Michael Sean Winters the Catholic writer who never even heard of Patrick Madrid continues to embarrass himself and the Jesuit magazine he writes for.
Using quite faulty logic he decides that the protests against the Obama Administration are racist “It is becoming well nigh impossible to deny the racist overtones of these protests.” The crowd which was of historic proportions is his main evidence since President Carter and Clinton did not draw similar crowds. It is rather bad reasoning to say that the only difference is that we now have a black president and nothing more.
I don’t recall Presidents Carter and Clinton adding trillions of dollars in debt and at the same time proposing even more programs that would also increase the debt even more. No massive bailouts of corporations came under these presidents. No proposals for cap and trade that would greatly attack are ability to compete in the world were on the table before.
The health care debate is also part of the protests. When Hillary tried to give us HillaryCare there was also a large public outcry against it which killed it before it became a bill to be voted on. This is why even though we had the Democrats holding the presidency and both houses, socialized medicine was stopped. If somehow HillaryCare had made it to the Senate surely there would have been even more of an outcry.
There is also a major change in communications since the previous Democratic presidents. When the “porkulus” bill was being created I saw a massive influx of conservatives on Twitter who opposed the bill and I also saw the beginnings of the organizations of the Tea Parties at the grass roots level. Social communication is being used to get the word out and to get people organized on a level that was hardly possible in previous years. Between Facebook Twitter, and other social networking sites there is the opportunity to organize on a level we have not seen before.
I find the use of the race card quite disgusting and even worse when coming from a Catholic. Shouldn’t we assign the best motives for others? St Thomas Aquinas wrote “yet it is better to err frequently through thinking well of a wicked man, than to err less frequently through having an evil opinion of a good man.” This problem is not unique to either parts of the political divide. We can disagree with others on a prudential level without having to assign them some motive. Everybody is seeking some good even if that good is not apprehended correctly.
I am also rather confused about how the discussion of the Seventeenth Amendment proves this charge or racism? What? He says this is only mentioned in regards to the John Birch society. Funny how I have never been to one of their meetings but have certainly heard a critical commentary amendment regarding states rights. Though he makes a connection between defense of states rights and the Civil Rights act. So I guess any discussion of states rights now makes it racist.
I found it rather ironic his use of “memory of states’ rights being enforced through dogs and water cannons.” Yes this was done by the infamous “Bull Connor” who was of course a Democrat just like every Democratic Governor who opposed racial segregation. The Civil Rights Act itself was passed with the help of the Republicans who as a larger percentage supported it over the Democrats. There were quite a few Democrats like Al Gore’s father who voted against it. Please Mr. Winters if you are going to tar the reputation of Republicans at least get your history right.
Mr. Winters also uses the bad logic that if you want a system closer to what the founders intended then you also want the racism from those earlier times. Therefore any suggestion that you want to go back to the time before the massive nanny state then you also are pinning for the evil of racism for that time. I have heard this type of faulty logic asserted before with the exact same connection. So I guess if liberal talk about the sixties in a positive light then by their logic they long for the days of dogs and water canons used on black persons.
The Democrats have become like the “Church Lady” on Saturday Night Live “Could it be … Racism?” The joke goes that the charge of racism is used anytime a liberal is loosing an argument, unfortunately this is way too accurate. The race card has become like the boy who cried wolf which undermines when there is actually the evil of racism. You can impugn the judicial capability and intelligence of Justice Thomas all day long – just don’t dare oppose a Democrat who just happens to be black.
Excellent write up. Church lady analogy was funny and sadly accurate!
The race card has become like the boy who cried wolf which undermines when there is actually the evil of racism.
It’s quite similar to using the term “Nazi” to stop/tar an opponent. Who’s stifling debate now?!?!
Remember: this is the same President who said that he didn’t want his opponents “to do a lot of talking.”
Excellent post. And excellent historical references, too.
The Jilted Redhead [Maureen Dowd. Dumped by Michael Douglas for Catherine Zeta Jones], Mike Lupica [ESPN2 sports guy], the Dinosaur Media, pundits of any political stripe, Catholic Libs, etc., etc., etc. So to these enlightened souls, disagreement with [D]ear Leader’s policies isn’t simply having an opposite view, or maybe even a form of racism. It is racism. Mmmmm-kay-ay.
No wonder one of the Tea Party marchers this weekend carried a sign that read,
“It doesn’t matter what this sign says, you’ll call it racism anyway.”
Well, that certainly didn’t take long to come true. Did it?
The left is getting desperate. However, they shouldn’t blame anyone but themselves. Independents and conservatives are using the Left’s own tactics against them, especially this last Saturday [Alinsky rule #3]. Just wait ’till those who oppose Obama’s policies do exactly as he told his followers to do to Obama’s critics during the 2008 Prez campaign:
“I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face.”
He stooped to name calling. The first clue that someone is out of arguments.
As a Democrat, I did not support or vote for this president. Not because of his race, because if someone of the caliber of General Colin Powell or Prof. Thomas Sowell had been the candidate on my party’s ticket, that person would have probably gotten my vote.
This reminds me of an acquaintance who was accused of racism against Asians. “Who’s a racist?” asked my Japanese friend.
Yes, no matter that the idea of decentralized power behind the whole States’ rights issue conforms more clearly to the Catholic concept of subsidiarity, any such notion must be motivated solely by racism.
Here’s another scary thought: the President’s administration is going to be defending the public display of a Latin cross in the Mojave National Preserve in California, on a sight known as Sunrise Rock. The Supreme Court case is called Salazar v. Buono and will be argued before the Court on Wednesday, October 7, 2009.
Check out the details on my blog:
I am continualy amazed that Americans keep telling the world how very democratic you are and then turn around and persecute your own people for having a difference of opinion from your president.
Where is the democracy in thaqt?
absolutely right on, Jeff. We’ve lived in the south for many many years and now the rest of the country is experiencing what we’ve lived with: When all else fails, play the R Card, that’ll stop the conversation. A few years back, our black mayor actually cited the ‘white devils’ as the reason for his failed administration. Of course, the R card doesn’t apply in the circumstance.
yQ9S6F I want to say – thank you for this!