Jim Moran plays Race Card--and obscures what would have been a good point

Virginia Representative Jim Moran (or is that "Moron"?) recently used the primary play in the Liberal playbook--accusing those of us who oppose Barack Obama of racism:

Link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/28/rep-moran-dems-lost-dont-want-governed-african-american/?test=latestnews?test=latestnews

Ok, so a Democrat falsely accusing Conservatives of racism isn't exactly something new, and indeed is something that happens so frequently that it's hardly newsworthy at this point. Sort of the political equivalent of "crying wolf"--the Democrats use this tactic so often that it starts to lose it's effectiveness, as I believe the majority of the American people are starting to recognize the baselessness of most of these attacks. But if Liberal cries of "racism" have become so common that they are largely ineffective, then why am I taking the time to point this particular case out?

Well, to answer that question, let's look specifically at the text of Rep. Moran's remarks:

"In this case a lot of people in this country, it's my belief, don't want to be governed by an African-American, particularly one who is inclusive, who is liberal, who wants to spend money on everyone and who wants to reach out to include everyone in our society. And that's a basic philosophical clash"

What strikes me as different about these remarks (as opposed to most other playings of the "race card" by the left), is that after Moran makes the baseless accusations of racism, he actually goes on to make a pretty reasonable and salient point. Never mind that the salient points he end up making have zero connection to his accusations of racism (and as we all know, in modern America, when you bring race into the discussion, then the discussion will usually be dominated by race--and all other aspects of the conversation will normally be overlooked).

Did you read that right? Did you just read that I said Moran made a decent point? Yes, and I know you can't believe it...I can hardly believe that I wrote it. In order to explain my point, allow me to take the liberty of editing out the accusation of racism from Moran's remarks, and illustrating what would have been "left over" had he not played the race card. In mathematical terms, (Moran's Statement) - (Racial accusations) = this:

"In this case a lot of people in this country, it's my belief, don't want to be governed by....one who is inclusive, who is liberal, who wants to spend money on everyone and who wants to reach out to include everyone in our society. And that's a basic philosophical clash"

Looking at the above statement--and after having edited out the false accusations of racism--I'm struck by something rather astounding...I agree with it!!!! There ARE a significant number of Americans who do not want a President to be inclusive, to spend money on everybody, and/or to reach out to everyone in our society. To put it bluntly, many of us on the Right do not believe that it is government's prerogative to make sure people are "included" in society or to provide them with income/needs/wants...instead, we believe that those tasks should fall to the individual themselves. The Modern Conservative believes that it is not the job or the prerogative of the government to prop anybody up--instead that it is the job of each of us to prop OURSELVES up to the point that our talent, drive, motivation, and intelligence will allow us to do so.

Likewise, we do not believe that it is government's job to determine what groups of people should be "included" in society and who shouldn't be--instead, we believe that task falls to society itself (and make no mistake, most Conservatives believe that "government" and "society" are two separate entities--while I suspect most Liberals believe these entities to be intertwined, redundant, or even one in the same). Most of us believe and understand that the beauty of the Free Market is that even those who believe they are--in terms of society and culture--on the "outside looking in"--can work their way into society over time based on their contributions...without the government forcing society to "include" them. To put it in blunt terms, It doesn't matter if you are gay, a minority, a female, or have any other characteristic that you feel is a "disadvantage"--if you show that your contributions can fulfill a demand in society (in other words, if you can generate revenue for yourself and others), then society will include you. After all, in the end, the love of money always trumps the disdain people might have for other characteristics.

So you see that the last two-thirds of Moran's statement is actually spot-on in terms of the opposition to Obama and Liberalism in general. He is correct to state that this is a "basic philosophical clash" that is occurring within America today--in that sense, I couldn't agree with him more. Had he just stuck to the statements in the latter portion of his remarks, my reaction would have been "Finally! Somebody on their side understands exactly where we are coming from!" While--in such a fictitious case--Moran certainly wouldn't have been in agreement with the motivations and ideals of the Modern Conservative, it would have at least demonstrated an understanding and grasp of what we stand for that is far beyond what many other Liberals possess. In short, it could have been a magnificent starting point for the discussion that we need to have in America--the discussion of what specific roles do Americans wish for the government to take in their daily lives, and how large (or small) do Americans wish for their government to be.

