04/08/2010 (7:46 am)
Yesterday’s Washington Examiner contained an article from Associated Press reporter Valerie Bauman discussing the presence of blacks among Tea Party groups. The fact of their existence, of course, rebuts one of the favorite memes floated by certain, demented leftist personalities (Olbermann and Garofalo come to mind.) But read through this fascinating report from the AP and see if you can discover that the insults hurled at black Tea Partiers are hurled by Democrats.
They’ve been called Oreos, traitors and Uncle Toms, and are used to having to defend their values. Now black conservatives are really taking heat for their involvement in the mostly white tea party movement — and for having the audacity to oppose the policies of the nation’s first black president.
“I’ve been told I hate myself. I’ve been called an Uncle Tom. I’ve been told I’m a spook at the door,” said Timothy F. Johnson, chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation, a group of black conservatives who support free market principles and limited government.
“Black Republicans find themselves always having to prove who they are. Because the assumption is the Republican Party is for whites and the Democratic Party is for blacks,” he said.
Johnson and other black conservatives say they were drawn to the tea party movement because of what they consider its commonsense fiscal values of controlled spending, less taxes and smaller government. The fact that they’re black — or that most tea partyers are white — should have nothing to do with it, they say.
“You have to be honest and true to yourself. What am I supposed to do, vote Democratic just to be popular? Just to fit in?” asked Clifton Bazar, a 45-year-old New Jersey freelance photographer and conservative blogger.
Oops. The reporter just gave us a our first clue — after five paragraphs — where the insults are coming from. Blacks are popular if their tout the Democratic party line. They are unpopular if they tout the Republican line. Who’s calling them “Oreos?” Who’s calling them “traitors?” Did you see the word “Democrats” anywhere?
Opponents have branded the tea party as a group of racists hiding behind economic concerns — and reports that some tea partyers were lobbing racist slurs at black congressmen during last month’s heated health care vote give them ammunition.
But these black conservatives don’t consider racism representative of the movement as a whole — or race a reason to support it.
Opponents have branded the tea party as a group of racists. But the racist epithets are being flung by the tea party’s opponents — the same opponents who are calling other people “racist.” Does Valerie venture to mention why the people who are actually calling black people names are not “racists?”
More to the point, does she place this pair of paragraphs where she does deliberately to assist careless readers toward drawing the conclusion that it’s the tea partiers themselves who are calling blacks names? After all, she just spent five paragraphs describing how poorly they’re being treated by somebody unnamed. Then she tells us that somebody has been branded racist. Doesn’t it follow that it must be the people being called “racist” who are calling blacks names? Actually, it doesn’t follow at all, and it isn’t true; but Ms. Bauman (I assume “Valerie” is a female, although the name has been used for males on occasion) is playing the common media game of avoiding any mention of her favored party when their behavior is reprehensible, and is in fact manipulating the reader into thinking it’s the tea partiers who are committing the racial fouls. This is deliberate deception, carefully constructed to permit the defense “We never said tea partiers were calling anybody names.” Valerie Bauman is a clever liar.
“I’ve gotten the statement, ‘How can you not support the brother?’” said David Webb, an organizer of New York City’s Tea Party 365, Inc. movement and a conservative radio personality.
Since Obama’s election, Webb said some black conservatives have even resorted to hiding their political views.
“I know of people who would play the (liberal) role publicly, but have their private opinions,” he said. “They don’t agree with the policy but they have to work, live and exist in the community … Why can’t we speak openly and honestly if we disagree?”
From whom did the statement come? Hiding their views from whom? Why did Ms. Bauman’s editor permit these horribly passive constructions to remain in the piece? Apparently the unnamed editor is guilty along with Ms. Bauman of the deception and the game; never call a Democrat a Democrat when one has done wrong. And by all means, don’t admit that it’s Democrats who are forcing blacks to “pass” these days, ’cause that might lead people to think that racism is alive and well in the Democratic party — where it has always thrived, throughout American political history.
No, we can’t have people telling the truth about Democrats, and saying out loud that the Democratic party is, to this day, the only party in America where racism is common. We can’t acknowledge that Democratics’ love for entitlement programs that deliberately and disproportionately favor blacks is about assuaging their guilt, and not really about actually helping anybody (because, in fact, few things hurt the black community as badly as those hell-inspired entitlement programs).
Because if Democrats don’t continue indefinitely to dupe 85% or more of the black community in to voting Democrat year in and year out, no Democrat will ever be elected to any office, anywhere. And wouldn’t that be just awful?
The Associated Press is not a news reporting organization, it is a propaganda adjunct to the Democratic party. Valerie Bauman and her editor are not reporters, they are propagandists, and they should not have jobs in the news business.
3 Comments »
Comment by suek
You must admit – it’s a good tactic: Prohibit (by social action) blacks from being part of a political group (GOP or TeaParty) and then condemn the political group for being racist because it doesn’t include any of them.
I can’t remember if you’re done an article on Black Liberation Theology, but it’s pretty much the same theory – if you’re not in favor of giving the blacks the whole store just because they came to the USA as slaves and had nothing, then you’re racist. Basically, I think BLT is just Marxism with a no-win set up to incite blacks to rebel against any and all whites.
Somehow, fitting this into the culture that calls blacks that do well in school as “acting white” – how can one be part of the dominating economic structure unless one _participates_ in that culture? Their behavior is self-defeating and then condemns whites for that same defeat.
Likewise gays in the military. One’s sexual preferences are irrelevant to one’s job in the military. As long as someone keeps those two separate, no problem. Once the sexual preferences dominate to the point that it becomes obvious, that person has lost focus, so to speak, and are kicked out. IMO, they have absolutely no grounds for discrimination charges at the moment – but just let the military be required to tolerate open homosexuality and I’d be willing to be that discrimination suits will abound.
It’s irrational to hold yourself as separate and distinct from the group, and then moan and howl because the group excludes you.
Comment by John Cooper
Good post, suek. A number of years ago I recall some talking head interviewing an Inuit (Eskimo), and trying to lead the woman to condemn white (“Western”) culture for “destroying their way of life”.
It was great because the woman wouldn’t have any of it. She said, “We love our snow machines, cell phones, the airplanes that bring us food in the winter, and the good medical care that the whites have brought us” (or words to that effect). The reporter was nonplussed, and I was surprised that the interview was allowed to air.
The Inuit have openly adopted the best parts of white culture, but sad to say, the blacks in America never have. The Irish did, the Asians did, the Italians and Germans did, but the blacks never have. I wonder why that is.
Comment by RM
A very clever parsing of words to the point I’m not sure “Valerie” is truly that smart/sleazy or just lucky.
She takes a subject – black participants in the tea party phenom – that on its face would seem to be favorable to the conservative cause. However, by the way she phrases the article, she manages to simultaneously (1) insinuate Republicans are using racial epithets; (2) portray blacks as being isolated and frustrated by their participation, thereby discouraging other potential black participants; (3) lay down some cover fire for Democrats who are calling the tea parties “racism straight up”; (4) reinforcing the meme that blacks’ correct place is in the Democrat party; and (5) provide her and her employer with plausible deniability – “Gee, we ran a story favorable to Republicans and tea parties, we’re not biased.”
As I’ve thumped the drum about too many times before here and elsewhere, the media and how it is used for the benefit of Democrats is a huge, almost insurmountable problem in winning the battles that need to be fought. No whine, just fact.