Sunday, January 8, 2012

Forever Racial America

After all of the hullabaloo over Santorum's comments and whether or not he said "black people," one thing is crystal clear: mentioning race in any context whatsoever is a losing proposition for a Republican. Because no matter what the context is, there will be people that question the usage, that want an "explanation." And that's a trap, since no explanation will be sufficient, more will be demanded: more explanations, more apologies, more contriteness.

Joan Walsh at Salon muses on the GOP's "peculiar vocabulary" when it comes to race, essentially putting forth the idea--though very poorly expressed--that any criticism of entitlement-type programs by Republicans is merely cover for their inherent racism.

That's right. If someone--who is not a liberal, a progressive, and/or a Democrat--suggests that people would be better off if they did not have to rely on the government to survive, that person is a racist, or at least spewing racist propaganda. Because a look back into recent history provides examples of people like Bill Cosby and, yes, Barack Obama saying very similar things.

Remember? In the early days of the Obama campaign, some leaders of the black community were less than impressed (Jesse Jackson wanted to cut Obama's balls off) with the Professor, particularly when he was lecturing them about how to improve things.

Now all that said, Santorum very clearly said "black people," in my opinion (and that's about the only possible conclusion, given the context of where the words appeared). And if there's a party that attracts a racist element, it's the Republican party, no question about it. Still, the modern Democrat party is built around groupthink and group rights, so its leadership can't help but play the hand they've dealt themselves. And in that regard, the "peculiar vocabulary" of the GOP for racial issues is the exact same one used by the Democrats.

So, what's the real difference here?

Cheers, all.

7 comments:

  1. How about just embracing "entitlement" programs? Problem solved.

    ReplyDelete
  2. No one has big enough arms for that... ;)

    ReplyDelete
  3. As far as laziness and sloth, race cuts across all lines.

    Lets just continue to subsidize incompetence on a massive, nation destroying scale (welfare as we know it) and not address the obvious fact that as far as responsibility, its not the poor, fat people's fault.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Maybe Joan Walsh should listen to the debates in other countries. She might find the debates about entitlements extremely similar to thos in US, and they rarely have racial connotations. Just a thought :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Um. Yeah. "Laziness and sloth"... "just continue to subsidize incompetence on a massive, nation destroying scale"

    These are exactly why I'm no longer a Republican. I lost my job and spent 2 years on unemployment, while Republicans were argued to end UI, that we didn't deserve the money. They wanted my family to starve while many called people like me lazy, on drugs, and a useless drain on society.

    These "entitlement" programs are lifelines to many struggling families but Republicans don't care or even understand what it's like to struggle to survive. They've never experienced such hardship and believe we're all on drugs and lazy.

    Before 2009, I had never voted Democrat, now I'll never again vote Republican.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Roger: yes, that's true. But I think we can still maintain some basic safety nets.

    @Shadowferet: obviously, I can't speak for all Republicans--especially since I'm not one--but I don't think questioning how far and how long things like UI should be extended means wanting to starve someone's family. Regardless, there's no racist component there, right? Just--from your perspective--an evil one.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The left and its culture of dependence is more racist than right could ever dream of being.

    ReplyDelete