Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Is the Right Really Racist?

Last Friday night, during the eve of the Jewish New Year, I had to sit through a rabbi's sermon that demonized conservatives for being hate-mongering racists. The three examples that were brought up were the following:
1) People who discriminated against Muslims after 9-11.
2) Calling Obama a Nazi. (This, of course, was a reference to a poster during the 9/12 protest in DC)
3) People being racist against Obama, and how this perpetuates racism in America.

In short, this rabbi lectured his congregation about not bringing about hate via negative stereotypes, although he manages to do so in the same breath. It doesn't matter if it's a professor, politician, clergyman, or layman, I never cease to be amazed at the Left and double standards. I'm not even going to lecture about Jews putting the Democratic Party before Judaism--that would take at least a three-parter post. What I want to do right now is answer the charges put forward. Are conservatives really ignorant, racist S.O.B's? Needless to say, the answer is a resounding "no!" But what fun would it be just to answer with "nuh-ah" like a five-year old? Let's take the charges, one at a time.

1: People are anti-Muslim because of post-9/11 paranoia. Yes, 9/11 was a very traumatic event for the American psyche. It was the first time since the War of 1812 since foreigners made an attack on American soil. It makes us feel more insecure. I will quote Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, a Muslim, to adequately prove my point:

"It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims."


I couldn't have said it better myself. It is not the Amish or the Jews that are causing this agony (although I'm sure there are enough conspiracy theorists who would fall for the latter out of sheer stuipidity), but rather it's the Muslims. The 1972 assassination of the Israeli athletes at the Summer Olympics, the Palestian suicide bombers, the Pan Am flight in 1988, the USS Cole, 9/11, the bombings in Madrid, London, and Chechnya, the attack in Bombay. The common link between just about every single terrorist act in the past 40 years is that they have been committed by Muslims who are driven by a certain interpretation of Islam that seems radical to those in the West. Obviously, every Muslim in the world doesn't want to strap a bomb to themselves and kill innocent civilians. That's absurd! But at the same time, we cannot ignore that the "world's fastest-growing religion," has a deadly fundamentalist strain to it, which, sadly enough, is becoming more and more mainstream as the West acts complacent. When it comes to our own life and liberty, are we really supposed to ignore the sole identifiable commonality about terrorists in the 21st century? This isn't racism--it's about preventing such agregeous acts from re-occurring. Not only should non-Muslims all be on board, but so should any non-Jihadist Muslim who believes that their religion should be protected from such contamination.

2: We need to stop comparing Obama to a Nazi. He never killed 6 million Jews and millions of others. What I would like to point out in this scenario are a few things. First of all, this was one poster out of hundreds of thousands. Second, I never heard any liberals, especially any Jewish ones, bemoan the Hitler mustache on Bush posters at anti-war rallies. And that's when they were being nice to Bush! Finally, hating on the President is about American as apple pie, baseball, or wearing red, white, and blue on the Fourth of July. As loathsome as it is, this sort of demonization goes all the way back to George Washington. Lincoln got his fair share of public criticism, which was an important lesson I learned at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Museum in Springfield. FDR was portrayed as a Bolshevik, and Clinton a draft-dodging, sexual predator. And we all know Bush (43) was definitely insulted and demonized enough.

3: Stop hating on Obama because he's black! This is something I've gotten from liberals all the time. I couldn't care less if Obama were white, black, green, or purple! What I care about is his socialist policies and his delusion that Keynsian economics is going to solve everything, when it's only going to exacerbate the current state of the economy, American health care system, and environment. I don't care about the race of the president. I just care that he does what needs to be done to ameliorate the problems that currently plague America.

Martin Luther King, Jr. had a dream that we would be judged by the content of our character, rather than by the color of our skin. Obama is held up to the same standards as any other man is. A majority of Americans are angry with Obama, it's true. But his skin color has no bearing on that. They're royally ticked off because the amount of government intervention, spending, and inefficiencies are a tangible wake-up call to most Americans. If we don't take a more active role in politics, Obama is going to tread on my rights, as he will with other American.

In all honesty, playing the race card is a last-resort effort used by those Obamaniacs who cling onto cognitive dissonance in hopes that their Messiah brings redemption. It just goes to show which side is truly obsessive about race. Rather than worry about immaterial externalities, let's make MLK proud by examining the merits of our President rather than the look of him.

