I have been struck in recent days by the constant use of epithets in American politics. To be clear, I am not referring to words like hypocrite or liar; those are constants on the political scene (and with good reason). No, I am talking more about things like the headline in the New York Daily News that reads "House of Turds" over a picture of John Boehner. I am talking about the constant description of Republicans as terrorists, hostage takers, extortionists, and other versions of criminals that has been coming from president Obama and his party for months now. There's much more, but there is no use in repeating it all.
I have also been struck by the one-sidedness of all of this. Imagine if you would what would happen were a prominent Republican to call Obama a murderer or a rapist (terms that have been thrown at Republicans just in the last week by prominent Democrats.) The "Racist" chorus would be screaming. Indeed, if anyone even calls Obama incompetent (something that is indisputable), there is a group that immediately pounces with charges of racism against whoever dared to criticize the president. Charges of racism have become, perhaps, the last defense against criticism of Obama's record. After all, the man has failed in his presidency. He has not gotten the economy to recover even to the levels of five years ago. He has not managed to win or even bring much success to the "good war" in Afghanistan, a singular promise from his 2008 campaign. He has not managed to end the risk to America from the too big to fail banks, a problem that led to much of the economic downturn. He has not restored transparency or ended partisanship like he promised. He has made a shambles of our foreign policy and greatly reduced respect for America around the globe. He has not been successful in stopping terror attacks here at home (after 9-11, Bush saw no attacks in seven and a half years while Obama has seen many in his four and a half years.) Even Obama's only "accomplishment," Obamacare, is teetering on the brink of failure with exchanges that do not work, sections that are illegally postponed and huge numbers of folks losing hours at work or even their jobs as a result. But since I wrote all that, in the eyes of many Democrat spokesmen, I must be a racist.
Just this morning, I saw an article by Joan Walsh of Salon in which she discusses what she calls fifty years of Republican racism. Think about that. Fifty years ago was 1963. George Wallace (Democrat) was "standing in the school house door" to prevent integration. Bull Connor (Democrat) was using fire hoses on civil rights marchers in Birmingham. The governors, sheriffs and other officials of Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Arkansas, and a host of other states (all Democrats) were fighting tooth and nail to prevent any possibility of equal rights for African Americans. In Washington, civil rights legislation was being blocked by a coalition of senators who were over 90% Democrats. Sure, there were Democrats who were in favor of the civil rights movement, but the fight for civil rights was actually more a civil war within the Democrat party. Republicans were overwhelmingly supportive of all of the civil rights legislation. In other words, the racism was all coming from Democrats, not Republicans. But for Joan Walsh, the truth does not matter. In her mind, Democrats own the right to call their opponents racist. The logic of the situation is that the head of the Democrat party is black, therefore all opponents must be racist. By that logic, since most Republicans are Christians, that would make all opponents anti-Christian. It is ridiculous.
I have also been struck by the one-sidedness of all of this. Imagine if you would what would happen were a prominent Republican to call Obama a murderer or a rapist (terms that have been thrown at Republicans just in the last week by prominent Democrats.) The "Racist" chorus would be screaming. Indeed, if anyone even calls Obama incompetent (something that is indisputable), there is a group that immediately pounces with charges of racism against whoever dared to criticize the president. Charges of racism have become, perhaps, the last defense against criticism of Obama's record. After all, the man has failed in his presidency. He has not gotten the economy to recover even to the levels of five years ago. He has not managed to win or even bring much success to the "good war" in Afghanistan, a singular promise from his 2008 campaign. He has not managed to end the risk to America from the too big to fail banks, a problem that led to much of the economic downturn. He has not restored transparency or ended partisanship like he promised. He has made a shambles of our foreign policy and greatly reduced respect for America around the globe. He has not been successful in stopping terror attacks here at home (after 9-11, Bush saw no attacks in seven and a half years while Obama has seen many in his four and a half years.) Even Obama's only "accomplishment," Obamacare, is teetering on the brink of failure with exchanges that do not work, sections that are illegally postponed and huge numbers of folks losing hours at work or even their jobs as a result. But since I wrote all that, in the eyes of many Democrat spokesmen, I must be a racist.
Just this morning, I saw an article by Joan Walsh of Salon in which she discusses what she calls fifty years of Republican racism. Think about that. Fifty years ago was 1963. George Wallace (Democrat) was "standing in the school house door" to prevent integration. Bull Connor (Democrat) was using fire hoses on civil rights marchers in Birmingham. The governors, sheriffs and other officials of Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Arkansas, and a host of other states (all Democrats) were fighting tooth and nail to prevent any possibility of equal rights for African Americans. In Washington, civil rights legislation was being blocked by a coalition of senators who were over 90% Democrats. Sure, there were Democrats who were in favor of the civil rights movement, but the fight for civil rights was actually more a civil war within the Democrat party. Republicans were overwhelmingly supportive of all of the civil rights legislation. In other words, the racism was all coming from Democrats, not Republicans. But for Joan Walsh, the truth does not matter. In her mind, Democrats own the right to call their opponents racist. The logic of the situation is that the head of the Democrat party is black, therefore all opponents must be racist. By that logic, since most Republicans are Christians, that would make all opponents anti-Christian. It is ridiculous.
No comments:
Post a Comment