackson to break the presidential black-glass-ceiling. This ceiling (or the presumption of it) drives African-Americans to see one of their own achieve the highest office while blinding a great many to all else.
In the run up to the 1992 election, the Republican Party put forward a highly qualified black candidate, Collin Powell. Powell and his family were so badly mauled by the left (especially fellow blacks) and press that he bowed out. Similarly, Condi Rice was briefly considered a contender for the current election, but has shown disinterest in being savaged as was Powell. So, despite the clear willingness of white-conservatives and independents to elect a qualified black candidate, it seems none remain who are sufficiently willing to risk it without the willingness of fellow blacks to suffer their candidacy.
On the liberal side, out of a pack of significantly more experienced Democrats with actual experience, policies and legislative credentials, the Democrats down-selected first to a choice between the retread white Queen of Queens with huge name recognition but few real accomplishments (unless you want to count routing a sitting president, cooking the books of her firm, plundering the presidential mansion of portables, and containing the fallout from Bill’s many screw ups) and a virtually unknown black with no accomplishments, one failed legislative attempt, and no policies you can put your hands around; but with a history of rank socialism and the gift of speech. It is not as though there are not more qualified black-Democrats with better name recognition and less baggage. For example, there’s the black governor of New York, David Patterson and legions of black mayors. In Congress there are Elijah Cummings, Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, Sanford Bishop, William Clay, Jr., Al Green, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Barbara Lee, Shirley Jackson Lee, John Lewis, Robert Scott, Maxine Waters, and Albert Wynn; all of whom are more qualified and most of whom are “articulate and bright and clean and … nice-looking …”. Meanwhile, over in the Senate we have … Barack Obama. And that, I suppose, was the point of floating Obama over the rest. Historically, only governors and senators stand much chance of winning the presidency, and Obama and Patterson are the only ones to make it thus far. I can’t guess why Patterson did not also run, unless maybe it has to do with Hillary, New York politics, and honoring political debts. Or, maybe, he didn’t want to compete against a fellow black-Democrat for the office, diluting the message and elbowing both out before the primary. A congressman or mayor can’t effectively compete for the office of president (without a clear field), whereas a senator stands a decent chance of making it to the finish line. That made Obama a logical (if problematic) choice of black candidate to make this run.
Those are just the mechanics of why Obama (and not some other African-American) was self-selected to make this run. It comes down to Obama stood a slim chance of surviving the Democrat onslaught, he is ‘appropriately’ radical with an uncompromised record of race-favoring politics (affirmative-action, inner-city activism, and commitment to the black social agenda), and he is black. To his core constituency, the later two are what matter. The rest matters only in terms of how it is accomplished. Whether his color or inability and unproven character count most among angst-ridden liberal-whites is another matter.
Comment by Bob Stapler | September 5, 2008
You know, Bob, it occurs to me that perhaps Obama's very anonymity was in fact a major reason why he was chosen. No record? No negatives for the opposition to use against him. No background worth speaking of? Why, mold him into what they will. The perfect everyman!
Comment by Last Angry Man | September 5, 2008
Mickey G,
You also said "The key to color blindness is an educated electorate."
Not so fast. How many highly educated supercilious bigots have we met who defy this 'truism', and how many illiterates who refuse to fit themselves to the bigot stereotype? This, too, is one of those things frequently said, yet often less true than we'd care to admit. Americans are inundated with information, yet remain stubbornly ignorant and/or forgetful of what is going on around us. Why? Simply put, we filter it out because there is too much information to deal with properly. We erase and ignore whole categories of information as 'uninteresting' or 'of no immediate concern'. I have known some highly educated bigots, and I am sure you have too. And, unless you live in a cocoon, must have come into contact with a great many uneducated and semi-educated people without the least pretensions of their more educated 'betters'. While it may be true that people who are less literate or uneducated may be statistically more bigoted, they are not greatly so; and a great many of them are even less bigoted than some with PhDs. Again, why?
