Getting Dr. Carson, and the gotcha-Republican quotes du jour
It had to happen, didn’t it? The MSM and the left (is that becoming redundant?) scours Republican utterances for evidence of bigotry on a daily (perhaps hourly?) basis. And sure enough, every now and then someone slips according to the PC rules in operation today.
No longer is it necessary to find actual bigotry—as in, acts of bigotry, or the advocacy of bigotry—mainly because few except some neo-Nazis somewhere are in fact advocating it. Now we have the variety of bigotry that relies on more subtle means of detection, sort of like a Geiger counter—mostly the use of forbidden words or phrases (macada; wetback)), which may or may not be evidence of actual bigotry on the part of the speaker. But who cares whether they are or not, as long as they can be used to show what bigoted rotters all Republicans are?
You be the judge (and remember as you read this that Rep. Young is 79 years old):
Young, an Alaska congressman, discussing the labor market during an interview with radio station KRBD in Ketchikan, Alaska, said that on his father’s ranch, “we used to have 50-60 wetbacks to pick tomatoes.” He said, “It takes two people to pick the same tomatoes now. It’s all done by machine.”
He added that during the interview, he had “discussed the compassion and understanding I have for these workers and the hurdles they face in obtaining citizenship” and said the country must tackle the issue of immigration reform.
“Shame on Don Young,” said Congressional Hispanic Caucus chairman Ruben Hinojosa, D-Texas. “It is deeply disheartening that in 2013, we are forced to have a discussion about a member of Congress using such hateful words and racial slurs.”
Oh, I very much doubt it’s “deeply disheartening” in the least. On the contrary, it’s deeply satisfying to trumpet the gotcha quote du jour and be able to further advance the cause of the gloriously bigotry-free Democratic Party. And with the cooperation of the press, it’s fairly easy to do that, as well as to minimize the very real racism in the history of certain older Democratic members of Congress only recently retired, and the verbal slips of present-day figures such as Harry Reid.
The charges against someone like Young gain traction, while any Democratic goofs go down the memory hole, because the former fit into a near-seamless media narrative of Republican bigotry whereas the latter are set against one of Democratic racial harmony and love. Never mind the reality, and never mind the ruthless attacks from the left on any black people so misguided as to leave the Democratic fold and become (gasp!) conservatives. They are no longer black people (just as Sarah Palin is no longer a woman), and so they can be safely savaged by the left.
Now, Don Young of the “wetback” remark is hardly my poster boy for who I would like to see in Congress. But I doubt he’s especially latino-hating, and I doubt he’d even have used the word if he’d been talking about something current rather than something in his far-off youth (he himself said he’d “used a term that was commonly used during my days growing up on a farm in central California” and it’s clear that for just a moment he was stepping back in memory and letting down his PC guard).
Which brings us to Dr. Ben Carson, he-who-had-to-be-destroyed. That was a bit trickier, because since Carson is black it probably couldn’t be on racial grounds. But it turned out to be pretty easy after all, because Carson said this the other day in an appearance on Sean Hannity’s show (unfortunately, I haven’t been able to find a more complete transcript, so I don’t know the context):
My thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It’s a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality ”” it doesn’t matter what they are ”” they don’t get to change the definition.
Just a few short years ago these remarks would probably have been unremarkable. That was then, this is now.
And empirically speaking, those groups (at least the first one) do get to change the definition, if current trends continue. So Dr. Carson may be factually wrong in terms of what will happen.
But that’s not what the uproar was about. Liberals and the left are outraged because they say that Carson compared, and therefore equated (in their rhetoric, anyway) all these groups, thus insulting gay people by lumping them all together.
Of course. We all know that when a bunch of things are listed as having a single trait in common, those things are all being equated, right?—at least if it suits the purposes of those who are out to discredit someone. So Dr. Carson is saying that gays, NAMBLA, and those who think it’s fine to have sex with animals are all the same.
Of course he’s not. It’s as though a person were discussing (to take one example) the issue of black separatism, and said that black separatism was a bad idea no matter who advocated it—black people who are fed up with racism in white-dominated society, members of the KKK, or neo-Nazis. We’d all understand that the person had listed widely disparate groups who happen to unite on their opinions of that particular policy, not groups who were comparable in any other way.
The fact that Carson was largely correct about the similar long-term aim of some of these groups regarding the traditional definition of marriage and/or who can have sex (although IMHO he should have included polygamists on his list rather than the bestiality folks—who as far as I know do not as yet advocate marriage between humans and animals) does not change a thing. The left will do what the left will do, and one of the things the left will do is to destroy articulate black conservatives.