7 comments:

  1. THE FOLLOWING IS A POST SENT TO ME BY A FRIEND WHO DISAGREED WITH THIS POST:

    Steve,
    I disagree with you. Here are some things that I find questionable and weak with your arguement:
    1. It is not the Amish or the Jews that are causing this agony (although I'm sure there are enough conspiracy theorists who would fall for the latter out of sheer stupidity), but rather it's the Muslims.
    This is a really weak and subjective argument. First of all, since you are referring to things that have happened in the 20th and 21st centuries, why don't you discuss the agony that people have suffered around the world at the hands of every cultural group. Consider World War II, Vietnam, the Oklahoma City bombing, school shootings, explosions at abortion clinics, lynching and many other acts of terror that have happened around the world.

    2. A majority of Americans are angry with Obama, it's true. But his skin color has no bearing on that.
    First of all, how did you come up the idea that the majority of Americans are angry with Obama? Just because you don’t like certain policies, it does not mean most Americans hate Obama. Other than that, racism is alive and well in the United States. However, it is taboo and therefore not openly discussed. There are many racist groups within the United States who are openly racist against and other just considered extremists and ignored. But, that does not mean other conservatives do no share their views. Three of the most popular conservative pundits in the US, Hannity, Limbaugh and Beck have made many subtle racist comments. No one is going to come out and say “Obama sucks because he is black.” If someone does, all sponsorship will be lost.
    http://newsone.com/obama/top-10-racist-limbaugh-quotes/
    "I truly believe that Barack Obama is an angry black man" - Glenn Beck
    I don’t even want to list anything by Pat Robertson.

    3. In all honesty, playing the race card is a last-resort effort used by those Obamaniacs who cling onto cognitive dissonance in hopes that their Messiah brings redemption.
    Again, why do you think that most Americans hate Obama? He is a fairly popular President with a low disapproval rating. I know you are above taking the results from fox news seriously, so I don’t understand why you think he is so unpopular. Anyway, there are plenty more cards that democrats and the liberal news media could play before using the racist card.

    Also, I think that since racism is not tolerated in the US, no one who wants to be taken seriously is going to openly badger Obama for being black, no one is going to openly say that they hate immigrants and no one is going to say that they hate all Muslims even though they only a small and loud minority cause the problems. Furthermore, this racism is not just limited to conservatives; there is no one who could say that it does not come from liberals as well. There are many anti-Jewish liberals and liberals who keep their personal feelings about race to themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I RESPOND IN KIND:

    My friend,

    All due to respect, my thought process on the issue is nearly as far off as you suggest.

    If we’re going to start off with subjectivities, let’s take a look at the examples you gave. The majority of deaths in World War II were civilian deaths, not accrued in battle. What Hitler and Stalin both had in government was their usage of Big Government (remember, Nazi is short for “National Socialist”) and their paranoia which caused the death of millions. Mao Zedong even managed to kill 60 million of his own people, a majority of which died because of his idiotic, Communist agricultural policies during the Great Leap Forward, another blow to Leftist policies. The Vietnam War was a nasty combination of post-colonial politics, Communism, and not enough American resolve to get the job done. As for your other examples, number of people lynched since the Civil Rights movement: 3. As for school shootings, since 1977, they average to less than one a year. Abortion clinic bombing, as unfortunate as they are, are another exceptionally infrequent occurrence. And although I’m not minimizing what happened at the Oklahoma City bombing, the death toll was less than 200. To add to your list, I’ll throw in the genocide in Cambodia, what’s going on in Darfur, eco-terrorists, and heck, why not the ETA (the Basque separatist party in Spain)?