Education is not an immunization against bigotry, and never has been. Remember, bigotry too is something we learn. We get it from parents, siblings, friends, co-workers, mentors, bosses, teachers and political leaders. We have discussed examples (within these pages) of bigotry taught in both our public schools and universities. Aren't black and feminist studies little more than a thinly disguised teaching of 'blame the white guy’? Reading through my son's Middle School history text, I was taken aback by how little whites are still credited and how negatively regarded are Columbus, Jackson, Madison, Jefferson, Lincoln and Washington; while positively depicting the likes of Louis Farrakhan, Susan B. Anthony and John Reed. Education, at best, can be an encouragement to critical thinking which equips us better to sort truth from falsehood. Yet, people persist in clinging to comfortable falsehoods because they serve entirely different purposes than knowledge (ego and advantage).
Still, you are right to say it is through education we can reduce bigotry, but only if the message is not itself a lie. There is no ‘key’ to color-blindness, no magic talisman, other than turning a blind-eye to bigotry in our midst. This gives us the illusion we’ve dealt with it, when, in fact, we have not. Bigotry will always be with us and it is foolish to think otherwise. It will be with us for as long as it is human to fear otherness and desire power over others. Properly taught we learn to look the bigot straight in the eye; forcing him/her to be the first to blink. So, while education is an important tool against it, the real key is and must remain the courage to confront bigotry whenever it raises its pointy little head.
Comment by Bob Stapler | September 5, 2008
Bob,
While I agree that racism and bigotry is wrong, I need to ask, who exactly do you think ought to be the agent that confronts bigotry "whenever it raises its pointy little head?"
Comment by Mountain Man | September 5, 2008
"while education is an important tool against it, the real key is and must remain the courage to confront bigotry whenever it raises its pointy little head"
"Education" in this discussion is best understood as a concept, not as a brick and mortar process. In other words, we need to apply moral-based reason to how we act — at times with and through the guidance of others who have used their reasoning ability wisely to fully understand and embrace what is moral/right; not rely on the existing system of U.S. education to teach its politically correct lessons. The former will help put us in touch with what we all intrinsically know to be right or wrong, while the latter will be used simply to reinforce agenda-driven secular values of the so-called “bright and enlightened” ones.
Once each person comes to understand and embrace what is morally right and wrong, confronting evil is not an issue. It's the logical outcome of this understanding, since to allow evil to continue unchallenged is to condone it, and a good person cannot condone evil.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 5, 2008
As a side note, it's interesting to see how the conservative side has used this essay as a springboard to discuss right/wrong actions, how to recognize and confront bigotry, the irrationality and immorality of race-based politics, etc. While the Left has only been able to contribute the following thoughts (comment #2) "If Palin was Democrat and pro-choice, and had been Barack Obama's VP pick, you on the right would be howling in protest over her lack of qualifications and myriad of potential scandals, so please spare us the faux-indignation.Please note that her approval rating is down to 65%, not the 80% that you state."
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 5, 2008
Along those lines:
Democrats deal in victimology. No debate with them is ever conducted without someone being represented as being abused by "the man" (that being, of course, anything with even a hint of Republican to it).
A good example of this is a conversation at another site I'd just read, in which Mister Gore's hundred-million dollar fortune gained from his Global Warming hysteria platform was represented as "his well-deserved gains from his altruistic pursuit of educating the world about this serious issue" (that is a direct quote), while Cindy McCain's fortune was represented as the ill-gotten riches gained from some sort of nefarious scheme enacted by a greedy merchant out to profit from the misery of others.
That is exactly how the debate went. I swear, I was waiting for the words "Lumpen Proletariat" to be mentioned!
If there is any persistent theme I obtain from these readings, it's that both sides truly want change for the better. It's in the way they go about it. One side must demonize someone else, and the gains they wish must be instant and near-miraculous (and paid for by everyone, for their own good), whereas the other sees it as a slow but steady progress towards a goal via the hard work of many dedicated individuals.
Comment by Last Angry Man | September 5, 2008
Bob, I stand on the education comment. Unfortunately instead of education we see indoctrination which least to a very different outcome. Calling the biased as educated suggests that time in some educational institution equates to being educated. As Socrates and other great educators taught questioning is the key to education. Students in colleges today and yesterday have not been allowed to question rather forced to mirror the biases of their professors.
The truly educated know to question and to also select the best qualified rather than the one playing to the roman circus and offering handouts.
