Limbaugh misses an opportunity

http://theamericanscene.com/2009/09/16/why-i-have-contempt-for-rush-limbaugh

Conor Friedersdorf is correct in that Limbaugh framed his argument, related to the school bus incident where black kids cheered as a white was being beat up by a black kid, in a way that unfairly attacks Obama and diverts attention away from the real culprits and problem regarding the discussion of race. The real problem is the progressive tactic to frame opposition to Obama as racist-motivated.

It's irresponsible of Limbaugh and it's irresponsible of these commentators who Rush quotes on his website:

CAMPBELL BROWN: (music) ...vicious, racist imagery attacking our first African-American president.

LAWRENCE O'DONNELL: (newsroom noise) Gentleman Joe Wilson has done much to make the racist history of South Carolina jump back into our present consciousness.

CANDY CROWLEY: (b-roll) Critics think this is about resistance to a black man as president.

JAMES CARVILLE: People are upset with President Obama because of the color of his skin. Who cannot believe that?

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Could there be a refusal to accept the legitimacy of Barack Obama as president because of his race?

WOLF BLITZER: A small but disturbing minority within the tea party movement is also blatantly anti-black.

JOHN RIDLEY: When you talk about racial image, this is not just standard debate.

ELAINE QUIJANO: (b-roll) A small but passionate minority is also voicing what some see as racist rhetoric.

JOHN AVLON: Hitler. Communism. Racism. All this ugliness is bubbling up.

ANDERSON COOPER: There is an undercurrent of racism in some of the criticism of the president.

JUAN WILLIAMS:  An attack on somebody because you really don't like the fact that they are president or because of their race.

ROSS DOUTHAT: Clearly Barack Obama's race plays some role in the kind of anxieties that are roiling the political right.

CLARENCE PAGE: (outdoor noise) People are not just mad at Obama. They are mad at Jesse Jackson. They are mad at Reverend Wright. They are mad at Al Sharpton. They are mad at people who have nothing to do with Obama except they all happen to be black.

It's also abominable and inflammatory what Newsweek put on their cover. Obama needs to stop this -- he gives speeches every day and tomorrow he should give another one and stand up to this diversion and unfair accusation of racism that's becoming a mantra in the media. If Obama doesn't frame this progressive attack as misleading and unfair to the majority of white people who struggle to resist racism, then Obama is wrong, too.

I saw it coming, and I expected it. I'm sure Friedersdorf feels the same way -- that opposition to Obama may be motivated in some very few people by racism, but this current progressive tactic is just as inflammatory as Rush's statements -- show me where racism is the major cause of opposition to Obama? Some of the commentators admitted it's a minority, but why is everyone bringing it up? The answer seems to be to plant the seed of doubt regarding opposition. There's simply too many comments with the same tone, lately.

To be fair to Obama, he hasn't, as far as I know, claimed racism as a significant factor fueling his opposition, but his silence on the issue will become uncomfortably suspicious if he fails to put an end to others claiming it on his behalf. And, although I haven't heard anyone say the white kid on the bus was guilty of racism and deserved the beating, many people are implying that well-meaning people with problems regarding progressive over-reach are motivated by race -- this is the real problem -- those making the unfounded claims of racism should be ashamed.

The 912 protest in Washington D.C. -- more about racism

It's time to ask if the government and major media sources are creating a racial divide in this country. First, let's admit that racism exists, among all races, but also admit that racism is not the problem it once was in our country, not by a long shot.

Government policies since LBJ's Great Society have created a dependence on federal and state welfare programs among minorities, although many African-Americans and hispanics have moved into the middle class and many have become wealthy. Race relations have greatly improved among the American people, but outdated government poverty efforts are holding minorities back.

The 912 protest in D.C. was about government spending and over-reach, yet many in the media are already framing the event in terms of race because most of the participants were white. Was the almost total lack of minority support for McCain in the last election due to racism?

The fact is that most minorities supported Obama, so they are not going to show up at a protest which would harm his administration. But, the problem is not Obama, it's progressivism. It appears most minorities support progressive policies because these policies, in part, ostensibly help the poor through the redistribution of wealth. 

Redistribution of wealth hurts the economy by taking money from those who produce the most which could be used for economic expansion and job creation, and it makes investing in the economy a risky practice.

