“I would suggest they spend about 20 seconds reading a little history…”
— White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs yesterday, answering critics who have charged Democratic Majority Leader Senator Harry Reid with racism
Well. Good point, Mr. Gibbs. Consider it done.
And having done so, one can say easily that in terms of Mr. Reid, well, no.
No, this was not some off-hand mistake.
Harry Reid is a leading figure in a political party that has made its bones by judging others on race. This is the oldest of liberalism’s building blocks. As noted here (it takes at least 20 seconds), Senator Reid is the latest descendant of a political philosophy that was a fervent supporter of slavery, of segregation, of lynching, of modern racial quotas. There is nothing he said that has contradicted the fundamental core beliefs of liberals, whether they were busy running the slave trade, founding the Ku Klux Klan or passing Social Security with the stellar support of world-class champion racists like Mississippi’s longtime Democratic stalwart and FDR supporter Senator Theodore Bilbo.
This is reflexive. The concept of judging people by skin color is married to concepts of “social justice,” a phrase that President Obama dutifully noted when defending Reid. Did you notice how quickly Reid noted that he had received phone calls of support from Julian Bond and others? All he named were…black. Why not cite support from non-blacks? Because, of course, if you view the world through a racial prism, where your main focus is judging others by race, support in this instance from blacks is valued more than whites or Latinos or Asians etc.
The unfairness here is to think this slip of the lip is either a slip or a way of thinking that belongs just to Harry Reid.
Here’s a revealing look at this racial nonsense from somewhere else altogether. Sad to say, it comes from the hierarchy of my own national church, the United Church of Christ. It lists its employees — children of God one and all — in this fashion: Employees are reported by an “affirmative action officer” to be X number “Euro-American, persons of color, females and males.” This is racial profiling employment style, just as Harry Reid briskly racially profiled Barack Obama in political fashion.
The conceit here is that all of this is in service of “civil rights,” when in fact it is a wholesale abandonment of Martin Luther King’s famous dream that some day his children would be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. It ensures on a perpetual basis that America will be the kind of race-driven society that liberals and progressives have historically tried to structure for political profit, whether in the all-white South or seeking heavily black congressional districts, etc.
Is what Harry Reid said shameful? Yes, but it’s worse than that. If you are a liberal, it is, disturbingly, typical. Liberalism genuinely thinks this way. It is a philosophy that believes now and has always believed in judging others by race — whether it’s Harry Reid and his “light skinned Negroes” or my own national church judging its employees by color or so on and on and on back into the mists at the dawn of this country. It is the central building block of liberalism today, as it has always been.
And it is morally wrong.
Should Harry Reid resign? No, let him stay as the symbol he is of the party he quite accurately represents.
We don’t need even 20 seconds to know the history of that party. Past — and, sadly, present.