Opinion> David Harsanyi> Why Can T We All Just Get Along

	15 Feb 2012 Commerce Is the Culture War It's always curious to watch the champions of "choice" decide what choices to champion and what … Read More.
	8 Feb 2012 Obama's Halftime Hypocrisy On Super Bowl Sunday, America was treated to the most expensive political commercial in history — … Read More.
	1 Feb 2012 Republicans' Obamacare Problem Once the presidential nomination process is settled — and Lord knows that day can't come fast enough … Read More.

Why Can't We All Just Get Along?

C'mon, everyone knows the hullabaloo surrounding President Barack Obama is bigotry in action. The administration's policy initiatives couldn't possibly provoke any authentic anger or protest.

Proving this dastardly motive, on the other hand, has been problematic. But there are ways around this dilemma. Unearth some crazy outliers. Create caricatures. Recognize "code" words. Reduce to absurdity. And presto!

"Surrounded by middle-aged white guys — a sepia snapshot of the days when such pols ran Washington like their own men's club — Joe Wilson yelled 'You lie!' at a president who didn't," declared Maureen Dowd in her Saturday New York Times column. "But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!"

Of course, it's fair. If inserting a racial epithet into a quote is wrong, I don't wanna know what's right. It is, moreover, common knowledge that middle-aged white men are bigots. If there's a problem with Dowd's premise, it's that Wilson likely lacks the intellect to string together more than two words per sentence. He is from South Carolina, after all.

Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post began to sniff out this racism when he heard "tea party" folks "shouting about 'the Constitution' and 'taking our country back.' Maybe Obama's health-care plan is an awful idea and his budget is way too big, but how exactly is any of this unconstitutional?"

For argument's sake, let's concede that "tea partiers" are collectively misinformed regarding constitutional law. Does logic not then dictate — nay, demand — that they are motivated by racism? Or perhaps demonstrators are devious enough to feign collective ignorance of the Constitution so they can be surreptitious (but not surreptitious enough to fool Kurtz!) racists.

It's true that things haven't been going smoothly for Change.

And increasingly, we hear that anyone who opposes Obama too vociferously is hampered by the thought of a black man as the president of the United States. Conservatives, it seems, never have opposed a president before.

When right-wing radio talk show hosts and bloggers uncovered the past radicalism of green czar Van Jones, who was tasked with steering billions of dollars toward creating "green jobs," progressives immediately claimed racism and McCarthyism. The right, apparently, never has gone after an Anglo-Saxon administration member.

Politico reported that Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, chalked up all this anger toward Barack Obama to racial tensions. "As far as African-Americans are concerned," she claimed, "we think most of it is. And we think it's very unfortunate. We as African-American people of course are very sensitive to it."

"We"? Incredibly, Johnson speaks for tens of millions of African-Americans. ("We" Jews haven't been blessed with that kind of leadership since Moses.)

What's next? Why are all these misogynists targeting Nancy Pelosi? Why are these homophobes continuing to rail against Barney Frank?

Chuck Schumer? You guessed it: the Jews.

Who dictates what level of anger and dissent is allowable? Who decides what a clandestine racist sign looks like? Maybe someone like MSNBC's Carlos Watson, who wondered whether "socialism" is really about the nationalization of industry and hyper-regulation of the private market or whether it's just "becoming the new N-word."

None of this has anything to do with the left's paranoid belief that America is an inherently racist nation. It's just that if you oppose more government dependency and expansion, you might as well be a Confederate infantryman. No, it doesn't matter what you say, because we know what you really mean.

David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Denver Post and the author of "Nanny State." Visit his Web site at www.DavidHarsanyi.com. To find out more about David Harsanyi and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment

There are many different reasons for opposition to the Presidents plans, whether rooted in true evidence or just ideological hogwash. Some truly believe that these policies will include the national government to deeply in the lives of everyday people, some fear that they may (OH NO!) cut into profits (and why on Earth would anyone want to contribute but for the incentive of profits), and there are those who piggyback on the idea of either of these two previous reasons for the sake of their bigotry. This is understood by the left.

The accusations that are made, however, about the Constitution being railroaded do show limited understanding of that document and the setup of our government. The belief that our country will be lost is a gross overreaction. There most likely will be a shift in the next election that will balance out the knee jerking against the Bush administration, have no fear. Our union will remain. We are merely still in the midst of the Jim Crowe period of our health care civil rights movement.

Just like the Bush administrations perversions of the Constitution came to an end, so too will these supposed perversions. And claiming that Obama is Hitler or we will plummet into Socialism are on the same conspiracy theory level as those on the left who believe the previous administration staged the attacks of September 11, with a far less plausible series of motivation sthat seems to suggest Obama is a kamikaze pilot.

Comment: #1
Posted by: Dan Haggerty
Wed Sep 16, 2009 8:21 AM