Part Six of Six
By Perry Hicks Filed 1/11/06
If it were a brand of automobile, the “Liberal” nameplate would surely have disappeared long ago; its image has become that tarnished through its identification with hardcore socialism. And “hardcore” branding is quite apt as socialists are anything but good hearted softies whose singular characteristic is being permissive to a fault. They are coldly dogmatic in their approach to any issue and, while they give lip service to “freedom” and providing social care to the “disadvantaged,” they are far from desiring a classless society.
Socialists look to dividing, stratifying, and classifying people by ethnicity, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, and age. In particular, they despise religion, preferring to elevate humanism over mankind’s obedience to a higher power.
Socialists see themselves as smarter and better informed than the body politic and thus are uniquely qualified to govern society as a kind of political ruling class. Far away from avoiding sexism and racism, their expectation is for women and racial minorities to vote with sycophantic devotion for Democrat candidates. For a minority to do otherwise is tantamount to being a race traitor.
My choice of words was chosen intentionally. While “race traitor” would seem to be part of the white supremacist lexicon, the conduct of Democrats has shown them to be every bit as hate-filled as their Ku Klux forefathers. In as much, the Klan’s first Grand Wizard and former Confederate general, Nathan Bedford Forrest, would be proud.
Politics & OREOs
Before Democrats falsely decry my claim as an abject lie, consider the treatment of Lt. Governor Michael S. Steele of Maryland, the first African-American to be elected to a Maryland state-wide office, the first African-American to be elected chair of a state chapter of the Republican Party, and a candidate for the United States Senate.
Steele’s credentials are impeccable. He was born on Andrews Air Force base in Maryland, and raised in Washington, D.C. He is the beneficiary of a Catholic education, attending Archbishop Carroll High School, Washington, D.C. and Augustinian Friars Seminary where for a time he studied for the priesthood. He also attended Villanova University and John Hopkins University where he took his B.A. His law degree came from Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C.
Rather than be pleased that an African American attained high office, Democrats have attacked Steele as an “Uncle Tom,” and illegally acquired a copy of his credit report in the hopes of uncovering an embarrassment. Obviously, there was none.
During a campaign debate in 2002, Democrats passed out OREO cookies ostensibly to symbolize Steele as being black on the outside but white on the inside. In dispute is if they were actually thrown although Steele acknowledges one did roll up at his feet; so much for Democrat sensitivity toward hurtful racial epithets.
Steele’s abuse at the hands of Democrats hasn’t stopped there. His political enemies have mocked him on a website by altering his photograph to make him look like a black-faced minstrel from a vaudeville show- thus repeating the OREO theme.
Evidently, justification for this behavior is, as a Washington Times story headlined it, Party Trumps Race.
According to the Times story, a spokesman for the Democrat Senate candidate and former NAACP president, Kweisi Mfume, is quoted as saying, “There is a difference between calling names and pointing out the obvious.”
The article goes on with other quotes where Democrats liken Steele to a “slave” who loves his “cruel master.”
If one can draw parallels with the days immediately following the Civil War, Democrats are behaving like the Ku Klux Night-Riders suppressing black voters and black Republican candidates for public office. Their remarks about Steele virtually drip with the same kind of race-hate sarcasm one might hear from the White Aryan Resistance.
Democrats defend their behavior as justified because of Steele’s support for Maryland’s Republican governor, Robert Ehrlich, who attended a fund raiser at the all-white Elkridge (country) Club. The lack of black membership in a private social club is to Democrats an egregious offense.
Unwittingly, Democrats raised this free association issue only to expose themselves to criticism for their own conduct. The Elkridge claim was thrown out to the public with the hope that the appearance will be that the Eldridge Club discriminates against blacks. What Democrats do not reveal is how the club routinely hosts minority functions such as weddings and other events.
Besides, in order for a club to have minority members, a club must have minority applicants. There has been no suggestion that blacks have both applied and summarily rejected. The problem for Democrats is that Elkridge is so-called exclusively white.
This last point raises the question: Are minorities generally kept out of social clubs with whites due to white racism or do minorities themselves discriminate by refusing to join?
While Democrats complain about “white” clubs, there is no concern shown for exclusively black male clubs such as Baltimore, Maryland’s “Arch Club.” Neither does the existence of the congressionally recognized (and one-time taxpayer funded) Congressional Black Caucus disturb Democrat sensibilities.
The Klan With A Tan
As the black conservative commentator and professor emeritus of George Mason University, Dr. Walter Williams, would say it, hard left black Democrats are virtually a “Klan with a tan.”
Take for example the conduct of the Tennessee State Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) which has recently rejected a white applicant, state Rep. Stacy Campfield (R).
Campfield has complained, and rightly so, that the caucus says only blacks can be full and equal members of their body; ditto for U.S. Congressional Black Caucus which is also 100% Democrat. It matters not that white representatives also have black constituents.
Of course, Congressional Black Caucus is quick to point to the many “honorary” memberships conferred on non-blacks.
Democrats would argue that the lack of black Republicans in Congress is also evidence of racism similar to the lack of black members at the Elkridge Club. But this also brings to question the obvious: Could it be that black Republican candidates are few because of their treatment by other blacks? In other words, is the Republican Party predominantly white because Republicans are bigoted, or is it predominantly white because black Republican candidates are abused by Democrats?
When Republican Gary Franks, an African American, was elected from Connecticut’s 5th Congressional District of Connecticut in 1990, he found himself automatically offered membership in the CBC. He joined, paid his $5000 dues, but found he was not informed of some of CBC meetings and was reportedly locked out of still others.
When Franks failed to be re-elected in 1996, another CBC member, Rep. Bill Clay (D- MO,) wrote Franks, but instead of wishing him a fond farewell, attacked him as a “foot shuffling, head-scratching 'Amos and Andy' brand of ‘Uncle Tom-ism.’ Clay went on to call Franks a "negro Dr. Kevorkian, a pariah, who gleefully assists in suicidal conduct to destroy his own race."
So much for diversity.
Reverend Martin Luther King spoke of judging a person by the content of their heart and not the color of their skin. It would be interesting to know how Rev. King would have judged Michael Steele, Gary Franks, or even Stacy Campfield.
Advance Minorities By Blocking Them?
Michael Steele and Gary Franks have hardly been the sole targets of racially motivated Democrat attacks. Instead of celebrating the elevation of minorities to posts of great national import, Bush’s minority appointees Condoleezza Rice (first NSA then State,) Colin Powell (State,) Powell’s son Michael (FCC,) Rod Paige (Education,) Carlos Gutierrez (Commerce,) and Alberto Gonzales (Justice) have all been special targets of the otherwise racially hypersensitive left.
Rice, who is both African-American and female, was particularly savaged for no other reason than her sex and race. For Democrats, she simply crossed the line when she signed on with the Republican Party.
Cartoonist Pat Oliphant depicted Secretary Rice as a parrot with an exaggerated buckwheat brand of Negroid features; Garry Trudeau’s Doonsbury strip had Bush refer to her as “brown sugar;” and Jeff Danziger in his strip had Rice talking like the character Prissy from Gone With The Wind.
If any of these cartoons denigrating Democrat officials had been created by conservatives, rest assured the hypocritical left would have erupted in demonstrations of considerable outrage. Remember how Las Vegas odds maker, Jimmy the Greek, was canned from CBS sports for his remarks as to why he thought African-Americans were, in his view, better athletes?
Rush Limbaugh was also canned by CBS for making his remark that Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb wasn’t that good but the liberal sports press didn’t want to say it because they “wanted a black quarterback to do well.”
And we all well remember the brouhaha about Chicago Cubs manager Dusty Baker and the late Cincinnati Reds owner Marge Schott pontifications about people of color.
With the exception of Schott (who shot her mouth off about a lot more than just race,) none of these sports world remarks read like they were intended to be mean spirited. Still, those hapless individuals took hard, hard public hits for their opining.
Yet, OREO cookie throwing, name calling, and cartooning exaggerated stereotypical racial features are perfectly acceptable to liberals- simply because of the target’s party affiliation.
Then we can recall various incidents of college kids being ostracized, and even punished, for wearing black face as part of a Halloween costume. The left ruled this kind of behavior was criminally insensitive.
Except, of course, when it is Democrats who are mocking conservatives of color.
Don’t think this has been lost on the African-American community. That is a lot of high ranking minority advancement to be consistently denigrated. Couple that with the immoral issues being forced on us by the left; African Americans are beginning to defect to the Republican Party.
2006 may or may not bear the fruit of Democrat hypocrisy and bad manners. However, 2008 should be a racially charged spectacle, particularly if Condi Rice were to run for president.
What could possibly be shying her away?
Part 2 - Monumental Incompetence: Radio Talk Show Host Michael Savage Identifies Liberalism As A Mental Disorder. In Other Words, A Democrat Government Could Be Likened To An Insane Asylum Run By The Inmates. Filed 10/11/05
About the Author.....
Perry Hicks is a former Mississippi Coast resident and was a correspondent for the old Gulfport Star Journal. He has appeared on Fox News Channel. Perry has also hosted his own radio talk show on the auto industry with a mix of politics. Perry is a former college professor and a frequent contributor to GCN writing on stories of national importance with local interests. His articles can be found in the GCN Archive.
Contact the Author: email@example.com