May 25, 2011

The lamenting of the dearth of authentically black politicians

The ridiculous Marc Lamont Hill, like way too many other faux "progressives," believes that African-Americans are supposed to be some sort of monolithic "uni-mind," with little to no diversity of opinion:

From a political perspective, black Americans shouldn't expect President Obama - or any other black politician - to deal with black issues because of his race. We should expect him to deal with black voters because we are citizens, because we have particular needs and because we voted for him in higher proportion than any other demographic group in history. Not because he looks like us.

(Side note: That's from a political perspective. From a personal perspective, I believe that there's a special place in hell for black politicians who don't support black interests.)

Unfortunately, we live in a world in which black people are considered untouchable and unmentionable by politicians. This is why Obama went to such extravagant lengths to avoid discussing race during his campaign. He understood that to talk about race was to make him a "black candidate" rather than a candidate who happened to be black. This is equally true in our local political scene, where any form of "race talk" makes white voters uncomfortable, undermining a candidate's chances of being successful.

The "side note" is really all you need to know about Hill -- that if a black politician doesn't support a so-called "black interest" (according to Hill's definition, of course, since there is no "standard" definition of "black interest"), that politician should be condemned to Hell! Consider: if a black pol is against affirmative action on grounds that it actually stigmatizes African-Americans more than it benefits them, should that pol go to Hell? If a black pol is against racial quotas in education and/or the workplace, should that pol go to Hell? If a black pol is against automatic business set-asides for minority-owned companies, should that pol go to Hell? Most likely, yes, according to Hill. (Again, I don't know precisely what Hill personally considers a "black interest," but being the good liberal that he is, it's a fairly good bet that he would dub the examples above as such.)

Hill scatters some other examples of group interests in his article: "gay" interests and "Jewish" interests, to name two. But again, what are these interests exactly? Being in favor of gay "marriage?" Does this mean that any homosexuals who aren't in favor of gay "marriage" aren't "authentically gay?" What's a "Jewish" interest? Support of Israel? Does this mean that Jews who are not in favor of a specified Jewish state and/or believe that the founding of Israel wasn't done ethically or legally aren't "authentically Jewish?" And, let's take it further: What are "Latino" interests? Do all Hispanics believe that illegal immigrants deserve amnesty? In-state college tuition? No fence along the Mexican border?

That's the problem with believing in group-think: It does not allow for many -- if any variations of belief or thought. Yet, this is precisely what so-called "progressives" fervently believe in -- that groups of Americans, in particular, "historically oppressed" groups, are supposed to (all) believe in certain things merely because of what the group is. Conservatives, in general and on the other hand, detest viewing the American populace through the prism of race, gender and class. Not to mention, can anyone imagine a [white] politician campaigning on defending white interests? Such is unthinkable. Weren't we taught, after all, especially during the Civil Rights era, that thinking in terms of race was a execrable notion?

Which brings me to the next issue: Hill was on O'Reilly's show a couple nights ago where he made no distinction between a [black] politician supporting a "middle-class interest," or a "senior citizen interest," and the aforementioned "black interest." (He mentions, barely, the former in his article, by the way.) But the distinction here should be obvious: Middle-class and senior citizen Americans are made up of ALL races and ethnicities. Though they are a interest "group" by political standards, no one seriously claims that all middle-class people should believe the same things, or that all senior citizens likewise should. And, as O'Reilly correctly pointed out, perhaps the biggest "interests" that these groups routinely desire are things that they deserve -- ie, contributed to, like more of their own money (aka less taxes), and Social Security and Medicare.

Believing that groups of people should think alike and that they have specific, monolithic "interests" only serves to, in the long term, to tear this country asunder. And sometimes I honestly think that that is exactly what faux "progressives" wish to do.

Posted by Hube at May 25, 2011 04:24 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Better question: Who determines what the list of "black interests" are? Hill? If so, by what right does make that claim. If not, is there a vote? Does everyone just somehow know what those interests are? Am I to believe that these interests are identical for a black man in Mississippi as in New York City?

Does this "black interest" extend beyond American borders? If not, why not? If so, how?

Posted by: Duffy at May 25, 2011 04:31 PM

Could you imagine such a column with "white" substituted for "black" being printed in any mainstream media outlet? Being free of criticism from "black leaders" (or "white leaders", for that matter).

This clown is just a part of the Klan With A Tan.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at May 25, 2011 06:02 PM

I forget who it was who said "Why is it considered racist to believe that an African-American's political don't have to match those of a rich, white liberal?"

Posted by: Paul Smith Jr at May 25, 2011 06:57 PM

Post a comment

Remember personal info?