Leftists Can’t Break 200-Year Racism Habit

Democrats spent the first century of this country’s existence refusing to treat black people like human beings, and the second refusing to treat them like adults.

After fighting the Civil War to continue enslaving black people and then subjecting newly freed black Americans to vicious, humiliating Jim Crow laws and Ku Klux Klan violence, Democrats set about frantically rewriting their own ugly history.

Contrary to liberal folklore, the Democratic segregationists were not all Southern — and they were certainly not conservative. They were dyed-in-the-wool liberal Democrats on all the litmus-test issues of their day.

All but one remained liberal Democrats until the day they died. That’s the only one you’ve ever heard of: Strom Thurmond.

As soon as abortion is relegated to the same trash heap of history as slavery has been, liberals will be rewriting history to make Democrats the pro-lifers and Republicans the pro-choicers. That’s precisely what they’ve done with the history of race in America.

In addition to lying in the history books, liberals lied on their personal resumes. Suddenly, every liberal remembered being beaten up by a 300-pound Southern sheriff during the civil rights movement.

Among the ones who have been caught falsely gassing about their civil rights heroism are Bob Beckel, Carl Bernstein and Joseph Ellis. (Some days, it seems as if there are more liberals pretending to have been Freedom Riders than pretending to be Cherokees!)

In the 1950s and ’60s, Democrats were running segregationists for vice president, slapping Orval Faubus on the back and praising George Wallace voters for their “integrity.” (That was Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in The New York Times.)

But the moment the real civil rights struggle was over, liberals decided to become black America’s most self-important defenders.

Of course, once we got the Democrats to stop discriminating against blacks, there was no one else doing it. So liberals developed a rich fantasy life in which they played Atticus Finch and some poor white cop from Brooklyn would be designated Lester Maddox (racist Democrat, endorsed by Jimmy Carter).

White journalists who didn’t know any actual black people (other than Grady the maid) became junior G-men searching for racists under every bed, requiring a steady stream of deeply pompous editorials.

Liberals drove the entire country crazy with their endless battles against imaginary racists, to make up for their having been AWOL during the real fight over civil rights.

Throughout this period, every black-on-white crime became a re-enactment of “To Kill a Mockingbird”; every cop who shot a black perp was Bull Connor; and every alleged racist incident was instantly presumed true, no matter how preposterous.

When it turned out the hate crime was a hoax, the cop was being mugged and the black kid was guilty, the whole story would just quietly disappear from the news, as if the media were reading a bedtime story to a child, whispering the ending and tiptoeing out of the room.

Millions of Americans watched as a mostly black jury acquitted an obviously guilty black celebrity and saw black America cheer the verdict. The sight of black law students whooping and applauding O.J.’s acquittal had the same emotional impact as watching Palestinians celebrate the 9/11 attack.

Overnight, the white guilt bank — once thought “too big to fail” — was shut down. Henceforth, instead of producing stuttering embarrassment, liberal moral intimidation on race produced only eye-rolling. With that, America became a much healthier country, especially for black people.

Without nonsense claims of racist “code words” to stop them, Republicans were finally able to implement long-sought reforms on crime and welfare. The unqualified success of Rudy Giuliani’s crime policies in New York saved tens of thousands of black lives. Welfare reform was such a stunning success that Bill Clinton claimed credit for it.

Blacks had won the final civil rights battle: The right to be treated like adults. Even liberals ceased their oohing and ahhing over every little thing any black person did.

But the post-O.J. paradise came to a crashing halt with the appearance of Barack Obama.

Obama allowed liberals to return to accusing Americans of being racists and get the most liberal president America has ever seen at the same time.

The only firm evidence that there are any actual racists left in America is the fact that so many whites voted for Obama as some sort of racial penance.

More white people voted for Obama in 2008 than had voted for any Democratic presidential candidate in nearly 40 years.

They must have felt guilty about something. Not harboring any racist impulses, I was free to vote Republican.

Now that Obama is up for re-election, liberals are back to their old tricks. A nation with more child pornographers than racists — a nation that’s already elected a (half) black president once — is suddenly said to be bristling with racists again!

My new book, out this week, “Mugged: Racial Demagoguery From the Seventies to Obama,” reminds us that nothing good has ever come of Americans capitulating to liberals’ racial bullying, especially not for black people. Never. Don’t make the same mistake again, America.

"............As a student of the left, Jamie Glazov, has observed in an article about the middle-class defenders of recently captured Seventies terrorist Kathy Soliah: "if you can successfully camouflage your own pathology and hatred with a concern for the 'poor' and the 'downtrodden,' then there will always be a 'progressive' milieu to support and defend you."* Huey Newton, George Jackson, Bernadine Dohrn, Sylvia Baraldini, Rubin Carter, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Rigoberta Menchu and innumerable others have all discovered this principle in the course of their criminal careers.

There is a superficial sense, of course, in which we were civil rights and peace activists—and that is certainly the way I would have described myself at the time, particularly if I were speaking to a non-left audience. It is certainly the way Mrs. Clinton and my former comrades in the left refer to themselves and their pasts in similar contexts today.

But they are lying. (And when they defend racial preferences now—a principle they denounced as "racist" then—even they must know it).