    We can make a list of non-Muslim terrorist attacks, and oddly enough, a majority of those casualties come from state-sponsored, Leftist governments. Again, my point was not to say that EVERY single terrorist act has been perpetrated by Muslims. What I said was, and I quote, that “[T]he common link between just about every single terrorist act in the past 40 years is that they have been committed by Muslims who are driven by a certain interpretation of Islam that seems radical to those in the West.” The most alarming fact is that since 9/11, there have been over fourteen thousand terrorist attacks caused by jihadists (yes, that’s 14,000!). Let’s look at the world conflicts in the past few years: Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, Algeria, Israel, India, I can go on, but the point is that the connection between every single one of these conflicts, not to mention the aforementioned 14,000+ terrorist attacks, is the religion of the attackers, which is Islam. We shouldn’t be scoffing at the problem out of some need to feel politically correct. Nazis were the problem of the 1940s, the former Soviet Union was a problem throughout the Cold War, and now, we have to deal with a group of Muslims who use violence to advance their religion. Even if we go with the conservative estimate that 10% of Muslims act in such a way, that still means out of the world’s fastest-growing religion that already has 1.5 billion, you’re still talking about 150 million! In raw numbers, that’s huge, and it’s even more chilling to know that this movement hasn’t even reached its apex yet.

    ReplyDelete
  3. On to Obama. Yes, I have been paying attention to his approval ratings. Right now, it’s about 50-50:

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

    Considering that it was nearly 70% at election time, I consider that a considerable drop in the past few months, something I only see dropping the more he continues pushing his socialist policies. This is why most Americans are getting more fed up by the day. I can guarantee that if the health care bill passes, you’ll see another significant drop.

    But this doesn’t mean America is racist. Rush Limbaugh is but one radio show who sometimes uses shock value to jack up ratings. Ann Coulter has had to do the same thing, even if sometimes the speech ethics are questionable. Most of what Limbaugh has to say is attacking the socialist policies of Obama, not the color of his skin. I’m not even going to repeat any of the personal attacks Al Franken has made on conservatives just because they don’t agree with his worldview. And using the other two talk show hosts as examples of right-winged racists without any substantiating evidence is the same kind of finger-pointing I was criticizing in the first place. None of what you had to say disproved my thesis that conservatives are NOT racist.

    Yes, there are racist individuals in this country, but that doesn’t mean America as a whole is racist. How else could we have integrated schools, interracial marriage, a black President, or have racism become taboo in society? How could people such as Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, President Obama, or Oprah Winfrey succeed if American “keeps the black man down?” If anything, we have what I would dub “benevolent racism.” The first example would be affirmative action. It’s funny that the French word for this policy is la discrimination positive, literally “positive discrimination.” The fact that we give people who look differently an upper hand is nothing short of reverse discrimination against people who merit a certain position. See the Supreme Court case of Ricci v. DeStefano. Example two: hate crime legislation. Why is it that people of certain ethnicities or sexual orientations receive special consideration? Isn’t any crime committed against another human being, by definition, a hate crime? The term hate crime seems to be a bit redundant, now doesn’t it? Three, we treat newly arrived Spanish-speaking immigrants, legal or not, differently, as well. We don’t expect them to learn the English language. If anything, there’s a degree of expectation that we learn Spanish. Now, hypothetically speaking, if I were to go to Argentina with 5,000 other Americans to live there, would I expect the Argentinean government to bend over backwards by making English a second official language? No! If I’m going to live in someone else’s homeland, I had better learn the language, as well as the customs. These policies are by far more racist because what’s implicit is their implementation is that certain groups need a hand-out, which violates the concept of being equal before the law.

    ReplyDelete
  4. FRIEND'S COUNTER ARGUMENT:

    What Hitler and Stalin both had in government was their usage of Big Government (remember, Nazi is short for “National Socialist”) and their paranoia which caused the death of millions.

    First, what does this argument about government systems have to do with my point about your subjective point of view of agony in world?
    Also, there is a serious difference between a dictatorship and socialist government. A dictator has complete control of an entire government through either force or by creating fear of force to be used against those who oppose the dictator. In a socialist government, representatives are elected and can lose their positions in future elections. Each time Hitler was opposed, the leaders of the opposition were either killed or exiled. Furthermore, the name of a political party does not represent their intentions. Are the Republicans going to create a Roman style republic? Are the Democrats going to create a direct democracy like in ancient Greece? Is the Green Party going to paint the White House Green?

