Showing posts with label Rep. Paul Ryan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rep. Paul Ryan. Show all posts
Saturday, August 23, 2014
Sunday, May 4, 2014
 |
| Donald Sterling Lady Liberty Photo Credit: Bill Frymire |
Cliven Bundy, the Nevada
rancher in a dispute with the Bureau of Land Management; the Duke lacrosse college
students falsely accused of sexual assault; George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watchman
accused of and acquitted for the murder of a black Florida teenager; and now
Donald Sterling, the billionaire owner of the NBA’s Los Angeles Clippers.
What do these men have in
common?
They are white males. More
than that, they are -- to the media -- white male villains. In the 1987 novel,
“The Bonfire of the Vanities,” Tom Wolfe talks about the hunt for the Great
White Defendant. In the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin, case, the media
initial assumed he was a non-Hispanic Jew -- not exactly the kind of WASPy
Great White Defendant described by Tom Wolfe in “The Bonfire of the Vanities,”
but close enough. Zimmerman was also rather inconveniently not rich, but again one
takes what one can get. Worse, it turns out his ethnicity is more like non-white
Hispanic, but still…
The media love it when a
white, and ideally, rich male commits a crime or does something we can
collectively condemn. There’s a reason TV’s Lt. Columbo was more likely sent to
Bel-Air than to Compton or Watts where the per capita murder rate is much
higher.
No one gets mad over media
coverage of rich white people doing bad things to other rich white people. White
males are used to being called bad names, rich whites even more so. White males
have no special interest group behind them, no NAACP, no NOW, no CAIR. They are
the dominant class, the moneyed class, and therefore an agreed-upon target.
A close cousin to the Great
White Defendant is the Great White Topic. The Los Angeles Times
ran a story the mistreatment of black tradesmen who worked in upper-class suburban
Los Angeles. They told stories of rude, distrustful white homeowners who
yelled, sic dogs or otherwise treated blacks plumbers, painters and the like.
I mentioned this story to a friend who
works at a newspaper. I told him about a roofer who recently worked for me. The
roofer told me that when on a job in South Central someone shot at him. The
bullet struck a tile nearby. “Where’s that story in the Los Angeles Times?” I
said.
To this, my newspaper friend said:
"You're right. No one is mad at the black people who mistreat rich, rude
white people. But a story the other way around -- there's a problem.
This is from “The Bonfire of
the Vanities” by Tom Wolfe:
“Every assistant D.A. in the
Bronx, from the youngest Italian just out of St. John`s Law School to the
oldest Irish bureau chief, who would be somebody like Bernie Fitzgibbon, who
was forty-two, shared Captain Ahab`s mania for the Great White Defendant. For a
start, it was not pleasant to go through life telling yourself, ‘What I do for
a living is, I pack blacks and Latins off to jail.’”
The hunt for the Great White
Defendant also applies to television and movies. Ben Shapiro wrote of “Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How The Left Took Over Your TV.” John Langley, the creator of the reality show
“Cops,” told Shapiro that “Cops” intentionally under-depicts black criminals
and black crime.
Conservative media critic
Steve Sailor, on the crime show, “Law and Order”:
“The press' lack of interest
in minority violence is even more true of movies and television shows.
“Three years after Bonfire,
TV producer Dick Wolf took Tom Wolfe's basic procedural framework of detectives
and district attorneys and turned it into the television drama ‘Law &
Order.’ Its first few seasons were among the best and most realistic in the
history of television.
“The only problem was that
ratings were lousy. Sure, at the time, New York City was in the middle of
hideous gang wars among black and Latin crack dealers, with 4,298 people human
beings murdered within the city limits in 1990 and 1991 (an annual toll about
three times higher than the average during the current Iraq war).
“Unfortunately for TV
producers with aspirations toward realism, less than 10 percent of the NYC
victims, and even fewer of their murderers, were white. The white television
audience found that L&O's initial set of heavily minority murderers boring
and depressing. What white people like are stories about bad white people,
especially, snooty bad white people, to whom they can feel morally and
culturally superior. Whites just don't really see minorities as competing with
them in the Great American Status Game.”
