Losing An Argument? Use Racism

If you throw a divisive issue at me, I can generally keep my cool and let the rules of Socratic debate take over. On the other hand, if you want to see my patience pushed to the brink, then tell me my political views are rooted in racism. Few other topics can compete with the maddening use of racism by the left to pigeonhole their opposition.

We could naturally expect the typical progressive with a copy of Saul Alinskys "Rules for Radicals" on their bookshelf to use such an isolation tactic but it has reached a point of absurdity. Politicians, editorial columns and roundtable debates are now regularly leveling charges of racism against anyone critical of President Obama. Could it be that they are simply opposed to his policies and ideology?

I have my own charge for those who make such heavy accusations. You have the right to say whatever you want, but when you are asked to make your case, you had better be able to do it. If you claim opposition to President Obama or Attorney General Eric Holder is solely based in racism, then quantify it by substance. To date, the concept of calling conservatives racist has been utterly and totally baseless. Not one single mainstream reporter, journalist or politician has offered evidence of a trend of racially derogatory comments or actions by conservatives. We instead have received a steady diet of divisive politics to pit one group against another.

This is not to say that racism does not exist. It is alive and well all around the world and has been since the beginning of varied people groups. The United States was indelibly scarred by the Slavery of the South and its aftermath perpetuated racial tensions well into the twentieth century. By shear ignorance and re-writing of history, we have been quick to forget that many of these atrocities have been challenged, fought against and eventually claimed victory over. It was a republican president that issued the emancipation proclamation and we cannot forget the 600,000 lives lost in the Civil War that paved a path to freedom for slaves. A larger majority of republicans voted for passage of the civil rights act than did Democrats and most conservatives to this day will claim the ideals of MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech. The repeating cry of racism just doesn't line up with the narrative the left continues to perpetuate.

So why is it so pervasive? Well first, democrats are finding themselves with little defense for the failure of so many of their initiatives. The merits of their ideas are not holding up to the scrutiny of reality. Issues from health care to foreign policy to the economy are simply not working out as advertised. Yelling "racist" is classic misdirection. It is an attempt to change the focus of the audience to get a negative emotional reaction. Of course, they can then claim to be the protectors of equality.

Secondly, racist labels have become the easiest method for liberal progressives to employ what I have called the "D" Strategy. The order is as follows. Define your opposition to isolate them. Demean them by using mockery and moral imperatives. Disseminate persistent false narratives via the media and culture. These will eventually Divide the electorate. By breaking people into sub-groups, it creates grievances which produce Disenfranchisement, and that allows politicians to portray themselves as the only ones who care for their special interests. Once they have a majority, this becomes the very foundation of political power which eventually leads to the end goal of Dependence. Once the people believe the awful things they have been coaxed to believe, then politicians have control.

Some might say this sounds like a conspiracy theory but it is not. Human nature drifts to many of these tactics when we exalt winning elections and pushing ideology as a means to win some kind of philosophical battle, particularly when we disdain those who oppose us. Whatever the root causes, the use of race to divide must be challenged intellectually at every opportunity.  

Compassion for the Least of These

 

As I was checking out my newsfeed on Facebook, I saw this posted on a family member's wall the other day. It was in line with many of his public political statements so it really wasn't that unusual but I started to ponder the implications it seemed to be making.

I suppose that the originators of the meme intended to convey an image of conservative hypocrisy but maybe it was something more. By comparing the pro-life movement to the mass influx of illegal immigrant children from Central America, were they suggesting by subtle inference that conservatives were willing to just let thousands of children die?

I am not sure of how logic allows one to make this leap. Supporting an effort to deport these children back to their respective countries is not synonymous with death and was certainly not tantamount to a lack of compassion. No one has even proposed not caring for their immediate needs so why are we so divided on this?

