Derrick Bell was one of the first legal scholars to talk about race in America. The median net worth of white households in the United States is 20 times that of black households. Black students in our nation’s public schools are three and a half times more likely to be suspended or expelled than their white peers. Black rates of unemployment have been consistently double the rates of white unemployment since 1972 when the government first started tracking such data. Professor Bell argued that such statistics were not the result of inherent inferiority of African Americans but the persistence of “structural racism” — that the legacy of slavery and racial discrimination on which our nation was built has, intentionally or unintentionally, left indelible marks so that the rhetorical “level playing field” has never truly existed. His beliefs were not anti-American, as conservative critics have alleged, but rather fiercely patriotic, wanting to extend the promise of America to all.
First, note how Kohn polarizes the debate into two sides. Through the creation of fake conflicts, community organizers can galvanize moderates and gullible “liberals” to support things they otherwise would not. That’s why the issue of race is exploited like this — just to rally people to fuel their Marxist economic goals. Hence why Obamacare took such high priority in the first term.
Kohn and other Alinskyites know how to set the rules of engagement in their favor. Only two possibilities: these shocking statistics come from blacks’ genetic inferiority or continued white racism. Never mind the third option, that these statistics mean nothing and that there are books filled with cultural studies and economic statistics refuting this pseudo-intellectual sophistry and demonstrating black people as more than capable of succeeding without condescending whites alleviating their guilt through increased government handouts.
Second, observe the attempt to wrap Marxism in a patriotic cloak, and the use of a generality like “the promise of America to all.” Alinskyites do this regularly whenever questions of their political ideology arise. Recall when Media Matters blogger Oliver Willis asked Obama if he considered himself a progressive and the former Alinskyite teacher managed to claim Abraham Lincoln as a progressive:
Questioner: Mr. President, you’re often pressured from both the left and right on one issue or another, and then even within the Democratic Party you get pressured from the more conservative, more progressive side of the party. So I’m curious, you sort of govern as a — sort of as a pragmatist, and I’m wondering if you view yourself as a progressive.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I mean, the problem with labels is everybody thinks they mean different things. So I would define myself as a strong progressive in the sense that I believe in that essential American Dream that everybody gets a chance to make it if they’re willing to work hard, that government has a role to play in ensuring opportunity by making sure kids get a decent education and can afford to go to college; that workers are able to train and retrain for the jobs of the future; that we’re building strong infrastructure; that we are using our diplomacy alongside our military to protect our national security; that we believe in the Bill of Rights and we actually act on it, even when it’s inconvenient; that we are promoting the equal treatment of citizens under the law.
Those core beliefs that America prospers not just when a few people do well but when everybody has the chance to do well, when we’ve got a growing middle class, where we — people are able to live out their dreams without the barriers of race or gender or sexual orientation, those are things I deeply believe in. In that sense, though, I think Abraham Lincoln was a progressive.
He was a Republican. He was the first Republican President. And that just gives you a sense of how these categories change so much.
It used to be that the values I just described had a home in the Republican Party as well as the Democratic Party. I think it’s only been in recent years that you can’t find that articulation of some of these values in the Republican Party, and that in fact if you champion them that you’re considered some wild-eyed radical. That’s a shift, and not a good shift, in terms of our public debate.
Read Matthew Vadum’s Subversion, Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers for more on Alinskyite tactics in action.
Kohn’s reliance on these rhetorical weapons comes as no surprise. Visit her personal site and see how she describes herself in her page’s banner:
“Pragmatic radical” sounds familiar, doesn’t it?