The Left Hates a Debate

There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do do not want to lose their jobs.

I am afraid that there is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don’t want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public.

My experience is that people who call themselves “The Intellectuals” understand theories, but they do not understand things. I have long been convinced that, if these men could have gone into the South and taken up and become interested in some practical work which would have brought them in touch with people and things, the whole world would have looked very different to them. Bad as conditions might have seemed at first, when they saw that actual progress was being made, they would have taken a more hopeful view of the situation.

Booker T. Washington, from My Larger Education, Being Chapters from My Experience (1911)

Booker T. Washington has long been one of my favorite early twentieth century writers. I think that both the Left and Right can do well to read his works and learn from them. The Left might realize that many in their ranks are the “certain class of race-problem solvers,” that Washington talks about. The Right will have to come to grips with a lot of unpleasant facts about black life in the early 20th. One thing I want to focus on right now is Frank Rich’s column; The Rage is Not about Health Care.

Writing for the NYTimes, an organization of “problem-solvers” who have probably never stepped foot in a slum or ghetto in their lives, basically coffee shoppe liberals, Rich knows exactly the thoughts that are going through every single Tea Party or small Government protester, it’s all about racism. He doesn’t even have the gumption to come out and say it directly either. He cowardly eludes to it with statements like; The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play.” That’s right, if your against the Health Care Bill, it because your afriad of diversity, and we all know what times of people are against diversity right?

Now if that isn’t bad enough, Rich links to MSNBC –Isn’t this the same MSNBC that has been accusing HCR protesters of being racist, bringing their guns to rallies, only to selectively edit out a black man at a rally with a gun?– to show all those examples of racism at Tea Party protests. Most of Rich’s link have been debunked, or have no evidence except by reporters who have an incentive to stir things up. Oh yeah Rich even links to the false story mentioned above!

I’m sure there is racism left in this country. Maybe racism is the motivation for some of the protesters, but not ever single one of them, like the Left is trying to portray. But let’s not forget that there are racists on the Left as well; race hustlers like Sharpton that yell racism at everything, do you think he sees no difference between black and white. What about the certain group that can use the “N” word, while everyone else can’t…kinda smells like racism to me. Can a poor white kid qualify for a scholarship from the United Negro College Fund? What would the reaction be to a United White College Fund? But this is all beside the point.

Why do the Left, like Rich, have to play the race card all the time? As John Smart (one of the few on the Left, that is open to debate) said in a recent post, “To these people the Tea Party has to be about race. If it’s not they lose control of both the narrative and the outcome.” It’s true, they have to make it about race, they don’t want the debate to be about the proper role of Government. It’s a debate they know they will lose.

So the question still remains, why do people like Rich use the race card so profligately?

The AGW debate gives me the answer. It’s because ad homimen works, or at least is used to. Logical fallacies work for the most part. The Left knows that most people don’t take any formal classes on logic; they should know, they are usually in charge of the school system. They know that the average Joe, doesn’t know what a red herring, appeal to emotion, appeal to authority are all fallacies, the use of them doesn’t prove anything. Really it’s both the Left and the Right that use them, but when it comes to using the race card, that’s all Left baby.

The Left knows that no one likes to be called a racist. Racism, as it should be, is a taboo. By using the term racist, a person can easily neuter anyone’s argument. The accused now has to spend time and effort defending themselves against a warrant-less charge in stead of the topic of the debate. In the Tea Parties’ case, instead of actually having a discussion on the role of Government and should it be allowed to Mandate anything. Now the Tea Party has to spend valuable energy and more importantly time, remember the elections are in November, defending against baseless charges instead of rallying the people around the message of smaller Government.

People, that otherwise support the message of smaller Government, are now put off from the Tea Party because they don’t want to be seen as a possible “racist” or “segregationist.” This might now stop those people from voting against the Left this election, since, thank the GODS, voting is still done in private. But it might stop a movement from turning into a rebellion.

The Left doesn’t not and can’t afford a rebellion against Big Government. That kind of rebellion will destroy the welfare state. The Left doesn’t want that to happen. If the Tea Party movement keeps growing, it will only naturally want to repeal, not only, the Mandate, but all forms of Government Welfare Statism. A movement like the one the Left fears, can amend the Constitution with wording to the effect of; The Congress shall pass no law that will un-uniformly distribute wealth from one citizen to another. (Mind you, I’m no lawyer so I don’t know what the proper legalesse would be.)

The effect would be that Congress can’t give goodies to certain people at the expense of others. I think of it as a true representation and ultimate form of “Equal before the Law.” So if Congress gives Eagle Lake Farm Partnership a $43,158 Soy subsidy in 2005, they have to give everyone  the exact same subsidy. Imagine how quickly Farm welfare will dry up? Politicians will not be able to claim any extra benefits, or bring any money home to certain political pressure groups. Imagine the incentives against corruption those will be?

But that isn’t a debate that the Left wants. They want bigger, more “benevolent” Government. We all know that benevolence and Government do not mix. The Left, still thinks it can. That’s should be debated as well. In today political climate it won’t be. To the Left, to be against Government is to want old people to die on the streets, to want children to starve, or to want the poor go bankrupt for having diabetes. Those are all fallacies and all appeals to emotion. The Left believe those to be valid arguments and as a result, we will never be able to have an open and honest debate.

I think if Booker T. Washington were still alive, he probably rewrite his quote above to read, Some of these people do not want Anyone to lose their grievances, because they do do not want to lose their jobs.

  1. yttik
    March 30, 2010 at 16:54

    This is a good post. I’m going to have to read some more Booker, it’s been a long time and I’ve forgotten some of those quotes.

    Whether you call them race problem solvers or do gooders, those of us who have worked for social causes recognize the beast. There is a political class of people who say they want to help the poor, who are forever telling you about people’s suffering, but when push comes to shove, they don’t really want to solve the problem. That’s because it becomes a conflict of interest. If you don’t have your poor starving child to pose next to for a photo op, your fund raising is cut off at the knees. “Helping” the poor almost becomes like an addiction and if there aren’t any more poor people around, you lose your whole identity. You have to control these people and keep them needy or else you really are out of a job.

    • April 1, 2010 at 04:48

      Thanks. I agree “helping the poor” is nothing more masturbation for a lot of people. I think of it the same way as recycling. It’s no secret about my views on Global Warming, yet I recycle more than a lot of the alarmists I work with. What’s up with that?

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: