Reverse Discrimination in Politics

Robert Redford is an avowed Liberal.  He's entitled to his opinion.  Presumably, or so I thought, Mr. Redford puts some thought into his political agenda.  That I disagree with it is fair, since I try to reason against what the liberal agenda is.  I don't have knee-jerk reactions, nor do I call names, nor do I make outlandish comments to discredit the other side.

Mr. Redford said the other day that the shutdown was partially to blame on:

There is a body of congressional people that wants to paralyze the system.  I think what sits underneath it, unfortunately, is there's probably some racism involved, which is really awful.  I think just the idea of giving credit to this president, giving him credit for anything, is abhorrent to them so they'll go against it...They're representing their own self-interests, which is very narrow and in some cases bigoted.

Interesting.  Apparently Mr. Redford either knows something no one else seems to know, is osmotic or is merely presenting the same liberal smear campaign as always.  As I've said before about blacks, Martin Luther King did not say that blacks couldn't be judged on merit, just not on color.  Mr. Redford and some of his Hollywood chums need to understand this as well.

Infamously, Janeane Garofalo stated:

This is about hating a black man in the White House.  This is racism straight up.

Another avowed leftie, Mark Potok of the Southern Law Poverty Center, declared:

Obama has triggered fears among fairly large numbers of white people in this country that they are somehow losing their country.

Well.

I don't need to establish my credentials as a non-bigot.  It's a little like trying to disprove a negative. Suffice it to say that if asked, about the only people I really can't stand on the planet are Brits, whatever their pigmentation.  I have no axe to grind with blakcs or Latinos.  If I took the time to explain my family's background, the position would be clear.

But I wonder if what's happening is a derivation of reverse discrimination:  Instead of hating someone just because he's black, certain supporters are so anxious to prove how open-minded they are by voting or supporting someone simply because he's black.  Within the black community itself, that can be expected, just as Catholics proudly but blindly supported Kennedy back in 1960.  Given the discrimination Catholics endured at the turn of the century preceding Kennedy's election, it was understandable that Catholics took inordinate pride in the first viable Catholic candidate since Al Smith.

But when it comes to white or Latino voters, is the same blind faith understandable?  That is, although it might be natural for blacks, in some instances, to vote for a candidate simply out of racial pride, is voting for the candidate simply because he's black as understandable?  Or is it something more sinister, despite how liberal it seems?

Sure, there are plenty of Liberals in Hollywood who would support a Democratic candidate were he a Martian hermaphrodite.  But do some Liberal voters vote simply to make themselves feel better about themselves, or to redress what they see are past wrongs, taking into account nothing of the candidate's political platform?  I ask simply because it's as legitimate a query as that posed by Mr. Redford and every bit as incisive.  Could it be, as with Mr. Redford's and Ms. Garofalo's assertions that criticism of the president is motivated by racism, that certain support of the president is simply because he's black and, as with the criticism, has nothing to do with the content -- or lack thereof -- of the president's positions?   

In the military, tracer rounds are used to tell the shooter where his aim is landing the shots.  But as anyone in the military will admit, tracer rounds also tell the enemy from where the shots are being fired.  Similarly, the ridiculous, speculative and baseless claim that racism explains opposition to the president may belie the real motivations behind the criticism.  That some people are so concerned with the appearance of fairness in electing and supporting the first black president that a thorough examination of his positions and the harm they cause the country isn't to be considered because -- surprise -- to do so would be racist.  Mr. Redford avers that the president is a good and smart man.  Perhaps so.  But the policies he espouses, the administration he governs, do not pass the sniff test.  And they wouldn't pass that test no matter what the color of the man, or woman, in the White House.

The troubling thing about this is that we face exactly the same scenario once the first woman president or first Latino president is elected.  Admittedly, the election of such a president is long overdue, but if this is the same thing we're going to revisit when that happens, it doesn't portend well for the future of this country.

Criticism that is directed at the president's positions should be assumed to be motivated by reasons beyond race.  They may have political ambitions behind them, but that's not racism.  I find it hard to believe that in this day and age, such organized movements motivated by race alone are running rampant in the capital.  The days of Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond are, thankfully, over.  George Wallace is dead.  But even Mr. Wallace had an epiphany.

It's time for Liberals to have an epiphany about race.  It is possible to oppose a black person without being motivated by race, just as it's possible to support a black person for reasons other than race.

Unless, of course, one lives in Hollywood.

(c) 2013 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles