The agents of the Racial Industrial Complex are rightly being reminded by the Tea Partiers that their very livelihoods rest upon the fear that whites have had of being charged with "racism," a fear that, thanks to the courage of the Tea Partiers, could very well be fading away.
The Democrat Party, via their apologists in what is routinely but misleadingly referred to as "the mainstream media," is inexhaustibly laboring to ensconce in the popular imagination its depiction of the Tea Party movement as a violence-prone, "racist" phenomenon that owes its existence to nothing more or less than the election to the office of the presidency of a black man.
If one would but stop and think about this for just a single moment, this explanation of the Tea Party's origins would strike us for the patent absurdity that it is: in spite of having won a significantly larger share of the popular vote than any Democrat presidential candidate in nearly a half of a century — an achievement, obviously, that would have been unthinkable, let alone attainable, if not for the support of whites — the vast expenditures of energy that Tea Partiers invest in not only organizing and attending protests around the nation, but in marshalling forth a nearly Stoic perseverance in the face of unjust assaults launched from their own government and its minions in the press, we are expected to believe, are explicable in terms of the mere fact that Barack Obama is black.
And with what evidence do those who make it seek to substantiate this allegation? From what I have been able to determine, there is but one reason and one reason only that has been submitted to support the charge that Tea Partiers are "racist": they are overwhelmingly (though not exclusively) white.
It is impossible to overstate the importance of recognizing the insight into the Left's weltanschauung with which this latest episode in our nation's history provides us. Until the present time, and even now, many, quite possibly most, white Americans, have been miring in a condition of ignorance, whether self-imposed or otherwise, of both the centrality of place that the issue of race occupies in the thought of the typical leftist as well as the distinctive manner in which he approaches this issue.
From this perspective, whites are, virtually by definition, "racist." The same unwavering confidence in their innate superiority to "people of color" that — again, according to this standpoint — motivated whites to enslave, colonize, subjugate, and otherwise "oppress" the latter wherever they encountered them, a conviction acquired and strengthened over a span of centuries, if not part of their original fabric, has become a "second nature" to whites. In fact, though individual whites may have succeeded, by their own lights, at any rate, at resisting or ridding themselves of the tendency to view non-whites as innately inferior, the fact of the matter is that this belief has become intractably embedded in the most fundamental institutions of Western civilization generally, and American life particularly. Thus, as Barack Obama writes in his Dreams from my Father, this "institutional" or "structural racism" — an omnipresent and omnipotent force, invisible only because of its ubiquity, that simultaneously shatters the aspirations of blacks and browns while perpetuating "white privilege" — renders "negligible" the distinction between "good whites" and "bad whites."
All whites are "racist."
However, though the difference between "good whites" and "bad whites" may be "negligible," it does not follow that there is no difference at all. Some whites are indeed worse than others, and those whites who compose the Tea Party movement and whites of like mind, are the worst whites of all.
Far from being the poisonous fruit of "racism," the Tea Party movement is the creation of a federal government that is perceived as having dramatically, abruptly, and incessantly moved well beyond the limits imposed upon its authority by the United States Constitution, a government the power of which is currently at the disposal of an assortment of crass politicians and zealous ideologues who are mutually conspiring with one another to erode ever further the fundamental institutions of the country of which the Tea Partiers have a love for which they refuse to apologize. Yet within the worldview of today's leftist, it is bad enough that there remains a scattering of whites, white men especially, with an invincible resolve to conserve, come what may, the religious, moral, political, and, in short, the cultural traditions of America; but when such whites (scandal of scandals!) exercise their constitutional right to freedom of assembly and unite, much less when they piece together a movement that is sweeping the nation, nothing could constitute a more frightening spectacle.
From the Left's perspective, Tea Partiers have not only resurrected, but are succeeding at popularizing, an image of "the White Man" that belongs to a by-gone era, a relic from America's unenlightened past that the Left will stop at nothing to insure remains there. By invoking the specters of our Founding Fathers, those dead white men who, upon defying the most powerful empire in the world by assuming arms and seceding — yes, seceding — from the Motherland of England in order so that they and their posterity could enjoy the traditional liberties of their forbearers, composed and ratified the Constitution in whose defense the Tea Partiers now protest, the latter, whether they recognize it or not, have posed a direct challenge to the impoverished, "politically correct" conception of masculinity that white men have had foisted upon them for the last forty to fifty years.
