The Democrat plantation

12

December 19, 2012 by Julia

You all know by now how much I adore Runaway Slave.  If you don’t want to read the whole review, essentially, Tea Party favorite Rev. C.L. Bryant made a movie that is half biography of “runaway slave” black conservative folks and half an explanation of why the Democrat party is poison for the black community.  It is the most inspirational movie I have ever seen, and I cannot recommend enough that you buy it through iTunes or Amazon now or get the DVD when it comes out next month.

I bring up Runaway Slave because the New York Times published a shockingly racial (some say racist), condescending, and obnoxious op-ed from UPenn professor Adolph L. Reed, Jr. that proves Rev. Bryant 100% correct.  The sheer arrogance oozing out of this op-ed belies the concept of the Democrats as the party of tolerance.  Reed doesn’t even attempt to disguise his belief that black people belong to the Democrat party–and that any black person who leaves his or her owners’ plantation must be shamed and disowned by the black community.

But this “first black” rhetoric tends to interpret African-American political successes — including that of President Obama — as part of a morality play that dramatizes “how far we have come.” It obscures the fact that modern black Republicans have been more tokens than signs of progress.

The cheerleading over racial symbolism plays to the Republicans’ desperate need to woo (or at least appear to woo) minority voters, who favored Mr. Obama over Mitt Romney by huge margins. Mrs. Haley — a daughter of Sikh immigrants from Punjab, India — is the first female and first nonwhite governor of South Carolina, the home to white supremacists like John C. Calhoun, Preston S. Brooks, Ben Tillman and Strom Thurmond.

So let me get this straight.  The “how far we have come” narrative does not apply to minority Republicans, because they are all just “tokens,” trotted out to cover up the fact that Republicans hate minorities.  You know, for a group of people who supposedly hate minorities so much, we sure do support a lot of them for leadership positions.  I mean, really, if we hated these people, why in the world would we be happy that an Indian governor appointed a black Senator?  Unless . . . we’re just happy because she gave us another token on the game board?  I think maybe Reed is claiming to have psychic powers, if he can read our minds and determine that we are all lying.  (Hint: we’re not. We love Tim Scott because he is an authentic conservative with strong values.  His race is utterly irrelevant, and only the Democrats bring it up)

Mr. Scott’s background is also striking: raised by a poor single mother, he defeated, with Tea Party backing, two white men in a 2010 Republican primary: a son of Thurmond and a son of former Gov. Carroll A. Campbell Jr.But his politics, like those of the archconservative Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas, are utterly at odds with the preferences of most black Americans. Mr. Scott has been staunchly anti-tax, anti-union and anti-abortion.

Even if the Republicans managed to distance themselves from the thinly veiled racism of the Tea Party adherents who have moved the party rightward, they wouldn’t do much better among black voters than they do now.

Okay, now we’re really on a roll.  Compare the two lines I highlighted.  The Tea Party got Tim Scott elected . . . but kept their racism only thinly veiled the entire time.  Seriously. Imagine what kind of person that would be.  Someone who says, “You should vote for Tim Scott, that n-word!” maybe.  It makes absolutely no sense.  Also, note that Clarence Thomas and Tim Scott are somehow less black because they supposedly have different opinions than most black Americans.  I mean, I appreciate Reed’s apparent opinion that black people vote on the issues and not on skin color (which, frankly, seems a bit suspect from a factual standpoint), because no one should vote on skin color instead of substantive policy issues.  But somehow, I don’t think he is trying to compliment black people here–rather, he is criticizing Justice Thomas and Senator Scott for deviating from the Democrat-approved black opinions.

I suspect that appointments like Mr. Scott’s are directed less at blacks — whom they know they aren’t going to win in any significant numbers — than at whites who are inclined to vote Republican but don’t want to have to think of themselves, or be thought of by others, as racist.

Just as white Southern Democrats once used cynical manipulations — poll taxes, grandfather clauses, literacy tests — to get around the 15th Amendment, so modern-day Republicans have deployed blacks to undermine black interests, as when President Ronald Reagan named Samuel R. Pierce Jr. to weaken the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Clarence M. Pendleton to enfeeble the Commission on Civil Rights and Clarence Thomas to enervate the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The trope of the black conservative has retained a man-bites-dog newsworthiness that is long past its shelf life. Clichés about fallen barriers are increasingly meaningless; symbols don’t make for coherent policies. Republicans will not gain significant black support unless they take policy positions that advance black interests. No number of Tim Scotts — or other cynical tokens — will change that.

Here it is, the real thesis: the specific goal of the Republican party is to “undermine black interests,” while trying to cover it up with token minorities.  Seriously.  It’s all one big conspiracy, “thinly veiled” by Tim Scott and Herman Cain.