Comment by Mickey G | September 6, 2008
guess I should proofread before I submit least should be leads to
Comment by Mickey G | September 6, 2008
"Democrats insist that women have a right to privacy when it comes to reproductive decisions, yet they are attacking Palin and her daughter for the birth. Although Palin and her family are supporters of abstinence-only education, to attack her over a mistake like this is grossly unfair. Abstinence-only programs work the vast majority of the time. Just because someone falls through the cracks occasionally doesn’t mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater."
OMG. Are you kidding? It makes a gigantic difference when the person to whom this has happened (an underage child becoming pregnant) is a loud advocate of the position. Sorry - there are several positions Palin has taken with which I do agree, but "abstinence only" is NOT one of them. She needs to refrain from trying to force her decision in this area on others.
The point about privacy in reproductive matters is to not be dictated to by government at any level - state federal, town bloody hall - on whether a woman will have sex, have an abortion or give birth to a special needs child when she knows ahead of time that it is such a child.
Palin's choices in this area are HER business, and not a means to an end - i.e., forcing other women to do as she has done. Supporting a position of choice in these matters is something all women should do, even if privately they themselves would not have an abortion in any circumstance for example. Supporting choice is supporting privacy and supporting individual rights. It is also showing tolerance for differing beliefs.
Comment by AMAI | September 6, 2008
" … forcing other women to do as she has done."
Outlawing birth control is "forcing abstinence".
Refusing to fund birth control devices or birth control education with taxpayer money is not "forcing abstinence".
We need to be clear on the language we use. I don't believe that Palin's position is to outlaw condoms and the birth control pill in Alaska and the US. Her position involves the proper limitations on what taxpayer money should or shouldn't be used for.
We can debate whether her abstinence policy is correct or not, actually works or not, is counter-productive or not. But it's disingenuous to say that opposing taxpayer funding of birth control is "forcing abstinence" on anyone.
She's not "forcing her decision [i.e. abstenence]" on anyone. She's promoting a policy option involving public funds due to her election to office; a decision that can overturned if enough citizens elect someone with an opposite point of view.
This isn't "force". It's the policy result of a democratic electoral process.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 6, 2008
And just goes to show why the tax system itself is immoral. The people whose taxes are taken and used to fund other people's children's medical care, day care, schooling. So what if some people's taxes help to pay for birth control? It's a lot cheaper for one thing HAHAHA.
But seriously, using that "taxpayer money" excuse is seriously lame. All of us who work are taxed, and that money is used for a multitude of purposes many of which individually we might disagree with and given the choice would not pay for.
So, what's the answer? I think it's to get rid of the tax system altogether, but there just aren't enough people who want that much responsibility for their own lives unfortunately.
Comment by AMAI | September 6, 2008
“And just goes to show why the tax system itself is immoral. The people whose taxes are taken and used to fund other people's children's medical care, day care, schooling. So what if some people's taxes help to pay for birth control? It's a lot cheaper for one thing HAHAHA.”
*** This doesn’t make any sense.
“But seriously, using that "taxpayer money" excuse is seriously lame. All of us who work are taxed, and that money is used for a multitude of purposes many of which individually we might disagree with and given the choice would not pay for.”
*** This doesn’t make any sense either.
The issue was that by virtue of an elected official making a policy decision to not use taxpayer money for public funding for birth control, this is somehow “forcing abstinence” on people. There are lots of other things we don’t fund with public money. Just because an elected official, in their capacity as an elected official, doesn’t want to use taxpayer funds doesn’t imply that he/she is “forcing” people to abandon that activity by outlawing that activity. People are free to use their own money to buy condoms and birth control pills, and take personal responsibility to teach morals and values to their children.
Moreover, calling all taxation immoral is, well, ignorant, as is suggesting that there should be no taxes at all, as is stating that “all working people pay taxes”. There are different tax rates, certain levels below which people pay no federal or state taxes at all, income taxes, local taxes, use taxes, sales taxes, government fees, etc.
If this response was meant as satire, I obviously missed it. If it wasn’t, then, well, you get the point.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 6, 2008
Phillip, if you don't understand why the tax system is immoral, then there isn't any point in discussing it with you. It appears that you take tax as a "given" and attempt to figure out a moral way to work with an immoral system. It IS a system of coercion, of force, even if you "agree" with it. Your agreement is immaterial, irrelevant and unnecessary. You will be fined and/or put in jail if you do not pay. There is no choice about the matter. The different rates are just to lull most people into thinking there's something "fair" about the mess.
