The PJ Tatler

RNC Tweet Suggests Racism Has Ended

Just what we need — a nice healthy debate that will be rather one-sided because liberals are already calling anyone who agrees with an RNC tweet commemorating the arrest of Rosa Parks 58 years ago a racist.

In truth, the tweet is inelegant:

Recognizing the inadequacy, the RNC followed up with another tweet:

 

Think Progress (“When You Think Progress, Think Idiocy”) was very helpful in telling us that racism is not over, and that it has actually increased since Barack Obama became president:

Racism, of course, hasn’t ended and may have actually increased since the election of President Obama in 2008.

Some research contends that “racism cost the president more than five million votes in 2008 and 2012″ and a 2012 survey from the Associated Press found that “51 percent of Americans explicitly express anti-black prejudice, up from 48 percent in 2008.” The survey concluded that 79 percent of Republicans are likely to express outright racial prejudice, compared to 32 percent of Democrats.

Following the re-election of Obama in 2012, Colin Powell publicly condemned the GOP’s “dark vein of intolerance” and the party’s repeated use of racial code words to oppose the president and rally white conservative voters. Without mentioning names, Powell singled out former Mitt Romney surrogate and New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu for calling Obama “lazy” and Sarah Palin, who, Powell charged, used slavery-era terms to describe Obama.

This is why the right loses this argument before it even starts. When calling someone “lazy” becomes a term of racial intolerance, what’s the use of debating? And which “slavery era terms” did Palin use? Are those terms still in wide use today?

A little specificity, please, before you smear a public figure as a bigot.

As for the AP study, is it a big surprise that “experts” on racial attitudes would word a survey that would demonstrate that 56% of Americans are closet Kluxers? Or that 79% of Republicans are intolerant crackers?

Pointing out racial intolerance is a growth industry in academia, bringing its practitioners a certain amount of notoriety and a seat at the table in Democratic politics. When someone can convince me that any survey of this sort has been designed in as neutral a fashion as possible, then I will accept those numbers.

Having said all this, the nauseating stench of racism does, indeed, emanate from minorities in both parties. Not being granted the ability to peer into other men’s souls to glean their intent, I can only judge the racial tolerance of any individual by their words and actions.

A novelty, yes? The problem is that words and actions are twisted pretzel-like beyond recognition to achieve a political end — branding the political opposition as racist. Hence, calling a black man “lazy” is a sure sign that you’re a racist, when it can be demonstrated as true that the president of the United States does not spend the time or make the effort to perform his duties competently. Any doubts were erased by this shocking article about the rollout of the ACA in the New York Times.

So, do we call a spade a spade or do we drop the word “lazy” from the English language? Of course, any racialist who happens upon this post will immediately point out my use of the word “spade” as an indication that I burn crosses for a living when, in fact, the phrase predates the origin of the racial slur “spade” by about 500 years. It’s just one more example of the deconstruction of language — to empty it of meaning, context, and clarity in order to attack one’s political opponents, while keeping them constantly on the defensive.

Any boob recognizes the sentiment expressed by the RNC in that first tweet was hardly racist and was, in fact, the opposite — praise for a civil rights pioneer. But why let an opportunity to accuse your political opponent of being racially intolerant slip by even if you have to stretch the point beyond meaning to make it?

When words become weapons of mass distinction, communication becomes impossible. This is a feature, not a bug, for the left. Real debate about racism would necessarily touch on subjects liberals would rather not discuss. Subjects like black race hatred toward whites, real affirmative action, education, culture — the whole gamut of issues that separate the races into two opposing camps. This is something white liberals benefit from, which is why they want to keep it that way.

And why they want to continue to feed the suspicion and fear of black people by the falsification of the meaning and intent of words and deeds on the right.