The first truth about leftist missionaries, about believing progressives, is that they are liars. But they are not liars in the ordinary way, which is to say by choice. They are liars by necessity—often without even realizing that they are. Because they also lie to themselves. It is the political lie that gives their cause its life.

Why, for example, if you were one of them, would you tell the truth? If you were serious about your role in humanity's vanguard, if you had the knowledge (which others did not), that you were certain would lead them to a better world, why would you tell them a truth that they could not "understand" and that would hold them back?

If others could understand your truth, you would not think of yourself as a "vanguard." You would no longer inhabit the morally charmed world of an elite, whose members alone can see the light and whose mission is to lead the unenlightened towards it. If everybody could see the promised horizon and knew the path to reach it, the future would already have happened and there would be no need for the vanguard of the saints.

That is both the ethical core and psychological heart of what it means to be a part of the left. That is where the gratification comes from. To see yourself as a social redeemer. To feel anointed. In other words: To be progressive is itself the most satisfying narcissism.

That is why it is of little concern to them that their socialist schemes have run aground, burying millions of human beings in their wake. That is why they don't care that their panaceas have caused more human suffering than all the injustices they have ever challenged. That is why they never learn from their "mistakes." That is why the continuance of Them is more important than any truth.

If you were active in the so-called "peace" movement or in the radical wing of the civil rights causes, why would you tell the truth? Why would you tell people that no, you weren't really a "peace activist," except in the sense that you were against America's war. Why would you draw attention to the fact that while you called yourselves "peace activists," you didn't oppose the Communists' war, and were gratified when America's enemies won?

What you were really against was not war at all, but American "imperialism" and American capitalism. What you truly hated was America's democracy, which you knew to be a "sham" because it was controlled by money in the end. That's why you wanted to "Bring the Troops Home," as your slogan said. Because if America's troops came home, America would lose and the Communists would win. And the progressive future would be one step closer.

But you never had the honesty—then or now—to admit that. You told the lie then to maintain your influence and increase your power to do good (as only the Chosen can). And you keep on telling the lie for the same reason.

Why would you admit that, despite your tactical support for civil rights, you weren't really committed to civil rights as Americans understand rights? What you really wanted was to overthrow the very Constitution that guaranteed those rights, based as it is on private property and the individual—both of which you despise............"

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=24376

The liberal left is constantly rewriting history, because they’ve always been on the wrong side of it… Most liberals are flummoxed when you point out that Lincoln was a Republican, and that it was McClellan and the Democrat Party who wanted to appease the south and allow slavery to continue. Or that it was the Democrat parties in the south that developed Jim Crow laws. They’ll laugh at you when you tell them that 80% of Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, compared with 63% of the Democrats in congress.

And they also get very upset when you point out that Hitler was an anti-Capitalist, and that he was instructed to spy on leftist party gatherings by the German government and while doing so he found one party, (The German Workers party) so interesting that he joined it, became the leader and renamed it the German Socialist Workers’ Party, better known as the NAZI party.

Hitler was no conservative… He was a socialist and anti-capitalist through and through. But, don’t bother trying to tell your liberal friends that... They’ll have a fit. The poor fools have been fed BS, backed up by ‘liberal minded academics’ for so long that they can’t handle the truth.

Plus they're all getting free cell phones from Obama, so they're going to vote him anyway.

Actually Honest Abe was a Whig, a scheming Lawyer, a known liar and petty tyrant and was very firm that Blacks do not belong in civil society. It would appear that Honest Abe would fit into either of the major political party’s of today.

Speaking of rewriting history...

SHEESH!

Not sure what alternate universe you've warped in from, but you certainly brought your own "facts" with you.

Since the article talks about Abraham Lincoln THE PRESIDENT, the fact that he ran as a Whig for the Senate means nothing. The rest of your warped, revisionist drivel can be saved for the, "I want to fight the last Civil War over again!" group.

Lincoln was clearly opposed to slavery. It's true that holding the Union together was an even higher priority for him at the time, but that doesn't somehow make him into a closet slave-driver.

If you really want to see them have a fit, ask them who passed the first Civil Rights Act in 1866, and whose veto they had to override to pass it.

And who passed additional Civil Rights Acts in 1875, 1957, and 1960?

And who passed the Repeal Act of 1894, undoing much of the Civil Rights legislation passed up to that point?

Before they catch their breath, point out who submitted the 19th Amendment for ratification, and who kept blocking it? And which party controlled most of the states that ratified the 19th Amendment, and which party controlled the states that refused?

While you are on the subject, ask them which party controlled the 12 states where women already had the right to vote?

After that, you might want to dial 911. They will probably be having a heart attack, or an apoplectic fit, or both.

Maybe you should attempt to peek out from under your public school history lessons once in a while, there’s a lot more to US History than you learned in grammar school.

Your silly "insult the intelligence/education of your opponent" school of debate isn't helping your cause.

Ignoring the overwhelming weight of evidence in favor of your pet angle is disingenuous. As soon as you said Lincoln was a Whig, you gave yourself away as one who will bend/ignore/shade plain facts to fit your agenda.

When Lincoln was POTUS, was he a Republican or not? Can you honestly answer that and admit you were being misleading when you said he was a Whig?

Show that you aren't afraid of the plain truth, FRiend. I mean, why listen to anything you have to say if you can't get that basic fact straight?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.