Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Throwing Grandma Under the Bus

Some pretend to suppose that only whites can be racist. Typical victimic grievance-mongering identity rhetoric. I'm sure they've bothered to cobble some sort of working definition of the term, racist. It would have to be a very specialized, very narrowly focused definition. Like something out of Bierce's Devil's Dictionary. A tautology, where the conclusion contains the premise rather than working out from it. Racism is what whites do, because all whites are racist. Something like that.

Yep, race sure is in the news a lot lately. I should have thought we were past all that. But someone keeps bringing it up. The sagacious mavens in our fairly balanced media? The poisonous bigots in the Republican Party? I just can't quite put my finger on it. Oh. Yes, now I recall. The Rev. J. Wright, of Trinity Church, Chicago. He just keeps going on and on about it. Race race race. So much racing, you'd think he'd have arrived by now. Instead, he's way back there in the Sixties. Maybe he's not talking loud enough?

I know a few black men, not many, but I don't know many of anybody. I notice the "brother" talk, but it's not my business, and anyway there's nothing wrong with being in a club. We all need our myths. Mine is the greatness of America. What I don't notice is a great deal of difference in the quality of character, in one group over another. As individuals, that is. As individuals, we're all pretty decent. As groups, we do seem to merge into our stereotypes. That's fine. Individuals aren't stereotypes, but groups are. Regression to the mean. The point? Wright, and his encouragement to racism. How outre. It would be pathetic, except it's part of a real thing. There is a lot of racism -- the sort that favors one person over another, solely because of race. Ugly. From whom does this ugliness emanate? The Rev. Wright, of course, specifically, and his vast flock, in general.

My definition of racism, you see, isn't the leftist one that college professors profess to believe. I don't hold that only the people with the power can be racist. They certainly can be racist. But I don't see the world in terms of class and other Marxist conceits. I try to see it in terms of individual conduct. Racism, to me, is "being unfair" because of some genetic or culturally neutral difference. We don't have to be overly precise. This isn't an argument. Thus, under my definition, it is clear that anyone can be a racist. Some are more powerful than others. That's too bad.

Aside from the Rev. Wright's own racist and incendiary words, let us concider the circumstantial evidence of voting trends. Specifically, consider South Carolina. Two weeks before the primary, Obama led Hillary among blacks 53% to 30%. Four days prior to the election, Obama led 59 to 25. On Election Day, he won nearly 80% of the black vote. A trend, isn't it.

What factor changed or clarified in those two weeks? Some vital policy position? Some new fact or scandal coming to light about Hillary? Obama's becoming even more eloquent and hopeful that before? Or was it race. How ever shall we decide that question? Easy. By looking at Mississippi, where Obama got 92% of the black vote. He got only 26% of the white vote. So clearly 74% of those whites are racists, right? Well, let's be fair-minded, and call it 24% -- half of the whites may very well prefer Hillary because of her vast experience, or because she's a woman, or some other highly relevant factor. Cutting that same slack for blacks, 42% of those voters would have voted purely on racial lines -- racist lines.

Is my reasoning flawed? Probably -- so many assumptions and imponderables. What isn't off is the observation that NINETY-TWO percent of blacks voted for Obama. If his opponent had been a Republican, we'd just expect it. Blacks can't think for themselves on this issue; it's group think, to be authentic. But Hillary isn't Republican. See? Get it? I don't think you do, but I can't imagine anything more to say on the matter to make it easier. I just have to repeat it. Ninety-two percent. That's an A.

On the other hand, a Gallup poll compares Hillary and Obama:

That's a measurement based on general population, not just some ethnic group. Big difference between these two, eh? Doesn't look like the general population of America has a problem with Obama, the man. We like him. I like him, generally. Maybe he's a little slick, a bit smug. But I wish I was slick and smug. I'm abrasive and insecure. What we don't like about Obama is his positions. Most of us have grown up. We don't vote because of skin color. Can you think of some group that would vote on that basis? The Hispanics? True, they favor Hillary two to one, in California, and Florida, and Texas -- in the big states. But that's only 66%. And Hispanics have all sorts of colors.

Ninety-two percent.

As for the nation as a whole, as of the Ides of March it was a dead heat between the two Dems. The RCP poll-average had it Obama, 45.8 to 45.0. No statistically meaningful difference. Likewise with McCain, who had 45.8% against both his opponents, Obama at 45.0%, and Hillary at 46.0%. Close close close, with both McCain and Hillary ganging up on Obama, as the main threat. McCain hasn't really started swinging yet. He's facing opposition from the right only, and none from the left, yet. Well, from the leftist mainstream media, of course, but that's just assumed. Their golden boy is Obama. How it must chap their inner thighs to have to report the emerging negatives about him. Well, under report them. But they have to pretend to be fair.

Problem is, these videos keep coming up. Obama's nose-diving in the polls. Better now, though, while he has time to regroup. It's the company he keeps. We do not like racists. Not at all. It's not okay to be a black racist. As long as it's safe, the lefty media ignores or actually feeds it. But this is just too savory for them to ignore.

How will it end, between Hillary and Obama? I've said that Hillary will win at a brokered convention. I only say that because the clintons play so very dirty, and pols are cowards, who care more about the comfort of the moment than about the next election cycle, where their sellout of Obama will come back to bite them. How specifically could Hillary win, behind those many closed doors? DNC rules.

The fatcats didn't like the peril that came to Jimmy Carter from that heroic insurgent Ted Kennedy in 1980, so two years later the DNC changed the rules -- delegates were no longer pledged, come what may. The current rule states that delegates "shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them."

The sentiments of those who elected them are that they want a Democrat to win. All Hillary has to do is point to the polls. See, boys? He's not as popular as he was. I can win the general election, and he can't. C'mon, fellas, you know how it is. The racist rubes that we all hate would never vote for a colored, and y'all know what Ah'm talkin' 'bout. And, uh, frankly, boys, doesn't it seem like Obama is just a lot blacker than we thought he was?

You think it can't happen? It will happen. It may not work.

As I say, Obama is the wrong black man. He sold his grandmother down the river yesterday. Did you hear that? His racist grandmother? For shame. While he defends this indefensible racist. For shame.


No comments: