SEIU and the 'Cheapest Emotional Denominator'
Verbal pyrotechnic artistry such as condemning opponents as “racist, sexist, nativist, and homophobic” is an attempt to purge conservatives from the realm of acceptable debate.
A titleholder of SEIU, Executive Vice President Gerry Hudson, provided a sterling example of the CED method earlier this month. Amid a cavalcade of socialists at a Georgetown University event entitled “Labor, the Left, and Progressives in the Obama Era,” Mr. Hudson said of efforts at organizing for amnesty:
What's interesting to me is it doesn't take a whole lot to argue at least African American workers to another place. It doesn't take a whole lot. And I've spent not a whole lot of time doing it, but it had some success. And so, I think we need to spend more time doing it. Try to figure out what's the best ways to get it done. But I think we can get the work done.
On white workers, I think we got some real problems. I spent a lot of time in Wisconsin and places like that where I have heard some of the most anti-immigrant sentiments around. It's also, and this is where you get the black workers first, it's so f***ing rabidly racist. Black people get scared, you know, they don't just mean you, right? And so you can organize them quicker, like, look at what's there, right?
The audience did not see anything wrong with his monologue even though it offended at several levels. Luckily, Mr. Hudson revealed for the world both his inner-racist and the complete disdain he harbors for rank-and-file SEIU members.
How and why they continue to pay dues to an organization whose leadership regards its members as either easily manipulated rubes or toxic bigots is amazing. A clue can be found though in their non-reaction to Mr. Stern’s spending "a fortune" of their hard-earned money on political chicanery and counterproductive legal fees.
Allegations of racism are their nuclear response. That their overuse of the “R charge” has reduced its effectiveness is something to which they are oblivious, but objections to illegal immigration are so meritorious that Democratic nabobs cannot risk having the general population hear them.
After all, how can a country call itself “a country” if it fails to secure its frontiers? We have an army, first and foremost, to protect our borders. Its main role is ensuring that the USA remains both united and American.
Yet there is no significant military presence on the Rio Grande. Meanwhile, the Mexican government treats their southern perimeter far differently. Instead of outstretching their hands to Guatemala, the Mexicans have returned many a refugee.
Originally slow to respond to an influx of Guatemalans, Mexico “eventually decided to close its gates as local communities began complaining that they could no longer absorb such a huge influx of refugees, especially in Mexico’s least developed state [Chiapas].”
What the Democrats term “reform” will only produce more illegal immigration, just as the amnesty of 1986 did. Democrats welcome such an unintended consequence. They fathom that unskilled and uneducated fugitives will, post-citizenship, morph into voters who are entirely dependent on the dole.
To an Alinskyite, “the end justifies almost any means” and an additional 12 million votes could usher in permanent Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress. What happens thereafter to the nation’s social fabric and our treasury is merely collateral damage.
There is an appropriate designation for those who believe in the notion of the melting pot and the rule of law. The name isn’t racist or nativist or oppressor -- it’s “normal.” How wonderful it would be if the left desisted in disparaging our history and saluted the truth that America, the country we share, is the kindest and most gracious nation on earth.
Since getting the opposition to accept this assumption is impossible, the best we can hope for is that they will stop lying about our motivations long enough to respond to what conservatives actually say.