Sorry about the poor quality of my first paragraph. I forgot to proof read it. But the essence is there - "tax" money is used to fund education of some people's kids, so why shouldn't it be used to fund the non-procreational choice made by other people? If some things are funded by public money, why not others? Where do you draw the line? Why is it okay to spend "tax money" on daycare, but not on birth control - a decision that is supposed to help lower income people?
Yes, I know there has to be a line somewhere, and my point is that the line should be drawn at the very moment of collecting the money in the first place. Do away with initiation of force altogether, is what I say. And that means doing away with the "tax system" as presently set up. There are other ways to fund PROPER government services, and other ways to fund all the other stuff.
Comment by AMAI | September 6, 2008
“Phillip, if you don't understand why the tax system is immoral, then there isn't any point in discussing it with you.”
*** “The [present tax] system”, or “[any] tax system”. There’s a big difference.
“It IS a system of coercion, of force, even if you ‘agree’ with it.”
*** This is rhetoric. In a dictatorship, where people have no voice, taxation is coercion, In a representative republic, where people give the government limited powers to act on the public’s behalf, it is not coercion. People who form a government and empower it to tax for the common defense, to build roads, etc. are not participating in “system of coercion” or “force”. However, it IS coercive to compel taxation for things the people (as expressed through the ballot box) object to. This is why it matters what is being funded through public taxation — such as birth control vs. national defense.
“Your agreement is immaterial, irrelevant and unnecessary. You will be fined and/or put in jail if you do not pay. There is no choice about the matter.”
*** Again, this is sophomoric. In a representative republic people cannot substitute their own wishes and wants for decisions properly made within a constitutional framework that derives its authority from the consent of the people. That is pure anarchy.
Living in a constitutional, representative republic does not mean that every single person must agree with every single decision made by these representatives, or else they are being "coerced". The tipping point is whether the power of the state is used to enforce decisions made in accordance with the Constitution — which is why the debate over a strict constructionist or activist court is so critical. An activist court that imposes decisions on the people that I happen to agree with is no more valid than an activist court that imposes unwanted decisions on me.
Your quarrel about your personal agreement being “immaterial” ignores the constitutional, representative republic framework within which valid decisions are made, and focuses only on the outcome (whether you personally like the decision or not).
"’tax" money is used to fund education of some people's kids, so why shouldn't it be used to fund the non-procreational choice made by other people?”
*** Because in a constitutional representative republic, we elect people to set parameters and limits. If enough people don’t like those decisions, they organize to elect different people. We don’t focus on only the outcomes we personally support, nor do we say ‘if the government funds X, it must therefore fund Y, because to fund one thing means it must/should fund all things.'
AMAI, I’ve read other comments you’ve offered, and you’ve always impressed me as a serious person. But your reasoning here is completely ahistorical, ignores the nature of consent in a democratic social order, substitutes wishes for legitimately arrived-at policies, and ignores our constitution and its policy processes.
You may be right or you may be wrong about overthrowing the present tax system, but your reasoning supports none of your conclusions.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 6, 2008
Last Angry Man,
Regarding post #26 - Precisely. Or, at least, that's what his handlers thought. I had this conversation with the IC editors a few weeks ago, so I'll just repeat what I said there. The anonymity is a facade and Obama has a past that's coming back to bite him. Still, he's worked very hard to remain an enigma (just as you say) to fool voters into think he's the vanilla [one size fits all liberal] messiah, the guy with outstretched palms ready to heal our divisions. There is no record of him making enemies while in government and nothing but allies before that. But, what allies! Rezko, Ayers, Wright, Davis, &c.
Comment by Bob Stapler | September 7, 2008
Mountain Man,
In answer to your #28.
You. Me. Everyone who comes into contact with it. Confronting racism doesn't mean you have to defeat it or shout it down, just make clear to racists (and everyone else) you want no part of it. Isn't that what we've been doing here by answering biases with their opposite?
I'm sorry but 'educating our way out of bigotry is a platitude, and if you rely on that while giving an ear to the bigot you only encourage and enable it to grow. The knowledge required isn't all that great even if momentous. We know instinctively we are as good as the next person, and the person who pretends superiority is a fake; and it takes a kind of 're-education' to make us believe otherwise. Therefore, the bigot does not share in your enlightenment and doesn't want it. When we laugh at his nasty jokes, nod our heads in feigned agreement, or look away while he curses or kicks the object of his scorn; we become part of the problem which no amount of smug enlightenment can disguise.
