Speaking Truth to (Black) Power

The latest flap over the Mark Williams satirical blog post* is endemic of the level of absolute absurdity to which the race-baiting has reached.  The opening act of this theater of the absurd was initiated when NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous issued his resolution to ask the Tea Party itself to repudiate the racist elements and activities of the Tea Party.  “We take no issue with the Tea Party movement. We believe in freedom of assembly and people raising their voices in a democracy. What we take issue with is the Tea Party’s continued tolerance for bigotry and bigoted statements. The time has come for them to accept the responsibility that comes with influence and make clear there is no place for racism & anti-Semitism, homophobia and other forms of bigotry in their movement,” stated Jealous.   Considering the anti-white and anti-Semitic quotes of black leaders like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhan, should we equate all blacks with Nazis?  (Louis might not mind that so much.)  Has Jealous tried to distance himself and the NAACP from these race-baiting hate-mongers?  Furthermore, it is absolutely appalling that Jealous' accusations against the TEA Party lack so much as a single shred of evidence.  This is, however, typical of the way in which the race card is played.

Act Two opened with freshman Rep. Walt Minnick (D-Idaho), who is the only Democrat to have received a TEA Party endorsement.  Minnick wrote a letter to TEA Party Express co-chairwoman Amy Kremer in which he stated,  "The reprehensible blog post by your spokesman was clearly in poor taste. Whatever his reasons for writing it, his words reflect on all of those associated with the Tea Party movement."  This is exactly the sort of statement that would be condemned as racist if redirected.  Imagine if a Republican had stated, "The reprehensible resolution by NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous was clearly in poor taste. Whatever his reasons for writing it, his words reflect on all of those associated with the Civil Rights movement."  Because crime is higher in black neighborhoods, should we associate all blacks with criminal behavior? 

The response of the TEA Party Federation in Act Three was extremely disappointing.  While it is indisputable that racism should never be tolerated, there are other issues that should take precedence here.  The first issue is that, as TEA Partiers, our primary focus should be on individual liberty.  We should be defending those same individual liberties, to include the right of free expression, that our Founders secured for us.  That the right of free expression is enshrined in the First Amendment, along with religious liberty and the right to petition government, should be a glaringly obvious indication of its importance.

Mr. Williams' piece was satire.  Satire has a long and well-established tradition of discussing issues which often could not be addressed directly without the risk of offending the powers that be.  Satire encompasses some of the most famous art and literature in the Western tradition.  Beaumarchais' Marriage of Figaro (made into an opera buffa by Mozart and Da Ponte), Voltaire's Candide, and Swift's Gulliver's Travels are all outstanding examples of satire.  While Mr. Williams' attempt fails to rise to the level of finesse of these classic works, it is, nonetheless, satire.  If poor artistic ability is grounds for removal from the TEA Party, I am afraid we shall be forced to excommunicate many additional members.

There are those who will argue that the piece was offensive.  My response to that argument is "so what?"  Where, in the U.S. Constitution or any other document, is anyone guaranteed the right to be free from offense?  If that were the case, there is a long list of individuals who owe me reparation for offense.  I am offended by all species of leftists, whether Marxist, Socialist, Nazi, Communist, Progressive, or otherwise, who would steal my earnings, sell out my liberty, and violate and destroy my country (when there are plenty of other socialist countries in the world to which they could relocate) in order to provide cradle-to-grave welfare for a sloth.  I am offended every time I am called a racist, when the leftist making the accusation can not explain how I can be a racist and still support politicians like Alan Keyes and J. C. Watts.  I am offended every time I am slandered as being "unenlightened" for not supporting socialist programs, a "misogynist" or a "rapist" merely for having been born a male, a "homophobe" merely for having been born straight, a "jingoist" for feeling more loyalty to my country than to the rest of the world, a "xenophobe" for believing the values (like the inherent worth of the individual) of Western Civilization are superior to the values (like the primacy of the collective) of non-western cultures, or any of numerous other disparaging appellations for "bitterly clinging to my guns".