[NOTE: Looking at the text of the Johns Hopkins medical students’ petition to disinvite Carson as commencement speaker, I’m struck by how it fits in with my previous post here, in which I point out that until his prayer breakfast speech disagreeing with Obama (after which he became a goat) Carson was considered a hero to liberals. The commencement invitation was offered before that speech, and my guess is that the students have been looking for a way out ever since he dissed Obama. Now they have found one.]
[NOTE II: And just to underline the ubiquity of the term “wetback” when Rep. Young (who was born in 1933) was a child and young man, see the history of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service’s program officially designated Operation Wetback in 1954:
The effort began in California and Arizona in 1954 and coordinated 1,075 Border Patrol agents, along with state and local police agencies. Tactics employed included going house to house in Mexican-American neighborhoods and citizenship checks during standard traffic stops.
Some 750 agents targeted agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions per day. By the end of July, over 50,000 illegal aliens were caught in the two states. An estimated 488,000 illegal aliens are believed to have left voluntarily, for fear of being apprehended. By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and the INS estimated that 500,000 to 700,000 had left Texas of their own accord. To discourage illicit re-entry, buses and trains took many deportees deep within Mexican territory before releasing them.
Tens of thousands more were deported by two chartered ships: the Emancipation and the Mercurio. The ships ferried them from Port Isabel, Texas, to Veracruz, Mexico, more than 500 miles (800 km) to the south. Some were taken as far as 1,000 miles. Deportation by sea was ended after seven deportees jumped overboard from the Mercurio and drowned, provoking a mutiny that led to a public outcry in Mexico.
The tide of history has taken us in another direction, hasn’t it? Now it’s a huge scandal to use the word “wetback”—or even to suggest that these are illegal immigrants rather than “undocumented workers.” Funny thing was that Rep. Young’s words were not the least bit critical of these workers. But that doesn’t matter, of course.]
Charges of racism are the first refuge of a democrat. BTW. why does Mexico do so poorly in the Olympics? Because all the Mexicans that can run, jump and swim are in the US.
I hope part of Carson’s message still gets through to black voters. Some of them don’t exactly support gay marriage, and they may not be impressed by the rantings of “elite” med students. It would be great to find a way to accuse them of racism.
Carson is right; the PC has to be stopped. As to the gottcha quotes, we need a scorecard. The Dems would only need Joe Biden to balance out every Republican flub ever made.
Neo said…
We all know that when a bunch of things are listed as having a single trait in common, those things are all being equated, right?–at least if it suits the purposes of those who are out to discredit someone. So Dr. Carson is saying that gays, NAMBLA, and those who think it’s fine to have sex with animals are all the same.
Of course he’s not. It’s as though a person were discussing (to take one example) the issue of black separatism, and said that black separatism was a bad idea no matter who advocated it–black people who are fed up with racism in white-dominated society, members of the KKK, or neo-Nazis.
But the three things Dr. Carson listed — gays, NAMBLA, and bestiality — are to him, as an evangelical Christian, all examples of sexual perversion. So, in his mind, they are each part of a continuum. They are not disparate things, as are the three items in your example of black people fed up with racism in white-dominated society, the KKK, or neo-Nazis.
Ann,
Perhaps Carson is thinking of gay activists, who espouse all sorts of things I find very problematic, like open marriage.
I don’t believe this flap over him expressing his opinion will deter Dr. Carson from continuing to speak out. This is not a man who cares what others think of him. He knows who he is and is very comfortable in his skin. He also believes in freedom of speech and dislikes the PC movement to shut people up.
On being disinvited to speak at the Johns Hopkins commencement, he shrugged his shoulders and said something to the effect that it’s their graduation celebration, if they don’t want me, it’s okay with me. He is gracious and tolerant of others views, even when they are trying to put him down. I have watched him on Fox several times now. (I saw the Hannity show where he made the remark about not changing the definition of marriage.) He seems very much at peace and quite unflappable. He also has an incisive mind that cuts to the heart of a problem. I doubt that he has any political ambitions, but he does want to use his voice and his platform to speak out and, as he puts it, “try to educate people.” He’s an optimist who believes, as I do, that this country can come back, if we unleash the power of American businesses through less regulation, developing our natural resources, and lowering taxes.
He has good ideas about how to reform our healthcare system. How about that? A doctor who doesn’t like Obamacare and has some positive alternatives. What’s not to like about this brilliant and Godly man? Oh yeah, he’s a black conservative. The progs can’t stomach that.
Ann:
I’m glad you are able to know what was in Carter’s mind. Personally, I’m not so sure you can speak for him.
