Just Shoot the Messenger: Avoiding the Real Issues
Personally, I am disgusted by those (Democrats and fellow travelers) who continue to accuse people like me of being a racist. I tutor refugees, mostly young people from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. My experience suggests that those who dominate education, media, and government are the real racists because they treat my students poorly. Most significant is their opposition to making English language instruction the first priority for these students. Their attempt at some sort of multicultural justification makes no sense; the intent to keep these young people at a severe disadvantage without English in an English-speaking country makes much more sense. By such planned neglect, they assure that these unfortunate young people are virtually forced to do “the jobs American workers don't want to do.” Never mind that these kids would prefer to do something better!
Various social programs—welfare, jobs and housing programs, the proposed healthcare overhaul, and even the public education system—are equally racist in denying the less fortunate a fair opportunity for achieving prosperity. To maintain a (lower) victim class...and assure they continue to vote for the Democrats...is supremely cynical and racist. Despite their rhetoric, they do not evaluate people based on their character, as Martin Luther King dreamed, but on their color.
Contrary to the frequent accusation, few of us oppose Barack Obama for personal reasons; we oppose his ideas, which we have feared since early in the campaign. A person is known by the company they keep. We all know politicians use every tool available to create an electable persona; wise voters also learn to seek the truth beneath the image. Obama's troubling associates were not black; they were America-hating Marxists and radicals—Saul Alinsky, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, ACORN, Rhashid Khalidid. We don't hate him, but many of us do hate the ideas he shows himself determined to impose upon us. I don't care that he's (half) black; I would rarely think of his race if his supporters didn't raise the issue in order to silence their opponents.
No only does this false accusation become increasingly vapid, it will fail. It is already failing. The President's support for his radical agenda is gone, except among the extreme Left. While his popularity still holds, somewhat, that too will continue to fall as the people realize his insincerity. Like so many before him, Obama attempts to sound like he cares about the people and the nation, while he systematically pursues programs that are devastating them. How does a man get away with berating his predecessor for his deficit spending while he has orchestrated the largest deficit in American history? The answer is that he does not!
One of the more cynical attempts to advance his healthcare overhaul was to act as Preacher-in-Chief. As such, he tried to court the support of religious leaders, claiming federal restructuring of healthcare was a moral imperative. Those who ranted at President Bush's open Christianity silently accept President Obama's religious exhortations without a whisper of complaint. This is a frequent ruse by the Left, speaking ideas they oppose to win support for their agenda. I am morally in favor of assisting those who need help, but I oppose the government's involvement, first on Constitutional grounds. To put it simply, “It's none of the federal government's damned business!”
As with so much of the current administration's agenda, it violates plain restrictions of the national government. Energy, welfare, education, transportation, housing, business, and healthcare are all beyond the clear list of enumerated powers to which the federal government is restricted. Some might argue that it takes the power of the federal government to solve the most difficult problems, but indeed the contrary is true. In each of these ares, as the federal government has centralized control, success has decreased while costs have increased enormously. I challenge anyone to provide a single example of a federal program being both successful and cost-effective. Those who hate the military love telling stories of thousand dollar toilets, sadly true, but national defense and the military are the federal government's job. We simply do not need it burdening our entire nation with expensive, ineffective performance in areas it has no business being involved.
The brilliant Milton Friedman taught that capitalism and economic freedom are the key to individual freedom, not just a option that free people might consider. By contrast, socialism is the antithesis of freedom; when government controls, then freedom, of necessity, must decrease. “Healthcare reform” or “health insurance reform” as lately the President has taken to calling it, is a strategy to control healthcare—first the finances, but in the end, the people.
Some may remember the late 70's and the energy crisis during Jimmy Carter's Presidency—shortages, high prices, long lines, and price controls. Carter assumed, as all statists do, that the government was the solution. As soon as Reagan assumed the Presidency, he removed the price controls, and the free market self-adjusted. The only role for the central government, in such a situation, is to increase supply if possible. Limited supply or increased demand raises prices and reduces usage; the government does not need to do anything and, if fact, should not.
Neither should the government arbitrarily raise prices (by adding taxes) to reduce demand. The “Cap and Trade” legislation will attempt to do that, despite Obama's campaign promise not to raise taxes on the middle class. Again, I disagree with him regarding man-made global warming (now called climate change in the face of the coolest summer in the Midwest and Northeast since record-keeping began). I disagree that humans can change it back, and indeed the very attempt I find terrifying; I've seen too many wonderful plans go terribly wrong, and a global plan going awry would be massively wrong! If I agreed with those positions, I would still oppose Cap and Trade because it will undercut the American economy in favor of places like India and China who refuse to participate. This is yet another case of the plans of Democrats contradicting their rhetoric; despite the support of the unions and workers, this legislation will hit employers of those supporters harder than anyone.
I could probably discuss a hundred different areas where I disagree with the President's policies, and none of them has anything directly to do with race, the President's race, or racial politics. However, in addition, I also disagree with that; rather I agree with Martin Luther King, who I think would be horrified to see what has become of the Civil Rights Movement—anti-education, sadly immoral, and grossly dependent on government. This was not his vision nor the vision of those former slaves who aspired to a better life. It is a bitter irony for many American blacks that African immigrants have begun to dramatically outshine them; many of these true “African-Americans” respect education, work hard, and succeed despite the claim that such success is prohibited by racism.
Sadly, none of this matters to the race-hustlers and race-baiters. They in reality care little for the remnants of racism that may still exist in the country; they care only for the political clout that comes with deriding their opponents with the charge. The one group gains money and power through keeping racism alive; the other uses the charge of racism to deflect legitimate questions that warrant answers.
One might ask why they don't simply argue the issues, as they often claim to want. The answer is that they cannot. These elite, would-be nobility want absolute power, where no opposition may be heard. For now, they settle for character assassination, attacks on the intelligence of those who oppose them, and false charges—racist, homophobe, chauvinist, fascist; in other words, any attack that avoids engagement in the actual issues is preferable to debate.
While I must confess to being disgusted by these personal attacks, my recommendation is, as much as possible, to ignore them. I know I am not a racist; I reject the notion that, because I am a white male, I am automatically a racist. Such assumptions incite hatred, and I reject them. I also refuse to be cowed by such attacks; they are not true, but my concerns do matter. I will continue to raise them, go to "tea bag" events if I choose, criticize the President's socialistic agenda, and oppose his so-called "health care reform." I will be persistent in challenging the egregious spending that this President and Congress seem hell-bent on pursuing. I will advocate better ideas that might actually solve the problems, rather than create another over-priced, but failed program like Social Security, the Post Office, Medicaid, public housing, etc.
Do you disagree? Fantastic! I am more than happy to engage in discourse on any position I take. Prove me wrong if you can; I will not attack your character, as I hope you will not attack mine. Indeed, the civility of many on the Right might seem to be a weakness, given the virulent attacks commonly used by their opponents. Given the current crop of political leaders, civility isn't easy; some of the most visible invite name-calling. The evident double standard that the media and many left-leaning public figures use is difficult to ignore. Nevertheless, we need to discuss and argue the issues, even if our opponents prefer to call us names.
Comments