Sunday, May 2, 2010

Why Left Talks About 'White' Tea Parties

From Dennis Prager at RealClearPolitics:
Opponents of the popular expression of conservative opposition to big government, the tea party, regularly note that tea partiers are overwhelmingly white. This is intended to disqualify the tea parties from serious moral consideration.

But there are two other facts that are far more troubling:

The first is the observation itself. The fact that the Left believes that the preponderance of whites among tea partiers invalidates the tea party movement tells us much more about the Left than it does about the tea partiers.

It confirms that the Left really does see the world through the prism of race, gender and class rather than through the moral prism of right and wrong.

One of the more dangerous features of the Left has been its replacement of moral categories of right and wrong, and good and evil with three other categories: black and white (race), male and female (gender) and rich and poor (class).

Therefore the Left pays attention to the skin color -- and gender (not just "whites" but "white males") -- of the tea partiers rather than to their ideas.

One would hope that all people would assess ideas by their moral rightness or wrongness, not by the race, gender or class of those who hold them. But in the world of the Left, people are taught not to assess ideas but to identify the race, class and gender of those who espouse those ideas. This helps explain the widespread use of ad hominem attacks by the Left: Rather than argue against their opponents' ideas, the Left usually dismisses those making the argument disagreed with as "racist," "intolerant," "bigoted," "sexist," "homophobic" and/or "xenophobic."

You're against race-based affirmative action? No need to argue the issue because you're a racist. You're a tea partier against ever-expanding government? No need to argue the issue because you're a racist.

As a Leftist rule of thumb -- once again rendering intellectual debate unnecessary and impossible -- white is wrong or bad, and non-white is right and good; male is wrong and bad, and female is right and good; and the rich are wrong and bad, and the poor right and good. For the record, there is one additional division on the Left -- strong and weak -- to which the same rule applies: The strong are wrong and bad, and the weak are right and good. That is a major reason for Leftist support of the Palestinians (weak) against the Israelis (strong), for example.

This is why, to cite another example, men are dismissed when they oppose abortion. The idea is far less significant than the sex of the advocate. As for women who oppose abortion on demand, they are either not authentically female or simply traitors to their sex. Just as the Left depicts blacks who oppose race-based affirmative action as not authentic blacks or are traitors to their race.

In this morally inverted world, the virtual absence of blacks from tea party rallies cannot possibly reflect anything negative on the black and minority absence, only on the white tea partiers.

But in a more rational and morally clear world, where people judge ideas by their legitimacy rather than by the race of those who held them, people would be as likely to ask why blacks and ethnic minorities are virtually absent at tea parties just as they now ask why whites predominate. They would want to know if this racial imbalance said anything about black and minority views or necessarily reflected negatively on the whites attending those rallies.

And if they did ask such un-PC questions, they might draw rather different conclusions than the Left's. First, they would know that the near-absence of blacks and Hispanics no more implied racism on the part of tea partiers than the near-absence of blacks and Hispanics in the New York Philharmonic implies racism on the art of that orchestra.

Second, they might even, Heaven forbid, conclude that it does not reflect well on the political outlook of blacks and Hispanics that they so overwhelmingly identify with ever-larger government. Leftist big-government policies have been disastrous for black America just as they were in the countries that most Hispanics emigrated from. But like the gambling addict who keeps gambling the more he loses, those addicted to government entitlements keep increasing the size of the government even as their situation worsens.

Finally, if one eschews the "racism" explanation and asks real questions, one might also conclude that America generally, and conservatives specifically, have failed to communicate America's distinct values -- E Pluribus Unum, In God We Trust, and Liberty (which includes small government) -- to blacks and Hispanics.

Unfortunately, however, no real exploration of almost any important issue in American life is possible as long as the Left focuses on the race, gender and class of those who hold differing positions. And that will not happen. For when the Left stops attacking people and starts arguing positions, we will see what the Left most fears: blacks and Hispanics at tea parties.