And the solution?  Republicans can’t prove they are not racist by supporting minority candidates, of course, because everyone knows they are just tokens.  Now, I doubt this professor would have the guts to call Lt. Col. Allen West a “token” to his face, but still, all tokens that we only pretend to support.  No, no, in order to win the black vote and prove that we aren’t huge racists, we must “take policy positions that advance black interests.”  What are those positions?  Well, not being “anti-tax, anti-union and anti-abortion,” to start, I guess.

What it boils down to is that anyone who does not toe the Democrat line on policy issues either isn’t authentically black (if outwardly black) or must be a racist (if white).  The indicator of blackness or tolerance is adherence to . . . what?  Keynesian economics?  Unlimited abortions on demand?  Disarming the public and leaving them at the mercy of armed criminals?  And if you disagree with those things?  Well, you aren’t black, and you’re probably a racist.

So shut up and let Obama drive us off the cliff, racist!

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “The Democrat plantation

  1. Ish says:

    There are currently 29 Republicans, 20 Democrats, and 1 Independent holding the office of governor in the states, and 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans serving as governors of United States territories and the mayor of Washington, D.C. (which is essentially a governor level post). That Independent is is Rhode Island’s Lincoln Chafee, who is a centrist Republican.

    So that’s 33 to 23 right versus left in the various governor’s mantions.

    Except for Deval Patrick (MA) and Vincent Gray (D.C.) every Democratic Governor is a WASP. Only two are women.

    The Republican governors include the first Sikh governor (Haley), three Asian/Pacific Islander Americans (Haley, Jindal, Fitial), three Hispanics (Martinez, Sandoval, and Fortuño). The GOP also has four women as governors.

    So the GOP has more religious diversity, more gender diversity, and more ethnic diversity in the governors offices of all those racist, ignorant, flyover states than the enlightened left-bastions of liberal land.

    On the Judical side of things, I’m going to just look at SCotUS rather than the entire federal bench, but, the Roberts Court is pretty unique in being the first time that the Justices have contained not one Protestant: everyone is Catholic or Jewish. The Court’s only black, Justice Thomas, is a reliable conservative appointee of George H. W. Bush; the Court’s sole Hispanic, is the relibaly liberal Justice Sotomayor an appointee by Obama. So we’re about even in the Court of 2012. Although, funny enough, historical speaking the GOP is way more diverse here too.

    Justice Sotomayor is NOT the first Hispanic on the Court, despite what la Raza claims; that would be the conservative Justice Benjamin Cardozo from 1932-83. Who was also Jewish. Because, clearly, the only people more racist and religiously bigotted than modern Republicans were the Republicans of herbet Hoover’s day… or, um, something. It was that sexist bastard Ronald Reagan who put the first woman on the Court.

    • Julia says:

      No, no, that doesn’t prove anything, Ish. Merely electing those people doesn’t make us non-racists, because it’s PERFECTLY POSSIBLE that we only elected those minorities and women as “tokens.” The sole factor in whether or not you are a big fat racist is whether you support Democrat policies relating to minorities and women.

      Gosh, it’s like you don’t take Professor Reed seriously. He teaches at an Ivy League school, you know, so he is our better. I wish he would have set forth a specific number or percentage of minorities before they are no longer tokens, though. I mean, we the GOP is ever 100% minority women, are we still racist and sexist if we don’t like the Democrats’ policies?

  2. Stuart the Viking says:

    The sad thing the large number of Democrats who really believe this tripe.

    They don’t just cover Republicans with their blanket statements of racism either. I believe in small government getting out of the way of people living their lives and out of the way of business trying to succeed (without attempting to pick winners and losers). I don’t believe the Republican party stands for these values any more (if it ever really did). None of this has anything to do with race. Yet, as soon as I open my mouth, I get accusations of racism.

    s

    • Ish says:

      A party is only as festive as the people that attend, a political party is only as effective as the people who show up. Libertarians would carry a lot more weight with the GOp if they’d show up.

      • Stuart the Viking says:

        That comment shows that you do not understand why so many of us have left the Republican party. The Republican party has paid nothing but lip service to Libertarian ideals, and has taken Libertarians for granted for far too long. There has been no indication that that will ever change. So, we left. Taking our votes with us. At least on election day, we can look ourselves in the mirror and know we didn’t compromise our ideals.

        For our trouble, we get to watch the Republican party lose an election against one of THE WORST incumbents to ever achieve re-election in the history of the United States. This is hard for many of us who were once proud Republicans. Then, instead of looking at WHY we left, we just get blamed for not toeing the line. In effect, this is what your comment said to me:

        “If you stupid little libertarians would just shut up and vote for us like you are supposed to.”

