Politics and Division

The recent Shirley Sherrod uproar was an interesting study in human behavior and political motivation.  Andrew Breitbart, on his website BigGovernment.com, posted a video of Ms. Sherrod, speaking at the NAACP, claiming that when a white farmer came to her many years ago she didn’t want to help him because she was “struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farm land.”  She went on to say, “and here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land. So I didn’t give him the full force of what I could do.”  She then says that she subsequently referred him to a white attorney, “one of his own,” to help him.

As she talks about the interchange between herself and the farmer, she says that he took a long time talking and that he was trying to show he was superior to her.  According to Ms. Sherrod, all the while he was trying to show her how superior he was, she was trying to decide just how much she was going to help him. (Am I the only one who thinks that maybe Ms. Sherrod and her own lack of self-worth might be the real problem here?)

What a sad, angry, bitter way of viewing the world.  Interestingly enough, she has since been exonerated by many in the media because of the fact that further on in her speech (a portion which wasn’t included in the original posting), she explained how this led to an evolution within herself; she eventually came to see that it wasn’t a matter of white against black, but rather rich against poor.

Now I get it!  To hate another human being because they’re of a different race is wrong, but to hate another because they have more than you is simply what … normal?

Sounds a bit like John Edwards and his two Americas rhetoric.  “One America does the work [ostensibly those receiving government services and wealth transfers] while another America reaps the reward [the rich, of course].  One America pays the taxes [the 46 percent who pay no federal income tax] while another America gets the tax breaks [the taxpayers, let’s say the top 25 percent, who pay over 86 percent of the federal income taxes].”  Oh, it’s making sense now.

David Horowitz, a man heavily involved in radical left-wing politics for decades before his conversion to the underpinnings of truth that lie in conservative ideology, has said, “The radical worldview divides humanity into the oppressed who suffer as the objects of the historical process and the oppressors who inflict the process on everyone else. . . . For the traditional Marxist, the enemy system that organizes and distributes power is capitalism; for the radical feminist, it is patriarchy; and for the queer theorist, it is ‘hetero-normativity.’”*

In order for the politics of the left to thrive, there always must be a victim class.  Without it there is little message, and any semblance of substance simply disappears.  This mindset is echoed from the halls of left-wing ideology daily, and it doesn’t take us to a very good place.

It is the political message that leads us here, courtesy of Ed Schultz, on the special-election in Massachusetts, “I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts, I’d try to vote ten times. I don’t know if they’d let me or not, but I’d try to. Yeah, that’s right, I’d cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. ‘Cause that’s exactly what they are.”

Or it leads us  to King Samir Shabazz, ranting in front of a polling place in Philadelphia in 2008 and saying, among other things, if “[y]ou want freedom, you’re gonna have to kill some crackers; you’re gonna have to kill some of their babies.”

Or it leads us to where I was a few years ago, having been nominated for the board of a prestigious women’s organization.  As I spoke with the CEO, she explained that a core goal of the organization was the elimination of discrimination.  I asked her if discrimination were such an important issue, why weren’t men allowed to be equal members with women.  The reply stunned me, “Only men can discriminate.”

Or it leads us to act as Eric Holder is accused of acting when he allegedly ordered his attorneys at the Justice Department to disregard cases involving black defendants and white victims.  I’m guessing only whites can discriminate.

Shirley Sherrod, in an interview with Anderson Cooper after she claims she was forced by the White House to resign from her job at the USDA, says that Breitbart must be a racist and that she thinks he “would like to get us stuck back in the times of slavery.”

Mary Frances Berry, who spent over a decade as the Chairperson of the US Commission on Civil Rights recently said, “Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.”

But I’m sure it’s just really all about the issues.

*The Politics of Bad Faith, David Horowitz, The Free Press 1998, p. 156.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *