Imagine the uproar if George W. Bush described Barack Obama as someone who should be "fetching" his coffee.
Were Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) ever to switch political parties and become a Republican, the liberal media reaction would be to suddenly "discover" his past membership in the Ku Klux Klan, which would thereafter be relentlessly reported until he was hounded from office in disgrace. Yet as a Democrat, his former participation in an organization that harassed, oppressed, and at times murdered black Americans is known. But Byrd somehow remains immune to that dubious association, and to this day he sits as one of the most esteemed and venerated members of the United States Senate.
In the newly released book Game Change that has generated enormous controversy, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was quoted asserting Barack Obama's electoral advantages for being "light skinned" and capable of speaking with "no negro dialect," while former President Bill Clinton disparagingly harkened back to a day in which Obama would have been relegated to "getting us coffee."
Had either been Republicans, calls for their censure (and in Reid's case, immediate removal from office) would have been instantaneous from both sides of the political aisle. As Democrats however, their standing is in no more peril than that of Robert Byrd. Democrat sensibilities on issues of race are only "inflamed" when doing so will advance their political agenda. Otherwise, such matters are derided as cheap distractions from the important issues of the day.
In truth, Democrats have never been the champions of racial justice that they claim to be. The tasteless words from Reid and Clinton, and more importantly, the unfettered willingness of the Democrat Party and its media lapdogs to rally around them, cannot be construed in any other manner. Appalling as this single episode is however, the entire scope of the situation is far worse still. Liberal Democrats will patronizingly champion minorities, if so doing might gain them political traction. Yet they will just as quickly invoke the lowest and most demeaning racial stereotypes and degradations of minority opponents who pose an obstacle to their agenda.
Harry Reid's appraisal of Barack Obama, abominable though it may be, pales in comparison to the malicious and overt racism from liberals directed at Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. Yet then as now, the remainder of the Democrat cabal offered no complaints or apologies. Their real disdain for minorities, and in fact, all liberal "special interests" (other than as fodder for the liberal agenda) was on parade then and, as proven by their solidarity in supporting Reid, remains so to this day.
The real truth of liberal Democrat contempt for the black community is much more egregious still. The plight of urban families can be directly tied to the malignancy of the "nanny state." Rampant crime, drug addiction, and the general hopelessness of the inner cities were maladies born not from officially sanctioned segregation and discrimination (such things have been outlawed for nearly half-a-century) but from the entanglements of a bloated government that thrives on the backs of a dependant underclass.
Likewise, the overt racism of a failed public school monopoly, itself a product of Democrat political efforts, promises to maintain the oppression of inner-city blacks to a degree that Jim Crow ordinances could never have accomplished. And as long as the hapless recipients of this insidious poison are willing to accept it, thereby enabling its sponsors, they and their progeny can expect more of the same from the liberal political machine.
Similar principles hold true for every other subgroup of the American population that the liberal establishment seeks to first isolate and then court on the basis of its victim status. Many misguided women accept the absurd notion that as the Party of abortion, the Democrats are their personal champions.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Women, even those who had been faithful liberals, but who became potential political liabilities to the Clinton Administration, can well attest their grim fate once their usefulness to the liberal cause is depleted. And the moment a woman dares to advance herself on the public scene by any means other than toeing the liberal party line, the real regard held by liberals towards femininity in general will be revealed. The vicious, demeaning, and by any liberal standard "sexist" attacks against former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin stand as irrefutable evidence.
Likewise for Asians, Hispanics, or any other segment of the population to which the Left seeks to grant favored status. Hacked computer files revealed that Miguel Estrada, as a Hispanic judicial nominee in the Bush Administration, faced a coordinated Democrat attack specifically based on his ethnicity. Yet did the Democrats seek to amend or correct their overt bigotry in any way? On the contrary, they merely stuck to their despicable plan while caterwauling about the wrongful means of gathering the information.
Liberal sanctimony on the issues of race, gender, national origin, and religion is, and has always been, invoked on an extremely selective basis, surgically targeted for the sole purpose of advancing liberalism. And as such, it is the epitome of hypocrisy. Ultimately, the fate of its beneficiaries and/or victims is of no consequence to those at the pinnacle of liberal power.
It is sad that all too often, the conservative opposition has allowed the Left to play such games with impunity. It is sadder still that those groups pandered to by the Left will not see the current situation for what it is, and will not recognize the real purpose why, as ostensible "special interests," they are maintained in that status. Thus they do their utmost to ensure that their marginalization from the bounty and promise of America will likely continue in perpetuity.
The message here is Democrats are hypocrites – yes, aren’t we all to some extent, but don’t Conservatives grow tired of hearing the same old playground taunts over and over – “nyah, nyah, you’re a hypocrite” – we get it already – Conservative writers seem to write about nothing else. And Reid’s message wasn’t “abominable”, he made a shrewd political observation which everyone knows is true. On the record, Reid would never have uttered those words but, regardless, the venue doesn’t alter the political accuracy and cultural truth of his utterances.
And the author’s other dearly loved theme – Liberals exploit blacks, Conservatives don’t – is at best childishly naïve and at worst an example of appalling ignorance. “The plight of urban families can be directly tied to the malignancy of the nanny state” according to the author but that’s utter nonsense and easily dismissed. If you are looking for someone to blame for “the plight of urban families” then look in the mirror, we’re all to blame and through the exercise of our highest cultural values and most charitable motives. The Liberals were simply better able to exploit the situation to their own financial and political advantage.