Meanwhile, less newsworthy
but of greater importance, 86 percent of black households in Richmond,
Virginia, have no fathers,
and 60 percent of all Richmond households are fatherless.
Despite the election and
election of the first black president, “race” still occupies a lot of media
attention. In just the last few weeks, we saw accusations of “racism” against Rep.
Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, for saying the
welfare state hurt poor minority families. Ryan apologized for the “inarticulate”
way he explained it. Ryan moved over for rancher Cliven Bundy who supposedly
made “racist” comments about “the Negro” and “the Spanish people.” Bundy
apologized on television, holding up a boot to symbolize how his mouth often got
him into trouble. Bundy has now moved over.
Now it’s Donald Sterling. He’s
rich, real rich, has a bad reputation for being cheap and demeaning -- and has
been accused of “racism.” Perfect.
Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
Friday, April 25, 2014
By Larry Elder, Apr. 25, 2014
Well, that’s one way to get the non-Fox media interested in
a story.
Weave in some “racism.” Better yet, throw in a reference to
“slavery.” Sure it’s 2014, and we have a black president who has been elected
and re-elected. But still…
Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher in a public grazing fee
dispute with the feds, recently offered his thoughts on race, racial progress,
welfare dependency and even illegal immigration.
For how long, for what reason, and exactly to whom Bundy
spoke, we are not sure because the posted YouTube goes a little more than three
minutes. It appears he began talking before the camera started running and
appeared to continue talking even after the clip ends. According to The New
York Times, he was talking to a gathered group of supporters. Here is the video. It contains Bundy’s
most “offensive” statement:
“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro. …
When I go to North Las Vegas I would see these little government houses. And in
front of those that government house the door was usually open and the older
people and the kids -- and there is always at least a half a dozen people
sitting on the porch -- they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have
nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to
do.
“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so
now what do they do? They abort their young children, they put their young men
in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often
wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family
life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They
didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”
Over on the non-Fox cables, they could barely contain their
joy. A next-day morning Washington Post Headline read: “Will Fox News's Sean
Hannity Keep Hyping Cliven Bundy After Comments About the ‘Negro’?”
Not only has an “anti-government” rancher been caught letting
us know his “true feelings,” but even more deliciously, Fox drove this story. No
Fox, no national story -- and now’s it’s come back to bite them. Happy, happy,
joy, joy!
But now Cliven Bundy, this hero of the right, this “right-wing”
avatar of all that is good and patriotic in America, has revealed himself. He’s
just what the good guys always thought -- a bigot. Scratch the surface of most
white Republicans -- especially those pot-bellied Neanderthals who use words
like “Negro” -- and you’ll find a bigot. Right? Such old people, as Oprah
recently said, “just have to die.” These are, after all, the very people Obama
once demeaned because they “cling to guns or religion.”
What did Bundy really say?
After the nitpicking, sorting through convoluted, inartfully
articulated, politically incorrect language, what do we have left? The very
same criticism that Hannity justifiably makes as a constant, central political
theme: a large, ever-growing, intrusive, expensive government harms prosperity,
creates dependency and destabilizes families. Economists Thomas Sowell and Walter
Williams point out that during slavery a black child was more likely than today
to live under the same roof with his biological mother and father. The welfare
state has done to the nuclear, traditional black family what neither slavery
nor Jim Crow could do.
So what’s the problem?
Isn’t this the message of a conservative, which is something
Hannity proudly calls his New York political registration -- “conservative”? But
if conservatives hate anything more than tax hikes, it’s being accused of
racism.
Bundy dared say something about abortion. Not only did he say
something about abortion, but that he did so as a white, southwestern rancher Republican.
Regarding abortion, is not true that of the babies aborted each year a
disproportionately high number -- compared to population demographic -- are
black babies?
Or, is the problem is the way Bundy criticized government
dependency. Just how bad is racism in America when merely clumsily making a
point gets labeled as racist? Is Bundy racist for failing to figure out a
non-racist way of making an argument destined to offend, no matter how nicely
he expresses it?
Good luck with that.
 |
| Rep. Paul Ryan / Credit: AP |
Ask Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., who just the other day made a similar
point about dependency -- only to apologize for it after being called racially
insensitive. And Ryan gives speeches for a living.
Ryan, like Hannity, fell into the race-card trap. But the
rules are simple: “If you say it, it’s racist. If we say it, it’s, well, it’s
us. We are genetically hardwired not to be racist. You, however, are
genetically hardwired to be bigots.” Thus Vice President Joe Biden can say,
“They’re gonna put y’all back in chains.” That’s not offensive. Then-Sen.
Hillary Clinton can, before a predominately black audience, patronizingly say: “[The
Republican House] has been run like a plantation. And you know what I’m talking
about.” That’s not offensive. Then House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel
can say of Republicans: “They don’t say ‘spic’ or ‘nigger’ anymore. They just
say, ‘Let’s cut taxes.’” No worries.
Now Bundy, a 67-year-old man many never heard of until days
ago, is not an office holder, not a candidate for anything. Like Ryan, he stands
accused of racism. To many on the left, there is little difference between the
smart, courtly Ryan, and a Stetson-wearing Nevada rancher -- a bigot is a bigot
is a bigot.
 |
| Rev. Al Sharpton / Credit: www.guardianlv.com |
But let’s agree, for the sake of argument, that Bundy is
truly the biggest racist this side of the Rev. Al Sharpton -- who, by the way, owes
more to the government than does Bundy. (Where’s SWAT?) But we digress.
Assuming Bundy’s a hardcore “racist,” how does Bundy’s
racism affect my day? Is my car is less likely to start? Will Bundy’s daughter
refuse to date my nephew? Will G.W. Bush stop being blamed for stuff?
The way the left slings around the race card has a specific
purpose. It shuts down debate. It takes focus off the awful “recovery.” It buys
time for more stories about the wonders of Obamacare. More importantly, it keeps
the 95 percent black Democratic vote flowing -- without which the Democrats
cannot win at the presidential level.
Why can’t conservatives who “support Bundy” say: “Even if I conceded
his remarks were ‘racist,’ it nothing to do with his land dispute. Again, Bundy
described the unintended consequences of government dependency. He described
what sociologists call the underclass. Didn’t the liberal Daniel Patrick Moynihan
warn about the rise in single-parent households? If Bundy truly ‘hated’ blacks
he would be encouraging this very dependency.”
And why omit mind the
welcoming, almost pro-amnesty things Bundy said about “Spanish people”? Not
exactly round ‘em up and throw ‘em out.
But, but, but, he said, “pick cotton”!
Again, let’s assume -- for the moment -- the very, very,
very worst: Bundy want to bring back slavery. How exactly does one go about
pulling that off? For starters, there’s the problem of a black President who
may have some issues with it. Which Republican will stand up, taking the lead
in introducing the bill to bring back the good old days? Rep. Eric Cantor, Va.?
Sen. Mitch McConnell, Ky.? Ryan? What, Congress
will suddenly enact laws mandating that blacks turn in their weapons, march
down to the nearest police station and report in?
But right on cue Sean Hannity denounced Bundy’s remarks: “His
comments are beyond repugnant to me. They are beyond despicable to me. They are
beyond ignorant to me….People that, for the right reasons, saw this case as
government overreach -- now are like, branded because of the ignorant, racist,
repugnant, despicable comments of Cliven Bundy!” Oh, please.
Racism. Racism. Racism. Water’s wet, sky’s blue, the media
love outing white “bigots” -- especially if they are male, old, Republican,
Christian and -- ideally -- Southern. Even a Southerner who votes Democratic,
like Paula Deen, will do nicely.
Tom Wolfe wrote about this in “Bonfire of the Vanities” his
splendid fictionalized book featuring a Sharpton-incarnate character. The media,
Wolfe notes, lives for “the Great White Defendant.” Why?
