Posted on 04/27/2010 4:43:04 AM PDT by SJackson
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.
Have you heard of Tom Baugh’s new book, “Starving the Monkeys?”
(The monkeys being the parasites who ride on the backs of the productive members of society.)
He advocates “going Galt” in place.
All I have to say is that people had better get it done in November...
I don’t wanna hear the whining and crying the next morning if we don’t sucessfully retake the majorities in both houses...
I hope to be proven wrong, but I don’t think people will turnout...
So what we’ll be left with is a more emboldened liberal-statist/socialist administration and those that support it...
I would prefer not to have to put up with that crap for the next couple of years...
Just anecdotal, to be sure. But I think you're right.
Seriously, where, ideologically, do the majority of ant-semites lie?
On the left.
Certainly not among Christians. But for some reason, the ethnic Jews see Christians and conservatives as the enemy.
Liberals require a boogeyman to scare people into siding with them. Whether it's secular (Global Warming), racial (Whitey's gonna git you!), or religious (the Jews are taking everything over!) ... the message remains more or less the same.
There’s another thing about conservative principles vs leftist maxims -
conservative principles indeed do “stand on their own”, and those espousing them derive no personal aggrandizement or moral superiority for holding those views. If you’re in favor of individualism and free markets, you’re just a person in favor of those principles.
However, if you favor wealth redistribution, “green” laws, saving the planet, etc,
you derive personal moral superiority and a sense of self esteem by favoring those policies.
When we argue the issues with the left,
we must keep in mind that they aren’t arguing on the merits of their position on the issue,
they’re DEFENDING THEIR OWN SENSE OF SELF.
‘Tis why I rarely argue with liberals. There is no arguing against religious dogma.
“Venturer wrote:
Ya know why most Tea Partiers are white? Because the working blacks who pay taxes havent figured out yet that they are going to get their taxes raised also. They are stil listening to the Obama lies that he wont raise their taxes. They will wake up when they see their pay checks shrivel.”
I have a black guy at work that makes real good money. He’s an Obama voter, through and through. He talks of “Revolution!”, how it’s time “whitey” is going to see how blacks were treated and that blacks are going to get socialism paid for by whites. This guy is only 35 years old. Well, he got his tax bill this year and owes thousands. His tax attorney told him he will need to pay quarterly estimated taxes of at least a few thousand each quarter this year to make up the additional taxes that are coming. He exploded exploding in his attorney’s office and ranted. His tax attorney, a black man, told this guy that he voted for the idiot so welcome to the “rich, white guy club.” That sent this guy into orbit and he hasn’t come down since. I sent his tax attorney a small cartered lunch to his office and a thank you card. It seems the tax attorney is anti-Obama as can be. I also poke the bear at work as often as possible by reading the racist idiot the latest news articles about more taxes and less tax breaks, etc. Plus, I like to show him the funny Obama cartoons.
The liberals know not to debate facts, so they go for the ever popular MTV crowd tactic of name calling and smear tactics. We are pissd and if it comes to use of force they are completely disarmed.
“It’s straight out of Alinsky: don’t debate the “enemy”, mock, delegitimize and destroy them.”
Worth people seeing again.
I heard a woman interviewing a black man at a tea party and she was asking him if he felt attacked at all. He said of course not, I have the same beliefs or I wouldn’t be here. She just couldn’t get the fact that a black man could agree with these people. I kinda felt sorry for her because you could tell he was making fun of her. :)
Great point! This is what drives me crazy about certain folks from the Tea Parties who run around in circles and tap dance for the MSM and left every time they throw out the 'racism' charge. The left/Marxist are basically saying just being white is evil. Not to mention the blatant hypocrisy and racial BS from many 'people of color' who are racial as hell i.e. the Hispanic and Black Caucus, LaRaza, NAACP et al. Just like that idiot from Boston that made reference to Tebow and being a NAZI.
Screw that and screw them. Time to get up off your knees.
That’s hilarious!!!!!!!!!!
I liked your story so much I read it three times. That is funny! I love it when people wake up to the real world consequences of their hair brained schemes.
However, if you favor wealth redistribution, “green” laws, saving the planet, etc,you derive personal moral superiority and a sense of self esteem by favoring those policies.
I'm not so sure about that. I think people who would steal other people's freedom and money to divide between themselves and their sycophants are scum who will most likely rot in hell. Human filth. Oxygen thieves. I most definitely find someone who supports freedom morally superior to one of those pod-persons.
Is your sense of self worth wrapped up in your ideological position? I would venture that it does not. Theirs does.
The people to which you refer are indeed of the "evil" type of leftist. I was referring to those who put them in power, the "sheeperals" that just want to feel good about themselves and consider themselves "good people".
Not to the extent theirs is but in a sense, yes. I believe in opportunity, freedom, and liberty. Living by that belief is one of the best things I can do for others. If I didn't believe in those things, I DO believe it would make me a bad person. I would in effect, be trying to take what belongs to another, which is an immoral act.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.