Category Archives: Liberalism

Conservatives vs Liberals on Race

     There has been an interesting discussion at World Magazine Blog on the song “Barack the Magic Negro.”  I can’t believe how stupid people can be.  The song is a parody of a column written by a liberal black man.  Nevertheless, people have said that the satirical song is racist.  Never mind that it was the liberal black man, David Ehrenstein, who called Barack Obama a “Magic Negro.”

     (It reminds me of the man who was offended by the word niggardly and the man who was offended by the phrase black hole.  I think somebody could write a song that said, “Don’t call people N—-r, because it’s not a nice name,” and people would object to it as racist because it contained the N-word.)

     It was a year-and-a-half before the election when Ehrenstein published the original column in the Los Angeles Times.  Hillary Clinton was considered a shoo-in.  I think that Al Sharpton might still have been in the running, and it is an imitation of his voice that is used in the song.  Politically speaking, Barack Obama was his (and Jesse Jackson’s) worst nightmare.  At that time it was acceptable for certain African Americans to question Obama’s blackness, but once he had locked up the nomination he became the icon that epitomized all the longings and hopes that African Americans had held for centuries.  Odd, no?

     I think that the reaction to the song reveals a lot of things that are mostly under the surface of our country’s psyche.  For liberals, life is encapsulated in words and symbols.  Because the song had the word “negro” in it, it was taken immediately as racist.  Never mind that the word is still part of the name of the United Negro College Fund.  Forget the fact that it was a black liberal who called Obama that.  Although it was okay to question Obama’s blackness in 2007 (after all he was raised by an Indonesian stepfather and a white American mother), he eventually became the ultimate and perfect symbol of African American culture, much to the chagrin of Jesse Jackson.  (I’m sure you remember that Jackson wanted to castrate Obama, and then he cried during his acceptance speech.  Words and symbols, words and symbols).

     In the meantime, conservatives were asking about each of the nominees, Clinton and Obama included:  Is this person qualified?  Are his stated positions good for our country?  Does his or her voting record show consistency and good judgment?  They were discounting race and sex as reasons for voting for a candidate.  They were making fun of people who either portrayed Obama as “The Magic Negro” or as a black secular Messiah.  Nobody–white, black, Asian, or Latino–should be portrayed in such absolute or burdensome terms.

     So who are the real racists?  In a column on this same topic, Larry Elder points out that the Democratic Party was the party of anti-black bigots while the Republican Party was supporting civil rights and desegregation.  He points out that the Republican Party platform would help black people, especially school choice and privatized retirement funds. 

     I would also like to point out that African Americans mostly oppose abortion and same-sex marriage, yet the Democratic Party is strongly in favor of those things.  Although they want law enforcement done in a just manner, they want their neighborhoods freed of drugs and violence.

     Why then do African Americans remain loyal to the Democratic Party?  Despite all evidence to the contrary, I think many of them are convinced that Republicans are mostly white bigots.  As Larry Elder points out, they have been fed that line over and over.  It’s no wonder that many people would believe it.  I agree with Elder that Republicans need to be more proactive in showing how their platform is more in line with their core values and more beneficial to them in the long run.  

     So who are the real racists?  Is it the black man who called Barack Obama a “Magic Negro” and said that white people would vote for him only out of guilt and only because he was perceived as “safe”?  Or is it the white people who can boldly ridicule that nonsense because they truly judge people on their merits and not on their skin color?

The Liberal Dictionary

I have in my possession (just kidding) the Liberal to English DIctionary.  You won’t understand what liberals mean when they talk or write unless you know the right definitions.  Here they are–what liberals say and what they really mean when they say it.

  • C
  • captialism:  semi-socialistic economic system
  • compassion:  seizing private wealth and giving it to other people (not to be confused with actually caring about people and doing what is best for them)
  • compromise:  acceptance of liberal views
  • choice:  pulling a baby from the womb by the legs, stabbing it in the head, and then removing it completely; not considered a hate crime or a regular crime
  • D
  • diversity:  sameness; making sure everyone on a faculty or student body agrees with liberal views
  • E
  • environmental activism:  (1) flying in gas-guzzling jets to conferences and rallies or (2) making a movie
  • equal opportunity:  sticking people in a housing project and issuing them a free food card
  • F
  • fairness:  giving certain people special privileges based on their skin color and sexual preference
  • far right:  the political wing encompassing moderates and mild conservatives
  • fascism:  another name for the policies of our current President
  • freedom of speech:  the right to promote liberal ideas
  • free market:  regulated market
  • G
  • greed:  wanting to earn some money
  • H
  • hate:  a statement liberals disagree with
  • hate crime:  when a white person commits a crime against a black person
  • I
  • intolerance:  a statment liberals disagree with (see hate)
  • L
  • liberal:  [no definition given; see moderate and progressive]
  • M
  • managed competition:  government takeovers
  • moderate:  a liberal
  • multiculturalism:  uniculturalism; the belief that everyone should speak Spanish
  • N
  • nuclear installation:  something that Middle Eastern dictatorships should have but the United States should not; something that Middle Eastern dicatorships would never use to make weapons
  • O
  • occupation force:  an American military presence (see peace-keeping force)
  • P
  • pacifism:  the idea that its better to let brutal dictators opress and kill people than to try to stop them; the idea that if we do nothing, everyone will just get along
  • peace-keeping force:  a non-American military presence
  • progressive:  a liberal
  • R
  • regular crime:  when a black person commits a crime against another black person or a white person, unless the victim is a homosexual (in which case, it might be classed a hate crime)
  • right-wing extremist:  a moderate or mild conservative (see far right)
  • right-wing propaganda:  facts
  • S
  • socialism:  [no definition; liberals deny its existence (see capitalism and free market]
  • T
  • taxing the rich:  taxing everybody who earns money
  • tax rebate:  sending people money that they never paid to begin with
  • terrorist:  [no definition; liberals deny that there are any, except maybe Osama bin Laden until he is captured, at which point he probably will not be one anymore]
  • tolerance:  trying to stop people from saying things I disagree with
  • truth:  a liberal notion
  • U
  • unilateral:  a decision that does not include France or Russia

Tell Me It’s Not Socialism

     So are we now living in North Korea or Venezuela or some African dictatorship?  I read in horror that the national government is going to “rescue” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Some have used the word takeover, even.

     When a government controls some of the biggest investment and lending organizations in the country, what is that but socialism?  Call it progressive if you want, or call it liberal, but it is practically the definition of socialism.

     At least this article makes it clear that taxpayers are really the ones who are providing the money to bail out these mismanaged companies.  Honest, decent working people who did not choose to provide risky loans to people who could not pay them back will be  forced to pay for those mistakes.  It is a clear case of redistribution of capital and of the socialist principle that we all share equally in each other’s success or failure.  No thanks.

     Our controlled economy has not worked very well.  From the time of our Founding, America has prospered and grown economically.  But as it has done so, those in high office have gotten greedy.  In the name of “helping” people they have gradually increased taxes, created a gargantuan bureaucracy, and stifled economic growth and the formation of new businesses.  Couldn’t we at least try a free market system?

     If you look at the potential for growth that our country has had since the beginning, can you even imagine where we would be today if the government had let the economy grow unhindered?  It’s too bad that it is an unrealized dream.

Are You a Liberal?

John Hawkins has written a humorous editorial in the manner of Jeff Foxworthy.  Here are some of my favorite signs from Hawkins that you might be a liberal:

  • You’re sure the Constitution explicitly guarantees the right to abortion and gay marriage, but not the right to own a handgun.  [HINT:  It's the other way around.  It's called the Second Amendment.]
  • You know that 86% of all income taxes are paid by the top 25% of income earners and you still feel that the rich “aren’t paying their fair share of the taxes.”
  • You think it’s obscene that oil companies are allowed to make 8.3 cents per gallon in profit with gas prices this high, but would never suggest cutting the 13 cents per gallon they pay on taxes to reduce the price of gas.   [HINT:  13 is greater than 8.3.]
  •  You think the case for global warming is proven without a shadow of a doubt, but that we need another century or two worth of evidence to figure out if capitalism and free markets work better than socialism. 
  • You believe the best way to fix the government screwing something up in the market is with…drumroll, please…more government intervention.  [HINT:  You don't make things better by doing the same thing that make them bad in the first place.  You go the other direction.]

