Democrats take the racism charge where no racism charge has gone before

That really bothered me. You notice he said anger twice. He’s really trying to use racial coding and access some really deep stereotypes about the angry black man. This is part of the playbook against Obama, the “otherization,” he’s not like us. I know it’s a heavy thing, I don’t say it lightly, but this is “niggerization.” You are not one of us, you are like the scary black man who we’ve been trained to fear.
— CNN black commentator “Touré” on Romney’s remark that Obama is “angry”

[Romney has] picked a white guy from the Midwest and given up on the Hispanic vote in the Southwest. It further cements the image of Republicans as a bunch of white guys who don’t care much about brown people.
— Immigration advocate Frank Sharry, in interview by The Hill

I can’t think of any reason why the Republicans would oppose Obama’s spending programs except that they don’t like him because he’s black.
— An acquaintance

The Democrats’ campaign of ever-wilder racism charges against the Republicans, labeling as “racist” statements and positions not remotely corrected with race, is extremely significant. But it is not surprising. It is of the essence of liberalism and of the tyrannical rule of liberalism over our society.

Several things need to be done: (1) to catalogue these charges, so that we have an overview of them; (2) to catalogue the Republicans’ responses to the charges; (3) to show the pathetic inadequacy of the Republicans’ responses; and (4) to show what an effective response would be.

I don’t know if I’ll be able to do this job in the near future, but I wanted at least to outline the problem.

- end of initial entry -

Joseph C. writes:

Watching the past four years, the disrespect for the U.S. and its traditions, the arrogance, the lawlessness, the refusal to conform to the standards of (white) society, etc. I would say that Obama has niggerized himself.

N. writes:

The amount of energy that can be transmitted to a target via the charge of “racism” used to be stunning. It killed careers.

I wonder if it isn’t becoming less and less lethal, and so as a natural result the liberals are finding their tool to be less useful in shutting down debate. Therefore they must increase the frequency with which they use it, in the hope of having the same effect.

At some point, if this trend goes on, the term will become a joke.

And so will those who hurl it at every turn, desperate for control of other people with their words. We can only hope this comes soon.

A reader writes:

I think part of the problem is that Republicans have so internalized the Democrats’ accusations of racism that comments like these turn into a pointless “who’s more bigoted” contest. I read popular conservative blog comment sections sometimes and in one today someone called Toure [who said that Romney by calling Obama “angry” had “niggerized” him] a “vicious racist.” S.E. Cupp, in arguing with him on the show, claimed Joe Biden was bigoted based on the “chains” remark and some lame ethnic joke he told in the past regarding 7/11 stores. In addition to missing the point and adopting the left’s premises, this is a fight conservatives will never win right now because the GOP is the white, middle-America party and the powers that be in the media have effectively labeled that as A Bad Thing. [LA replies: That this S.E. Cupp would make such an argument illustrates the utter mindlessness of the Republicans.]

I can’t think of what exactly a great alternative response would be, but it would obviously involve pushing back against that narrative, not by trying to out-multicultural the left but by questioning why there’s anything wrong with the GOP’s demographics. And of course pointing out the idiocy of these comments.

The reader continues:

I forgot, pointing out that the Democratic Party instituted Jim Crow is another favorite trope of commenters on these sites when these topics come up. Admittedly, I never learned about the partisan breakdown of votes for the 1964 Civil rights Act in high school and found it interesting when I later did, but the whole argument is incredibly silly when you take into account the shifting demographics and ideologies of the two parties over time. Trying to draw a line between George Wallace and the ideological heirs of George McGovern is a bit of a stretch to say the least. [LA replies: Another example of sheer GOP mindlessness.]

TG writes:

Thank you for your brilliant writing. I’ve been reading it for years, but I never wanted to comment because I’m still relatively young, and not certain what I believe.

It would be pointless to compile a list of all the charges of racism. The list will expand to eventually cover all criticism of Democrats.

It already has a “chilling effect” on speech. Democrats won’t provide a list or definition of racism. They don’t want to provide a helpful guide to avoid hurting the feelings of non-whites. They use the technique of “deconstruction,” which can be used to prove that any human expression is not what it seems.

The comparison with Marxism is obvious. Marx accused his opponents of “false consciousness.” Anyone who didn’t support Marxist revolution was either rich or brainwashed by the rich. If you don’t support the Democrats, you’re brainwashed by Republicans, who trick you into hating blacks instead of your Republican oppressors. This is the conscious conspiracy explanation.

The other explanation is Freudian. Your racism is unconscious and needs to be diagnosed by experts, without all the formality of the couch. Without even occupying the same state. They declare: white privilege makes you racist and you don’t even know it.

On sites like LGF, they use the term “dog whistle,” to describe coded racist messages sent out under the radar from Republican leadership to membership. My psychoanalytic theory is that Democrats are projecting. They have doubts that all races are equal, and they need to accuse others of racism to prove they are holier than thou.

August 17

The reader quoted above writes:

I find the Frank Sharry quote particularly ridiculous because if Romney had selected Rubio as his running mate, he would still get zero sympathy from people like Sharry. Regardless of any liberal statements Rubio might make on immigration, we would likely be treated to several articles about how he doesn’t properly represent Latinos, how he’s a traitor to his race for joining Romney, and maybe even how he’s too white/light-skinned.

On the Republican side, there was an article in the Weekly Standard prior to the Ryan pick where William Kristol and Stephen Hayes suggested either Ryan or Rubio as the best choices, and recycled the line about the GOP’s lack of Hispanic outreach in making the case for Rubio. They never explained why they thought such a ticket would have much additional appeal to Hispanics outside of Cubans in Florida, though.

LA replies:

That advice came from the people whose immigration policy handed California over permanently to the Democratic party. Neocons walk down a street, and houses collapse in ruins behind them.

Kevin Grace writes:

The Republicans said nothing about Jeremiah Wright in 2008. They have said nothing about Obama’s race war in 2012. They’d better; or it will be a case of speak now, or forever hold your peace.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 16, 2012 09:12 PM | Send