For many conservatives, the only benefit to accrue from Barack Obama becoming president is the notice his election served to those who portray our nation as a bastion of oppression. Thankfully, his inauguration illustrated (once again) that rank-and-file Americans are among the least racist and prejudiced persons on earth. This outcome was no minor blessing in light of the daily war that the political left wages on our culture and history. Despite having to combat the presence of a radical ideologue in the White House, conservatives hoped our opponents would desist in their longtime passion for pretending that America is racially unchanged since 1959. Our fine country is no longer marred by the practice of slavery or segregation (no thanks to the Democratic Party), and the elevation of my former senator was yet another indication of how far society has evolved.
However, for those who care more for fantasies of power and control than their homeland, acknowledgment of progress is verboten as, without resentment and grievance, pseudo-liberals would lose control over their constituencies entirely.
If Democrats did not peddle victimology and faux moral superiority, their status would be reduced to that of a fringe party, and they would end up having to get in line for a statist bailout of their own.
In 2009, only if one refuses to examine reality can race be depicted as a major societal problem. In order to sell the chimera of “institutional racism,” activists must dumb the concept of discrimination down to the point in which even unknown words evidence a foul heart.
Passé is the idea that one should take no offense where none is intended. Thanks to progressives, we freely explain to others not only how they offended us but also why their intent is irrelevant.
Most of us are never sure of what we can say or what we cannot. Our trepidations in regards to speech are profound and our high anxiety over race is perfectly illustrated by a recent news story at the Politico.
Its text and subtext elucidate societal dysfunction along with the mainstream media’s passion for exacerbating (read: fabricating) racial tensions.
The title of the piece, “Racial Disparity: All active ethics probes focus on black lawmakers,” suggests the fashion by which political correctness trumps truth in our interesting times.
The editors at Yahoo.com deemed this editorial report so integral that they featured it atop their popular homepage as well. Essentially, it is a story full of character but devoid of plot:
The House ethics committee is currently investigating seven African-American lawmakers — more than 15 percent of the total in the House. And an eighth black member, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.), would be under investigation if the Justice Department hadn’t asked the committee to stand down. Not a single white lawmaker is currently the subject of a full-scale ethics committee probe.
I italicized the last sentence due to its being the sole rationale for why — in the eyes of the press — this banal announcement is newsworthy. Congressional representatives getting probed for corrupt practice is about as unremarkable as discovering that a cat climbed a tree.
Apart from skin hue there is nothing novel about the Politico’s tale. Moreover, none of it matters in the final analysis. The case of Representative Charles Rangel proves that the speaker of the House possesses a “no enemies on the left” mentality when it comes to prosecuting the criminality that blossoms in her midst.
This article would be merely a footnote if any Caucasians were also under investigation. Yet the journalist discerned a “social justice” angle from their absence and wished to alert his countrymen of a truth that exists only in his own mind (and in those of other leftists).
We are encouraged to believe that — despite everything we may personally experience or observe — racism is still a force that rages in the United States. In keeping with the dictates of leftist ideology, any disparity between the races is cause enough to impugn the entire nation.
However, should these discrepancies run in the other direction, such as with the dearth of Caucasians in the NBA, they are totally overlooked. Racism is a charge that need only be asserted. Proof is optional.
Should we be optimistic about the present day, the narrative seeks to dispel our contentment. Of course, there is no validity to this reporter’s “eternal Klansman” assumption regarding the citizenry, as practically every injustice cited by America’s detractors is extinct in this new millennium.
Apart from the reporter’s penumbras of institutional racism, the article proffers nothing in the way of evidence that any discrimination occurred.
Why doesn’t the journalist consider alternative hypotheses? One that is glaringly obvious is that these members of Congress may actually be more corrupt than their peers.
Isn’t it at least possible that the aforementioned lawmakers are guilty as charged? Any writer who even paid lip service to objectivity would at least consider this eventuality.
While the Politico failed to do so, one paragraph cited was quite revealing. A quote from an anonymous black congressman tells us much about the jaded mentality that pervades among these “public servants”:
Is there concern whether someone is trying to set up [Congressional Black Caucus] members? Yeah, there is. It looks as if there is somebody out there who understands what the rules [are] and sends names to the ethics committee with the goal of going after the [CBC].
Understands what “the rules” are? What an (accidental) admission of guilt. Scrutiny in response to violating the law is the complete opposite of getting “set up.” A more appropriate response by CBC members would be to accept the injunction to operate within legal parameters.
Let us now explore some provocative (i.e., honest) lines of inquiry. What if the political correctness endemic among whites — making them perpetually fear appearing “racist” — cajoled the congressional hierarchy into maintaining looser ethical standards for CBC members than for the rest of its body?
What if their “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t accuse, don’t report” ethos enabled those flawed individuals to take more risks and delve into less kosher transactions with lobbyists? Perhaps it was white guilt which fertilized the ground from which their corruption grew.
Support for my counter-thesis is evident in a response one of them had in relation to open-and-shut proceedings against a brazen thief from Louisiana. Striking is the tenuous logic that follows:
African-American politicians have long complained that they’re treated unfairly when ethical issues arise. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus are still fuming over Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s decision to oust then-Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) from the House Ways and Means Committee in 2006.
They still fume? For what reason? If that’s the case then they bristle alone. The rest of us know a crook when we see one … or when we come across $90,000 in cash hidden in his freezer.
There was nothing uncertain about the former congressman’s conviction. This summer he was found guilty by a federal court of 11 counts of corruption. He’s now been handed a 13-year sentence behind bars.
If the Congressional Black Caucus wants to defend snakes like William Jefferson, then all of its members should be regarded as suspect; however, this truth, and countless others, is something advocacy enterprises like the Politico wish to hide behind spurious suggestions of racism.