Share This Page

Running the racism gauntlet

| Monday, Nov. 26, 2012, 8:56 p.m.

If the GOP wants to win more black votes, it will need to get a lot more “racist.”

The scare quotes are necessary because I don't think the Republican Party is racist now.

But that hasn't stopped a lot of people from slandering Republicans as racist for one reason or another.

Many in Washington — particularly the leadership of the Congressional Black Caucus — insist that Republican attacks on U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice are racist and, yawn, sexist. The basis for this claim is that some Republicans are calling Rice unfit for the soon-to-be-vacated job of secretary of State. They're cross with Rice for what they contend to be her dishonest and incompetent handling of the Benghazi scandal.

And, because Rice is a black woman, well, blah, blah, blah. Racism! Sexism!

Never mind that Republicans haven't had a white secretary of State since Lawrence Eagleburger concluded his term two decades ago. Never mind that Republicans appointed the first black secretary of State ever (Colin Powell) and the first black female secretary of State ever (Condoleezza Rice).

Also, never mind that Susan Rice's handling of Benghazi — and several other matters — can quite defensibly be dubbed incompetent.

That doesn't stop Democrats or liberal pundits from crying racism.

Just consider some recent examples from over the summer. When Mitt Romney visited Michigan, he joked about not needing a birth certificate to prove he was from there. Not very funny? OK, sure. Poor taste? Eh, maybe. “The basest and the most despicable bigotry we might be able to imagine”? Errr, no. And yet that's what one respected “expert” on race, Michael Eric Dyson, called it on MSNBC. Rather than show some skepticism at the claim, MSNBC host Alex Wagner agreed that Romney was “scraping the very bottom of this sort of racist other-ist narrative.”

Such moral bullying makes white liberals feel better about themselves. It scares moderates and centrists away from the Republican Party. It no doubt helps dissuade wavering blacks from even thinking about giving the GOP an honest look. And it helps a feckless left-wing black political class explain away their own failures. Racial slander is like duct tape: There's no limit to what you can do with it.

One of the points of racial slander is to signal that only liberal policies are guaranteed to be non-racist (even when such policies were forged with racist intent, like the Davis-Bacon Act). This is why the Congressional Black Caucus insists on calling itself the “conscience of the Congress.”

That's why policies like school choice are routinely denounced as racist, even though they are largely aimed at improving the lives of inner-city blacks trapped in bad schools. Teachers unions don't like school choice; ergo it's racist.

Any serious attempt by the GOP to win black votes won't involve Republicans copycatting liberal policies. It will require going over the heads of black and white liberal slanderers to offer a sincere alternative to failed liberal policies on schools, poverty, crime, etc. The more effective that effort, the more the GOP will be called racist.

When Romney, whose father marched with Martin Luther King Jr., spoke to the NAACP, Michael Tomasky of the Daily Beast dubbed him a “race-mongering pyromaniac.” Just imagine the desperate, pathetic attacks in store for a more effective Republican.

Jonah Goldberg is the author of the new book “The Tyranny of Clichés.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.