RAGGED THOTS: Black To The Future?

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Black To The Future?

Lovely.

So, Steve Gilliard was, in a sense, speaking the truth: He represents a now-accepted view within the Democratic Party.

We, now we know that racial demonization is considered a fair political tactic by the Democratic Party -- at least in Maryland:

"There is a difference between pointing out the obvious and calling someone names," said a campaign spokesman for Kweisi Mfume, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate and former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
State Sen. Lisa A. Gladden, a black Baltimore Democrat, said she does not expect her party to pull any punches, including racial jabs at Mr. Steele, in the race to replace retiring Democratic U.S. Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes.
"Party trumps race, especially on the national level," she said. "If you are bold enough to run, you have to take whatever the voters are going to give you. It's democracy, perhaps at its worse, but it is democracy."
Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat, said Mr. Steele invites comparisons to a slave who loves his cruel master or a cookie that is black on the outside and white inside because his conservative political philosophy is, in her view, anti-black.
"Because he is a conservative, he is different than most public blacks, and he is different than most people in our community," she said. "His politics are not in the best interest of the masses of black people."

Democracy "at its worse" indeed. Have these people lost their minds? Calling someone "Sambo" or pelting them with Oreo cookies is "pointing out the obvious"? Being "different than most people in our community" is legitimate reason to have be racially taunted in a political campaign?

Well, if that is the case, then why is not the reverse true? Why shouldn't any black candidate have his obvious "difference" be pointed out to white voters? Why shouldn't they be asked if a black liberal Democrat can represent a predominantly white state?

If this is what black liberals wish to stand for now, they are sowing a wind that will turn into a racial whilrwind blowing back on all black candidates in the future.

(Thanks to readers Brian and Eric for giving your humble blogger the heads-up on this while he battles the flu -- hopefully not the avian variety!)

UPDATE: Lest people think that The Washington Times is selectively quoting black Maryland Democrats' racial views toward politics, more evidence of the Left's new standard comes from the editorial pages of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Another minus is that the nomination [of Judge Samuel Alito] lessens the [Supreme C]ourt's diversity. O'Connor herself had expressed the desire that her successor be a woman. O'Connor seems to have grown wiser about diversity as a result of her Supreme Court experience. She came to see the virtues of having a court that looks like America - doubtless a big reason she softened her opposition to affirmative action in recent years.
In losing a woman, the court with Alito would feature seven white men, one white woman and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America.

So, Clarence Thomas gets an asterisk "because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America"? That's funny: The man who represents diversity within black America (huh? you mean "they" don't all think alike? Really? No shit.) isn't considered an example of real "diversity" on the court? This is wonderful. "Mainstream" white America can include views as broad as John Paul Stevens on the left and Antonin Scalia on the right. But a liberal editorial board in pretty white Wisconsin deems Clarence Thomas worthy of an asterisk because he doesn't represent "mainstream black America." That would be a black America boasting an intellectual and political tradition that includes Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, W.E.B. DuBois, Marcus Garvey, Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. (Hat tip: Sensible Mom)