  1. Interesting article.
    A little biased though. Where is the voice for the minority groups in this country outside of the Left? I haven't seen Sarah Palin giving any speeches in regards to the blatant racial gap in wages, and standard of living. In 20 years this country isn't going to be the country you grew up in, with white picket fences, and a job you can work for 40 years.

    The most glaring point for me, is the newly signed Arizona illegals law. In a country where we purport to have Liberty and Justice for All, it seems like we are pretty exclusionary in regards to what you look like, and where you come from. Where are your papers? This line conjures images of Gestapo thugs, not American law officers. Yet this is the state we are living in.

    How soon the right seems to forget that it was their ancestors who were standing at Ellis Island, wondering if this country will help them. Its not that being white, male, and rich makes you wrong or evil, it makes you American. What the right seems to forget is, being poor, black, brown, or female also makes you an American. Why the distinctions?

  2. Thanks for the comment, however I think you missed the point.

    It's not about what a person looks like or where they came from, it's about the LAW! The Feds refuse to enforce the immigration laws or secure the border, so Arizona passed their own law and now they are going to enforce it.

    As for the comment about people standing at Ellis Island - those folks did not come here looking for the government to help them, they came her to help themselves to the American Dream. And there is no need to wait another 20 years - the country NOW is not the one that I grew up in.

    I have no problem with immigration as long as we follow the immigration laws. My mother and grandparents came here from Germany in 1926, became naturalized citizens and became Americans! They followed the laws and were welcomed! But they also became assimilated - my grandparents spoke English in front of their kids and forbade the kids to speak German.

    If today's immigrants want to come here for a better life and STAY then I say Welcome! But follow the law to get here and follow the laws to STAY here!

  3. Hey anonymous, the "poor, black, brown, or female" that you mentioned have had more government help and programs thrown at them for the last 4 decades than you could possibly count. How's all of that government "help" working out for them? It is the Liberals that are fueling racism and discrimination, it feeds them! Convince them they need "help", throw them just enough crumbs to enslave them, all the while screaming that they are "less fortunate" and that others are "lucky" and need to pay their "fair share". Rinse, repeat.
    Wake up, Liberalsim is a cancer and the symptoms are becoming too difficult to mask. It WILL get ugly, just look at Greece, so just sit back and watch our future unfold before our very eyes a continent away. Except our situation will be much worse, so prepare yourself!

  4. Points taken on all sides. However, you still did not address my first question. Where is the voice for minorities outside of the Left?

    I also agree that it is not about what a person looks like, or where they come from but about the law. However, if you can explain to me how that Arizona illegals law can be enforced without profiling 1 person illegally, then I will eat my hat. Such a staunch proponent of unalienable rights and liberty should not be so swift to disavow those US citizens of Arizona who will be wrongly prosecuted and profiled.

    As for my other Anonymous detractor, why is it always the minorities that have been the drain on social services? I agree that proportionately they eat up more than their share of the pie, but lets not be naive to think that there are not plenty of welfare recipients who are white, under educated, and most probably lazy. I see them all the time in line at Wal-Mart.

    Who is worse, the minorities looking to a government who has promised to help them if they help themselves. Or the caucasian midwestern nascar fan, who has 40 years of his fathers entitlements?

  5. Anon,

    Why does the Left act as the "voice" of the minorities - ONLY TO GET VOTES! They pander to the minorities with policies that make folks dependent on them and the rest of us pay. That dependency in turn leads to a variety of societal dysfunctions that only get worse over time until another "crisis" must be addressed with more governmental control.

    The only voice that the minorities need is their own! Exercise MLK's dream "where a man will be judged by the CONTENT OF HIS CHARACTER not the color of his skin".

    And the same for the "caucasian midwestern nascar fan". On this we agree. Our "entitlement" mentality of the past generation has created the problems that we see today, across all racial groups. My opinion is that government's efforts to make things "fair" for everyone has only exacerbated these problems. Parents, schools and institutions need to go back to enforcing discipline, accountability for one's actions and teaching ethics before we begin to see a change for the better.