The Democrats Bet It All on White

It's time to go out on the same old shaky limb and make a prediction. This time, it's that the most notable, and lasting, effect of the current presidential campaign on American politics will be that the Democrats have, after having coddled and conned them for decades, finally told the black community to, basically, get lost -- that they, and their wacky ideas, no longer count. The occasion for this sea change in political strategy was, of course, the uproar caused by Barack Obama's "former" pastor and his "radical" statements about America and race relations -- statements which, by the way, in terms of intensity and degree of radicalism, differ hardly a whit from things we have heard from plenty of white liberals, the most recent of which is John Kerry. We also had Bill Clinton, who visited England in the flower of his youth looking like the Abominable Snowman, saying many of the same things; and he became "apologizer in chief" for eight long years, putting on sackcloth and ashes (in the figurative sense at least) at every third-world whistle stop, in reparation for America's sins. Then we have Jimmy Carter, the liberal gift that just keeps on giving, donning roller skates so he can get to as many people as possible in order to beg forgiveness (which, by the way, he has never done with regard to the titanic failures of his own administration -- but let that go for now).

But to return to the main point -- Hillary actually had the cosmic gall to state, on Tuesday, that there was some sort of _significance_ to the church one attended -- the implication being that Obama didn't just attend Pastor Wright's church because he liked the donuts and coffee. Now, all of a sudden, black radical ranting and raving, rather than being tolerated, if not actually encouraged, by the Democrats, has turned overnight into "hate speech". But wait! Isn't "hate speech", by definition, something that whites say about blacks? At least that's what it's been ever since it was defined. Where does Hillary get the right to declare that, all of a sudden, blacks -- and especially black preachers, the pillars of their community -- are capable of "hate speech"? The prospect causes one to swoon. How come white liberal hate speech directed against the United States is perfectly OK, but the very same words uttered by a man of color are not? We see now what a paradigm shift we are witnessing here.

Now, let's admit that nothing a Democratic candidate -- Hillary Clinton first and foremost -- ever says is not thoroughly "vetted", analyzed for potential impact, and refined down to the nth degree. "Spontaneity" is not one of their well-honed skills. Bill Clinton calls a focus group together every morning in order to decide what color necktie to wear. So when Hillary, basically, pokes a sharp stick in the eye of the black community, it means that she and her advisors have decided that the black community is, all of a sudden, dispensable. But think -- the black community has been the absolute, totally reliable core of the Democratic constituency for decades. Nothing that happened in the riotous Sixties had any impact on this, nor did any of the earlier manifestations of black radicalism -- nor have any of the current symptoms of pathology in urban black communities. Even occasional manifestations of anti-Semitism in the black community have not shaken the foundations of this marriage. The black community and the Democrats have stayed together, through thick and thin, up until now. But somehow, "blackness" is now considered a liability of some sort, and a viable black candidate (who, let's admit, isn't anywhere near as genuinely "black" as... well, as Jesse Jackson, say) turns out to be just not quite "right" for America. But rest assured that his lack of rightness is not about skin color per se, oh no. He's not right because of Wright -- and Wright is not right because he says -- well, actually, he says things that black community leaders have been saying for generations. And I can guarantee that for every black leader who says, or writes, "radical" things there are ten, or fifty, or a hundred, members of that community who agree -- tacitly, for the most part. Of course, blacks are arrayed all along a wide spectrum of belief and opinion on many issues, but to separate black "radicalism" from the black community is simply not possible -- as Obama himself pointed out in his milestone speech. So, by criticizing black radicalism, in the form of a single preacher, the Democratic establishment is _not_ just separating out a fringe element, but really getting in the face of the core community, and telling it that its feelings and views no longer count. To which one might ask, well then, whose views _do_ count, i.e. who are the Democrats going to turn to if they've decided to risk alienating this traditional element of their core? One of the answers is the Hispanic community, which has overtaken the black community in not only numbers, but in political awareness and activism. They threaten to turn the blacks into a has-been, no-longer-preferred victim group, and that has to hurt. Another answer is the more temporary and therefore tenuous group called "whites of all political persuasions who are sick and tired of this damned war and of the pinhead president who is supposedly running it". And of course, the traditional white liberal Democratic core is as stable as ever and is in no mood to bolt. In fact, they are looking forward to another eight years of the Clinton soap opera, having gotten tired of reruns.

So yes, this is a "historical" election, and the "history" has already been made by the Democrats. The black community -- and Obama along with it -- have been declared to be outsiders. And we can bet that, should convention time roll around with both candidates in the race, the hall in Denver will be the exclusive territory of the white liberal machine, and the blacks will be out in the street. Kind of like old times, when you think about it. Kind of nostalgic. And the Republicans will be laughing over their whiskey and cigars.