I am sorry if it seems that I am picking on Maureen Dowd, but she just provides so much fodder for my posts. I must say, she is a great writer (hence my regularly reading her), but she is a perfect example of what is wrong with liberals today. They constantly tell us to look past race and gender, that we are living in a "post-racial" America, yet just as constantly remind us of the race and gender of this or that person, as if this will tell us all we need to know about his or her thought process and values.
People's Exhibit C, Your Honor (Exhibits A and B have already been discussed): Maureen Dowd's September 15, 2009 column in the New York Times. In her second column on the subject of Rep. Joe Wilson's disrespectful "You lie!" outburst at President Obama, she continues her theory that what was really behind the accusation was racism. Her proof? Nothing, except her conviction that "black members of Congress were fed up" with "sulfurous attitudes towards the first black president." She quotes former President Jimmy Carter, who was equally convinced that the overwhelming animosity towards President Obama is "based on the fact that he is a black man."
If you were paying attention during the 2008 election, you knew this was bound to happen. It had to. Barack Obama was so built up as the first black president, that it came to totally define him. Not that he was a president armed with arguably the flimsiest of public records coming into the White House. Not that he was undoubtedly the first leftist (not liberal, but leftist) person to occupy the Oval Office. He was a black man, and that was all anyone needed to know. Any attack on him, I predicted to friends, would be seen as racist, no matter how documented the charge. Liberal blacks (the "liberal" label being almost a redundancy) are immune from any kind of attack. Conservative blacks have no protection whatsoever (see Thomas, Justice Clarence; Blackwell, Ken; Keyes, Alan et al).
Note to liberals: Stop assuming that whenever conservatives attack one of yours, the reason is due to that person's race or gender. You focus on those externalities much more than we do. For us, values are paramount. For you, if you know a person's race, gender, or social class, you feel you know all you have to about him or her. We're a bit deeper than that. Ever noticed that conservatives hardly ever accuse liberals of attacking one of theirs on the basis of race or gender? An exception might be Sarah Palin, but that was because the attacks on her were so overtly directed at her gender. Nothing riles up liberals more than a conservative black, Hispanic, woman, or homosexual. Those groups belong to the liberals, no matter how many policies liberals support which hurt those groups (the topic of another posting; stay tuned!).
So, write on Ms. Dowd! But let's try and hold onto the race card for a few weeks, shall we?
People's Exhibit C, Your Honor (Exhibits A and B have already been discussed): Maureen Dowd's September 15, 2009 column in the New York Times. In her second column on the subject of Rep. Joe Wilson's disrespectful "You lie!" outburst at President Obama, she continues her theory that what was really behind the accusation was racism. Her proof? Nothing, except her conviction that "black members of Congress were fed up" with "sulfurous attitudes towards the first black president." She quotes former President Jimmy Carter, who was equally convinced that the overwhelming animosity towards President Obama is "based on the fact that he is a black man."
If you were paying attention during the 2008 election, you knew this was bound to happen. It had to. Barack Obama was so built up as the first black president, that it came to totally define him. Not that he was a president armed with arguably the flimsiest of public records coming into the White House. Not that he was undoubtedly the first leftist (not liberal, but leftist) person to occupy the Oval Office. He was a black man, and that was all anyone needed to know. Any attack on him, I predicted to friends, would be seen as racist, no matter how documented the charge. Liberal blacks (the "liberal" label being almost a redundancy) are immune from any kind of attack. Conservative blacks have no protection whatsoever (see Thomas, Justice Clarence; Blackwell, Ken; Keyes, Alan et al).
Note to liberals: Stop assuming that whenever conservatives attack one of yours, the reason is due to that person's race or gender. You focus on those externalities much more than we do. For us, values are paramount. For you, if you know a person's race, gender, or social class, you feel you know all you have to about him or her. We're a bit deeper than that. Ever noticed that conservatives hardly ever accuse liberals of attacking one of theirs on the basis of race or gender? An exception might be Sarah Palin, but that was because the attacks on her were so overtly directed at her gender. Nothing riles up liberals more than a conservative black, Hispanic, woman, or homosexual. Those groups belong to the liberals, no matter how many policies liberals support which hurt those groups (the topic of another posting; stay tuned!).
So, write on Ms. Dowd! But let's try and hold onto the race card for a few weeks, shall we?
Note to conservatives - stop assuming that we supported Obama because he is black.
ReplyDeleteGood point, CyberDov. May I ask you to tell us why *you* voted for President Obama? I would love to react to your reasoning.
ReplyDeletewell, first of all he was not Bush. I really found his policies bad for the country and in some cases morally wrong.
ReplyDeleteSecond, he seemed the best bet for policies I support - universal health care, campaign finance reform, bringing troops back from foolish foreign adventures.
Thanks for your response. I completely agree that since you expressed your support for these three issues, Barack Obama was your candidate. I am, however, very curious as to which Bush Administration policies you felt were "bad for the country" or "morally wrong." A few questions regarding your responses, though:
ReplyDelete1) Since Americans do not go to Canada for vital procedures, but rather Canadians come to America, why would one support creating a system in America which so obviously does not work, except for those who are well already? In a universal health care (UHC) system, how could the US possibly maintain the same high level of care for all recipients? One needs to either raise taxes or ration - I see no other option. And if you do not see a problem with higher taxes, since you feel that all Americans (and, as you have mentioned, illegals) have a *right* to health care, why not use your own money privately to help those whom you feel are most in need? Why force me to do the same? Please do not use the Netherlands (as President Obama has) or Sweden as examples of UHC systems which work. They are both welfare states, with their defence bills picked up in large part by America. Their social structures are not comparable. There is a reason why foreigners try to go to *America* for vital procedures. There are *no UHC systems* which are able to provide the same high quality care offered by America. Then again, high quality care may not be the goal of American UHC supporters. They may be more concerned with health care being equal, but not of a high quality.
2) Was not *John McCain* the one who was the power behind the campaign finance reform bill? Why would you vote for his opponent then?
3) I assume by "foolish foreign adventures" you refer to Iraq, and possibly, Afghanistan. Why would you describe it (them?) as foolish? Was the intel wrong on WMDs? Absolutely. But Britain, France, Germany, the UN et al had the same intel, and all came to the same conclusion. If Iraq did not have WMDs, it sure did a great job of pretending it did. When one is dealing with a homicidal tyrant, one should not take chances. See also (articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/16/opinion/oe-kirchick16), where an editor at the New Republic (!) says that the Bush Administration did not cook the books on Iraq and WMDs.
Regarding Afghanistan, do you also label that conflict a "foolish foreign adventure"? That was the one for which America had much world (read European) support!
Looking forward to your responses.