On this contemporary model of (white) masculinity, whites, and white men specifically, are obligated to be perpetually contrite for the sins of their ancestors. This entails that they spare no occasion to decry "racism," "sexism," "classism," "homophobia," "colonialism," and "imperialism" whenever they are alleged to have raised their ugly heads. Yet this steady disposition to make such declamations in turn demands that whites be ever vigilant against making any utterance, or engaging in any action, that could be so much as remotely perceived by others, if not themselves, as suggesting sympathy on their part for America's — again, "White America's — "oppressive" past. Thus, assertions of "patriotism," whether via a ceremony celebrating our veterans over a Memorial Day weekend, a parade to commemorate Independence Day, or the waving of an American flag, whether in the wake of a national tragedy like 9/11 or for any other reason, are proscribed, as are expressions of admiration for America's Founding Fathers that aren't heavily qualified by lamentations over their "politically incorrect" insensitivities.
In short, today's whites have all but been conditioned (largely by other whites, it is important to note) to view their white skin as a "scarlet letter" of a sort, the quintessential emblem of all that is evil with the world. And any white person who dares to question the role into which the white race has been cast, and any white man who dares to challenge this self-degrading idea of masculinity that he is expected to uncritically endorse, must be demonized.
The treatment to which the Tea Partiers have been subjected is proof of this. But, interestingly, the Left has apparently failed to have observed that "the race card" which had always been the ace up its sleeve has lost much of its previous effectiveness.
Doubtless, beside the fact that the Tea Partiers are decidedly not motivated by any hostility toward blacks, whether office holders or not, among the other possible reasons for why "the race card" has proven itself impotent when deployed against them is the following: the election to the presidency of a black man — a black man, at that, with the name of "Barack Hussein Obama" — is all but a standing contradiction, to which the whole world bears witness, of the notion of an America within which "White Racism" remains an impediment to minority strivings.
The charge of "racism" currently being leveled against the Tea Party movement has gained not a bit of traction in the public's perception of it, and the Tea Partiers themselves have only grown more emboldened as they relentlessly wage their campaign to conserve their beloved country.
This is, or will be, the second manner in which the Tea Party movement will have at one and the same time both advanced the cause of their country and undermined the Left's agenda to "fundamentally transform" America. Not only has it reawakened in the American consciousness the liberty-loving spirit of our Founding Fathers, but, in so doing, it has established for all to see that the only power possessed by "the race card" is the power with which we have invested it. The genuine victims of racially oriented injustice (like the victims of every species of injustice) are deserving of nothing less than our sympathy and support; but the agents of the Racial Industrial Complex — those who labor tirelessly to intimidate and silence all potential opponents of their mission to remake America against its will into their own image while reaping the benefits in power, wealth, and prestige — are rightly being reminded by the Tea Partiers that their very livelihoods rest upon the fear that whites have had of being charged with "racism," a fear that, thanks to the courage of the Tea Partiers, could very well be fading away.
Dr. Kerwick may be pleased by the Rasmussen poll data released yesterday (April 30) on whether the respondents thought America was ‘fair and decent.’
“Fifty-eight percent (58%) of African-American voters say society is generally fair and decent, compared to 74% of whites and 66% of voters of other ethnicities. Just 18% of whites say society is unfair and discriminatory, a view shared by 33% of blacks and 30% of voters of other ethnicities.”
As a college teacher, I believe I see more evidence of cordial relations between white and black students now than at any point in my own teaching experience of nearly 40 years. Interracial friendships are not unusual, and virtually none of the tension-filled, conflict-ridden interactions I noticed back in the 70s occur. Of course, anecdotal evidence is not necessarily compelling, but I think only a diehard ideologue of Left or Right can continue to claim that no positive changes have taken place.
I agree, both with Dr Kerwick’s comment that; “…in so doing, it has established for all to see that the only power possessed by “the race card” is the power with which we have invested it.” But also Gestell’s observation that; “…I see more evidence of cordial relations between white and black students now than at any point in my own teaching experience of nearly 40 years.”
My question is why isn’t this just as observable to the progressive left? Or are logical defense points so difficult to come by in this latest round of progressive legislation coming out of the democratic majorities within the beltway that the ‘race card’ is the only defense the left can muster?
reply to bill Wavering,
Well, I’m on the progressive left and I don’t have any problem observing what I noted. It is the case, though, that many people on the progressive left see only what they choose to see and wish to see. The same thing can be said, of course, of many people on the Right.
