“Colour Blinded” – Scaramouche and Graham On the Foolish Accusation Leveled Against the Tea Party
A Canadian blogger named Scaramouche supplies the perfect answer to the baseless charge that Tea Partiers are racist (the latest to do so, regretfully, being the Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts).
We chit-chatted for a bit about Jews, American and Canadian, and their tendency to vote liberal (and Liberal) no matter what, until we arrived at the point of the conversation I always dread reaching with someone on the other side of the political fence: ObamaTime.
“Those Tea Partyers and rednecks–they hate Obama because he’s black! They’re so….racissst,” she hissed.
What I wanted to say was, “Lady, I bet you’ve never had a conversation with a ‘redneck’ or a Tea Partyer in all your born days. I bet for all your self-regard, the legacy of having worked for ‘civil rights’ back in the 60s, you never once considered that voting for someone largely on the basis of his (black) skin colour is actually another form of ‘racism’. It’s obvious to me you haven’t even the first clue about the people that you hate, yes, hate–what motivates them, what moves them, and why they might abhor what Obama is doing to your country and to the world, stuff that has squat to do with the discernable presence of melanin.” I very much wanted to say all of the above, but, under the circumstances, it would not have been appropriate. Instead, I smiled sweetly, extended my hand, and said, “It was very nice meeting you.”
Indeed: “stuff that has squat to do with the discernable presence of melanin”.
My own theory is that the charge of racism against Tea Partiers and their “ilk” (place me in both of these categories) is a cross between a tantrum and a blankie for people who really, really want to believe in the government-expanding, Constitution-challenging, patently unaffordable policies of the current Congress and Presidential administration but are frustrated that they are consistently at a loss to defend such policies against factual, substantive criticisms. That they can also produce not one whit of evidence of their charge makes the whole conversation in a strange way entirely consistent on their part: no facts to defend bad policies, no facts to back the only charge that desperation compelled them to scrounge up against the critics of these policies.
As to the charge made a little closer to home, Michael Graham explains to the good Governor
Gov. Patrick, when you are voted out of office this November for raising our taxes, breaking your pledge to cut property taxes, raising our tolls, trying to create cushy government jobs for your friends, supporting openly-corrupt incumbent hacks, etc. etc. I make you this pledge:
Nobody will be voting against you because of your race. They’ll dump you because of your ineffective leadership and lousy public policies.
And we know this to be true, of course, because if Governor Patrick is voted out of office, he will be standing in the ranks of other public officials – many if not most of them lacking “discernable melanin” – voted out not because of their race but solely because of their “ineffective leadership” and the “lousy public policies” they pursued.