Vote Democrat, you racist!
There are some people who believe if you don’t for Barack Obama on November 4th that you have committed an act of racism.
Sadly, these are not the views of people one might characterize as part of a lunatic fringe.
Congressman Jack Murtha doesn’t think many of his own constituents will vote for Obama and stated “western Pennsylvania is a racist area.” Murtha later backed off his comments and said he meant to say the area was “really redneck.” Perhaps Murtha’s constituents don’t accept Obama’s characterization that they are “bitter” people “who cling to guns and religion,” as if responsible gun ownership and religious devotion were things about which they should be ashamed. Clearly, Murtha has a great deal of contempt for the people who have sent him to Washington since 1974.
In an article written last August on Slate, Jacob Weisberg argues if Obama loses the election it is due to racism. “But let’s be honest: If you break the numbers down, the reason Obama isn’t ahead right now is that he trails badly among one group, older white voters. He does so for a simple reason: the color of his skin.” (http://www.slate.com/id/2198397/?from=rss)
Weisberg then writes about voters in Pennsylvania two months before Murtha put his foot in his mouth:
In the Pennsylvania primary, one in six white voters told exit pollsters race was a factor in his or her decision. Seventy-five percent of those people voted for Clinton. You can do the math: 12 percent of the Pennsylvania primary electorate acknowledged that it didn’t vote for Barack Obama in part because he is African-American.
But if we accept Weisberg’s premise he mysteriously fails to mention that he is referring to Democratic voters, not Republicans. The Pennsylvania Democratic Primary is open only to Democrats. Maybe Democrats are not as liberal as he would like to think. Yet it does not deter Weisberg:
His defeat would say that when handed a perfect opportunity to put the worst part of our history behind us, we chose not to. In this event, the world’s judgment will be severe and inescapable. The United States had its day but, in the end, couldn’t put its own self interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race.
How does one begin to dissect the sheer stupidity of Weisberg’s analysis?
For starters, aside from its sanctimoniousness, his statement assumes Obama could not run again in 2012 or 2016. The man is only 47 years old. Richard Nixon didn’t get to the White House on his first try either.
It is also worth noting that in 2006 the Republican gubernatorial candidate in Pennsylvania was Pittsburgh Steelers legend Lynn Swann. The NFL Hall of Fame inductee was one of two African-American Republicans seeking a governorship that year (the other was Ken Blackwell who ran unsuccessfully in Ohio). Swann lost decisively to Democratic incumbent Ed Rendell garnering less than 40% of the vote.
Did Weisberg ever write an article lambasting Pennsylvanians for having an opportunity to put the worst part of their history behind them but choosing not to? Did Weisberg ever write that by failing to elect Swann that Pennsylvania couldn’t put its own self interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race?
I think you know the answer to that.
Suffice it to say, if Barack Obama were a conservative Republican there would be no one for Jacob Weisberg to lecture.
If one truly gives the matter some careful thought it is truly extraordinary to suggest that a critical mass of white people won’t vote for Obama simply because he is African-American. Such a statement blindly assumes that for most white people race is their sole criteria in selecting a candidate for high office. Do the Democratic Party and the liberal media really think most white people are that hateful, contemptuous and shallow? I guess so.
Suppose you find yourself in a conversation about the election with someone who is supporting Obama, whatever their race, and in the course of that conversation you reveal you will be casting a ballot for John McCain. For your trouble you are called a racist.
What do you do?
Now I think it is safe to say that most white people in this country are not racist and bear no animosity to African-Americans and other racial minorities. It is also safe to say most white people would not like being called a racist because it does not accurately depict who they are let alone why they happen to be voting for McCain.
Most people would react defensively and say something along the lines of, “I’m not a racist.” But one might as well deny being a murderer for all the good it will do. There are times when you must stand up for yourself. Falsely being called a racist is certainly such an occasion.
So here are five things you can say to an Obama supporter if he or she sees fit to call you racist because you don’t see fit to put your faith in The Anointed One at the ballot box:
1. By calling me a racist you cheapen the meaning of racism and therefore you have cheapened yourself.
2. I want to congratulate you for having rendered the term racism completely meaningless.
3. How is my vote for John McCain an act of racism?
4. You can do better than to call racist those with whom you disagree. I am very disappointed in you.
5. You have judged me by the color of my skin not the content of my character. Shame on you.
Do not be angry when giving these responses. Be firm but polite. If possible have a smile on your face whilst conveying your disappointment with their misguided behavior.
By no means is this an exhaustive set of responses. I am sure there are some of you out there who can come up with more clever retorts. Please feel free to send them along to me.