     So do you think you are one. . .a liberal, that is?

Moderation in All Things?

     Moderation has long been thought a positive approach to many things in life, but it is only good in certain aspects of life.  I think that we all agree that moderation should not be practiced in literally all things.

     When it comes to outward behavior that is not, in and of itself, immoral, moderation is usually the best policy.  We have to eat to live, but the Bible classifies gluttony as a sin.  I don’t find a total prohibition of drinking alcohol in the Bible, but there is a prohibition against getting drunk. 

     When it comes to moral or immoral behavior, however, moderation is a bad thing.  One should not steal moderately or murder moderately; one should simply not do either of those things at all.  One should not love one’s family moderately or respect the rights of other people moderately; one should do those things as freely and fully as possible.

     People claim that you can be moderate on the question of abortion.  Some of them say that they want to reduce the number of abortions while still allowing women the supposed right to choose.  That’s a strange position.  Why should you want to reduce the number of abortions, unless you realize that abortion is bad?  And if you realize that abortion is bad, then why don’t you want to eliminate the practice altogether?

     In what other arena do we say that something is wrong but should still be legal?  Do you hear anyone saying that we should reduce the number of murders or thefts but still allow people the right to choose to murder or to steal?  Do you hear people saying that they are “personally against” rape or fraud but support the rights of people to commit those acts if they so choose?

     If you want a moderate position on abortion, consider the approach that most conservatives take.  They are willing to exempt rape and incest victims, if it would mean that abortions for convenience would be banned.  Some are willing to accept, temporarily at least, abortions in the first trimester, if it would mean that partial-birth abortion and other late-term abortions would be banned.  Over and over, conservatives have been willing to accept a reduction in the number of abortions, but liberals insist on allowing women to choose to abort their babies for any reason at any time in their pregnancy.  If you challenge that assertion, tell me what legislation Democrats, as a group, have favored that would actually reduce the number of abortions, as many of them have said they want to do?

     Is the “liberal” position on abortion a moderate approach?  No, it is an extreme approach–and an extremely wrong one.

     Nobody has the right to do what is wrong.

Race and Gender in Politics

     I would like to believe that we have gotten beyond race and gender in our political discourse and our political activities.  I have watched the Democratic nomination process with a lot of amusement.  What is a liberal party to do when its two main choices are a white woman and a black man?  If they support the black man, then they must be sexist.  If they support the white woman, then they must be racist.  At least that’s what they say about Republicans whenever they support a white man–that they are both racist and sexist.

     They really need a black female candidate.  And it would be all the better if she were an acknowledged lesbian.

     Why can’t we just seek the best possible person to be President of the United States?  For me that person is Alan Keyes, a black man.  Some people have tried to draft Condoleeza Rice, a black woman.  I think she would make a fantastic President, although I’m not sure her I would like her platform completely.  What’s significant about my saying that I would support these two people as President, is that I am a very staunch Conservative (or Libertarian, according to “The Shortest Political Quiz in the World.”  I’m one of those white guys who supposedly would never vote for either a black person or a woman.  Yet, here I am saying in all sincerity that our black, female, unmarried Secretary of State would make a terrific president.

     But so would Fred Thompson, and he’s as white as white could be, and he’s also all man, as his romantic history shows.  Does the fact that I would support Mr. Thompson as President mean that I’m racist and sexist?  No, particulary in light of what I wrote above.

     So why are Obama backers accusing Clinton supporters of being racist?  And why are Clinton backers accusing Obama supporters of being sexist?  And where’s the unity and tolerance in that?