However, Christianity and most other mainstream religions do indeed have a general tradition of wanting to channel sexuality into procreative rather than non-procreative lines. I wrote about that already at some length here. But that is not what Carter’s critics are objecting to.
From Breitbart:
“Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you’re being asked and it is one that I’m interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what State restrictions could ever exist? Meaning, what State restrictions with respect to the number of people, with respect to — that could get married — the incest laws, the mother and the child, assuming they are of age — I can — I can accept that the State has probably an overbearing interest on — on protecting the a child until they’re of age to marry, but what’s left?” — Justice Sotomayor
Where are the media watchdogs?
Neo and all: If you haven’t seen them yet there are several excellent videos of Ginni Thomas interviewing former leftist Brandon Darby over at http://dailycaller.com/ (scroll down to Mrs. Thomas’s blog on the right hand margin).
Darby is a very recent changer and it sounds like he was a very radical leftist before he changed (more like Horowitz than Neo). The racial theme comes up several times.
Ginni Thomas is quite courageous to be doing what she does; I have to remind myself each time I see her interviews that she’s the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas.
carl in atlanta: thanks.
By the way, I recall that the beginning of Andrew Breitbart’s change occurred because of the Clarence Thomas hearings.
Neo: when referring to Ann’s comment you more than once referred to Carter. You’ve done this before.
I think it’s funny is all.
But I also agree with Ann, as an evangelical, that would be Carter’s perspective.
It is mine, and other evangelicals.
Political correctness will eventually kill America if it is not stopped. Political correctness is nice but I have yet to find out how it has been productive. Young’s comments were out of place still but no need to have a temper tantrum over the little things.
Aside from that, in defense of marriage. We should go back to the fundamentals, marriage is an institution for child rearing. Many Americans are forgetting that. What is the point in getting married if one doesn’t have children or plan to have any?
But also, I am not sure if many can relate to Dr. Carson’s position. From my own experience, very few groups other groups practice race McCarthyism. I assumed that when an Irishman or a Jew(or anyone else) votes, he could vote Republican or Democrat without being called a race traitor. Hopefully, Dr. Carson will keep it up but he should be cautious.
I have been called a “mojado,” a.k.a. “wetback.” I doubt that the people who called me “mojado” would have been considered racists, as they were Spanish speaking Hispanics- one a TX native and the other born in Latin America.
Years ago, in my time in Houston between assignments on drilling rigs in Latin America, I often stayed at a cheap rooming house in the East End [Hispanic- though some cousins used to live there back in the day], where I had stayed when I first came to Houston to seek my fortune.
They called me “mojado” because of my proficiency in Spanish.
I would feel more favorable towards illegal aliens if they paid their own way. At a local grocery store I see a lot of Spanish speaking people – a high proportion of whom are illegal aliens- pay for groceries with food stamps. Then they get free care at hospital emergency rooms. Y yo? Pago. [And I ? I pay.]
Re- this talk about what Christians view marriage for-What I keep hearing bantered about, this implied idea that the Chrisitan view of marriage is only about procreation. I don’t know if some of these ideas are coming from Catholic doctrine or what? Biblically speaking, raising a family is one strong aspect of marriage- but not the only one. The apostle Paul warned husbands and wives to not withhold sex from each other for too long lest they be tempted to stray-see 1 Corinthians chapter 7! He doesn’t say this applies only to those in child bearing years! Early on in the Bible we see the phrase “it is not good for the man to be alone…” (Genesis 2: 18 NIV) We see that the Union of man and wife is partly about creating “one flesh”-two become one-Genesis 2:24 . See also what Jesus said about marriage in Matthew 19:4-6 This in turn is used as a metaphor of Christ and his Church -(similiar to the marriage metaphor of God and Israel at times in the Old Testament- see Isaiah 62:5 and Ephesians 5:23-33 and 2 Corinthians chapter 11. )
Evil is not afraid of logic; it is afraid of obedience.
G-d is the master of chaos, and no one else is a master, except those who obey. The power of love is released in obedience.
G-d gave logic and reason to all man, to both good and evil. Evil is ruled by logic and the more evil one becomes, the more logical. The ultimate evil expects to supplant G-d through the strictest enforcement of logic, through both Order and Beauty, as was stated quite elegantly by a poster here.
Evil will win when logic is the only tool applied against it. The prophecy of a subdued good against a transcendent evil ultimately delivered by Messiah, this is a statement of reality, a reality which G-d has so constructed to prevent that reality from alienating and forgetting Him.
As obedience has waned, the “logic” of gay marriage presents itself as inescapable. That victory sets up more logic: that those who oppose are deserving of death. We’re back to eugenics, a favorite of the logically minded.