If any conservatives are serious about genuine debate with the left, as distinguished from simply blasting them as usual, something more is needed. Many people on the left are aware that on virtually every measure of social and economic status/condition, etc. that has been invented, blacks in America fall below whites. Add to this the medical evidence on the subject of what are now called ‘health disparities’ between whites and blacks and the result is that many on the left think there is really no good reason to suppose that blacks are NOT the object of racial discrimination. Conservatives, thus far, really don’t offer much evidence to the contrary. Note that telling the stories of blacks who succeed or do well counts for nothing (for many on the left) against massive quantitative evidence.
My position doesn’t get me much support on the left, and it certainly won’t on the right. The effects of generations of racist discrimination both by government and in the private sector will take longer than a generation or two to fade away.Conservatives won’t like this because many of them want to believe that passing some laws was enough to make both racism and its effects vanish. Also, there can be little doubt (in my mind, at least) that many young blacks buy into a culture that rejects educational excellence as ‘white.’ I can see this as well in my teaching experience, because the young blacks who reject this culture have to do so very overtly, and many of them pay for doing so. However, I don’t think there is anything inevitable about the persistence of the anti-education culture. It developed, and it will eventually decline.
So, I am comparatively optimistic about race relations in the US, and that certainly won’t win me fans among my fellow leftists or among conservatives. True ideologues just love apocalypse. Thinking about it keeps them from thinking critically.
“but I think only a diehard ideologue of Left or Right can continue to claim that no positive changes have taken place.”
Aren’t diehard ideologues a hoot?
Lady Janeane Garofolo, one of our preeminent social justice crusaders, said it best when asked if she could ever salute or revere the American Flag. Her answer was that she could not, as it is the flag of a country founded in slavery.
She speaks the truth, but when redemption? Are we not arrived where we are now through some blood and effort, not the least of which was our Civil War?
Hate to truth is an investment that quickly depreciates in a market where our sins are disclosed and corrections are made. The problem is people like Garofolo have taken long positions.
Indeed, I suspect folks like Garofolo have so much disdain for their country, they can’t conceive of living without it.
(metaphors, pretentious phrasing and double entendre free of charge)
Gestell,
“Many people on the left are aware that on virtually every measure of social and economic status/condition, etc. that has been invented, blacks in America fall below whites.”
I agree that there are exceptions to every rule; and that pointing out those exceptions doesn’t prove much. Just as when one particularly tragic story is twisted by the left to tout the reason we must re-make an entire system (the story of Natoma Canfield and health care comes immediately to mind).
Although few if any on the progressive left take such scholarly writings as evidence; one could make the case that such works as Richard Herrnstein’s and Charles Murray’s “The Bell Curve” go quite a way in both documenting and explaining the observed variations between the races.
Race has little to do with disadvantage. However; condition has much influence, particularly if such egregious conditions are found to exist across more than one generation. The left won’t accept this as an explanation either. Two or so generations of fatherless children growing up at the edge of poverty, and you have an ingrained disparity that tends to magnify itself the longer it is allowed to continue. Bill Cosby is only the most recent outspoken observer that has pointed out how the established behaviors in black communities has produced way more harm than good across a plethora indicators; economic, educational, career wise, and health wise.
Herrnstein & Murray gathered much evidence that seems to show that persons tend to congregate and mate with others of their strata, because of the inherent advantages or disadvantages of their particular strata, these differences ten to magnify across subsequent generations. Social assistance programs may take some of the ‘sting’ out of poverty; but they are no replacement for diligence, effort, attitude, and education. I believe the Bell Curve illustrates that the future won’t be divided be race, but rather by intellect.
The idea that the dignity of accomplishment can be granted merely by redistributing income is a fallacy of the left. While it took me quite awhile to arrive at the point where I’m fairly secure in all areas of my life; it is the sense of accomplishment, the success of the journey, that gives me the most satisfaction. Such satisfaction cannot be transferred along with a government check for WIC, AFDC or Medicaid. The access is there, but the ‘accomplishment’ is not.
“Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants: money will not give him a code of values, if he’s evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he’s evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent.” – Francisco d’Anconia; Atlas Shrugged
Until a good education, exercising one’s intellect and speaking English are not seen as selling out, large segments of the black population will remain disadvantaged.
Comedienne Wanda Sykes appeared in a stand-up show recently titled, “I’m a be me.”
The title struck me in its simplicity – four English words and poor grammar that sent a powerful dual message that says a lot about where we are today: She’s going to be herself (something everyone in a land established to empower the individual can appreciate) but she also is proclaiming, I’m never going to be like a white person.