Conversely, the First Amendment actually protects offensive material.  Now I am sure there is a constitutional scholar out there that will say, "ah, yes, but it only protects free speech against restraint by the government, not by private groups or individuals."  While I do agree with that argument, I would offer the rebuttal that it is hard to take the moral high ground in defense of a principle like free speech (or the rest of the Bill of Rights), when you are unwilling to defend that principle within your own home.  I find it deeply disturbing that the TEA Party would abandon a fundamental liberty in favor of political correctness.

The second issue is that  it has always been my understanding that the TEA parties were "grass roots" movements.  Who died and left the Federation in charge?  Did I just inadvertently wander in to a modern, PC episode of Star Trek?  Was there a vote held on whether or not to kick Mark Williams out of the TEA Party?  Does this mean he has to turn in his communicator and phaser?  I never got a vote.  Having no say in the direction of the party is a prime reason I left the Republican Party.  (Yes, I am fully aware that the TEA Party is not a political party in the conventional sense.  That is not the point.)

By strange coincidence, a different Mr. Williams also issued a stinging condemnation of black Americans.  While more direct and less satirical than the first example, the second editorial lambasted blacks on the exact same points:  the contempt of individual liberty and the entitlement mentality.  If the words are true and the criticism is valid coming from a black man, how can it be argued that they are any less valid and true coming from a white man? 

Regardless of how you feel about racism or issues of race, the fact remains that a lopsided monologue on the issue of race that is grotesquely biased in either direction is far worse that allowing all parties to speak their minds freely and openly, regardless of the level of offensiveness.  Much of the criticism leveled against blacks and other minorities (or any group, for that matter) is, in fact, valid.  To argue that no criticism is permissible is to defend the absurd belief that all members of a given minority are absolutely perfect while only whites are flawed.  What needs to be understood is that such unbalanced attitudes do not serve anyone's, or any race's, interests.  Furthermore, either those of us who support the TEA Parties stand for principled liberty, or we stand for nothing more than another agenda.  I, for one, refuse to support any political movement whose positions reflect nothing more than a case of 'whose ox is gored'.



*This post has since been removed from Mark Williams blog.

 

If You Want to Criminalize "Hate Speech" Begin by Outlawing Liberal "Opinions"

One of the most egregious examples of the hostility toward liberty by those on the left is the desire to criminalize so-called ‘hate speech’.  Here, in the "Land of the Free," such attempts at prior restraint based upon content are generally most successful on college campuses, and places like California that are bastions of leftist/progressivist ideology.

This attempted criminalization of 'hate speech' is amusing in terms of its blatant hypocrisy.  Attempts to outlaw hate speech nearly always come from the left, yet it is also well documented that the most flagrant use of hate speech emanates from the left.  Before we go further, however, I think it would be eminently helpful to define hate speech.  In the interests of objectivity, let us agree that hate speech is “speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation, or bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group.”  Bigoted can be defined as "blindly and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion and intolerant toward others".  That being said, when was the last time you heard a mainstream personality on the right seriously engage in ‘hate speech’?

We hear such disparaging speech from the left all the time.  Whether it emanates from has-been celebrities like Janeane Garofalo, Rosie O'Donnell, Danny Glover, or Sean Penn in one of their frequent and famous tirades slandering the same fans that used to pay their salaries, or supposedly ‘mainstream’ media personalities like Contessa Brewer tarring conservatives with the accusation of racism or CNN anchor Anderson Cooper saying “It’s hard to talk when you’re tea-bagging,” the leftists in front of the cameras seem to have no sense of professionalism or decorum. If Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh had made statements on the air that were even a fraction so offensive, the liberal media would have been up in arms calling for the FCC to shut down their programs. Even the Leftist-in-Chief Obama is not immune to slanderous commentary against his own citizens by calling  them “teabaggers” or complaining how “they get bitter, they cling to their guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment”.  When was the last time you heard of a Republican president (or presidential candidate) making such a disparaging and contemptuous statement?

