Monday, October 07, 2013

Why liberals need racism to continue

Liberals need racism. And they need it—or the perception of it—to continue. If it were to go away, a good part of their very reason for existence would disappear.

That is why they reach for any little scrap of evidence that it is still rampant in our society—so that we are all assured that we still need liberals—if, for no other reason, than that they are the only ones with the sophisticated racism detectors that can detect the slightest hint of the deep-seated racism that is still rampant.

This is why, whenever Billy Jo Bob, his brothers, and his loser friends have a little too much Wild Turkey and decide in a less than sober moment to form a chapter of the KKK in some Kentucky town that doesn't even show up on a map, the Courier-Journal runs a front page story on the "Return of the Klan," with a large picture of six hungover guys with pot bellies wearing sheets they took from momma's closet that morning.

Or check out the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of hate groups, which they use to hate on legitimate conservative groups like the Family Research Council on the sole reason that they oppose same-sex marriage. If you go on their website and check out some of the many "hate groups" they list, you will find that many of them are completely inactive—or they're run by Billy Jo Bob and his other brother, Billy Jo Bob.

Now there I go using all kinds of stereotypes of country people. But that doesn't count as anti-Ruralism because liberal journalists don't seem to think too highly of country people (they're probably just racist anyway) and so their intolerance detectors don't pick it up. In fact, it's an open question whether they run such stories as the one above just because it furthers the stereotype that country people are racists.

Maybe I'll spend 832 words writing about such outrages the next time I hear a liberals calling into a radio program calling someone a "rube."

On the other hand maybe I won't—largely because it would be a completely illegitimate inference. There are very few conservative groups in the Indignation Industry that I could go around and quote in order to smear a conservative radio talk show host whose beliefs I don't like.

But that didn't stop Joe Gerth from attempting a silly hit job on Leland Conway, whose new show on WHAS received a call from someone named "Gary" who called President Obama a name which may or may not have been racial in nature and who Conway cut off in short order anyway.

Conway (like almost every other talk show host in existence) just cut the call short and went on with his show. So Gerth went around interviewing other, like-minded liberals (you know, the ones who pride themselves on independent thought) on whether Conway should have openly condemned the man after the call.

But (not even recognizing the remark as racist) Conway didn't, and this amounted to an incident of racism that called forth from the vasty deep of Gerth's racial indignation a column of some 832 words arguing that Conway was racially insensitive.

This, the reader was given to understand, was further evidence of the specter of racism which all of us ought to be thinking about all the time, except when we're thinking about the bliss of same-sex marriage and the glories of public school teachers' unions and desirability of big government.

No, this one caller on one conservative talk show is a sign of the end of Western civilization as we know it.

Oh, wait a minute, I forgot: Modern liberals don't like Western civilization as we know it. It's racist and sexist and isn't worth teaching in our schools, which is why they mostly don't do it anymore.

So never mind about that.

Gerth thinks this is another example of the coarsening of political discourse, pointing as his sole example to a rude remark by a Republican congressman. Liberals, as we all know, are so high-minded that they would never, EVER use course words about conservatives.

Gerth writes for a paper that regularly runs pieces that either propagate or pass on hate speech in the form of anti-religious bigotry. But there are only certain groups on the liberals' list of specially protected groups and religious people just don't make the cut.

It is a measure of just  how desparate liberals are becoming in their crusade to keep racial politics alive and thriving (and in the process contribute to the very coarsening of politics that they lament) that they have to resort to something so insignificant as this.

No comments: