Mike Murray essay -- Bigotry is Bigotry

19 July 2008

Bigotry is Bigotry

--by Mike Murray

What does a bigot look like? What is his or her gender, race, age? What is his or her political affiliation, religious preference? Does he or she reside in a metropolis or a rural farm district? From which continent (or continents) do his or her ancestors hail?

If you believe Democrats – and many members of the mainstream media – a bigot is most likely a white male. He and his brethren are of European ancestry. They vote Republican. Some live in small towns (in middle-American “fly over” states), and possess more firearms than teeth. They tote shotguns and get suspicious when they encounter people who “don’t look like them.” Still others are educated and affluent. They dwell in uptown mansions and country estates, where they sip martinis and abuse the help (non-white, of course).

Democrats have for years used those kinds of stereotypes to slander Republicans. Dems have accused their political rivals of being “insensitive” and “intolerant.” GOPers, they said, simply were not “diverse,” not “inclusive.” Democrats sought to claim for themselves the moral high ground, substantial evidence to the contrary. (When it comes to abusing blacks, oppressing Native Americans, and opposing Civil Rights legislation, Democrats have historically taken a back seat to no one.)

Moreover, when George W. Bush took office and appointed Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell to cabinet-level positions, many Democrats – get this – complained. Rather than cheer the elevation of African Americans to lofty government positions, they jeered. Rather than celebrate “inclusion” and “diversity,” Democrats carped. They belittled the appointments, calling them little more than “window dressing.”

Particularly vicious was Harry Belafonte, who labeled Rice and Powell traitors to their race. He called them “house slaves.” (He actually used a more vulgar term – one that won’t be repeated here.) Actor Danny Glover piled on. When asked by a member of the foreign press if George Bush is a racist, he said: “Yes. Americans have known that all along. The world is finally finding out.”

Lovely sentiment. Especially in light of the fact that the Bush family has been an ardent supporter of many African-American causes, including the United Negro College Fund. (Members of the Bush family have raised, over the years, millions of dollars for UNCF.) A mind truly is a terrible thing to waste. Yours, Glover, is mush.

It just doesn’t count, you see, when conservatives act benevolently. It doesn’t fit the stereotype that Democrats proffer to the voting public: that Republicans are heartless. Never mind the facts (among them, that conservatives donate much more to charities than do liberals).

The perception is all that matters when it comes to things political. And the perception that Democrats have arduously sought to inculcate into the American psyche is that Republicans are haters. Selfish, mean-spirited, haters. When someone dares interfere with their attempt at mass brainwashing, Dems go ballistic.

The very liberal Mara Liasson (of National Public Radio) bristled, for example, the first time fellow Fox News contributor Mort Kondracke (executive editor of Roll Call) referred to some Democrats as “Bush haters.” Didn’t Kondracke – himself a Dem – get the memo? Republicans hate, not Democrats.

Today, Liasson barely blinks at the characterization. Such is the thoroughness of the media’s assassination of Dubya’s character that it has become acceptable (laudable, even) to hate him. Even some Republicans have gotten in on the act.

But for the most part, Democrats have cultivated an image of sweetness and light. Although they often mount vile attacks against political opponents, liberals demand that they be perceived as peaceful and loving. And tolerant, and diverse, and sensitive...

While white males have generally been held in low regard by the Democratic Party in recent years, some have been deemed acceptable. Many have, after all, managed to get themselves elected. They are the “Dances with Wolves” types – exceptions to the rule. They are satisfactory because they criticize other white males. Imagine any other demographic having to jump through such a nonsensical hoop. (Imagine Barack Obama, for example, having to imply: “I’m okay because I’m not like those other – those awful – black males.” )

The degree to which Democratic white males have had to rationalize their mistreatment at the hands of their own party astounds. But it has lately gotten worse. At the start of this year’s primary season, Mara Liasson and Kirsten Powers (columnist, Fox News contributor, and self-styled Democratic “strategist”) sarcastically declared on separate occasions that it really didn’t matter “what some white male had to say” about political events.

Got it? Because neither of the Dems’ two frontrunners (Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama) were white males, it became fashionable to attack on that front. Democrats proclaimed themselves special – precisely because they were poised in ’08 to nominate a non-white male for president! (See, it wasn’t really about inclusion at all; it was instead about exclusion – it was about placing boots on the throats of evil white males.)

Others, such a dingbat blogger in Pennsylvania, advanced the theme. She accused white-male Democrats of being bigots in multiple ways: they were, she said, haters of both women and blacks. The only question, she wondered online, is which bias would dominate? Would they be more racist than misogynist? If so, they’d hold their nose and vote for Hillary. If not, they’d grudgingly support Barack.

This from the party of peace and love. Many of its members, however, have seemed downright hateful during the early and middle stages of this election season.

Bill Clinton fanned the flames of bigotry in a different way when suggested that Obama only did well in certain states because he’s, you know, black. The guess on the part of many was that Bill was attempting to segregate voters along racial lines. If he could successfully paint Obama as the “black candidate,” then the bulk of the non-black vote (a huge majority) would be Hillary’s for the taking. Or so the theory went.

That tactic blew up in Bill Clinton’s face. People of every political stripe -- liberals, conservatives, and moderates -- condemned it. We condemned Clinton, too, for stooping to it. Subsequently, Bill was knocked from his privileged perch. He’s no longer Elvis; he’s just Bubba these days.

After that dust-up, things settled down for a while. Bill receded into the background and pretty much kept his mouth shut. Mara Liasson and Kirsten Powers likewise restrained themselves. They put a lid on their white-male bashing.

But it wasn’t to last. After Barack Obama sealed the deal on the Democratic nomination, he tried to moderate his leftist campaign positions. That’s what nearly all presidential candidates do, after all. They court the extreme left or the extreme right during the primary season, then tack back toward the middle (where the bulk of the votes are) in advance of the general election.

Obama’s change of course was poorly received by members of the “netroots,” however. Internet backers were largely responsible for Obama mania, raising hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of volunteers for the cause. Without them, Obama would not be his party’s presumptive nominee. And he knows it.

And so, when they loudly expressed their disapproval of his turn toward the middle, Obama listened and responded. Only hours after changing his position on the Iraq War, Barack retreated back to his original one – the one the netroots supported.

Kirsten Powers, writing in the New York Post, had a cow. She severely criticized the bloggers. She called them the “netroot ninnies” and accused them of the ultimate sin: of being (mostly) white males. Horrors. Powers had come full circle. She began this campaign season by belittling voters on the basis of race and gender, and she was doing it again.

Powers wrote that the Democratic party’s base is made up of women, blacks, and working-class folks. White males – most especially, educated ones – are therefore of little consequence to her and, she implied, to her party. Her message was clear: white males who call themselves Democrats are in the minority. Their concerns, therefore, are irrelevant.

Imagine what would have happened had a GOP operative acted similarly. Suppose Republicans had trotted out an African American woman – a “strategist” for their party – who had the gall to proclaim about men of her own race: “Black males are not part of our base. Consequently, we don’t give a damn about what they think or what they want.”

Suffice it say that political pundits would have rained thunder and lightning down upon her, and upon the entire Republican party. Conversely, not a single cloud formed in the sky following Powers’ unsavory remarks. (Nevertheless, members of the mainstream media continue to insist that they have no bias.)

It is unclear whether Powers is truly a bigot. But, at times, she sure does act like one. And you know what they say: “If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck...” Irrespective of any personal motive (or lack thereof) on the part of Powers, however, the Democratic practice of white-male bashing is despicable.

It is no different than Bill Clinton’s attempt to exploit bias, by steering black votes to Obama (in an effort to attract all others to Hillary). The math, and the smarminess quotient, are the same. “Pssst. John McCain is, you know, a white male. Let him have the votes of his ‘own kind’; we’ll take all the rest.”

It was a hateful approach when it was employed against Obama. It is no less so now, when it is being used against McCain. Even when bigotry comes wrapped in a package as pretty as Kirsten Powers, it is still ugly.

< Back to Berea Bits