The Patriot Post® · Which Is the Party of Hate?
Have you noticed that we are becoming increasingly balkanized — by race, religion and in other ways?
When an angry black gunman ambushed and killed five police officers and wounded nine others in Dallas, he said he was upset over police shootings of black men and that he wanted to kill white people, especially white police officers. When San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick refused to stand for the national anthem, he said “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.” When Black Lives Matters stages protests around the country, they often chant “Pigs in a blanket, fry like bacon” — a phrase expanded from one used by a killer who executed two police officers.
What is causing all this anger and hate? Here is part of the answer: It is intentionally being stoked and nurtured by Democratic politicians (especially Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton) who are heavily invested in the idea that African-Americans are being oppressed by white racists. All too often their message is spread afar by a compliant news media.
Here is the background. The Democratic Party’s approach to national elections is overwhelmingly shaped by three facts: (1) the black vote is hugely important to them, but (2) less than half of black voters actually agree with the Democratic Party’s view of government, and among those who do agree a great many are routinely mistreated by the very politicians they vote for; and therefore (3) the only practical way to ensure that the vast majority of black voters reliably and enthusiastically turn out for the Democrats is to avoid discussing real issues and focus instead on racial politics. (See here, here, here and here.)
So desperate are Democratic leaders to engage in race baiting and so reliant are they on its consequences that they have turned to pure fabrication in order to stoke it to higher and higher levels. Consider these examples:
After three white racists chained James Byrd to a pickup truck and dragged him to his death, the Texas criminal justice system and Gov. George W. Bush acted quickly to see that justice was done. Yet on the eve of the 2000 presidential election, the NAACP ran ads on black radio and black TV implying that Bush was sympathetic to the lynching of black men.
It is now known that the killer of Treyvon Martin was not white. He was Hispanic and of mixed race background (with blacks in his family). Yet after initial news reports suggested that the incident was racially motivated, President Obama repeated that false narrative to a nationwide audience leading up to his 2012 reelection bid.
Vice President Joe Biden piled on by telling an African-American audience that if Mitt Romney were to win, he’d “put ya’ll back in chains.”
Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, was a thief and a bully and his death at the hands of a police officer apparently had nothing to do with race. It is now known that he never said “Hands up don’t shoot.” But early reports that he did say that sparked protests and riots in the black community there and, again, Democratic politicians lost no time exploiting incident.
At the National Democratic convention this year, Hillary Clinton had the mothers of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown and other supposed victims of white racists police on stage, seeking sympathy — knowing full well that the entire charade was a lie.
Why doesn’t the national news media call out the Democrats the way they would if Republicans pulled similar stunts? Instead of fact checking the race baiting, all too often they are reliable conveyors of the Democratic approach to political messaging.
The other day on Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough, Gene Robinson and Mike Barnicle agreed after a lengthy conversation that there are four things Donald Trump could do to win over black voters:
1.) Denounce David Duke.
2.) Hire more blacks on his campaign staff.
3.) Speak to more black audiences.
4.) Walk up to Harlem and talk to ordinary people.
And that was it. Nothing more? Nothing more. These are three highly intelligent and sophisticated men. One is Republican. Two are Democrats. One is black. All are astute observers of American politics. Yet they couldn’t think of one more thing to add to the list. Not good schools. Not better housing. Not safe neighborhoods. Not bringing down regulatory barriers to job opportunities. Not protection from environmental threats, such as those in Flint.
The tacit message is: Black voters don’t vote on issues; they vote on symbolism.
If this doesn’t strike you as strange, let’s turn it around. Suppose the Morning Joe crowd was discussing how Hillary Clinton could improve her position with white voters, especially white males. Suppose they suggested:
1.) Denounce Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton (say, the way Juan Williams did).
2.) Hire more white males on the staff.
3.) Speak to more white audiences.
4.) Go to bowling alleys, rodeos and NASCAR races and talk to ordinary white men.
This conversation would never occur for two reasons. First, the chattering class regards white identity politics so completely unacceptable, it cannot be discussed — even in an analytical way. You can have black identity politics, gay identity, women’s identity, but not white identity — certainly not white male identity politics. Anything that even smacks of it would immediately be called “racist.”
Second, no one would believe that white males don’t care about jobs, taxes, immigration, trade and other issues and only respond to symbolism.
Back to Donald Trump. Palm Beach, Florida, has a reputation of being one of the most prejudiced cities in America — a reputation that goes back for decades. Yet Trump stood up to the city elders and opened his new resort there to all the minorities that were being excluded elsewhere — Jews, blacks, Hispanics, etc. So Trump’s recent outreach to the black community came as no surprise to me. But as black columnist Jason Riley writes in The Wall Street Journal, it’s causing “Dems to Fume” and liberals to go “berserk.”
Monday’s New York Times ran a front page article revealing that young blacks are so disaffected by Hillary Clinton that they may not vote at all. This must be a real possibility, because back on the editorial page, black columnist Charles Blow was going ballistic. Donald Trump “reeks of rot and sulfur,” he wrote. And then he addressed Trump personally:
“Your soul is dark, your character corrupt. You are a reprobate and a charlatan who has ridden a wave of intolerance to its crest…. You are a prime example of the worst of humanity.”
This my friends is what The New York Times regards as acceptable commentary these days.
So tell me again, so I don’t get confused. Who are the purveyors of hate?