        Maybe not how you meant it, but until the Republican party understands why we would see it that way, I don’t see a whole lot of Libertarians rushing to the Republican banner.

        The funny thing is, I’m a pretty weak Libertarian compared to the many of the people that you run into at Libertarian meetings. I in no way speak for all Libertarians, and can only report how I (and a few others that I know and have spoken to on the subject) feel about things, but I suspect that many others feel the same way that we do.

        s

      • Ish says:

        See, I started out as a Libertarian in the first place, all the reasons you cite for leaving were reasons that I never wanted to join! But, then it hit me while watching Dick DeVos get the GOP nomination for Governor of Michigan: the policies, direction, and candidates of the party are determined by the people who show up.

        I am a self-described and pretty hardcore minarchist, which makes me basically a Libertarian who is a big enough nerd to have pursued political theory to a point where he knows what minarchist means. The shimmer and texture of my Wookiesuit’s pelt is a luxurious as any card carrying Libertarian Party member. But I’d rather see the GOP taken over by liberty-minded people, rather than watch them scatter and leave it to the social cons and crony capitalists by default.
        Oh, sure, I’m just one dude with a blog with like twenty regular readers and my attendance at county level meetings is spotty. But no one pebble makes an avalanche.

      • Stuart the Viking says:

        Sorry, I have given up the job of pebble (more like kicking-stone). Every lost election, we get blamed for not voting Republican, but no attempt is made to find out WHY. We are just berated for being bad Republicans and told to shut up and get back in line.

        I for one, and I believe a rather large number of people like me judging by the election results, have said “enough”. Unless forced to do so, I don’t believe that the Republican party will ever change. I don’t think that working from the inside will work. It’s like giving the milk away for free. Once they have your vote, they have no reason to change. Instead, we are withholding our votes. If the Republican party wants them, it can earn them, but it has to do more than occasionally pay lip service to our ideals and then go on and do whatever they want.

        Funny thing is, I have known a few Libertarians that came from the Democrat side (there is quite a few of them, in spite of the fact that the Republicans seem to think they own the Libertarians) that have the same opinion of the Democrat party. Maybe if the Democrats make some real changes and move towards a more Classical Liberal stance, pro small government, pro liberty (yea, I don’t see it happening) I might even end up voting Democrat. My Democrat/Libertarian friends swear that is where the heart of their (former) party is.

        s

    • Julia says:

      They can link the oddest things to racism. I was once called a racist by the head of the History department at my university because (I’m not kidding here) I said I did not like Degas’ paintings of women in the Caribbean because he portrayed their feet as so disproportional to their bodies, and that kind of thing annoys me in art. The reason? Black people who worked as slaves had big feet, so it was racist not to like the paintings. And then, like the good little liberal lapdogs they were, my classmates all agreed, one by one, as she went around the room and asked everyone what they thought. I counted it as a victory, of course, because it gave me a great story.

  3. lelnet says:

    Right. The guy I wanted to win the 2012 GOP primaries? Black. My favorite conservative political commentator? Black. (My second-favorite? Also black.) My favorite Supreme Court justice? Black. The person I most wish Bush had nominated for the Supreme Court? Black. (Also, female, in case anyone cares.) I don’t know much about Mr. Scott, but on the basis of what I _have_ read, I suspect I’m going to be a fan.

    But yeah, it must be all because I hate black people.

    • Julia says:

      Exactly. We only like these folks because we want cover so no knows we are REALLY huge racists. Nevermind that this makes NO SENSE AT ALL (if we are so racist, how can we stand to be around these minorities?), it fits the narrative, so there you go.

      (my husband is on notice that I may leave him for Thomas Sowell . . . but I’m racist, of course)

  4. […] He might not be well liked by the rest of the Democratic party (or, y’know, the rest of the human species) but that doesn’t change the facts. Phelps self-identifies as a Democrat, so The Cochrane Times was quite clearly in error when it said he was a right-winger, and The Gateway Pundit was correct to point out that error. Furthermore, the Westboro Baptist Church — being something of a cult of personality for Fred Phelps and mostly made up of his extended family — holds to his political beliefs and those beliefs — while waaay out on the fringe — are generally classified as “left-wing” by any first-year political science student: anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic, anti-American, racist, Statist, and Collectivist. (All of which were, at one time or another, planks of the official party platform of the DNC. But don’t tell the Blacks!) […]

  5. […] They don’t want to acknowledge the racist roots of gun control, the racist nature of the Democratic Party, and — above all — they want to keep Blacks in the present day on the plantation. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Ministry of Nerds

We're nerds . . . who talk politics.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

%d bloggers like this: