In response to the GOP opposition to Ambassador Susan Rice potentially being nominated to be secretary of state, liberals are doing what is by now second nature for many of them: playing the race card. Never mind that the opposition is based on the fact that Ambassador Rice misled (knowingly or not) the nation about the lethal attacks on the Benghazi consulate. Never mind that Republicans who are critical of Ambassador Rice were supporters of Condoleezza Rice when she was nominated to be secretary of state and, before her, Colin Powell. Never mind the fact that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is admired by many Republicans and most conservatives — and has been treated maliciously by the left.
Those facts don’t fit the libel, so they’re ignored.
The Susan Rice episode is part of a deeper malady. During the presidential campaign liberals time and again accused Republicans of being racists and of using “dog whistles.” They wanted to put African Americans “back in chains,” in the words of Vice President Biden. If a Republican criticized President Obama on his retreat on welfare work requirements, it was motivated by racism. It reached such absurd levels that some liberal commentators like Chris Matthews and John Heilemann argued that referring to Chicago was evidence of racism. (Mr. Heilemann has recently graduated to making gay jokes about Republican senators. Classy.)
About this I wanted to say a couple of things, the first of which is that the left in general — and MSNBC and the Congressional Black Caucus in particular — have used the charge so recklessly and promiscuously that it’s been drained of virtually any meaning. That’s terribly unfortunate, since at some point when the accusation fits, it won’t be nearly as potent as it should be. But to hear someone in politics accused of racism these days is more likely to elicit from a reasonable person a roll of the eyes than anything else. For some liberals, every Republican is George Wallace or Bull Connor. (Both men, by the way, were Democrats.)
My second observation is that I’m more inclined than in the past to believe that the left actually believes the charge. That is, in past years I felt like reflexively accusing conservatives of racism was a political weapon — a charge the left knew was false but which they thought might be politically advantageous. I’m now more of the view that those on the left actually view conservatives and Republicans as animated by malign intentions. For them, the personal is political. It’s not enough to disagree with Republicans; they cannot help but demonize those who hold views different than their own. Politics pits the Children of Light against the Children of Darkness. It is all very adolescent and very Manichean, and it is all quite harmful to politics.
This mindset exists among some on the right, to be sure, and where it does it should be confronted. But as a general matter conservatives tend to ascribe less cosmic importance to politics than do progressives. In any event, the bile that emanates from many liberal quarters is getting worse, not better. It is a consuming rage. And over time, it disfigures the heart and soul of those who are imprisoned by it.
Lest we forget that Clyburn said this week or last week that every single word in the English language is "racist".
The only point I disagree with is that the left believes their charges, in my view they will say and do anything to win, In the campaign Romney was basically accused of taking a mans life, I don't believe for a second that the people that released that ad actually believed it was true.
adolescent? too generous. n nI would have more empathy if I had not personally experienced the virulent reverse racism from my fellow dems the past four years. n nOne would think the Congressional Black Caucus has watched the film "Remember the Titans", but then they would have to admit that racism is not endemic circa 2012.
Sadly, I think both sides view each other this way. Is there perhaps more of this from and on the left? Okay, let's grant that it weighs more heavily on that side. n nHowever, at this point neither side can claim, "But not me!" n nIt's interesting to note that universal education, diversity (the real kind not the faux type) and more easily accessible information et cetera were supposed to, in part, break down this type of Manichaean worldview. After all, if you're exposed to the other side, if you live with them and work with them and go to school with them, this type of absolutism was supposed to disappear. n nBut it's gotten worse, hasn't it?
John McCain and Lindsey Graham voted to confirm other African-American nominees such as Eric Holder … Condoleezza Rice …. and Colin Powell. Did they undergo some sort of 'racism conversion' now that they are questioning the qualifications of potential nominee Susan Rice? Of course not. Completely baseless allegations of racism carry the potential to diminish and minimize truly racist acts and should be denounced by people of all political stripes.
Mr Wehner, just ask your liberal friends: yes, they mean it, and they mean it with all their hearts. And this is the way they've felt about conservatives and Republicans since at least 1964 and the Goldwater nomination. n nThe irrefutable historical proof that the modern GOP has abandoned the heritage of Lincoln could be summarized as: 1) Goldwater's concession to segregation in 1964; 2) Nixon's Southern strategy; 3) Reagan's jokes about MLK being a communist; 4) GHW Bush's 1988 "Willie Horton" campaign; 5) George W Bush's decision to let black people people suffer after Katrina (see Senator Obama's remarks on the racism that underlay that decision). Finally, those who doubt the racism of the GOP need only watch their national conventions–almost as lily-white as a KKK meeting. n nMr Wehner may reject this evidence–as a conservative Republican, I do too. But liberals really mean this stuff, and have meant it for decades.