People Against For
Post Racial Politics?
I remember an old New Yorker cartoon wherein two groups of sign-waving protesters warily eye each other. One group bears placards that read PEOPLE FOR AGAINST. The apposite group's signage reads PEOPLE AGAINST FOR. No doubt this was a commentary on how confusing modern ballot initiatives had become but I am reminded of this rather screwy dichotomy in our current quadrennial presidential lying match.
The probability of there being an African-American presidential candidate appears to increase weekly. Fine. All well and good. More the merrier. Welcome to the wonderful world of "post racial politics". You realize what this means of course. It means that one can vote against a black candidate based entirely on his extremely liberal political views without the slightest twinge of racial guilt. What a wonderful state of affairs. Dr. King would be pleased to know that if we vote against Obama it will be entirely based on the content of his character rather than the color of his skin.
That's where the savage irony comes in. Whatever animosity any unregenerate racist puke-bag might feel towards Obama purely on the basis of his color will pale in contrast to the antipathy he generates by his gaseous nanny-state ultra-liberal rhetoric. He could be as pale as a Grand Kleagle and still generate distaste, at the least, in even the most knuckle-dragging electoral niche.
Which unfortunately brings us full circle. Is this really post racial politics? A much more realistic test of the concept would involve the ascent to the nomination by a black conservative candidate. Brother now that would separate the boys from the racist swine in a hurry. I pity the poor slob whoever he/she might turn out to be for they will undoubtedly be set upon by every organ of the left for their lack of "authenticity".
Can anyone offer a definition of this "authenticity" that won't tautologically spiral in on itself until it disappears down Alice's rabbit hole? Go ahead I dare 'ya. What it seems to come down to in an operational sense is that any person of color who doesn't hew to the liberal orthodoxy of victimhood and entitlement is deemed inauthentic. Consequently such worthies as Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, Ward Connerly and Bill Cosby are now seen as off the reservation, not authentic, "don't speak for our people", blah blah. In such-like dismissive rhetoric, not to mention much worse, would be characterized a conservative black national candidate. There might be a slight bit of grumbling from the far far right but if the candidate were solidly conservative that would likely dissipate if it were ever a problem to begin with.
Maybe we are into an era of post-racial politics but what we most definitely are not into is post partisan politics. And boy am I glad. There is a more clear divide in the approach of the main political parties that has seemed to exist in my adult lifetime. They agree on virtually nothing, have little common ground, and will not tolerate straying too far from their more belligerent base voters attitudes. I view this as a very very good thing. What scares me is the whole hands-across-the-aisle let's-just-all-get-along malarkey. Without rancor and partisanship much more would get done faster in the halls of congress thereby hastening the full crushing weight of the un-intended consequences generated by all that loverly bill-passing. And take it to the bank that there will be severe unintended consequences. Even fiddling around the margins of our economic and cultural juggernaut is an invitation to trouble. We can't seem to help ourselves with liberals especially prone to wanting to fix what ain't really broken.
I almost feel for Obama if he is ever actually elected. The poor sap will run headlong into the Washingtion Wall. All his pathetic "uniter not a divider" platitudes will evaporate like ice chips on a griddle when faced with the intransigence and mercurial nature of not only our political establishment but the wider world's as well. When it comes to getting body-slammed by the big boys in the Big Game he'll be dead meat if he persists in believing his own post-partisan pabulum. As For Whom the Dems Toll will it be the brass-plated bitch who'll be able to stand up to the world or the peace-love-dove puppy-dog who'll get chewed to bits by it. Will it be Ol' Iron Hips or Helium Boy? This ought to be good.
I remember an old New Yorker cartoon wherein two groups of sign-waving protesters warily eye each other. One group bears placards that read PEOPLE FOR AGAINST. The apposite group's signage reads PEOPLE AGAINST FOR. No doubt this was a commentary on how confusing modern ballot initiatives had become but I am reminded of this rather screwy dichotomy in our current quadrennial presidential lying match.
The probability of there being an African-American presidential candidate appears to increase weekly. Fine. All well and good. More the merrier. Welcome to the wonderful world of "post racial politics". You realize what this means of course. It means that one can vote against a black candidate based entirely on his extremely liberal political views without the slightest twinge of racial guilt. What a wonderful state of affairs. Dr. King would be pleased to know that if we vote against Obama it will be entirely based on the content of his character rather than the color of his skin.
That's where the savage irony comes in. Whatever animosity any unregenerate racist puke-bag might feel towards Obama purely on the basis of his color will pale in contrast to the antipathy he generates by his gaseous nanny-state ultra-liberal rhetoric. He could be as pale as a Grand Kleagle and still generate distaste, at the least, in even the most knuckle-dragging electoral niche.
Which unfortunately brings us full circle. Is this really post racial politics? A much more realistic test of the concept would involve the ascent to the nomination by a black conservative candidate. Brother now that would separate the boys from the racist swine in a hurry. I pity the poor slob whoever he/she might turn out to be for they will undoubtedly be set upon by every organ of the left for their lack of "authenticity".
Can anyone offer a definition of this "authenticity" that won't tautologically spiral in on itself until it disappears down Alice's rabbit hole? Go ahead I dare 'ya. What it seems to come down to in an operational sense is that any person of color who doesn't hew to the liberal orthodoxy of victimhood and entitlement is deemed inauthentic. Consequently such worthies as Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, Ward Connerly and Bill Cosby are now seen as off the reservation, not authentic, "don't speak for our people", blah blah. In such-like dismissive rhetoric, not to mention much worse, would be characterized a conservative black national candidate. There might be a slight bit of grumbling from the far far right but if the candidate were solidly conservative that would likely dissipate if it were ever a problem to begin with.
Maybe we are into an era of post-racial politics but what we most definitely are not into is post partisan politics. And boy am I glad. There is a more clear divide in the approach of the main political parties that has seemed to exist in my adult lifetime. They agree on virtually nothing, have little common ground, and will not tolerate straying too far from their more belligerent base voters attitudes. I view this as a very very good thing. What scares me is the whole hands-across-the-aisle let's-just-all-get-along malarkey. Without rancor and partisanship much more would get done faster in the halls of congress thereby hastening the full crushing weight of the un-intended consequences generated by all that loverly bill-passing. And take it to the bank that there will be severe unintended consequences. Even fiddling around the margins of our economic and cultural juggernaut is an invitation to trouble. We can't seem to help ourselves with liberals especially prone to wanting to fix what ain't really broken.
I almost feel for Obama if he is ever actually elected. The poor sap will run headlong into the Washingtion Wall. All his pathetic "uniter not a divider" platitudes will evaporate like ice chips on a griddle when faced with the intransigence and mercurial nature of not only our political establishment but the wider world's as well. When it comes to getting body-slammed by the big boys in the Big Game he'll be dead meat if he persists in believing his own post-partisan pabulum. As For Whom the Dems Toll will it be the brass-plated bitch who'll be able to stand up to the world or the peace-love-dove puppy-dog who'll get chewed to bits by it. Will it be Ol' Iron Hips or Helium Boy? This ought to be good.
posted by The Center Punch at
1:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home