Progressive policies and government intervention in general have created high unemployment and have put a strain on government social programs because government revenues are shrinking -- this means the government has less money to spend on welfare.

The American economy is becoming technology-dependent, so most of the high-paying jobs require special knowledge of the new technologies. Public schools are getting worse and are not preparing minorities for the job market which demands specialization in technology.

Minorities should be demanding that government get out of the way and allow free market solutions to create better education opportunites and a more vibrant economy which is creating all kinds of jobs. There would be a bridge necessary for a number of years to help minorities break their dependence on government social programs, but it must begin now -- and progressives are not going to start the transition.

Minorities should have been at the 912 protest in large numbers -- progressives are doing them no favors. This is not about racism -- it's about economic growth, limited government and freedom for all -- government paternalism is an insult and a danger to all races. We don't need a Big Daddy -- we need a free economy and education which prepares all people for the present challenges.

CNN takes the racist angle to explain the 912 protest

I just finished watching a CNN segment in which more than one pundit, and the host, called racism the background noise in the 912 protest and the elephant in the room.

I won't deny that there are racists who dislike Obama, but to claim that the gathering of over a million people (I'm going by reported numbers) is motivated by racism is desperation on the part of Democrat partisans.

I don't believe it will be too long before many African-Americans come around to the understanding that the government is doing them no favors. What many people need, including minorities, especially minorities, is jobs and a vibrant economy, not more social programs. Government over-reach and spending is holding the economy back, and minorities will figure this out before too long and realize that capitalism is the route to escape from poverty, or the advancement to prosperity -- small businesses being a major route to prosperity.

Just by our government ending corporate welfare, this would help minority entrepreneurs who have good ideas for small, innovative companies. Plus, the more stable the economy the more venture capital will be available for these minority entrepreneurs to launch their businesses. Minorities will never get ahead depending on government to resolve the problem of economic malaise and corporate favoritism -- so, they will need to join the effort to fight progressive policies which use minority problems to further progressive power grabs. Minorities should be fighting for voucher programs and school choice, and they should be fighting for the end of progressive policies which are killing the market and killing jobs.

Democracy and the marginalization of the minority

Ezra Klein has implied that allowing opposition to healthcare reform to defeat reform is undemocratic since the Democrats won and should be able to reap the fruits of their victory. The minority, I suppose, should be powerless. However, when you consider that about 25% of the country voted for the Democrats, that hardly constitutes a majority. You might say that if people didn't vote, then they don't have a say, but that's not a law with which I'm familiar.

The 50% or so who didn't vote can still protest what government attempts to enact -- voting is not the only way to create change -- we also have a history of peaceful dissent and public opinion. Now, some people are suggesting that dissent against the Obama administration is motivated by racial factors. Several contributors at The League of Ordinary Gentlemen are making this claim. I've read this claim of racism on 3 or 4 blogs lately.

This is obviously a desperate ploy to support an unraveling healthcare reform movement, but it has serious implications -- it turns people off very quickly -- mainly because it's a weak and dishonest tactic.

Libertarians are faced with several battles -- one is ad hominem attacks on individuals with a libertarian mindset -- another is the broader issue of the marginalization of minority dissent through smears and damnation by association. Libertarians, and others who are dissenting against progressive policies, are being framed as being part of an undemocratic process, motivated by racism -- fear of a president who doesn't look like us (this is based on the asumption that all the opposition is not half-white/half-black). The logic of the marginalization effort is that because there are racists in America who want to defeat Obama, if anyone opposes his policies, they must be motivated by race. I will admit that Obama doesn't look like 60% of the people I deal with closely each day -- his skin is not as dark.

I think this tactic of damnation through association and ad hominem smears against serious people who oppose progressive policies is abominable. It means the left has no defense of progressivism. I have a feeling many liberals are becoming uncorfortable with this stragegy.

White, male libertarians -- where's the diversity?

Recently, I saw a Google query in my website statistical function that asked -- "Why are most libertarians white and male?"

This is a good question - a difficult question. I can only speculate since I don't know of any studies to rely on. I'm sure it has something to do with the image of libertarianism being a radical philosophy that champions a free enterprise system, which is seen as rigged in favor of white males, and opposed to the state, which is seen as the protector of minorites and the oppressed, plus the simplistic popular version of libertarianism as a dog-eat-dog proposition.

