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.
Group Identity Convenience
Avik Roy has started a firestorm. (Spoiler alert: Take your blood pressure meds before listening to to this week’s podcast.) As noted by King Prawn, Roy has decided that the GOP is the worst thing that the Left claims it to be – racist.
“The fact is, today, the Republican coalition has inherited the people who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — the Southern Democrats who are now Republicans,” Roy says. “Conservatives and Republicans have not come to terms with that problem.”
That problem. But who really has the problem?
Group identity politics must be a neutral concept. By that I mean it can not be good for groups A, B & C but be bad for groups X, Y and Z. But the Left wants it that way. Roy’s answer is to surrender to it, part and parcel. Blacks may identify as being black and demand “group rights,” and the same for women, Hispanics, Asians, Gays, et. al. Whites must crucify themselves on a cross of their own whiteness (especially for the unholy Trinity – White, Christian and Male).
During the taping of the podcast this morning someone said to me, “But the country is changing. Society is changing. We either figure out a way to be relevant or we die. It’s not complicated.”
I’ve heard this argument before. The mainline Protestant denominations have been at it since the 1970s. They’ve become so “relevant” that they’ve almost completely put themselves out of business. When “relevancy” overtakes truth you’re doomed.
That “truth” for Conservatives (as opposed to the “truth” for Christians) is that freedom and liberty are based on the rule of law for each individual, not through guilt or absolution based on an identity, be it gender, race or sexual orientation. Otherwise the whole thing falls off the rails. If guilt in crimes should not be assumed because of group identity then neither can innocence. And worse than declaring innocence is declaring an excuse. Saying “Yes, your honor, my client committed the crime but must be excused” is not justice, social or otherwise. You don’t create justice through injustice.
The worst part of this group identity absolution was on display last night at the Democratic Convention. The parents of Capt. Humayun Khan spoke about the loss of their son in Iraq. If none of the perpetrators of death and destruction are emblematic of Islam, then neither is the late Capt. Khan emblematic of its absolution. If Nidal Hassan, Omar Mateen, Syed Rizwan Farook, Tashfeen Malik and the Tsarnaev Brothers are only individually guilty then only Khan himself was responsible for being an honorable American soldier. The fact that you may have to slow immigration to individually assess whether they are Khans or criminals is not proof of racism.
My son’s best friend in the Corps is an immigrant from the West Coast of Africa. Their racial and cultural heritage could not be farther apart. Yet when push comes to shove they each know they will have the other’s back. They know because they share the idea that the Corps, and what it stands for, is bigger than the color of their skin or whether they talk with a flat Midwestern accent or that of a mix of tribal dialect and French. Black or white, native or immigrant, they are brothers under the Eagle, Globe and Anchor.
If your main goal is to grow Conservatism or the Republican Party, declaring to the world that everything vile that the Marxists and race-baiters have been saying about you is true en masse is not the way to start. Self loathing unconditional surrender is the road to the concentration camp, the road to a totalitarianism that declares the law is nothing more than a tool of political revenge. It is not the road back to the American ideals of true equality and justice.
Instead you must, like the Corps, find that something bigger, that thing that unites. Will the GOP have undesirable elements vote for them? Sure. So do the Democrats. They accept it and move on. So should we.
Published in General
Here’s the thing – the Black and Hispanic communities struggling with issues of broken families, job insecurities, poverty, etc, are supported by the the ‘elites’ and told they should blame larger society for their woes. Poor and working class white communities struggle and society gathers to point their fingers and tell them they are at fault for their own problems, and are likely receiving some sort of cosmic justice. It should not surprise anyone that this group would look for someone to see their side of things.
It will be forgiven when every white person, men in particular, pay their reparations. And that starts with you, EJ.
I’m serious, here. It isn’t forgiven because white guys like you and I say “Hey, a lot of good white people died to free the slaves!” Which means we don’t “get it.” And since we don’t get it, we must be punished.
So we have this stalemate. Look for a lot of conflict thriving on emotion.
It is one thing to ask how the perception of racism in the Republican party exists, it’s quite another to say that racism actually does exist. Shame on you, Roy.
With the media on your side, it’s amazing what kind of propaganda you can get away with. [Roy, actually not. This is sarcasm. You probable couldn’t tell]
The podcasts are only dour when it comes to Trump. If Rubio (possibly Cruz) were the nominee you would see a much more positive outlook in the podcasts. I know it is hard for some to understand but the fact that Trump is the GOP nominee is a truly depressing turn of events.
Because Hillary is SO much better!
Good grief. The primary is over Podcast people. Quit whining, crying and taking your ball home. There is an election to win.
And …. if it was Jeb/Romney 2.0 …. the cheerleading in these podcasts would have been truly sickening and depressing.
Wait – wouldn’t it have been proper to prop them up, because of Hillary /SCOTUS?
Yes, of course. The point of my post was to highlight the hypocrisy.
A conservative should be willing to either hold their nose for Jeb! or Trump.
Because … Hillary/SCOTUS.
So … why aren’t the self-proclaimed ‘principled’ doing so?
Because Trump is less conservative than the democratic alternative? So it becomes holding the nose while voting for Hillary.
Hell yeah.
The scare quotes are a bit like saying your “principles” keep you from voting for Hillary. It’s true, but the quotes sneer at your convictions.
My point was to ask why it would be sickening and depressing to hear enthusiastic support for, oh, Mitt Romney, who is demonstrably more conservative than Trump or Hillary.
It would have only been sickening and depressing when contrasted with the utter contempt shown to the GOP primary winner and his supporters. The stench of hypocrisy is just too much. If the shoe was on the other foot, there would be calls for unity and getting with the program to support the nominee. Unlike now. imho.
Some of his supporters. I have friends and colleagues who are mostly in the #NeverHillary-and-hence Trump camp. I understand their decision and respect it. The alt-right side is contemptible, but they’d be so whether Trump existed or not.
The intellectual distance between being a Rubio / Cruz / Fiorina supporter who is asked to support Romney / Kasich / Christie is nominal compared to the distance a conservative has to travel to support Trump.
As a former Cruz supporter, I dispute this. It was quite easy for me to support a candidate who believes in the radical notion that our government should secure and defend our borders and favor the interests of law-abiding American citizens over foreign criminals.
I think being asked to support McCain was a bit further but still not Trump distance. I ain’t puttin’ no sign in my yard.
No disagreement on that from me. Like my brother Bryan, I won’t be sporting yard signs either, unless topical like Preserve Religious Freedom.
Also … might I infer from your comment then, that since the distance is so far, some of your friends (even those on a podcast here) might still be travelling that long distance but they’ll eventually get there by the time that they walk into the voting booth?
The intellectual distance between being a Rubio/ Cruz/ Fiorina supporter who is asked to oppose Hillary, and a Romney/ Kasich/ Christie supporter who is asked to oppose Hillary, is not large, either.
Trump may be awful, but he is the only way to stop H.R. Clinton.
The intellectual distance to HRottenC needs to be measured in “light years”.