Look at recent history, Detroit from 8 mile road to the riverfront, or Chicago’s Roseland district for prime examples of how we as a society failed through a vigorous exercise of our most altruistic motives. These urban areas are ghettos but they aren’t surrounded by barbed wire, blacks may pass freely from the ghetto to the suburbs, Southfield or Oak Park in the Detroit area are two examples of the suburban promised lands. And it’s very easy to move into Detroit for cheap living, not for the cultural attractions or to rub elbows with the beautiful people of course, but it can be a final refuge when life’s circumstances force it on you. You don’t have to live in Detroit or Chicago’s South Side permanently either, it’s not the Nazi version of the Warsaw Ghetto for Jews, feel free to leave any time – assuming you can.
So how did the American dream of upward mobility and economic freedom become so perverted that we’ve spawned an urban class of black Americans living in multi-generational poverty within cities ranging from New York City to Oakland California? Our very own American versions of Haiti, only without the hot weather and voodoo. We, as Americans, did it to ourselves because we can’t resist helping someone who is helpless. Ghetto blacks learned early on to be very “helpless” because that always brought the government running with money and all manner of assistance. We naively believed people don’t like to be “helpless” and will stand on their own 2 feet as soon as possible rather than continue to accept charity. Baloney – that’s complete and utter nonsense of course, people can get used to anything if their basic survival needs are met and that’s exactly what happened.
We had the idiotic notion we could alter a person’s ignorance and cultural handicaps through carefully designed “programs” that motivate people to rise above poverty – and such stupidity has lasted for 40 years. Why? Because we remain fundamentally the same – we see someone in need, we want to help and that hasn’t changed in 40 years either. Unfortunately, we don’t know when to stop helping or understand you can’t overcome an individual’s ignorance and cultural baggage by funding community “outreach programs”. City Journal has an excellent article by Heather Macdonald titled “Chicago’s Real Crime Story” which does a thorough job of explaining how this entitlement attitude, which slowly grew out of the “we’re helpless” scam, works in all its many facets – it even stars Barack Obama as himself during his salad days as “Community Organizer”.
Macdonald explains that “society” was originally blamed for the ills of the black ghetto community and this attitude, or excuse, remains prevalent today although it’s slowly starting to change. But that cherished rationalization of “society is entirely to blame” is beginning to show threadbare cuffs under its cashmere overcoat. Blacks run the show in Detroit and Chicago now, so tell us again how racial prejudice is preventing progress. And what happened to the millions of dollars given by everyone from the Feds to private charities and which found its way into the ghetto only to vanish without a trace like water in the Kalahari.
From sociologists like Kay Hymowitz to activists like Bill Cosby, the most recent “favored” theme is blacks need to address their own cultural shortcomings if they want change and the usual suspects are unwed mothers, crime, drugs, lack of parental responsibility, disintegration of the black family, etc. – and all this newfound wisdom is supported by reams of statistics that present a much more compelling case than what was made for “Global Warming”. But in the end and after all the pontificating, so what? How do you force someone to take “parental responsibility”? Are you personally going to intervene to prevent the disintegration of at least one black family?
So, let’s be honest here and recognize the 800 pound Catch-22 in the room. We can’t resist helping when we see someone who is obviously “helpless”, especially if their innocent children will also suffer – and we can’t make citizens help themselves or induce them to make intelligent choices by changing their basic natures. We orchestrated this Catch-22 ourselves, the Liberals merely saw a way to make a quick buck off it and moved in, but that doesn’t alter the fact it is due to our own cultural values this present mess exists. Nor does it alter the fact black Americans willingly participate in the “we’re helpless” scam – why wouldn’t they, there’s no downside for them in doing so. The Liberals would like the Hispanics to be the next recipients of the “We’re Helpless” con game, but, once again, we’re not being forced into helping anyone, we will willingly do it to ourselves.
Good Comment P. Skurka.
The solution is simple but will never happen.
The children must be taken out of the current ghetto culture/environment and raised in a middle class valued culture/environment.
There was a time when undisciplined kids were put in Boys homes.
As a country we can not even live within our financial means let alone address the issue of how entitlements do not work and are another special interest we can not say no to.
jprairie:
Agree, we intuitively know what would solve the problem of the “plight of urban families”, but the solutions which would work are the very solutions we can’t apply. And your comment on our nation’s financial health is appropriate when we see the ranks of the “helpless” growing ever larger with massive unemployment and mortgage insolvency – we are witnessing more Americans going down the tubes than in past recessions and we desperately want to help them, even to the point of national bankruptcy.
And as a nation addicted to happy endings, we’re convinced there must be a solution out there – “we put a man on the moon, we cured erectile dysfunction, we can do anything we put our minds to”. Bold words, but as our national problems multiply without effective solutions, our confident rhetoric doesn’t work its traditional magic, we have an unspoken “bad feeling” about the future and with good reason. The times may be changing but we can’t change our basic natures – we’ll hold to our present course and further morph into just another European socialist nation – exactly like France, only without 16 different gourmet recipes to prepare anything which walks, crawls or flies.