It takes courage sometimes to confront the bigot (if a bully) and sometimes not (if just a fool), but it is the courage to confront that matters because otherwise it is the bullies of the world who get to make the final determination. 1920s Germany was a highly enlightened country, one in which bigotry had almost no place. Ten years was all it took to change that completely, even while Germany continued to lead the world in learning. It could have been prevented and was strictly a failure to confront that made that possible.
Comment by Bob Stapler | September 7, 2008
Bob, your use of Germany in the 1920s is questionable. The country had started the decline that led to Hitler's rise. In fact German culture looked amazingly like the hedonistic seen today in the USA. There was no right or wrong just shades of things and as the song went "everything goes". As a result the rise of Hitler was conditioned by societal changes leading to a dissolute culture as well as the failure of anyone to take on the better organized bullies (read nazis).
Look around and see where we are…it is chilling.
Comment by Mickey G | September 8, 2008
Bob,
It was Mickey G that suggested the education thing, I did not.
I asked because your comment about confronting bigotry is the way a leftist would phrase it so that government would be the agent (to a leftists, the collective "we" never means you and me, it means government).
Biotry is a failure of interpersonal relationships, a lack of individual maturity, and wisdom. It is not a matter for government to intervene. That's Why I asked.
Comment by Mountain Man | September 9, 2008
Mickey G,
You said “… your use of Germany in the 1920s is questionable. The country had started the decline that led to Hitler's rise. In fact German culture looked amazingly like the hedonistic seen [scene?] today in the USA. There was no right or wrong, just shades of things and as the song went "everything goes". As a result the rise of Hitler was conditioned by societal changes leading to a dissolute culture as well as the failure of anyone to take on the better organized bullies (read Nazis). ¶ Look around and see where we are…it is chilling.”
In what way does German hedonism of the 1920s negate my point education is no surety against bigotry. No one disputes German culture in that era was dissolute. But, then, so was American, French and British culture. Yet, only Germany stands accused of genocide, an object lesson to the world and scapegoat for socialists by other means. At the same time, don’t overstress the influence of pre-Nazi decadence on Nazi perversion. The two things were very different. Nazi ‘culture’ was in many ways moralistic and Nazi propaganda stressed family and ‘values’. Whether we like it or not, the Nazis represented a ‘return to morality’. Crime and loose morals in the general population were suppressed even as party operatives found themselves increasingly free to indulge sadistic pleasures. The regime depended on values of family, temperance, education, and rule-of-law to give it legitimacy. Does this mean family, temperance, education, and law are in some wise evil or that excessive moralizing leads to barbarism? Of course not; it just means all things can be subverted to serve evil. Witness the high moral conduct of the present Iranian regime.
Despite this see-saw between hedonism and temperance and the ravages of war, German learning and intellectual output remained high. Germany’s universities continued to attract the best and brightest of Europe, America, and elsewhere. German art was less decadent than the French, American jazz was imported from us, German film was more intellectual than American film, and German philosophers and jurists remained near the forefront of shaping world opinion. German intellectual capacity only suffered as the Nazis came to power, and only because of a mass exodus of its best and brightest. Otherwise, few of Germany’s intellectuals gave much thought to the Nazis until trapped and isolated. German scholarship, science, and industry remained ‘progressive’ and the early Nazi recovery lead to an expectation Germany would lead the way out of the Great Depression.
At the same time, race bigotry was deeply ingrained in the German psyche, and no amount of intellectual rigor seems to have done much to disturb it. Pre-Nazi era Jews were not barred from military service, but could not serve as officers. The highest legal positions were reserved for Germans of good family; ditto for the administrators of state hospitals. Jews were encouraged to contribute to society, and socializing with Jews was in some degree tolerated; but ‘good Germans’ did not generally mix or intermarry with us. So, Germany as an exemplar of intellectual vigor and educational excellence makes my point education is no protection against bigotry. At most, it can help but only if the right things are taught. The liberal attempt at teaching ‘tolerance’ (without proper reference to other valid considerations) only shows us how badly things can still go amiss even when the intention is the very best.
Comment by Bob Stapler | September 16, 2008