Liberal Bigotry
We are approaching the 150th anniversary of the election of Abraham Lincoln and of the outbreak of the Civil War, and the historians are lining up to cash in – with book after book on Lincoln, the election of 1860, and the fighting of the war. In a recent issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education, Louis P. Masur – who chairs the Department of American Studies at Trinity University in Hartford, Connecticut – weighs in on some of the books hot off the presses. His discussion of these books and his remarks on the 1850s and the 1860s are intelligent and informative. When it comes to the present day, however, he descends into a species of bigotry all too common in today’s academy:
Today's Tea Party candidates prefer to see themselves as Revolutionary in origin, but their platform—disdain for the federal government, preference for state and local control, opposition to taxes, often a desire for racial homogeneity—resembles that of the secessionists.
I know of no one in the Tea-Party movement – much less a candidate enjoying its support – who has expressed “a desire for racial homogeneity.” And by now even the mainstream press has backed off from its earlier attempts to smear as racists those who have the effrontery to regard President Obama’s so-called “stimulus” bill as an act of grand larceny. Only in the academy – where there are next to no conservatives in a position to speak up when liberals display their ignorance and spew such bigotry – does this particular meme persist.
Nor can it be said that the Republicans of 1860 championed high taxes and preferred federal to state and local control of most matters. In fact, the Tea-Party movement occupies the same territory as the Republican Party of the 1860s and 1870s. It favors a federal government that is vigorous within its proper sphere, and it prefers that there be a division of responsibilities between the federal government and the states and localities along the lines envisaged by the framers of the Constitution and those who framed and ratified the Civil War amendments.
Moreover, like Lincoln himself, those who support the Tea-Party Movement tend to favor allowing those who work to enjoy the fruit of their own labors insofar as this is consistent with national defense, domestic order, and the need for internal improvements. From Lincoln's perspective, taking from those who work in order to "spread the wealth around" to those who do not was central to what was wrong with chattel slavery.
- Comment (8)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Liberal Bigotry
When someone takes 100% of the results of your labor that is called Slavery.
So what does one call it when they take 90%, leaving you with only 10%?
Mostly Slavery?
At what point does enslavement end and freedom begin?
50%?
35%?
God asks for 10% of the fruits of you labor, government asks for 50%.
Does that make government 5 times better than God?
Re: Liberal Bigotry
This is what we call a "drive-by" -- in an article about something else entirely, the author rolls down the window to take a shot at a passing target. Despicable.
And odd, too, because I'm not sure about the rest of that list of items. I mean, I know how I feel about disdain for the federal government, preference for state and local control, and opposition to taxes, but the author seems to think those attitudes should be lumped in with racial bigotry. In fact, for a lot of liberal writers, you don't even need to provide evidence of racial bigotry at all -- all you need to do is show disdain for the federal government, preference for state and local control, and opposition to taxes.
I guess I'm guilty, then. And so are a lot of people. Which is why, I think, accusations of racial bigotry are toothless and ineffective. Most of us hear them from the usual suspects and roll our eyes, yawn, and move on.
Jun '10
Re: Liberal Bigotry
Masur is exactly right, the tea-party has a strong “desire for racial homogeneity.” Isn't that what you get in a society when every race gets treated the same?
May '10
Re: Liberal Bigotry
That "racial homogeneity" talk is nonsense. Although I do meet Texans and libertarians almost daily who want to see Texas secede. I would never claim this to be a popular belief among the tea party though.
Jun '10
Re: Liberal Bigotry
Group A believes X and Y. Group B believes Y and Z. Therefore Group B believes X.
I believe X and Y. You don't believe Y. Therefore, you don't believe X.
It not just this article, it is basic political spin. Sad but true.
Edited on Oct 18, 2010 at 8:33amAug '10
Re: Liberal Bigotry
Rob Long: In fact, for a lot of liberal writers, you don't even need to provide evidence of racial bigotry at all -- all you need to do is show disdain for the federal government, preference for state and local control, and opposition to taxes.
I guess I'm guilty, then. And so are a lot of people. Which is why, I think, accusations of racial bigotry are toothless and ineffective.
Typical accusations of racism are, as you say, meaningless, but I'm not sure that makes them ineffective. Rather, it seems to me their meaninglessness is part of their effectiveness.
Sure, we can laugh these accusations off when we're just talking amongst ourselves, but when we're engaging those who are undecided or less informed, it's another story.
If someone calls you racist in public, do you simply ignore it, knowing that your silence will likely be trumpeted as proof of your racism? Or do you waste time defending yourself against the charge, time that could be better spent discussing and solving the real problems?
"Racist" is an excellent diversionary tactic, precisely because the word has been emptied of meaning, but not of emotional power.
Aug '10
Re: Liberal Bigotry
A spurious charge of racism is like the question "Answer yes or no: have you stopped beating your wife yet?" It is designed (intentionally or not) to be unanswerable.
Yet at the same time, there are enough real racists still about that the moral pressure against not dignifying the charge with a response is very high.
What's sad is that many liberals in academia (at least the ones I've met) genuinely believe that
Rob Long:
...disdain for the federal government, preference for state and local control, and opposition to taxes
is a coded form of racism. They are not simply using this as a smear tactic. They genuinely have themselves convinced that somehow the one encodes the other.
How do we reach people like this? By understanding why they have this delusion in the first place?
How do we help these people take their delusions apart?
Jun '10
Re: Liberal Bigotry
Masur's comment that Tea Partiers "often" have a "desire for racial homogeneity" is false on two levels (if not more).
First, true racial homogeneity, as I understand it, would be something like Japan, where 99% of the population comes from the same racial group. Assuming that's what he means, is he really suggesting that some Tea Partiers have a desire to remove all African-Americans and Asian-Americans from America? If so, I've never heard even a hint of these evil plans (probably some secret cabal of Tea Partiers like the ones Robert Ludlum used to write about). Masur makes a pretty scurrilous attack without a shred of evidence.
Second, what does "often" mean? One in one hundred, one in a thousand, one in a million? If, for example, it's even as high as one in a hundred (which is preposterous), then apparently he believes he can legitimately argue that it's a Tea Party principle even though the other 99 would reject it. Is he really suggesting the Tea Party should be defined in terms of the beliefs of a fringe element?
The result: bad logic and a big lie.
Edited on Oct 18, 2010 at 11:34am