Nobody’s mad.
If you do stories about crime and violence in the inner
city, some group of activists screams racism. Advertisers could get threatened.
Marches and protests may follow. But if you do a story about Rich White Guys In
Trouble, who’s mad? Nobody.
Whites, especially Christian Republican males -- and the
occasional female -- are used to being branded as racist. Fuzzy Zoeller, Al
Campanis, Jimmy “the Greek,” John Rocker, Paula Deen, Trent Lott -- all got
hammered for saying the “wrong” thing “the wrong way.”
Meanwhile, Jesse Jackson can call the U.S. bombing of
Hiroshima “immoral” as he recently did. Or, Jackson can call Jews “hymie” and
New York “Hymietown,” as he did years ago, and all is forgiven and practically
forgotten.
Cliven Bundy walks in right out of central casting.
He represents -- to the left -- everything they despise. He’s
“embraced by Fox news.” He caused the wretched assembly of a bunch of GOP-voting,
Obamacare-opposing, pro-life, flag-waving, anti-gay marriage, gun-toting
a-holes -- and now see! Told you such people are…racists!
Ezra Klein, then a Washington Post reporter, once formed an
organization of like-minded (leftist) journalists, some several hundred in all.
The idea, presumably, was to serve as a kind of an online gathering place for like-minded
scribes. He called it JournoList.
Recall when Fox forced the non-Fox media to cover the Rev.
Jeremiah Wright? It sent the media into frenzy. JournoListers, supposed members
of the non-partisan news media, were literally plotting how to make the scandal
go away. One writer suggested changing the subject. Another offered a
suggestion as to how to do so: “It's not necessary to jump to
Wright-qua-Wright's defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the
right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger's [sic] and
smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and
send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in
a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically. … If the right
forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we
choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them -- Fred
Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares -- and call them racists.”
This is how the media roll. Figure out a way to pull out the
race card -- and put the bad guys on offense. It changes the subject, and in
the case of Bundy, others are asked to comment on his comment.
One of my white conservative friends said about his
opposition to Obama, “His race? Hell, about the only thing I like about him is
that he is black.”
Did I just sleep through a presidential election? Just six
years ago, didn’t a black presidential candidate receive a greater percentage
of the “white vote” than did John Kerry? Was Obama not re-elected despite
presiding over -- and having help caused -- the worst recovery since the Second
World War, if not in the history of the nation?
Yelling racism is the left’s version of pounding on the
table, it keeps blacks P.O.’d in order to sustain that 95 percent vote. We
ought not fall for this.
Yelling racism is the left’s version of pounding on the
table, it keeps blacks P.O.’d in order to sustain that 95 percent vote. We
ought not fall for this.
Voter ID -- even though polls show blacks support them, too
-- racism! The “vociferous opposition to Obamacare,” as former president Jimmy
Carter said, is “because of a belief among many white people, not just in the
South but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead
this great country." Racism! Don’t like taxes raised, continued
“quantitative easing,” believe the housing crisis was caused by government? Racist!
Racist! Racist!
Rep. Steve Israel, D-New York, helpfully recently offered
that “not all” his House Republican colleagues are “racist.” Nice to know. “But,”
he informs us, “to a significant extent, the Republican base does have elements
that are animated by racism, and that's unfortunate.”
Why don’t they name names? After all, outing a racist would
help the country, wouldn’t it? Do Democrats think it’s better to leave GOP
racists in place, where they can -- on the down-low -- propose and maybe even
enact “racist” legislation?
One more thing about the relative insignificance of Bundy’s
reflections on race.
My dad, a quiet strong man, and I were watching a newscast. After
a segment about the end of Liz Taylor’s eighth marriage, I turned to him.
“Dad,” I said, “what do you think about that?”
“What do I think about what?”
“What do you think about Liz Taylor having been married
eight times?” I asked.
“I don’t think anything about it.”
 |
| Source: Bundy Ranch Facebook |
Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
