The riots in Baltimore, this past week is a case in point. When black residents joined together arm-in-arm to create a protective barrier between the rioters and the police they denuded the race argument. Likewise, the pictures of the mother of a young black man physically confronting him for participating in the mayhem suggests, at the least, a rejection of rioting on her part. It may even suggest that she recognizes the rioters are not blameless for the situation that they find themselves in. If it were the latter that would be a great step forward for America.
When Donna Brazile was Al Gore’s campaign manager she made the rounds of the Sunday talk shows. Referring to seasoned white men as angry middle-class white males, Brazile blamed the plight of blacks on the selfishness of those white men. The politics of division were clearly on display. By using the word “white,” Brazile defined the issue as racial in nature. But, was it?
With affirmative action, quotas, racial set asides and other race-based benefits, blacks who adopted the culture of successful white America were on their way to fully participating in the American dream. To any reasonable observer, the plight of those blacks left behind was of a cultural nature, nothing else. Since the blacks that were successful were often given the spots that more qualified white males had applied for, the racial argument was a stretch.
Likewise, welfare is a program that needs to be addressed. Welfare has had an adverse effect on the recipients and their families and has created a culture of dependence that is too often passed down from generation to generation. Costing in excess of 16% of the federal budget and failing to do much more than create a permanent underclass, welfare is clearly a cultural and financial failure that every politician should want to correct.
To anyone who understands the racial breakdown of welfare recipients, opposition to it cannot be about race. The fact is blacks are a minority of welfare recipients. So why do liberal politicians defend a failed and costly program? The answer is twofold. The maintenance of a reliable block of voters is one reason. More importantly, they have defined any attack on the status quo of the welfare laws as being racist and have successfully labeled their electoral opponents as such to non-recipient taxpayers.
In a similar fashion, liberal politicians create a gender war where only a behavior, or the cost of paying for that behavior may be at issue. Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University law student, was a cause célèbre prior to the 2012 elections.
By her own admission, Sandra enjoyed sex with multiple partners multiple times each day. As a poor college student she wanted someone else to pay for her contraceptive protection. Anything less would constitute a war on women. No one was questioning Ms. Fluke’s right to engage in the behavior. Was it a war on women or a question of policy?
For many people of faith, Ms. Fluke’s behavior was unacceptable. Regardless, they accepted her right to engage in it. They did, however, draw the line at paying for her contraception, whether for personally held religious beliefs or just as a matter of fiscal sanity.
The concept of multiculturalism has, and will continue to fail us. Diversity of race, gender, ethnicity and national origin is a wonderful thing and proves what can be accomplished when people come together with common goals within the uniquely American culture. When, however, we are divided along cultural lines we suffer as a nation. Lincoln said it best; “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
The next time a progressive labels someone a racist or homophobe ask yourself if it’s a matter of policy that’s in contention? If it is, ask yourself why the liberal politician won’t engage on the issue instead of the politics of personal destruction.