Such ad hominem attacks go beyond accusations of racism or perverse sexual activity.  These attacks accuse the non-left-leaning of being “intolerant,” “hateful,” “mean-spirited,” “homophobic,” “xenophobic,” “misogynistic,” “greedy,” “unpatriotic,” or some variation of “backward,” “ignorant,” or “unenlightened.”  When you have the Speaker of the House accusing her own constituents of being “unpatriotic” for supporting traditional American values (e.g. free markets, limited government, self-sufficiency, etc.), language has been turned on its head.  Far worse, however, is the frequency with which such leftist opinions encourage, condone, or sanction violence against those with whom the progressives disagree.  To say that President Bush should be tried for war crimes, while harsh, is a legitimate statement of opinion.  When Air America Radio personality Randi Rhodes repeatedly suggests that the answer is to assassinate the POTUS, the opinion has crossed the line to border on the criminal.  When illegal aliens threaten to murder whites unless they are granted amnesty, the speech has become intolerable and is no longer protected. When SEIU union members verbally threaten and physically intimidate peaceful protesters over disagreements regarding public policy, the union needs to be disbanded.

Even supposedly apolitical institutions like the Miss USA competition are not immune to the virulence of leftist slander.  Perez Hilton a Miss USA judge and gossip blogger, asked Miss California Carrie Prejean about her stance on same-sex marriage.  He then proceeded to call her a "stupid b***h" in a video tirade he aired on his blog due to his rabid dislike of her answer to the question that he, himself, asked.  To say you believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman is to simply state an opinion.  To answer honestly when asked a question is merely courteous.  To engage in such name-calling (particularly because you did not like the answer you received) is churlish.  Strangely enough, the silence of the feminists on this issue was deafening.  As it was when Playboy published Guy Cimbalo's enlightening article about conservative women he would like to rape.  Apparently "all men are mysogynists and rapists" unless they are leftists and actually admit to wanting to abuse and rape women.  Also, apparently, strong women are a good thing unless they fail to toe the leftist/progressive line.

The most recent case of hate speech from the left is from Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA), who has accused supporters of Arizona’s recently passed immigration law of having “ties to white supremacy groups.”  According to Sanchez "It's been documented. It's not mainstream politics," in spite of the fact that the law has majority support both within Arizona and within the United States as a whole.  How is 60% favorable support “not mainstream”? 

To expect people to obey the law (when it has been legitimately enacted and is constitutionally valid) is reasonable.  To label people as racist for holding such expectations is beyond absurd.  Ms. Sanchez's behaviour is irresponsible, unprofessional, unconscionable, and completely in keeping with the finest traditions of the left.  I can not help but wonder whether Ms. Sanchez expects the public to abide by the laws she passes in her role as a U.S. Representative.  If so, I find her unmitigated hypocrisy appalling.  If not, I can only wonder what she sees as being her role and purpose as a legislator.

If you look at the issue objectively, you will see that the left really does not have a problem with speech that is ‘hateful’ or malicious.  What the left really has a problem with is speech that supports policies or conveys information with which they disagree.  The combination of banning speech that the left finds disagreeable along with vicious ad hominem attacks against political opponents allows the left to dominate the political discourse by silencing the opposition.  By monopolizing the realm of ideas, the left can control the direction of public policy.  The problem is that we have allowed the political left to dominate the language of political discourse.  By “we”, I mean all decent people who are more interested in finding substantive solutions to problems than we are in advancing a particular political agenda.

We have stronger arguments than the leftists, and we have the facts on our side.  When we say “concealed-carry laws save lives, and we have the statistics to prove it,” leftists say “you are a paranoid, gun-toting redneck.”  When we say “bilingual education keeps immigrants poor by making it harder for them to assimilate into our society and economy,” leftists respond with “you are a xenophobic racist.”  When we say “actual global temperatures have been cooling over the last few years,” leftists parrot “you are a global-warming denier.”  Such responses are juvenile and idiotic (notice I said 'responses', not 'people').  The only way we can fail to win such debates is by allowing ourselves to be shamed or cowed into silence by such slanderous accusations.

When leftists call us names, we need to fight back by forcing them to address the issues.  When we say “the Federal healthcare mandate is unconstitutional,” and the leftists reply with “you are racists,” we need to ignore the accusation and force them to prove us wrong on the issues.  Take back our language and rejoin the political discourse.  It does not matter if you are black or white, male or female, straight or gay.  Stick to the issues and stick to the facts, and whatever you do, DO NOT allow the left to cow you into silence, no matter what.