Ideological Profilers

by: david bozeman | published: 06 02, 2010

This politically correct notion that we need a 'national dialogue' on race relations belies the fact that liberals would really rather hurl accusations and set rhetorical traps for their opposition. Their latest prey is Tea Party favorite -- and potential threat -- Rand Paul, who handily won the GOP nomination for US Senate in Kentucky. He has since attracted controversy for a 2009 interview where he stated that he didn't necessarily favor all aspects of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, particularly those dealing with private property.

Liberals, predictably, are piling on, prompting syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts to write, mocking Paul's claim that he would have marched with Martin Luther King, "[He] would not have marched with [King] in '64 when doing so was an act of courage. Nor would Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or any other social conservative."

Or so he supposes. But therein lies the futility of discussing race with liberals: an endless cycle of accusation-denial-accusation-counter accusation. Pitts does not ponder any current stands of the aforementioned leaders, because we need not ask. The prevailing orthodoxy has done our thinking for us -- they are racists, case closed. Pitts begins, ". . . They have never been on our side. 'They' meaning social conservatives. 'Our' meaning African American people. "

Why can't we just stipulate that racism was so ingrained in American life that neither left nor right nor any ideological movement predating the 1960s is 100% untainted by its stain? Of course, conservatives can rightly note that liberal icon Robert Kennedy authorized wired surveillance of Dr. King, while a Republican (albeit a moderate one), Dwight D. Eisenhower, sent federal troops to enforce integration of public schools in the south. Be careful you don't cross that fine line between pre-supposing and pre-judging, Leonard. The truth of history lies as much in the twists and turns of human nature, in all its passionate, unpredictable glory, as in the dagger-tipped talking points of modern-day propagandists seeking to strip ideological leaders of any traces of humanity.

But, again, such a tit-for-tat rehash of history shelves the more pertinent question: whose policies are best, not only for African-Americans but for ALL Americans? Consider:

Minimum wage laws. According to the late economist Milton Friedman, these are among the most "anti-black laws on the books" because they price unskilled workers, primarily teens, primarily in the inner-cities, out of the job market. Conservatives tend to oppose them, while liberals see them as a quick sell for more votes.

School choice. It is liberals who consistently nix any attempts to provide alternatives to failing public schools. Conservatives enthusiastically support choice, for which inner-city parents literally stand in line, while liberals in Congress recently killed an initiative for Washington, DC schools.

Small businesses. It is conservatives who support enterprise zones in inner cities, along with lower taxes and fewer regulations, to spark economic growth. Liberals, by contrast, would regulate entrepreneurs out of business, by mandating 'acceptable' insurance policies for employees, fuel efficiency for vehicles and even the salt content of a meal in a local diner.

Welfare reform. Conservative policies foster strong two-parent families and communities as foundations of hope for African Americans. Forty years of the welfare state have bred a sub-culture of despair and dependency that liberals have shown no political will to end.

So, who is on the side of African-Americans? That is to be decided by the citizens through elections and implementation of policy and not through mindless incantations of 'they woulda, they woulda, they woulda.' The well-rounded voter can weigh the options without labeling them first, fully aware that even the best candidates are seldom perfect. Still, I submit that conservatives are more forward-thinking, because liberals are obsessing over a forty-six-year old law that no one has expressed any desire to repeal.

add a comment