For further reading:

Race, Gender Permeate Presidential Race” by Bonnie Erbe

Obama, Clinton, Misogyny, Racism” by Doug Feaver

Women Supporters Blame Clinton’s Imminent Defeat on Sexism” by Tim Harper

In ’08, Place, As Well As Race, Is a Divide” by Chuck Raasch

Hold on to Reagan

     Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels thinks that we should let Ronald Reagan go.  Rebecca Hagelin disagrees in a recent editorial.  So do I.

     Why should we let go of one of the greatest Presidents we’ve ever had?  Why should we let go of ideas that we need now more than ever?  John McCain would do well to emulate Reagan.  We would all do well to hold on to our memories of him and seek leaders like him.

Mrs. Clinton and Me

     What do you think?

  • Do you think that Mrs. Clinton has ever had to scrounge for coins in order to buy enough gasoline to get to work?  I have.
  • Do you think that she has ever wondered if she would get to eat the next several days?  I have.
  • Do you think that she has ever sold her blood plasma to get a bit of money for food?  I have.
  • Do you think that she has ever found an envelope of money slipped anonymously under her door by a person who felt sorry for her?  I have.
  • Do you think that she has ever been contacted by bill collectors because she could not make a payment on a hospital bill for several months in a row?  I have.
  • Do you think that she has ever felt the shame of receiving a government “benefit” that she did not even claim or request?  I have.

     I don’t think Mrs. Clinton has any idea what it is like to be poor. I don’t think she can identify with me or even understand what I have gone through in my life.  As I said in my piece two posts below this one, I don’t envy her or resent her.  I just wish that she and her fellow Democrats were more sincere.  It really irks me to have them say to my face that they empathize with me.

     Also, I wish that they would respect my freedom.  Let me, and other lower- and middle-class people, overcome our economic difficulties through our own ingenuity and effort.  Let us be proud of our own accomplishments instead of humiliated by living off other people’s labor.  Just give us economic opportunities, and then leave us alone.  Don’t try to “help” us by first killing the economy and then giving us handouts when we lose our jobs or can’t afford the high cost of living.

     Therefore, I wish that they would stop supporting platforms and policies that stifle economic growth.   Economic opportunities are created in a booming economy that is unhampered by overregulation and overtaxation.  During my poorest days, it would have helped for me to have higher wages and lower prices, and that doesn’t come about by taxing employers to death or regulating them practically out of business.

     I wrote this post because I probably come off as a “privileged white dude who has no business attacking the Clinton’s for their economic status.”  The truth is, I think I have every business doing so–and the moral grounds for it, too.  I have really been poor; I have the right to say who speaks for me and who doesn’t.  And Bill and Hillary Clinton do not.

Sowell on Obama and Wright

     I’m only a little surprised that people are still writing and talking about the controversy surrounding Barack Obama’s longtime pastor and mentor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.  I am glad that they are, because it seems that many people want us just to brush it aside and move on to other topics, as if it is inconsequential and irrelevant.

     Thomas Sowell has posted an interesting editorial on the topic at Townhall, entitled “The Audacity of Rhetoric.”

     Sowell points out that Obama himself has written that he surrounded himself in college with people on the far left.  In other words, his choice of a Black Liberation pastor was probably not just an incidental or accidental occurrence in his life but a conscious choice in keeping with his own ideology.  Obama, Sowell states, has consistently voted as a liberal in the Senate, farther left than any other senator.  To say now that he has always been interested in reaching across the aisle and forming a consensus is just plain dishonest.

     In the conclusion of his editorial Sowell leaves the political and gets down to the practical.  People in the black community will continue to be influenced by the Jeremiah Wrights out there.  Sowell asks a crucial question:

Why should young blacks be expected to work to meet educational standards, or even behavioral standards, if they believe the message that all their problems are caused by whites, that the deck is stacked against them? That is ultimately a message of hopelessness, however much audacity it may have.

Was Ann Coulter Joking?

Apparently Ann Coulter wasn’t joking when she said that she would vote for Hillary Clinton instead of John McCain. 

Have you looked at John McCain’s record? 

Are you willing to vote for him simply because he has an R after his name?