January 2005 Issue
When Liberals Attack Minorities
Amanda Morris '06On September 28th, 2003, Rush Limbaugh appeared on the pre-game show on ESPN's Sunday NFL Countdown. The topic of discussion was Donovan McNabb, a black quarterback on the Philadelphia Eagles football team. During the course of a discussion regarding his abilities, Limbaugh made the following statement: "I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."...
The uproar surrounding this relatively innocuous statement is scarcely to be believed. Wesley Clark, Howard Dean and Al Sharpton, all angling for the Democratic nomination for the presidency, quickly condemned the remark and called for Limbaugh’s immediate termination.
I am by no means a football expert, and for all I know Limbaugh was dead wrong. But regardless of the merits of Limbaugh’s assertion, it is a stretch to claim that this was a racist remark. And it is by no means outside of the realm of possibility that there was an element of truth to the comment. The media is anxious for success stories in many different forms, because people are interested in hearing them. People who voted for John Edwards were probably desirous that a son of a mill worker do well. That was most likely not their only motive for doing so, but it was certainly a factor for many people. If it were not, Edwards would not have made it the virtual cornerstone of his campaign during the primaries. It is hardly any different for the media to want to see a black player do well in a position where they have been vastly underrepresented.
Amid scandal and vehement cries of racism, the liberal left got what they wanted. On October 2nd, Rush Limbaugh resigned from his position with ESPN.
Fast forward to November 18th, 2004.
John Sylvester, a liberal, white, male talk show host on WTDY-AM in Madison, Wisconsin, is discussing the recent appointment of Condoleezza Rice to replace Colin Powell as Secretary of State. He calls Ms. Rice an “Aunt Jemima”, a derogatory term used to portray a black woman as subservient to white people. He also refers to Colin Powell as a “house slave”, resurrecting an old term used by Harry Belafonte to describe both Rice and Powell.
I thought for sure liberals would be appalled by this blatant racism. However much they may disagree with Ms. Rice’s politics, there could be no excuse for racist name-calling. However, a few quick Google searches revealed that the more left wing element of the “blogosphere” not only wasn’t phased by his remarks; they vehemently concurred! Cartoons appeared all over the internet with exaggerated, racist caricatures of Ms. Rice, and disgusting captions proclaiming her a “House Niggah.”
Where was Sylvester’s forced apology or resignation? He apologized, to be sure, but not to Condoleezza Rice, or the many people offended by his racist rant. Instead, he apologized to Aunt Jemima. Said Sylvester: "It is with a heavy heart that I apologize this morning to Aunt Jemima. She wasn't a self-serving hack politician who got up in front of Congress and lied. Aunt Jemima didn't kowtow to Don Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney." Well that clears that up!
The point is not that a person should be untouchable because they are a racial minority, or a female, or any other protected group. The point is that there is a blatant double standard. Liberals seem to have a monopoly on accusations of racism and bigotry. They are immune to accusations of racism, however valid. Why is that? Because they support affirmative action?
Time and time again, the left has shown its true colors when confronted with a conservative minority, proving that the liberals only want autonomy for minorities if they are willing to march lock-step with their radical agenda. Conservatives need to overcome their paralyzing fear of being construed as racist for daring to question the prevailing politically-correct orthodoxy of racial politics, and finally build up the audacity to question who the real racists are. After all, a cry of racism today is akin to a cry of witchcraft in Puritan Salem. One is simultaneously accused, tried, convicted, and sentenced. So why not beat them at their own game?
There is plenty of ammunition. Liberals have consistently attacked the formation of charter schools, independent schools which give low income (minority) parents the option of taking their children out of failing public schools (not to be confused with school vouchers, which are used to attend private schools that charge tuition. Charter schools are free for everyone.) These programs overwhelmingly benefit racial minorities, particularly African American students who, in New York State, comprise 67.1 percent of the students enrolled in charter schools. Why then, do the teachers unions consistently fight the formation of charter schools, essentially fighting to keep minority children in sub-par academic environments? The common argument would be that a charter school is a band-aid on the larger problem of inadequate public education. Fair enough. But then why support a “band-aid” solution like affirmative action? Isn’t that just the same thing on a higher level? If the real goal is to fix public education to give minorities better opportunities from the start, at least be consistent.
Racial politics on college campuses are no better. In fact, racial politics on campus is a mirror image of national politics, on a smaller radicalized scale. Coerced racial identity is such a strong force that it can scarcely be avoided. A hapless high school senior has no sooner checked off their ethnic identity than he is inundated with a barrage of emails and mailings encouraging him to join one identity based group after another. There is nothing inherently wrong with people who share a common interest or identity coming together and sharing values and ideas. However, the problem arises when one cannot value diversity of thought even within one’s own group.
This era of polarized racial politics is harmful to the country on many levels, but it harms no one so much as the minorities themselves. As an example, black voters are completely disenfranchised by blind allegiance to the Democratic Party. Why should the Democrats enact any policy that benefits blacks as a whole? They are guaranteed the black vote regardless, and by a staggering margin. And as long as the black community refuses to even entertain Republican candidates, the Republican Party has no real incentive to act in their interest either!
It is my hope that one positive thing can come from this debacle. Perhaps Black and Hispanic Americans will hear the venomous comments being circulated about Condoleezza Rice. And perhaps they will question why it is okay for a white liberal to denounce one of their own in the most racist terms possible, simply because she dared to venture off the beaten path and espouse political views that do not cater to the left wing fantasy of the model minority. Hopefully this will lead to more political engagement and further enfranchisement on the part of minority communities. And hopefully we can all learn to conduct debate over racial politics in this country with a bit more dignity and respect.