I have long held that intra-racial, rather than interracial, divisions are the biggest barrier to blacks and whites getting along in America. More direct evidence supporting my contention was provided this weekend by the words of ashen-hued commentator Nora Ephron in a column she wrote for the Huffington Post.
It was creatively titled “White Men” and highlights the ways in which a major subsection of Caucasians remains devoted to libeling their racial conspecifics whenever possible. Mrs. Ephron, a lifelong feminist and author of romantic comedies, has recently embarked on a new career as an oracle of politics.
Reporting from Delphi she shared insight concerning the likely outcome of the Pennsylvania Democratic primary. Well, not actually the outcome, but the factors that would figure into it.
Unburdened by justification and relying wholly on confessional declaration, she observed, “It’s suddenly horribly absolutely crystal-clear that this is an election about gender and race” because “this is an election about whether the people of Pennsylvania hate blacks more than they hate women. And when I say people, I don’t mean people, I mean white men.”
Let us stop at this juncture because already there is much to refute. First, note the line “I don’t mean people.” No, certainly she does not. She seeks to impugn males alone. Are men fully human? Well, that depends on what feminist you talk to. To some, males have the same relationship with humanity that viruses do with living organisms: they aren’t really sure where we fit in or if we do at all.
Second, now that the ballots have been counted, nothing is “crystal-clear” about “gender and race” having determined the winner. As a white male my views on genitalia and skin color are an afterthought — really, a non-thought — in regards to politics. When evaluating a representative’s stance on contentious issues, their secondary personal characteristics are an irrelevancy.
Third, why does hate have to play a part? If its presence were so obvious then why did no evidence for it exist? A candidate’s unpopularity is generally a result of his or her own inadequacy rather than a product of the electorate’s dysfunctionality.
Post-defeat, isn’t politician A or B being an unworthy leader a more viable hypothesis? Phantom racism, sexism, or any other ism should never be one’s default when assessing underperformance. The null hypothesis here is that Senators Clinton and Obama lack those characteristics that make them worthy of leading the nation — at least in the minds of those voters who rejected them.
To those of us on the right, there is a plethora of reasons for spurning them, and the identity of their ancestors or ability to breastfeed is not among them. Most compelling is that they are both statists who inhabit the far leftward terrain of the political spectrum.
Indeed, their ideas for change consist in expropriating more earnings from American workers in the hopes of further bloating the size of the Leviathan. Certainly, the frontrunners do acknowledge our economic problems, and Obama even observed that we are “sliding into recession.” Yet the solutions they proffer will turn our financial sickness into a terminal condition, and morph recession into depression.
At present, we are debilitated by a nine-trillion-dollar national debt along with an oppressive annual federal budget priced at three trillion, so this is not the time to experiment with new entitlements, expand social programs, and overhaul our health care system.
Yet such mandates are what these public sector evangelists will pursue if elected president. Four to eight more years in which nothing is done about Social Security and Medicare will be a debacle, as the two ventures are on the verge of breaking us.
Most importantly, obsessing over genitalia and skin pigmentation is the characteristic of extremely shallow people. Indeed, this writer would be only too happy to vote for a pygmy mouse lemur should the creature display a devotion to cutting the size of the Federocracy, have solid advisors, and acknowledge that the government’s girth jeopardizes our future.
Mrs. Ephron goes on to lament that white males will be the kingmakers in our upcoming election and from there quickly descends into the absurd:
A lot of them will [vote for John McCain]: white men cannot be relied on, as all of us know who have spent a lifetime dating them. And McCain is a compelling candidate, particularly because of the Torture Thing. As for the Democratic hope that McCain’s temper will be a problem, don’t bet on it. A lot of white men have terrible tempers, and what’s more, they think it’s normal.
While conservatives regard the existence of human nature as being a foregone conclusion, again we find that the left thinks otherwise. Mrs. Ephron is no different from her colleagues in this respect.
She believes that certain subsets of the population are innately good while others are innately bad. Apparently, apart from light-skinned males, the rest of the population is reliable — which clashes resoundingly with our collective experience.
And what of Senator McCain? Indisputably, he has led a life few have the courage to emulate, but Mrs. Ephron reduces his accomplishments to the “Torture Thing.” Yes, withstanding torture at the hands of his North Vietnamese captors showcases fortitude and honor, yet his rejection of early release renders him quite extraordinary. It places him on a plane above practically every other citizen.
And while I cannot comment on whether he has a “terrible temper,” I do know that anger is not race- or sex-specific, as Mrs. Ephron’s rant demonstrates.
Mrs. Ephron further alleges that whoever wins the next two primaries will be the one who overcomes “the bias of a vast chunk of the population that has never in its history had to vote for anyone but a candidate who could have been their father or their brother or their son, and who has never had to think of the president of the United States as anyone other than someone they might have been had circumstances been just slightly different.”
This is preposterous. That Al Gore is old enough and white enough to be my dad has nothing to do with my feelings towards him. In fact, I vastly prefer Hillary [seriously] over that Powerpoint icon of global warming hysteria. The same is true in regards to Jimmy Carter, for whom I would no more pull a lever than Britney Spears. Moreover, I regard Mr. Gore and Mr. Carter as being far more different from me than Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams — either of whom I would support at the polls over nearly every other white man alive. Her assertion that Hillary’s hope is to “attract more racist white male voters than Obama” is profane, and an allegation devoid of substantiation.
To Mrs. Ephron and her ilk, quips alone are enough to prove racism and sexism. If the public does not like your candidate, then they must be bigots. The likelihood of leaders being unattractive as a result of their positions and associations is deemed the most convoluted explanation, and one which must be condemned as a leap of logic. Contrarily, when leftist candidates are dismissed, the most plausible conclusion is that they have been victimized by undetectable spite and hatred. It is an Oliver Stone version of Occam’s Razor.
In my opinion, Mrs. Ephron’s ruminations concerning the election are merely an excuse by which she can pursue her greater goal of expressing antipathy towards half of the Caucasian population. No one will shun her as a result because hate is never hate when showered upon white males.
Mrs. Ephron has projected her own obsession with cursory attributes onto the psyches of those men living in the Keystone State. Personally, as a fellow Midwesterner, I can honestly say that I have encountered few guys as supercilious and one-dimensional in their analysis of human motivation as Mrs. Ephron.
This article is leagues from being legitimate political discussion. Foisting pathological personality characteristics upon innocents is not the change we’ve been waiting for. Just as with the majority of Americans, racist and sexist beliefs are quite rare among the white male population. Unfortunately, one cannot be so optimistic in regards to our tormenters.