    Your quote, “[T]he common link between just about every single terrorist act in the past 40 years is that they have been committed by Muslims who are driven by a certain interpretation of Islam that seems radical to those in the West.”
    My problem with it was this :This is a sweeping generalization that is just objectively wrong because it focuses on one side of attacks that have occurred in conflict zones. Many of the acts done against Muslims in these areas are not necessarily considered terrorist attacks but their effects are equal if not greater than terrorist attacks. Just because something is a military operation with justification does not mean that it does not create terror in a group of people. Tanks, heavily armed soldiers and bulldozers create anger and fear in the people that leads to hatred. Along with military operations, there is also severe poverty, a lack of natural resources, a lack of basic human rights and a shortage of opportunity for jobs. Desperate people are likely to commit desperate acts. These conditions are not solely created by military operations by the US and Israel, corrupt governments also create these conditions. However, this corruption is not as obvious as a foreign army.

    On to Obama. Yes, I have been paying attention to his approval ratings. Right now, it’s about 50-50
    50-50 does not mean most Americans hate Obama. His approval rating has gone down for many reasons including those you have stated. Many of the people on the far left disapprove of him because they believe he has not done enough of what he had promised during his campaign. Either way, he is not hated by most Americans.

    But this doesn’t mean America is racist. Rush Limbaugh is but one radio show who sometimes uses shock value to jack up ratings.
    The fact that he and other conservative pundits use racist speech to jack up their ratings proves that their listeners prefer to listen to his racist speeches. Also Limbaugh has some of the highest ratings in the country and this also proves that people agree with this racist diatribes. If more people listen to him when he uses racist speech than they are not as interested in his point of view on socialist policies. Like I said, no one is going to be openly racist because it is taboo. Unless these people are willing to lose their sponsors and their paychecks, they have limit to their hate speech.
    I never said that America as a whole is racist, but racism is still a serious issue in the United States. Old prejudices are hard to get rid and hopefully at some point in the future they will be gone. Consider that Obama had use a significant amount of his campaigning energy on proving that he was raised white and did not know his black father. If race is not an issue, why would he need to prove this to voters?

    ReplyDelete
  5. FRIEND'S COUNTER ARGUMENT (CON'T)

    How else could we have integrated schools, interracial marriage, a black President, or have racism become taboo in society? How could people such as Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, President Obama, or Oprah Winfrey succeed if American “keeps the black man down?”

    Why did African Americans have to fight so hard to be accepted in the performing arts and athletics?
    It took several decades for African American athletes to be accepted in sports. Consider Jackie Robinson and Earl Lloyd of the Washington Capitols, Nat “Sweetwater” Clifton of the New York Knicks and Chuck Cooper of the Boston Celtics , the first three African-Americans to play in the NBA during the 1950-51 season. Not only were these athletes constantly heckled for being African American, but they could not even stay at the same hotels as their teammates many times. This was not an easy transition and took a while to be accepted all over the country. As far as music, it took a long time for black musicians to be taken seriously as well. Consider the Pat Boone/Little Richard situation and consider the fact that black people were not allowed to perform in many places all over the country until the 1970’s.

    Hate crime legislation. Why is it that people of certain ethnicities or sexual orientations receive special consideration? Isn’t any crime committed against another human being, by definition, a hate crime? The term hate crime seems to be a bit redundant, now doesn’t it?
    There is a major difference between a regular crime and a hate crime. A hate crime is committed against a group or an individual because of their cultural or sexual identity. This crime, unlike most other crimes purposefully targets a specific group of people and creates a sense of fear in that community. If a white man kills a black man it is not necessarily a hate crime. However, if the Ku Klux Klan goes and lynches black people than it is a hate crime because it is meant to scare black people from enjoying their basic civic and human rights. If a group attacks a man for no other reason than him being gay, it is a crime of hate meant not only against the individual attacked but also to create a sense of fear in the gay community. If swastikas are painted on the doors of a synagogue and torahs are left in a burning heap in front of the doors this is a hate crime. Therefore, since these crimes affect a larger community in a serious way, they should be prosecuted more harshly.

    Three, we treat newly arrived Spanish-speaking immigrants, legal or not, differently, as well. We don’t expect them to learn the English language.