There is nothing in libertarian thought, per se, that excludes females or non-whites. Libertarian thought, as far as I can tell, is not directly concerned with these differences. When considering principles, we should all have an opinion, and one has to wonder if state promotion of minorities and women at the expense of white males is fair -- should the state be able to violate the rights of white men, who didn't cause the inequality, since they weren't alive when the inequalities were established, to promote minorities and women? This is one of the underlying controversies. Was the state responsible for the past inequalities which orginally rigged the system in favor of white males -- if not, then how were the inequalities forced on minorities and women? Perhaps societal norms played the largest part, but without legalizing inequalities society would have experienced much more turmoil and resistance early on in the history of our country. The problem seems to be the existence of a state with the power to create inequalities and violate rights. This was a problem in the beginning and it's a problem now.

So, in essence, a truly limited government appears to be the best situation for all. The value of affirmative action will be determined sooner or later, but it's partly beside the point. I don't see any way to enforce equality without violating rights, and that makes the cost too high and morally wrong, so what other ways can equality be pursued? Even if we agreed that past oppression caused an unlevel playing and all the efforts of LBJ and others were necessary to adjust the playing field, and aside from the question whether this has been helpful or harmful, what do we do now? We aren't locked into past decisions and we aren't responsible for past sins forever. The main concern that's pertinent to the question of why libertarians are made up of white males begs another question  -- would embracing libertarianism be beneficial to minorities and women?

The Founders had the right principles in mind even if the exucution was flawed due to government intervention and societal resistance to freeing slaves and women in order for them to take advantage of equal opportunity. Now that, for the most part, societal attitudes regarding minorities and women have changed, it appears the largest opportunity for advancement of a woman or a person of color is through the free market operating under a limited government. If it's economic advancement that's desired, then the myriad choices open in our diverse global economy are staggering -- with the right education, training, investment, etc. Minorities and women need no longer operate under the stigma of affirmative action, especially if limited government entailed no state involvement in education. Freeing education to become creative through innovation would allow free market solutions to direct all individuals in the right direction in the modern economy. Public education has been an obstacle for minorities.

We have to imagine what a true free market would look like in order to determine if minorities and women would benefit. If we established a truly limited government with responsibilites reduced to protection and courts, taxes would be lowered and the economy would be incredibly charged with new activity. This would free up a lot of misdirected money to be used by wealthy women and minorites, if they so choose, to start companies, expand companies already in existence and provide opportunities for those previously held back. We see an increasing amount of wealthy minorities and women already -- this would grow quickly with a charged economy. With the right, innovative education spurred by need, a free market would offer solutions to under-education and incompetent education, thereby preparing minorities for a technological society. Minority owned companies could pool resources and fund local education to be a part of the solution -- we wouldn't be shackled by limited, public education offerings which haven't been successful.

Perhaps it's asking a lot to have faith in the free market, but once an individual considers what would be created, they begin to see possibilities that government interference has blocked. In a free market no one can be prevented from applying creative solutions as long as they don't violate the rights of others. Also, in the case of industries violating someone's rights because of skin color or sex, there is always the court system set up to settle disputes and violations. But if companies simply make free choices to hire whom they want to hire, then in a diverse market there are other options for workers, and there is public exposure of bigots which could hurt their business in a senstive society. Society is now sensitive to discrimination and it's not tolerated for the most part. With companies competiing for workers, being a company with tolerant open policies is a business advantage against a company that has been pubically outed as applying racist, sexist policies. This kind of pressure is more effective than affirmative action and no one's rights are violated.

We have to learn how to take care of our own problems and quit relying on a Big Brother government to make everything right -- they can't, and the power they grab as a consequence is not good for anyone. So, yes, women and minorities, as individuals, would benefit from operating under a limited government that protects individual rights and leaves the market to compete on an equal opportunity basis of performance and results. Companies being big, white and male is not necessarily an advantage in these times when the right idea from a few kids in a garage can change the whole game. We need freedom to innovate, with no government protection for the big-ass white guys, and the rest will be up to individual initiative and creative solutions.

Don't believe it? I do, with all my heart.