Instead of celebrating the election of Barack Obama as a historical milestone in the nation's history, Holder characterizes his ascension to the presidency as dealing, "with the reality of electing an African American as our President for the first time." An odd choice of words. Could he not have simply acknowledged the significance of this achievement to the effect that discrimination against blacks has been markedly reduced?
Probably not, and here's why: Holder is a member of that liberal constituency group that I would characterize as "the perpetually aggrieved." No matter the extent of the progress America has made in eradicating the past sins of racism or discrimination, any such efforts will always be deemed incomplete, demonstrating the need for further erosion of our liberties to satisfy their undefined standards of perfection. For those like Holder, discrimination that occurred in the past will always be sufficient justification for remedial action to be administered by the heavy hand of government in the present and eternally into the future. Exactly what conditions would satisfy Holder to the effect that we are no longer a racist country? He doesn't say.
Many of those who share Holder's sentiments were part of the lynch mob who were perfectly happy to find the members of the Duke Lacrosse Team guilty before any of the facts were known simply by virtue of their skin color and because the alleged circumstances of the case conveniently fit their preferred template of America as a racist country. Speaking of "cowardly", did Holder speak out against the despicable treatment meted out to the innocent members of the Lacrosse team by the media and Duke University as aiders and abettors of a racially-motivated monstrous hoax? Did he condemn prominent African-American leaders who all too eagerly jumped on the bandwagon?
If he wants frank discussions about race then he should be prepared to defend the continued practice of quota hiring system and a racial spoils system. Is Holder, like the Democratic Party, inextricably tied to the practice of identity politics? One could make the plausible argument that Barack Obama were he white would have been laughed off the stage if he tried to run for president based on his razor thin resume and scant qualifications as a "community organizer."
Obama enjoyed unparalleled advantages by virtue of his skin color, as have all beneficiaries of affirmative-action/quota hiring policies. Perhaps Holder can explain to us exactly how was Obama's race a hindrance to his running for president?
Holder addresses the issue of affirmative action by stating:
There can, for instance, be very legitimate debate about the question of affirmative action. This debate can, and should, be nuanced, principled and spirited. But the conversation that we now engage in as a nation on this and other racial subjects is too often simplistic and left to those on the extremes who are not hesitant to use these issues to advance nothing more than their own, narrow self interest.
Thus, Holder acknowledges that legitimacy of debating the need for affirmative action, but, in the same breath paints those who oppose it as belonging on the "extremes" and are interested in using it to advance their self-interest. Sounds like a cowardly way to have a frank discussion about race if you're going to stigmatize those who oppose reverse discrimination as racist.
Holder may call for a "frank" discussion on race, but as long as he and his fellow travellers in the media continue to invoke the race card, which Obama wielded so skillfully in the past election, no one will oblige him in his plea for candor when latent charges of "racism" will always act as to preclude an intellectually honest and enlightening debate. In terms of defining the permissible contours of debate on many issues of race, as long as there exists one standard for whites and a completely different one for blacks, any ensuing discussion will be nothing more than an exercise in futility.
No comments:
Post a Comment