If one subject is a sure conversation stopper in today’s America, it is race. Following decades of interracial upheaval, the issue of race remains delicate, charged, and thermo-nuclear in many polite circles. It could be called racial political correctness. People walk (and talk) on eggshells when it comes to race, out of fear of saying the wrong thing and being falsely labeled a racist. Being called a racist nowadays is the ugliest scarlet letter one can have attached, perhaps even worse than being called a murderer, so the sensitivity is understandable.
This racial p.c. phenomenon, however, actually may be a backhanded signal of how non-racist the nation’s majority culture has become, occasional contrary cases notwithstanding. Anti-minority racism, in particular, has become totally unfashionable, passé, and socially unacceptable — openly practiced only by numerically insignificant fringe elements. By world and historical norms, the United States is not a very racist country. According to a respected poll of 27 national populations worldwide, Americans ranked fifth highest on preference for ethnic and racial diversity (a research proxy for opposition to bigotry) — in a virtual tie for third with Canada and the U.K. Some polling evidence even reveals that black Americans perceive more black anti-white bigotry than the converse.
Have you ever wondered how the trendy term “white supremacist” came out of nowhere a few years ago to now dominate public discussion? It came from Democratic focus groups which revealed that the term “racist” was losing its potency through boy-who-cried-wolf overuse. So, the Lib-Dem-Left needed a new trope and they resurrected an obsolete relic to create an exaggerated impression of U.S. racism, thereby agitating the voter base. Divide and conquer. This defines our present poisonous milieu featuring ubiquitous race slander posing as anti-racism.
And have you ever seen any of these white supremacists? If they exist in more than paltry numbers, where are they? Obviously, the Dems require a public demon, whether real or not, to stoke their side. Unfortunately, when people believe the propaganda, it can lead to violence and mayhem, as with Antifa/BLM riots and maybe Waukesha. (READ MORE: ’Tis the (Mad) Season in Waukesha)
* * *
Can we really posit minimal institutional and systemic racism in the U.S. today? Actually, not quite; there remain two dominant forms of it. One, however, is the pro-minority reverse discrimination qua “affirmative action” explicitly designed to damage a different race, the majority race, for benevolent if misguided reasons. For the past 45 years or so, the only legally sanctioned, even legally mandated, racial discrimination in the United States has been in favor of blacks (and some other minorities) against whites. This policy of insidious racial discrimination has always been as inherently immoral as the anti-minority kind, per the standards of deontological ethics, because of reliance on unjust means. As even Chief Justice John Roberts has said, trying to cure racial discrimination with more racial discrimination is incoherent. (In effect, reparations have already been paid through this generous, generation-spanning reverse discrimination.)
Offsetting any benefit such patronizing, debilitating, and preferential treatment via lower standards might deliver for minorities is the other form: the profile of government policies designed to crush the underclass. These would be the liberal/“progressive” policies that incentivize (1) 75 percent of black children born into broken homes, (2) deficient public schools leading to a high minority dropout rate, and (3) a slack morality and justice system yielding widespread addictive substance abuse among minorities. Up against this three-headed albatross, no wonder aggregate black socio-economic achievement lags.
This policy of insidious racial discrimination has always been as inherently immoral as the anti-minority kind.
Why “designed to crush”? Not a bald presumption but a conclusion, it derives from this rhetorical punch line: What would happen to U.S. Democrats if the entire black underclass suddenly became millionaires? The Dems would never win another election, that’s what — and partisan Democrat strategists know it. This is why we should suspect that the Democrat Party intentionally sabotages black opportunity. Democrats need a perpetually dependent underclass of disaffected but loyal voters. (This cynical political motive also may underlie the Democrat infatuation with recruiting more illegal aliens into the country.)
Somewhat surreptitiously and at variance with their carefully cultivated public image, the Democrats have always been the party of racism, i.e., slavery, the Confederacy, Jim Crow segregation, Woodrow Wilson, eugenics, Bull Connor, and the Ku Klux Klan. More contemporary examples include (1) tepid congressional Democrat support for the 1964 Civil Rights Act compared to Republicans, (2) a very recent Senate Majority Leader named Robert Byrd who actually was a KKK Grand Cyclops (or whatever they call it), and (3) the resurgence of anti-Semitism among liberal Democrats. So, why expect the Dems to be more honorable about race now? After all, from the preceding tutorial, a number of supposed “facts” on race are found to be illusory. It may even be no coincidence that virtually all Democrat-run major U.S. cities leave black neighborhoods in shambles.
* * *
Former Attorney General Eric Holder once demanded that Americans have the courage to address the subject of race. I’m an American and the issue here, regrettably, is race. Is this enough courage for you, General? The true anti-racist spirit is fundamental indifference to race — the way it should be à la the M. L. King ideal. In fact, it grows tedious to even have to use the words “white,” “black,” and “race” so often, but such are the wages of today’s pandemic racial confusion.