    I have two problems with this argument. First, there is no official national language in the United States. Unofficially it is English and it is a very controversial topic. Second, all over Europe people speak multiple languages. It is rare for a country that is in a position like the US to be against speaking more than one language.
    What makes you think that immigrants do not need to learn English?
    I am an immigrant and I could tell you from my personal experience that English learning English is quintessential to success in the United States.

    ReplyDelete
  6. AGAIN, I RESPOND:

    1) Your definition of American racism is perceived, not actual. What you said about African-Americans that had to fight so hard is just that, a darker part of America’s past. It is NOT the present situation. You keep saying that people still harbor racist sentiments. On some level, that will always be true. You will always have some ignorant hicks out there. You also have to contend with human nature, which is the propensity to be with those that are more like us. In schools, we learn how to interact with those who are different from us. Society sends a similar message, which is why it’s taboo. A few racist individuals do not translate into a racist society. We don’t have Plessey v. Ferguson, we don’t force a certain group of people to sit in the back of the bus. If we were institutionally bigoted, 82% of the NBA wouldn't be composed of African-Americans, 27% of the MLB wouldn't be Hispanic, and 40% of lawyers wouldn't be Jewish. As a matter of fact, we bend over backwards to give preferential treatment to certain minorities (i.e., women, African-Americans, homosexuals, etc.) in the workplace. If anything, as I have already illustrated, institutional racism has pulled a one-eighty. Until you can prove that most Americans are racist (and I hope it’s simply not because they disagree with Obama), your statements are unsubstantiated at best, and libelous at worst.

    2) You are right that someone being targeted because they are black or gay for being who they are is a despicable act. But if an atheist kills a Christian because he’s Christian, or a husband kills a man because he was sleeping with his wife, how are these not any less of hate crimes? Unfortunately, you have succumbed to political correctness, and you feel that murdering or assaulting a certain kind of person constitutes as more hateful as others. That kind of thinking detracts us from the legal edict of “being equal under the law.” No matter how you spin it, maliciously taking another human life or assaulting another human being, no matter what the skin color, religion, or sexual orientation, is a hate crime.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 3) It’s true that not explicitly stated in documents, such as the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence, that English is the official language. But not only is English the language of those documents, it also is the language that the American government and most American businesses have operated under for over the last two centuries. And as you state, English has been a quintessential part of your immigration experience. The reason why the Hispanic community is so particularly important in this debate is because never in history have we dealt with such a large bloc of immigrants who spoke the same foreign language. Back in the end of the 19th/early 20th century, many people spoke many languages. There was not one huge bloc of German or Russian speakers. We had many languages come through, and the only unifying factor was the English language. It still is, and the fact of the matter is that one language, especially in this country where we have just about no other unifying factors, i.e., English, is of utmost importance. The only country I know of that has multiple languages and doesn’t have internal issues is Switzerland. Any other country I can think of that has more than one official language has problems. Israel has problems with the Arab population. Spain has problem with terrorism caused by the Basques. Canada has had to deal with, on more than one occasion of a Quebecois separatist movement. And I don’t have to tell you how many African countries are dealing with tribal spats because of post-colonial division of African countries. Also, if English were such a quintissential part of the immigration experience, why is it that I spend a disproportionate part of my day answering phone calls in Spanish at work? Although there are many immigrants that do learn English, there are also many more who enjoy "Para hablar espaƱol, oprima #2" when calling customer service. Rather than influence them to learn English, we'd rather dissuade them by coddling them.

    4) Radical Islam is indeed an issue in international politics, and unlike institutional racism in America, this problem is not, by any means, a misconceived notion. Muslims compose of 1.5 billion people on this planet, which is a little over a fifth of the world’s population. But you ignore that they’re the antagonists of the aforementioned international conflicts, which consist of a great majority (notice that I say a “great majority” instead of “all”) of terrorist attacks in the past forty years. You ignore that many of those conflicts are started by jihadists (Iran, Israel, Afghanistan, India, etc.). You ignore the fact that since 9/11, over 14,000 terrorist attacks have been caused by jihadists (not normal “everyday” Muslims, but by jihadists). As Nonie Darwish put it, “[by ignoring this threat] we strangle ourselves with our own political correctness.” If you haven’t already, I would either watch the documentary “Obsession” or “Third Jihad” to get a better idea of what I’m talking about.

    ReplyDelete