“I’m going to be me,” is far too boring, and oh-so white.
It’s no secret poor grammar among blacks has become not only acceptable, but a matter of pride and a component of their cultural identity. It’s something Bill Cosby has spoken against, making him a target of some blacks and white progressives.
For too many blacks, the same attitudes apply to education in general, as well as participating in the white man’s business world and economy.
Great effort is being made by many blacks to ensure they do not lose their “black identity.” In the process, they deny themselves access not just to the white man’s world, but also their own potentials.
It simply does not occur to nearly enough blacks that they are their own oppressors. Education, good grammar and minds that are more than just “street” smart do not require one to eat of the forbidden fruit, just a recognition that they are ways to realize one’s personal and human potential.
But how does one realize their personal potential and achieve success while maintaining their blackness? Unfortunately the options are few in the minds of too many blacks – we have professional athlete, rap star or successful playa/gangsta, all of which provide great rewards while maintaining 100 percent blackness.
But there are limited openings in the above fields, so as long as blacks cannot separate that human potential, though sought by whites is not exclusive to whites, most will continue to remain at a disadvantage.
It’s also worth noting that it isn’t just blacks holding themselves back, or white racism barring doors.
Hip white social justice progressives support Wanda 100 percent. A refusal to accept poor grammar would be insensitive and intolerant, after all.
“I’m a be me?”
“You go girl; you’re black, you’re successful. Keep showin’ the ‘man’ how it’s done, and keep setting an example for young blacks, sending the message that you don’t need an education or proper English to make it.”
White progressives celebrate cultural differences, and they’ll support and fiercely defend whatever blacks decide is the best way to differentiate themselves from whites, despite the consequences. And they’ll also lobby for the money from taxpayers to subsidize those consequences.
For the millions of blacks who struggle and cannot compete, who did not become famous comedians, basketball players or rap stars, there will be government checks with no expectations, courtesy of the liberal/socialist progressives with court-side season tickets, who never fail to vote and financially back the politicians who never fail to subsidize mediocrity and failure at taxpayer expense.
reply to Nick Adams: In the interest of common sense and appropriate, why do you identify “Lady Janeane Garofolo as “one of our preeminent social justice crusaders?” Garofolo is a comic and activist, and, until you said she was a “preeminent” crusader for social justice, I had no idea she was so important. In other words, in what does her preeminence lie?
In the interest of accuracy in the media, I need for you to name some names. You write: “Hip white social justice progressives support Wanda 100 percent.” So, as Seinfeld used to ask, “Who are these people?” When did, for example, Noam Chomsky weigh in on how much he likes Wanda Sykes’declaration? What about Bill Maher, Al Gore, David Souter, and Warren Beatty? [Full Disclosure: These names, along with that of Garafolo, appear on "The Top 1000 Liberals in America" at http://www.boycottliberalism.com/The-Top-1000-Liberals-in-America.htm ] Now what do the editors at “The American Prospect” think of all this? In other words, you made what appeared to be an empirical claim, but my question is can you back it up?
Garofalo is not preeminent?
I thought you had to be preeminent to guest on “Crossfire?”
Al Gore, Bill Maher, David Souter and Warren Beatty are your idea of “hip?”
As for Chomsky, I would be interested in what he thinks of the phrase, but probably grammatically correct as long as he knows what she means.
I thought it was appropriately sarcastic to call Garofolo ‘preeminent’ and ‘lady.’ Did someone take it seriously? Call her a comic if you will, but in fact she’s a preeminent fool.
Bettyhere asks the question; “Did someone take it seriously?” My question is; “Who takes these people seriously?” More importantly; what kind of feedback can these people possibly be getting that is so positive that they believe they should keep this kind of sophomoric nonsense up?
They cannot possibly believe this to be such a devastating series of comments as to actually win a policy debate. Maybe it’s just a case of comedians judging their success by how many persons they can shock with a comment: Because it certainly has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
No matter how vicious the commentary gets the T.E.A. Party affiliates know that they are really getting under someone’s skin when such commentary is employed against their cause. Progressives always stoop to personal attack whenever they cannot defend policy logically.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Len Richardson and SteveTaff, IC Politics. IC Politics said: The Race Card and the Tea Party: The agents of the Racial Industrial Complex are rightly being reminded by the Tea… http://bit.ly/9mXrvD [...]
[...] via The Race Card and the Tea Party « Intellectual Conservative Politics and Philosophy. [...]