“Racism!” is the constant cry of the progressive. The charge serves two purposes:

First; once one side of the debate is labeled ‘racist’ further debate is unnecessary. The progressive believes he’s made the only point required to prove his position. “I win the policy arguement because I have discovered you are a racist!”

Second; the progressive is spared the mental gymnastics required to defend his latest vacuous, incoherent, policy offering. The charge of “Racism!” is used as the last defense of the indefensible.

It is actually an extremely Freudian charge. It is the progressives that most note race, sexual preference, gender, and other qualifiers to ‘victim’ status in order to decide hierarchal issues of support. In this version of “Through the Looking Glass”; the more ‘qualifiers’ you can claim, the more seriously all must treat your plight. In this world, a black, transgendered, female, Muslim found to be illegally in the country could very well be the ultimate victim.

This explains the problems liberals had with the 2008 Primaries. Which ‘victim’ group triumphs? Is it the women’s groups with their complaints of ‘glass ceilings’, misogyny, and suffering at the hands of a patriarchal society? Or is it the black man with his ancestral background of slavery, his generations of persecution, and unspoken societal reinforcement that “He’s just not good enough?” Which group’s demand to preferential treatment should be elevated over the other? Which side more clearly demonstrates our personal commitment to ‘fairness’?

Progressives finally threw Hillary under the bus, deciding that the ‘racial’ victim group, for now, would take precedence over the ‘sexual’ victim group. The 2008 election wasn’t about anything historic; it was all about doling out preferential treatment among the Democratic Party Institutions; which has never been anything more than a loosely organized amalgamation of special interest groups. All of which, I might add, are willing to cut the throats of any other group to advance its cause over the others.

This gives lie to the statements made during the General Election of 2008. Pundits said that the election of Barrack Obama would usher in a new era of post-racial bipartisan compromise. His election would prove that America had finally moved beyond race. Actually his election guaranteed the exact opposite. We now live in an era of hyper-racial partisanship. The progressive definition of ‘bipartisanship’ has always been when others cross the aisle to their point of view and never the other way around. In this world of progressive domination; any and all criticism of Obama’s policies, in their opinion, are firmly rooted in institutionalized racism.

See paragraphs two and three above to establish the new progressive policy comfort zone.

This will only be a relevant criticism as long as people continue to give credibility to the boy (no pun intended) who cried wolf.