Compassion seems to have been radically redefined into a concept that has no clear purpose. Without purpose, no beneficial outcome can ever occur. If no attempt is made to stop the current influx, where do we draw a line? The left is not clamoring about the other hundreds of millions around the world who suffer every day. Why wouldn't their sense of compassion just blindly say "tear down our borders and provide for all" regardless of our financial ability to do so? Is it compassion to pass children around from foster home to foster home? Is it compassion to have no expectations for their future other than to give them a government EBT card and drop them off in front of a Walmart?

The reality of the situation is that national sovereignty and a systematic legal process for citizenship is essential for America to do what it does well and that is being a force for good around the globe. Unsecured borders not only pose threats to our safety, culture, and national identity, they also endanger our economic system which ultimately allows America to be the number one positive change-agent both publicly and privately.

The Biblical view of compassion has no limits for those who claim Christianity but that does not void governmental laws that are put in place for our own protection. Illegally coming across or sending children across our borders in violation of immigration laws should not and cannot be answered with a response cloaked as humanitarian aide, nor should it be used to further divide our country for political purposes.

No one can really deny that America remains a beacon of hope for all the world. This is why so many attempt to enter our land, often at their own peril. By strengthening our sovereignty as a nation of laws, we ultimately strengthen our ability to help more of the poor and huddled masses just like the ones that passed through Ellis Island in pursuit of the American ideal. This is the real foundation by which compassion can take root.     

The Iraq War in Retrospect

In the early days of the Iraq war, many can remember the statue of Saddam Hussein being toppled over by masses of Iraqi nationals. It epitomized the hope for a new era in the Middle East.

The struggle for a nation to build a new identity has proved to be very difficult. Sunni and Shiite divisions as well as political uncertainty have left Iraq very vulnerable.

After the United States withdrew most of its military presence in late 2011, the problem has only been exacerbated. The recent developments with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) just goes to show that Iraq was not ready to go it alone. With many of Iraq's cities now under ISIS control, only time will tell if their foothold will continue or grow throughout the Middle East region.

Eleven years have passed since the original 2003 invasion and it has had a direct impact on the current political climate in America. The war was clearly an anchor to President Bush in his second term and may have played a factor in the Democratic takeover of congress in 2006 and the presidency in 2008.

From the beginning I generally supported President Bush's decision to invade Iraq but my view has evolved tremendously. My current pessimistic view of the war has little to do with any of the typical reasons. Most left-leaning folks from liberals to progressives opposed the war primarily out of dislike of Bush. They may have cited alternate reasons but it usually came down to the same talking points like Bush lied, he did it to get revenge for his daddy, there were no weapons of mass destruction, or it was a war for oil. All of these are devoid of rational fact, reason and history.

My change of heart is not full out disapproval but rather a consideration of what we did or didn't gain as a result of so much sacrifice. Approximately 4,000 Americans died, countless others injured and billions of dollars were spent, and yet we find ourselves with an even more unstable Middle East. At least some part of the blame could now be placed at the feet of President Obama but his inconsistent policies in foreign affairs may have only illuminated an already bad situation.

I have always believed that in the face of growing global terrorism, President Bush's deeper intended goal was to change the face of the Middle East and that Iraq was the most logical insertion point. I did however understand that this had to be a long-term proposition. Simply dethroning one rogue dictator would do little to demonstrate how Western democracy could benefit the Islamic world.

What I did underestimate was the American psyche. It is now clear that the US population simply does not have the intestinal fortitude for this kind of effort. The Bush policies were not so much a failure as was the resolve of the American populace. We have grown accustomed to a la carte foreign policy where we call for a simple action to eliminate very complicated problems. Global terrorism is not an issue that can be conquered with the swipe of a pen, a brief military operation or world apology tours. It is deeply embedded into a cultural identity that has existed for generations.

I often wonder how we would ever handle a much more seismic event like World War II today. Could we stomach the loss of 400,000 troops? Would we make the financial and resource sacrifices in our personal lives for such a war effort? Could we attain any degree of unity as a country? Sadly, I'm not sure our current state of mind could.