But he just had to throw that Race Card out there, didn't he?

Moran--by leading off his statements with charges of racism--completely obscured those latter points which could have greatly contributed to the political discussion in 2011. On one hand, it's almost encouraging that someone on the Left comes so close to "getting it" in terms of what we on the Right stand for (as Moran sort of did in the latter part of his comments). But on the other hand, his mischaracterisation of the alleged and virtually non-existent "racism" in the American Right is yet another example of the Left purposely damaging racial relations and inspiring suspicion and distrust among the various ethnicities in America simply to keep themselves in power.

It's a disgusting ploy from the left--and one that they rely on far too often.

So...um...what's with that next to last word in your blog title?

...that has been the main question I've gotten since starting my foray into political punditry.

The feedback I've received has ranged anywhere from "Why do you feel the need to point out that you're white?" all the way to "Conservative White Guy? Isn't that phrase a bit redundant?" It's certainly gotten people to start talking, and I suppose that was the intent. It seems that almost everyone who I've spoken with who has seen the blog up to this point has wondered: "Just where in the Hell are you coming from with this thing?"

Well, for starters, let me make one thing perfectly clear--I believe that my race (or for that matter, anybody else's race) is about the most insignificant factor that you can look at when it comes to judging somebody or forming an opinion about them. I don't look at being "white" as a positive or a negative characteristic...for lack of a better term, it just "is". Neither good, bad, or indifferent. To me, being a "Conservative White Guy" should be no different that a "Conservative Black Guy", a "Conservative Latina Girl", a "Conservative Asian Chick", or a "Conservative Alaskan Mama Grizzly"--the only important word in those descriptions is "Conservative"--all the other words in those descriptions should be considered completely meaningless.

But if that's the case--if that next to last word really is irrelevant, then why did I bother to use the "W word" in the title?

It is because many on the Left actually DO consider the "W word" to be a massively important part of the description. By no means is it uncommon to hear references in pop culture (or even the mainstream news media) to terms like "Conservative White Guys", "Conservative White Males", "Old, Rich, White, Republicans", "Angry White Men", etc. And these references are generally quite negative in nature--do this quick exercise: google the term "Conservative White Guy". Notice how many of the results paint CWG's in a very negative, even angry, light. (Two of my favorites: "Why fat White Men are Conservative" and "Glenn Beck gets to ask dumb-white guy questions to a room full of black Conservatives"). Not exactly a treasure trove of unity and color-blindness coming from the Left in those results!

And in the run-up to the 2008 Presidential Election, how many people (famous or otherwise) do you remember hearing say that they wouldn't vote for John McCain "because he's another old, rich, white guy"? (Be honest)

So because there is--for whatever reason--some sort of negative connotation assigned to Conservatism because of those of us who happen to be White, I figured I'd be up front about it and admit, "Yes, I'm white." I don't think that fact has any significance, but for some reason, many on the Left seem to think that it does. If the Left wants to play the race card with myself and other Conservatives, then I think it's high time that we engaged them on the topic rather than running away from it. You'll notice, if you pay any attention to current events whatsoever, that it's the Left who always brings race into the conversation-- it's very rarely the Right. Perhaps they think that whenever they bring up race, that Conservatives will run for higher ground and stop discussing the issues (and to be fair, for the second half of the 20th Century, that's exactly what most Conservatives did...we would very rarely engage the Left on this type of issue, and I think that's been one of the biggest mistakes that we as a movement have made). Perhaps by actually engaging the Left in this type of discussion. we will finally bring to light one of the best-kept secrets in all of American Politics...

...that when it comes to bigotry, hatred, and closed-mindedness, nobody can hold a candle to the American Left.


Coming Soon: My 12 Key Concepts of Conservatism