Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
I’m disappointed, albeit not surprised, at the media silence on the historical significance of America’s prospect of having its first Latino president, Ted Cruz. Not because I give a rat’s hind parts about identity politics. I don’t. I would just for once like a level playing field on race, where the media has made Republicans run uphill for the past 50 years.
When Barack Obama was a presidential candidate in 2008, there were endless references to how historic it would be to have our first black president. Some celebrities (and I surmise others) wanted it so badly they voted for Obama simply because he was black, and bragged about it.
I conceded Obama’s blackness on skin color and features. If I didn’t know of him and he walked into a room I’d see a black man, despite his Irish lineage. However, I never bought the “African American” label. That’s a sociological term of art for descendants of Africans who unfortunately can’t trace themselves to a country or tribe due to the ravages of slavery. Obama isn’t the descendant of African slaves. He is the descendant of slave owners, no different than other white presidents before him.
We are still waiting for the first president whose family rose from slavery to the presidency. It will be historic. The media wanted it so badly they just ignored that it didn’t happen with Obama and celebrated anyway.
Boy, did they celebrate. There have been constant reminders over the past eight years of the historic nature of having the first black president, and I actually have no significant qualms with it.
Yet you’d think we would see a similar wielding of historic significance in the news that Ted Cruz could be our first Latino president. It’s not in the news, except when a reporter is desperate to deny it.
Let us air our suspicions why.
My first suspicion is that media is heavily invested in portraying that one party in America as open to all and the other just for white people. They don’t journal events to be preserved for history. They journal their prejudices as history and Cruz will force them to say they’ve been wrong. There was a Republican presidential debate recently where the participants showed a Republican white minority. On stage were two Latinos, a black man, and two white men. This didn’t get mentioned in any news report I saw.
This brings me to my second suspicion: The media and the left don’t really care for identity politics or historic firsts. They care only for the Democrat party to claim these things. As proof I offer you this NBC report that holds it was a “cultural milestone” when a Latino named Bill Richardson briefly ran as a Democrat in 2008, but not so for Cruz who is a Republican. Good grief.
If Ted Cruz were a Democrat, DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz would be slathering herself in media compliments of how accepting and forward her party is in contrast to the other. Yet I’ve never seen her strongly challenged on identity politics regarding the two old white people she has as candidates.
I also note we see the same pining for historical relevancy with Hillary Clinton being a woman. Madeline Albright went the full identity politics crazy and said women who don’t vote for Hillary will go to hell.
There is no denying that constant appeals to historic justice and equality by media and celebrities will bring a candidate votes, so it is very unfortunate that those things are really just a pretext to gather votes for the Democrat party, not history. It’s unfair, but a fact of life Republicans have had to put up with for 50 years.
On a personal note, I’m happy we Italians decided to assimilate and become American white people. Nothing would have been more displeasing to me than if I were compelled to support Rudy Giuliani due to some invisible genetic tie rod.