But I think these are responses the person who accuses you of being a racist is not expecting. By putting forward a firm response you put your accuser on the defensive. Suddenly, that Obama supporter is now in the awkward position of having to explain their characterization of you as a racist.
Perhaps they will become even more agitated and threatening in their behavior. If so then calmly explain that if they choose to resort to violence you will have no trouble calling the authorities.
Perhaps they will simply walk away in silence. One can only hope they will think about what you said.
Perhaps they might even do the decent and honorable thing and apologize. Yes, such an outcome is probably unlikely. But if an apology is offered it should be accepted.
Whatever their response you should not accept being called a racist just because you happen to think John McCain is better suited to be President of the United States than Barack Obama.
Racism is after all a serious matter. People in this country have been grievously harmed because of it and many others have lost their lives needlessly and senselessly. Barack Obama’s supporters are going to have to do better than to call people who plan to vote for John McCain racists.
Mr. Goldstein:
There you go again … trying to use reason on a liberal. [see Dr. Jackson’s series of attempts beginning here http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/the-loony-liberal-chronicles-chapter-1.
You will never change his mind because liberals must keep the race game going to maintain their theory that all life is a conflict between groups. [Remember it use to be economic groups; now it is racial/ethnic groups.] Without group conflict, their whole theory collapses. These people don’t deserve a polite time of day. Besides, your five questions are just too much to remember anyway. I would just give him what he wants to hear – “You know something? You are right, but so what? It’s still a free country, and I can vote for whomever I wish for whatever reason I wish.”
Now what is he going to say? Call you names? If he does, just smile and say, “Jesus loves you.” If you are lucky, he will just storm off, and good riddance to bad garbage. You can then go on enjoying your social, knowing you have ruined his.
I like: "I supported Alan Keyes in 2000. And the Illinois senate race in 2004."
I think all these reasons are very plausible and could be delivered kindly and without getting sweaty and red-faced. I am going to keep them in my purse just in case. I just have to reiterate, unnecessarily, how ridiculous the race card is here. It's the biggest, fattest, ugliest excuse in the world for a lost election. Most intelligent people can see from 1000 miles away that not voting for Obama could have much to do with the fact that his flaming left-wing illuminati opinions don't really suit me, and nothing to do with his skin color. OK, just duh.
Re: "…not voting for Obama could have much to do with the fact that his flaming left-wing illuminati opinions don't really suit me."
Comments like that are not very "moderate, reasonable, nor wise." It doesn't help us "find a way to live in peace with one another and respect our differences."
Except for the part about the media's failure to do its job objectively, George's paragraph about being reasonable to the Left is itself unreasonable. If said by a Leftist, it would be designed to get conservatives to drop their guard. You have said we should respect their views as long as they don't get too extreme. There is no such thing as a moderate view on the Left. The very essence of Leftism is extremism because, by definition, it has no bounds for restraint.
"find a way to live in peace with one another and respect our differences."
All good comments, but I doubt that many people are trying to "find a way"
Sure, racism exists. But it's not a black or white issue (pun intended). Just as we prefer blue cars over green ones we all have some amount of aversion to people different from us and we are attracted to people that look and speak like us. That aversion or preference varies between peoples and times. Those that believe humans should minimize this tendency should be celebrating the last 232 years of this country rather than denigrating it. Just as a child is asked how they liked the strawberry ice cream they were given and reply, “I like chocolate better!” many voters will say “No more ice cream for you!”. The clock of freedom has been turned back with this campaign and Obama bears the full responsibility for not repudiating the race baiters.
Having lived in Cambridge Massachusetts for a large part of my life, the use of "racism" by whites is generally a way of 1) advancing a left cultural agenda (for instance, criticism of libertine sexual activities is equated with hostility towards Afro Americans) and 2)attacking the old left's emphasis on political class. When the hysteria of the past decade subsides, "race" will be seen to be the battering ram behind which most of the sixties left (generally white and middle class) ventriloquized its own very middle class agenda. Walter Benn Micheals "The Trouble with Diversity," is a terrific expose of the abuse of race by the left.
The genius of Obama has been to say just enough to titilate the far left without saying enough to commit himself to its ideological slogans. Hence it should hardly be suprising that the NYTimes and others have, down the stretch, having swooned before their man, have now brought out the "it's all racism," defense down the stretch. It was interesting to see–for the first time–last week's New YOrk REview of books feature a number of academics who were openly critical of Obama's failure to explicitly embrace far left causes. Of course Obama has put his Ivy league degree (his "eloquence") to good use by refusing to let himself get pinned down–and if the far left has bailed him out time and time again by projecting their fantasies on him and using the "it's all racism charge" in his defense, it's their stupidity, not his, that really defines the idea of "Obama."
Perhaps I should pen a followup: Five things to say if you're called a communist because you are voting for Obama. After what Obama supporters have had to endure from the McPalin crowd (we've been conned into voting for a terrorist and baby killer, don't you know), you'll forgive me if I have little sympathy for your hypothetical dilemma.
I can't recall McCain or Palin calling Obama a communist. Interesting red herring though. Especially coming from someone who subsribes to the "Bush is a war criminal" philosophy. I don't recall anti-abortion demonstrators or McCarthyists throwing bleach in people's faces at the Democratic convention. I did see some footage of peace activists throwing bleach and spitting upon Republican politicians at the Republican convention, though. Victims of viscious hyperbole, I suppose.
"You will never change his mind because liberals must keep the race game going to maintain their theory that all life is a conflict between groups"……hhhmmmm….much like the Cons keep the abortion game going. Both sides keep the conflict between groups going. That is how they keep their jobs….even though politics was never meant to be a "job"
Dr. Kilovolt….I like it. Pat….nobody called McCain or Palin a racist either so your argument doesn't wash.
Goldstein is correct. Race should not be an issue at all. I do love responses 3,4,5. Nice
I don't remember saying or implying that anybody ever called McCain or Palin a racist, so my rhetorical comment, since I was not making an argument, does indeed "wash".
omgucbs:
Re: "…much like the Cons keep the abortion game going."
Now that's an interesting twist on moral equivalence: infanticide and racism are equal.
omgucbs,
" … Cons[ervatives] keep the abortion game going" sounds suspiciously like the complaint slave-owners made against 1850s abolitionists who 'kept the slavery question going' or Nazis railing against those who failed to see the logic of euthanizing the unfit and drew attention to what they were doing. Like Roe, the Dred Scott decision settled the question of slavery. So, do you agree because nine men in robes decided the matter for the rest of us, that is where matters should have been left? Should abolitionists have been muzzled as troublemakers?
Weisberg wrote:
"In the Pennsylvania primary, one in six white voters told exit pollsters race was a factor in his or her decision. Seventy-five percent of those people voted for Clinton. You can do the math: 12 percent of the Pennsylvania primary electorate acknowledged that it didn’t vote for Barack Obama in part because he is African-American."
I have to wonder if most of these people who admit voting on a basis of race are voting against or for the black candidate. Weisberg never tells us this is anti-black or pro-black bias. It could, of course, be a mix of the two, but I don't think so. He insinuates to his readers it is all of the anti-black variety. How likely is it voters (willing to participate in exit polls) are going to tell some stranger they are bigots who wouldn't vote for a black under any conditions? I have little doubt there are many who proclaim to the world they vote for the black or female candidate, the better to let us know how correct-minded they are. How much more likely, then, these are liberal voters voting for the black candidate on the basis of race? It doesn't stretch my credulity there are many such people who'd feel their act noble without due consideration he/she is the better choice.
This is one of those ways the stereotype of the racist white gets propagated, through twisting the innocent into the darkly abhorent. I seriously doubt there's anything like 12% of white voters who vote against black candidates on the basis of color. I doubt the real number is more than one percent. There are such people, I know, because I've met them. But, I can count on two hands the number I've met in a lifetime going back to the last days of segregation. I've done the math, and it doesn't add up to anything like Mr. Weisberg insinuates. Commonsense and experience should tell most reasoning persons: if racism were still that rampant, why don't I have a lot more direct experience of it or why am I unable to detect it. A little can be disguised, but not any 12%. That would mean one of every 6-10 people you come in contact would be a bigot, you'd be related to one or more to within one generation, you'd be witness to racist hate-speech with some regularity, and some store-clerk or bureaucrat would pass over a client of the opposite color only to signal you with a smirk what he'd just done expecting to have your approval. Weisberg is project.
Pardon the typo of that last sentence. Should read: "Weisberg is projecting."
Mr. Mulligan:
I've actually used that response. The Obama-voter, a double-phuded black lady, shot back: "He's not black! He's so far from black, he ain't even white!"
In the days since, I have often taken that response out of my mental portfolio, unfolded it, and scrutinized it in detail — I am certain a lady with 2 doctorates simply *must* have packed such a Zen-like statement chock-full of hidden wisdom…
Anyway, humor aside, empirical evidence suggests that Mr. Sedonaman is correct. Leftists only objective is destruction of any who oppose them, never co-existance. Whenever the horn compromise is winded, the Left sings the notes while Conservs perform the action. We are in the fight of our Constitution's life. I hope we wake up and defend it.