Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Stung by the word "white"

To observe that blacks are voting in mass for a black man, only because he is black, is considered acceptable conduct and even praiseworthy. Yet, to bring up the reality of race, when it's clear that many whites prefer to vote for white candidates, is a sign of "racism" and unmitigated bigotry. How could anything except outright racial bias account for Barack Obama getting 91% to 98% of the vote of a single ethnic bloc?

How have so many whites allowed themselves to be supportive of double standards that mock them, and represent nothing more than a strategy on the part of those who are determined to usurp power from those already in power? On the liberal Ed Schultz's radio show, a male caller, identifying himself as white and an "employee of the Pentagon," claimed that he supports Barack Obama for President. You could hear in his voice his pride in declaring Hillary Clinton wrong for her comments about the preferences of particular white voters for a white candidate. By golly, he isn't that kind of white bigot!

Similarly, a white woman caller to Bill O'Reilly's radio show expressed her indignation over Hillary Clinton's reference to whites. The very word "white," the caller confessed, "stung" her. In typical fashion, she seemed eager to show her intolerance of any sign of bigotry against minorities. As a good, card-carrying non-racist, she probably has no problem with speculations on the voting patterns of blacks or other colored ethnic groups. I suspect had Hillary used "white" in a pejorative manner, that is, to bash whites as a group, this good, white lady would have joined in the bashing.

These callers are typical of whites who are so happy to publicly remove themselves from the taint or even suspicion of bias for their own kind, while asserting their acceptance and even devotion to the coloreds. How, in one breath, can anyone declare how wonderful it would be to elect the "First!" BLACK President, yet in another breath proclaim as racists those who wish for a white President? Once race has been made the focus of intention by any side, it has to be accepted as a major factor on both sides. If you can say, I prefer black, why can't you say, I prefer white?

Political analyst Paul Begala is right in his observation that his Democratic party cannot win the presidency "with just eggheads and African-Americans." However, in this uniquely American race circus, such indisputably true insights are forbidden. In this country, in every election, demographics are scrutinized, with emphasis often being placed on the importance of the "ethnic" vote. Politicians brazenly fall all over one another to reach out to blacks and Hispanics for support. To reach out in a similar way for white support, however, is to engage in the evil "southern strategy," for which Ronald Reagan has never been forgiven.

[It cannot be lost on anyone that it is Begala's party, with its emphasis on racial-multicultural politics, that is now causing grief for the left. Watching liberals eat their own is becoming common these days. For me, the first demonstration of this phenomenon has been occurring over the last half-dozen years on the leftwing Pacifica Network's New York radio station WBAI, where a cabal of blacks has usurped the reins of power from the white rad-libs – the very people who opened the doors to them in the first place. But that ongoing saga is for another post.]


Anonymous said...

you have obviously forgotten that, in the beginning of the race, the black vote was split with hillary having a majority. it was only after bill and hill injected race into the campaign that blacks were rightly offended and left her, en masse.

Dr. Ronald Thomas said...

Tremendous post, as usual. I often find that I cannot add anything to the posts, they are so trenchant and sensible. Instead, I simply wish that a set of circumstances prevailed that made these views mainstream and active. It would be a far better world.

Conversely, what does the race lunacy that we encounter today do? It simply takes one's breath away, that's what! I think many people are struck dumb in utter disbelief, say, with the phenomenon of an Obama. This is no excuse, of course, for refraining from saying something, but I think this is not an uncommon reaction.

In short, keep 'em coming.

Francis W. Porretto said...

It's difficult to separate out a prior influence: the long-time affinity of black Americans for the Democratic Party. I have no strong explanation for that affinity, but since it predates the existing campaign, it probably has a large place in the voting decisions of black Americans, such that the percentages would not change overly much if Senator Obama were white.

On the other hand, if Senator Obama were white and Senator McCain were black, we'd have a more searching test of all our convictions and hypotheses!

Col. B. Bunny said...

Excellent point on the sacramental nature of "reaching out" to blacks and Hispanics as opposed to the appeal to whites to vote their interests, racial or otherwise, which is diabolic.

I copied a ribbon graphic from a black blog site that read "Proud Black Voter." Let us not even contemplate the agony and horror that would be felt and expressed were I to post a graphic that read "Proud White Voter."

According to Wikipedia, the Southern Strategy is ascribed to Nixon the Terrible, but actually predates him.