Editorial: Challenging the Racist Democrats

FrontPage magazine.com ^ | August 5, 2003 | David Horowitz

[DesertGOP]

Everybody knows -- but no one wants to say -- that the Democratic Party has become the party of special interest bigots and racial dividers. It runs the one-party state that controls public services in every major inner city, including the corrupt and failing school systems in which half the students -- mainly African American and Hispanic -- are denied a shot at the American dream. It is the party of race preferences which separate American citizens on the basis of skin color providing privileges to a handful of ethnic and racial groups in a nation of nearly a thousand. The Democratic Party has shown that it will go to the wall to preserve the racist laws which enforce these preferences, and to defend the racist school systems that destroy the lives of millions of children every year...

[DesertGOP]

Something not only Californians should pay close attention to, but also the rest of the country. For, as "they" say, "As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation."

[ABG(anybody but Gore)]

Why the excerpt? It's Washington Post and LA Times that are restricted. I'm sorry, but excerpts are getting real old.

[mhking]

This article does not need to be excerpted, as it does not violate the WP/LAT Exlusion.

---

Everybody knows -- but no one wants to say -- that the Democratic Party has become the party of special interest bigots and racial dividers. It runs the one-party state that controls public services in every major inner city, including the corrupt and failing school systems in which half the students -- mainly African American and Hispanic -- are denied a shot at the American dream. It is the party of race preferences which separate American citizens on the basis of skin color providing privileges to a handful of ethnic and racial groups in a nation of nearly a thousand. The Democratic Party has shown that it will go to the wall to preserve the racist laws which enforce these preferences, and to defend the racist school systems that destroy the lives of millions of children every year.

On the other side of the aisle, the Republican Party has shown itself to be tongue-tied and lame-brained when it comes to opposing this racist stain on American life. Republicans rarely mention the millions of young victims claimed by the Democrats' racist school policies every year. They are too cowardly to openly challenge race preferences that constitute a true American apartheid. Consequently, for nearly a decade it has been left to one man and those he inspires to take on these injustices and he is doing so again in the upcoming California recall election.

Ward Connerly has placed Proposition 54 - - the Racial Privacy Initiative -- on the October California ballot. The new law would bar the government from inquiring into a citizen's racial identity. The Constitution does not mention race or use the words "black" and "white" to describe its citizens. The census was devised by the founders to set the number of congressional districts, not to balkanize America into racial categories. Democrats have turned it into a system to define Americans by skin color. Every Democrat legislator and every so-called "liberal" spokesperson is opposed to Connerly's proposition because it would threaten their apartheid programs. The time has come to challenge this system and set Americans -- particularly African and Hispanic Americans who its prime victims -- free.

[The following editorial appeared in the Wall Street Journal on April 4]:

The Color of California

As if the unprecedented effort to recall California Governor Gray Davis isn't enough excitement for one special election, the campaign promises some racial fireworks as well.

Sharing ballot space on October 7 with Mr. Davis's would-be successors will be Proposition 54, also known as the Racial Privacy Initiative. The measure prohibits state and local government entities from collecting and using racial data. It reads, in part: "The state shall not classify any individual by race, ethnicity, color or national origin in the operation of public education, public contracting or public employment." For champions of identity politics, and the media are certainly among them, these are fighting words.

The main proponent of Prop. 54 is Ward Connerly, the University of California Regent behind the state's successful Prop. 209, which banned public-sector racial discrimination in 1996 and prompted copycat initiatives elsewhere in the country, most recently in Michigan.

Mr. Connerly has said the goal of his current initiative is to get the state government "out of the racial classification business" and move us one step closer to a colorblind government. The backers of Prop. 54, he says, "seek a California that is free from government racism and race-conscious decision making."

That sounds like a core American aspiration, or at least it was until racial preferences became a political industry. Mr. Connerly can take comfort in the fact that many of his current critics -- educators, civil rights groups, Democratic public officials, liberal journalists -- also predicted catastrophe if Prop. 209 passed. They claimed, for instance, that minority enrollment at state
universities would plummet without racial preferences. It didn't happen. Both minority enrollment and, more importantly, minority graduation rates, have increased.

Now these same folks are claiming that if Californians aren't forced to check off some hyphenated-American box on a government form, medical research will suffer and anti-discrimination laws will go unenforced.

Not true. The Racial Privacy Initiative makes exceptions for data collection in both areas. If black mothers in Oakland are suffering uniquely high infant-mortality rates, nothing in Mr. Connerly's measure would prevent a proper response. Nor would it have any bearing on the large body of federal law -- the Voting Rights Act or the No Child Left Behind Act -- that require the collection
of racial data for enforcement purposes.

Some of our friends (scholars James Q. Wilson and John McWhorter) object to Prop. 54 on the grounds that racial statistics are essential to social scientists like themselves. They have a valid point that statistics showing racial progress can rebut political demagogues.

But that must be measured against the damage done by explicit state endorsement of racial categorization. As for the statistics, Prop. 54 affects only state entities. Reams of racial data would continue to flow from federal agencies -- like the Census Bureau and the Education Department -- or any nongovernment sources in California wishing to provide such information.

It is true that these limitations make Mr. Connerly's crusade largely symbolic. Still, the reaffirmation by American voters that racial distinctions should be irrelevant to government policy would be welcome right about now. All the more so given the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision to uphold racial discrimination at the University of Michigan. The decision effectively requires the
nation to view itself (at least for another 25 years) through a racial prism that many Americans already find obsolete. In the name of "diversity," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has cast her lot with the grievance groups who profit from racial balkanization.

As opposed to legal and business elites, average Americans are showing an increasing uneasiness with traditional racial categories. The demographic trends are illustrative. According to Joel Kotkin of Pepperdine University, nearly a third of second-generation Asians and Hispanics -- the largest ethnic minority -- marry out of their ethnic group.

In 1997, one in seven babies born in California were to parents of different races. The 2000 Census offered 63 different ways to self-identify and found that 40% of people under 25 belong to a racial or ethnic category other than "non-Hispanic white." What box does Tiger Woods check, and why should he have to check one?

A nonpartisan Field Poll released last month shows California voters supporting Prop. 54 by 50% to 29%, though it is hard to know how its presence on the Gray Davis recall ballot will affect it. Mr. Davis opposes it, and people who think he's been a splendid governor tend to be Prop. 54's strongest opponents.

It seems to us that there's little danger from a public endorsement of a proposition that seeks to make America less racially self-conscious. The opposite danger is far more troublesome, especially as we become a more racially polyglot nation. Down the path of the Supreme Court's recent Michigan decision lies a nation divided by race, not united in common principle.

Prop. 54's success would be a fitting rebuke to the Supreme Court (all the more potent because it would come from the nation's largest and most racially diverse state) and a public reaffirmation of the Constitution's colorblind commitment to equal protection under the law.

[Tacis]

Yeah, but it is the Republican leadership in the House that has forced ALL, that's EVERYONE, of the BLACK members, ALL BLACK CONGRESSMEN, into the fully segregated, step-n-fetchit Congressional Black Caucus.

I mean, it is very smart of the Republicans to do so, because it segregates them apart from everyone else in the party and makes it seem like they are doing meaningful things. They are not, they are doing nothing but race baiting, blaming whitey, and picking up whatever scraps they can.

So, you can't blame all this racism on the democrats. It is the Republicans who are so cruelly keeping down and segregating all the black members of Congress!

[mhking]

Black conservative ping

If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)

Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.

[babyface00]

I'm a little confused by your use of pronouns here:

Yeah, but it is the Republican leadership in the House that has forced ALL, that's EVERYONE, of the BLACK members, ALL BLACK CONGRESSMEN, into the fully segregated, step-n-fetchit Congressional Black Caucus.

I mean, it is very smart of the Republicans to do so, because it segregates them (the Republicans, or the CBC?) apart from everyone else in the party and makes it seem like they (the Republicans, or the CBC?) are doing meaningful things. They (the Republicans, or the CBC?) are not, they (the Republicans, or the CBC?) are doing nothing but race baiting, blaming whitey, and picking up whatever scraps they (the Republicans, or the CBC?)can.

So, you can't blame all this racism on the democrats. It is the Republicans who are so cruelly keeping down and segregating all the black members of Congress!

Even if one makes the most nefarious possible interpretation of your statement, how exactly, does putting congressmen into a caucus do anything to "cruelly keep down all the black members of Congress"? Do they not still have the same votes as the rest of Congress? Are they barred from appointments on committees? Please explain. Also, please explain how this is different from any other type of caucus (i.e. the House Democratic Caucus)

[Congressman Billybob]

All of the almost 60 caucuses in the House -- including the Black Caucus -- are voluntary organizations. No one is forced to join any caucus. To the best of my knowledge, the only caucus which has ever excluded a Member of Congress who wanted to join it, was the Black Caucus' initial exclusion of Republican Congressman J.C. Watts.

However, once even the liberal media got on the Black Caucus for doing that to J.C. Watts, they relented, allowed him to join, but kept him off their policy boards and other sensitive political stuff -- for which read: Democrat and Socialist policy stances.

The Republicans had nothing to do with the formation of the CBC.

Congressman Billybob

Latest article, now up FR, "Sixteen Little Words."

[cubreporter]

I think that used to be true in early years but no more.

[KC_Conspirator]

Something not only Californians should pay close attention to, but also the rest of the country. For, as "they" say, "As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation."

That is not true anymore. That happened back when state legislatures were all controlled by democrats who aped what the California state government did figuring they could be just as "progessive". That does not happen now. Furthermore, liberals stop saying "As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation" when it comes to the popular movements such as the recent successful ballot votes for English only, removing illegals from welfare, tax revolts (1977), and recalling an awful democrat governor.

[Tamzee]

I always felt questions about race were an invasion of privacy. It is nobody's business but my own who my ancestors had sex with ;-)

[Dutchgirl]

IMHO, De Lay and a few others should apply for membership into the Black Caucus. Either they are accepted (in the spirit of diversity) and put an end to the idiocy of the caucus statements put forth by Sheila Jackson Lee and Corrine Brown and other members of the Democrat Socialist Party, or they are rejected and can scream "racism" at the top of their lungs, maybe getting Jesse Jackson and Marion Frances "Mugabe" Berry to support their cause. How could the media resist reporting on a story like this?

When the House of Representatives, the people house, has a color barrier...?

Or better yet, they can sue, up to the supreme court and let Sandra Day O'Conner decide...

[sauropod]

Thank you.

[sauropod]

WTF? What planet are you from?

[sauropod]

Watts wasn't the only one. There was another guy (no longer in Congress, I forget his name).

[DeweyCA]

Yes, the Black Republican Congressman was from Connecticut or Rhode Island, and I would recognize his name instantly, but I can't recall it at this time.

[fieldmarshaldj]

You're thinking of Gary Franks of Connecticut. He served from 1991-97. He was largely ignored by the media, too, because he was a Black Republican.

Please visit my homepage where I have photos of every single Republican African-American Member of Congress since the 19th Century, along with other prominent Black Republicans.

[fieldmarshaldj]

You're thinking of Gary Franks of Connecticut. He served from 1991-97. He was largely ignored by the media, too, because he was a Black Republican.

Please visit my homepage where I have photos of every single Republican African-American Member of Congress since the 19th Century, along with other prominent Black Republicans.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Apologies for the belch.

[DesertGOP]

Good point! That's exactly how I feel, too. In fact, my wife and I four years ago adopted a baby girl from San Bernardino County Adoption Services. Since then, lots of folks have been asking us, "So, when your daughter asks you what race she is, what are you going to tell her?"

Our answer has been, and always will be, "We will tell our daughter that her biological mother is half-black, half-korean; her father is half-black, half-filipino. Her adopted mother is black, her adopted father (me) is white (anglo, polish, whatever). But, we will stress to her that race has NOTHING to do with how far you want to go in life--rather, it is us to YOU to grab a hold of your dreams and make them come true. No one else will do this for you. You've got to 'take life by the horns' and ride it for all it's worth. You simply CAN NOT depend on your skin color, good looks, education, or "breeding" to take the place of good old-fashioned blood, sweat and tears to make the most of your life!"

I get so sick and tired of hearing, first of all, of hyphenated-Americans, and all this garbage about RACE, RACE, RACE and CULTURE, CULTURE, CULTURE, that it sometimes drives me nuts! I can tell you from firsthand experience that, though I am classified and "anglo," I've always had to bust my rear end to get to where I am today...and, where I want to go in my life tomorrow. While going to high school and college, in particular, and classmates were heading off to Hawaii and the Bahamas during summer, Christmas and Easter vacations, my three brothers and I were hard at work earning a few extra dollars towards the upcoming quarter or semester of school. That's something very valuable my Dad passed on to his boys--the value of hard work and that NO ONE is going to do it for you--at least, you'd better not count on that happening too often in your life.

Okay, okay, I'll jump down from my "soap box" for now; but, I guess you can plainly see where I stand when it comes to race issues, cultural "roots" and the like. YOU are the one who's got to make it happen! No one else--they've got their own lives to live.

[Tamzee]

I enjoyed your rant :-) I especially liked this part...

I guess you can plainly see where I stand when it comes to race issues, cultural "roots" and the like. YOU are the one who's got to make it happen

No wonder you are conservative... isn't the whole basis of our country that we are all supposed to be born exactly equal to make our lives what we will of them? "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."