The Race Card: Effective No More

"Racism" has been a spectacularly successful weapon only because those against whom it has been wielded by the race-baiters have taken the bait.

It's amazing what a difference a handful of months can make. 

There isn't one of us who can forget the euphoria by which millions, both at home and abroad, were overtaken in the days and months following President Obama's election. This historic event, we were promised by left- and right-leaning pundits alike, was guaranteed to usher in a new, post-racial or trans-racial millennium. During the presidential race, Obama's supporters, and, for that matter, Obama himself, labored inexhaustibly to impress upon the American psyche the notion that only "racism" could account for why anyone would impede history by voting against the young, charismatic Democrat contender. When Obama won with 53% of the vote — the first time in over four decades that a Democrat presidential nominee received the support of over half of the country — polls showed that both whites and, to an even greater extent, blacks, were more optimistic than ever about the future of race relations in America.

Some of us, however, looked upon the unfolding events with a skeptical eye. That Obama was already subtly playing the race card before he won the election even as he was promising to unite the country as president was enough to convince us that he was decidedly not the trans-racial candidate he pretended to be. But in addition to this consideration there was available an abundance of evidence — most importantly his own autobiography, Dreams of My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, and his 20-plus year friendship with his "spiritual advisor" and pastor, the "black liberation theologian," Jeremiah Wright — that dispelled any conceivable doubts that the Age of Obama, far from being "colorless," would be potentially more racially charged than any other within (relatively) recent memory.        

We knew that far from diminishing, charges of "racism" on the part of the usual suspects in the media, government, and academia, would greatly increase, whether Obama won the election or not, but especially if he won. If he didn't win, his supporters would attribute his defeat to the "racism" of his white detractors. Yet Obama's victory, more so than anything else, threatened to incapacitate the "Racism Industrial Complex," for the very presence of a black American president conveys to the world, much more directly and compellingly than any statistics or elegance of language ever could, that whatever other obstacles threaten to impede the aspirations of black Americans, white "racism" was no longer one of them.

Those who have made their living as agents of the RIC ("Racism Industrial Complex") would become deathly fearful and desperate, we predicted, for the well from which they derived both immense professional and psychological benefits would now be in danger of forever drying up. The imagery, the symbolism, of a black American president would make it all too difficult to sustain their insistence, however sophisticated and abstract their arguments for it may be, that the rot of white "racism" continues to be an omnipresent evil in the fight against which enormous resources need to be deployed. It may sound impossible, given the regularity and frivolity of the charges of "racism" that they were leveling before anyone outside of Illinois heard of Obama, but RIC, we knew, would seek to double its efforts in finding "racism" in all manner of unsuspected places.

All of these predictions have come to fruition. Every criticism of Obama is now said to be motivated by racial animosity. But as RIC agents work tirelessly to deflect attention from the President's declining poll numbers and advance their agenda with spurious charges of "racism" against over half of the country that opposes his policies, what modicum of credibility they may have had they erode to the vanishing point, a point, that is, of no return.

What a beautiful paradox: in their attempts to further their interests at any and all costs — "by whichever means necessary" — including that of destroying others, both their self-avowed enemies as well as those for whom they claim to be the voice, RIC agents have all but succeeded in destroying themselves. Their weapon of choice, the bomb of the charge of "racism," is blowing up even as I write this, yet this time it is the bombers who are the casualties.

This is a great day for those of us who wish to see both the term "racism" — a term that has caused exponentially more damage to innocents than any phenomenon that its been used to designate — as well as the Racial Industrial Complex drop down the memory hole of history. For this we have to thank, ironically, the agents of RIC, beginning with President Obama himself. 

Yet the routine targets of RIC can't let its agents do all of the work in dismantling it. We must do our part too. Here is what I suggest: when Election Day arrives, vote for no one who has so much as remotely suggested that he or she would be willing to contribute to RIC. Also, between now and then and forever more, when blatantly contrived indictments of "racism" are leveled at you by the usual suspects, refuse to dignify them with a response. "Racism" has been such a spectacularly successful weapon only because those against whom it has been wielded by the race-baiters have taken the bait. 

Ignore the bait and "the race card" will be effective no more.

Share

2 comments to The Race Card: Effective No More

  • milbrat

    Racism; Last Resort of the Scoundrel

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

    First; once one side of the debate is labeled ‘racist’ further debate is cut off. The progressive believes he’s made the only point required to prove his point. “I win, because 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 a 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 issues of support. 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 reinforcement by society that “He’s just not good enough?” Which group’s claim to preferential treatment should be honored?

    Progressives finally threw Hillary under the bus, deciding that the ‘black’ victims group, for now, would take precedence over the ‘women’ victims group. The 2008 election wasn’t about anything historic; it was all about preferential treatment among the Democratic Party 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 get what it wants.

    Just as in the fable “The Boy Who Cried ‘Wolf’!” the word racist has lost its pejoraive ‘shock value’.

    Since the election; more and more persons are coming to the conclusion that ‘racist’ is a liberal code word assigned to any person who questions or disagrees with current administration policy. Witness the recent comments of that reliably liberal lunitic Jimmy Carter.

    First; he touched off a huge controversy when he said GOP Rep. Joe Wilson’s “You Lie!” outburst was “based on racism” and that there “is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president.”

    Yesterday during an interview on CNN Carter said; “By the way, that’s not what I said. If you read the remarks carefully, you’ll see that’s not what I said.” So, now they want it BOTH ways.

    They’ve ‘overused’ this charge so often in the last generation that its become another euphemism; like choice for murder, investment for tax, or ‘tough talk’ for placation.

    It’s gotten to the point now, that when a progressive hurls the accusation “Racist!” that normal people just say “Please…that’s so stupid. Just stop.”

  • ruminator

    Thanks for a great article, but I am more confused than ever (no one’s fault). If there is anything close to a consensus among people at this site, it is that the charge of “racism” must be permissable, because, when it is truly demonstrated, it is seriously wrong, and needs to be confronted. But too often, it’s just a vicious attempt to attribute unendearing and anti-social attitudes to others in order to get one’s way.
    But here’s where the problem comes: can honest, intelligent people disagree about when racism is evident? If so, then does the possibility that “the charge of racism is incorrect in this instance, though excusable” have to be considered?
    I think to succeed you have to make this a “clear thinking, fairness and civility” question more than a “right vs. left politics” question.

Leave a Reply

IC Writers

Articles Archived by Topic