Democrats better move beyond calling those who disagree with their policies racist etc.
The modern political equivalent of “blood libel” is the incessant claim — sometimes by people ignorant enough to say it explicitly and sometimes by people too cowardly to say what they mean, instead resorting to cheap innuendo while slaying quivering white straw men — that Republicans are irredeemably racist.The name calling is a form argument people by people too lazy to even consider what the motives of the other side really are. Resorting to name calling is a cheap form of insult and not a rational argument on the issues. It is one of the reasons the Democrats are losing elections. "Vote for me or I will call you a racist, sexist, bigot or homophobe," is not a winning message.
The caricature, no better than virulently hateful cartoon representations of Jews over the centuries, rhetorically dresses Republicans in jackboots and puts white sheets over their heads and paints them with pencil-thin mustaches (though perhaps not all at the same time). Of course, an older southern gentleman is particularly at risk of being so attired in the imaginations of too many through the ethically unhinged voices of self-styled champions of the downtrodden.
This race libel has been on full dismal display in recent days from the venomous President Barack Obama, the venerable Representative John Lewis, and the venal Senator Cory Booker.
In his not-a-moment-too-soon “farewell address,” following a remarkably out-of-touch call for economic growth through — wait for it — more unionization and higher taxes on successful individuals and corporations, Obama turned to the issue of race.
He offered this premise for what purported to be a deep thought: “After all, if every economic issue is framed as a struggle between a hard-working white middle class and undeserving minorities…” What follows this clause is irrelevant because this introduction disqualifies the statement, if not the speaker, from consideration as a serious or honest person.
In the substantive debate between the American left and right, a debate which really does exist, the basic question is “What is the proper purpose of government?” Those who are not on the political left object to greater or lesser degrees to the redistribution of wealth from those who earned it to those who didn’t.
I do indeed object to a hard-working middle class (or upper-middle class or upper-upper class) having their earnings raided on behalf of the undeserving. But neither I, nor the dollar taken from me, nor my accountant, nor the IRS agent scanning my tax return, gives a whit whether the recipient of my dollar was white, brown, purple, or plaid. (Well, I do have a big problem with plaid, truth be told.)