Conservatives, liberals, Obama: what's the difference?

Steven Colbert does a wonderful impression of the modern conservative's view on race (or at least he used to, I stopped watching after he crossed the picket line). Colbert claims that he doesn't see race- literally. He physically can't see the color of his skin, or anyone else's, therefore he can't be a racist when he advocates absurd policies that obviously benefit the largely white ruling class. It's funny, but it also is an actual tactic many conservatives use when debating race sensitive issues. Instead of claiming they are literally colorblind, however, they simply ignore the historical context of situations and pretend everyone is on equal footing. It is disingenuous, callous, and for lack of a better word, racist. It is the preferred strategy of the owner of North Dakota's most popular collection of links, a "I'm pro-war but too busy to fight" pussy named Rob Port. Rob claims not to understand why portraying Barack Obama as a monkey is different than portraying George Bush as one. Considering chattel slavery was still alive and well up until the second world war, and given the ease to find examples of rampant racial inequality in today's society, it is safe to assume people like Rob simply long for the "good old days" when blacks, and other troublesome non-whites, knew their place.

But it isn't just conservatives who use race to refuse challenging the power structure. After Ralph Nader's recent comments, many liberals have been attacking him with an intensity they don't dare attack John McCain with (they would never bring up McCain's role in the murders of countless men, women and children in Vietnam). This is exactly why most "progressives" are pathetic. Rather than hold Obama accountable for his disgusting stances on the telecom immunity bill, the death penalty, Israel, his failure to support healthcare for all, his failure to support same-sex marriage, and a host of other issues; they attack Nader for having the gall to question their messiah. They join conservatives in pleading ignorance about the meaning behind terms like "white talk" and "white guilt."

Nader was right. On Father's Day, for example, instead of talking about the steady decline of wages affecting all families, Obama attacked black fathers in an apparent attempt to convince the "blacks are lazy" voter to give him a second look. That's not even "talking white," that's talking white supremacist. Perhaps if black fathers, as well as fathers and mothers from any other race, had a job that paid a living wage without working hours upon hours of overtime, they'd actually have time to spend with their children, and you know, raise them. They could even sit them down for a real meal rather than feeding them "cold Popeye's" and "eight sodas" or whatever other bullshit generic accusation the Obama campaign's version of Nixon-era Kevin Phillips comes up with. We reap what we sow. We can't have a society that rewards the worst aspects of humanity and not have a few dead-beat dads. Until issues like the dictatorship of industry by the few and the commoditization of the human experience are addressed, it is hard to take the "personal responsibility" crowd very seriously.

Also, Nader is not implying that blacks are monolithic in their concerns, as some liberals are saying. Anyone who has read or watched the comments should easily realize how nonsensical this claim is. He is arguing that someone who is not part of the dominant culture ought to have better insight regarding issues that overwhelmingly affect minority cultures. Nader, an Arab American, knows the situation well. Again, this is the same disingenuous logic that conservatives use when it benefits their world view.

This "controversy" shows that not only are "progressives" still not willing to back an actual progressive candidate, they are still willing to throw one under the bus faster than Obama can say Reverend Wright.


Related Posts with Thumbnails