Leftists often begin arguments with an unusual qualifier: “As a Latino…” or “As a woman…”- seemingly superfluous statements when it’s self-evident to all that, yes indeed, they do appear to be Latino or a woman.
We can all see this, so why remind us?
We all know that the Left has always been obsessed with race, gender and sexual orientation, but I could never quite make sense out of this often-reoccurring declaration because it was almost never necessary. What is the impulse for this disclaimer?
Upon consideration it occurred to me that giving your racial or more specifically, your historically disenfranchised credentials is significant these days when participating in the liberal narrative – the equivalent of an officer brazenly flipping a walleted badge before entering a secured area.
By doing so Liberals are saying: “I have special access to this argument, a perspective that trumps all others. Step aside.” Remember Obama stating the exquisitely obvious in regards to the Trayvon Martin case: “If I’d had a son, he would looked like Trayvon.”
(Really? I would have thought he might look like a young Macaulay Culkin.) Translation: As a black man… It’s important to notice other manifestations of the bizarre credentials-waving of our Leftist friends. I’ve actually heard strait-faced assertions from Liberals that their conservative, white opponents didn’t have the “right” to debate racially charged matters for no other reason than the opponents were white (Stunned, hopefully by the stupidity of the argument, the “uncredentialed” Conservatives never seemed to have mustered a satisfying response to this exclusionary form of political debate.)
Their whiteness, in essence, taints their points of view – that’s it.
Conversely one’s blackness has been known to give the fortunate possessor special powers of perspicacity, particularly in movie directing.
Spike Lee many years ago moronically offered that Stephen Spielberg had no “right” to make the mostly black casted movie: The Color Purple. Lee, hack director that he is, believed that he would have done a better job by virtue of the unique perspective and keen insight that his blackness afforded him. This should be no surprise, Lee like other hopeless racial hysterics and one recent Nobel Peace Prize winner, have made great strides in their careers based, seemingly, on possessing more melanin than others and not much else.
Similarly, there are those who believe that possessing male genitalia should exclude one from the abortion argument (As a woman …). Apart from contributing 50% of the genetic make up of the baby, men, as regarded by the often dizzy and rage-filled feminists’ mind, are ancillary figures in the conception process. Why should they be treated differently in the democratic process?
Not only has the Left managed to cultivate a political atmosphere of retributive exclusion and an ultra-fractured society, they’ve learned how to shut down and silence their defenders in a way to which few, but the most irascible conservatives, have manage cogent responses.
Having a hyper-categorized society, a society that associates, less with a uniform national identity than whether they urinate standing or sitting; or whether their partners stands or sit (or hope to one day sit but presently stands); or whether they apply ample sunblock on vacation or not – things that we, as a nation, have worked so hard for them not to matter, now, they’re all that matters. Isn’t this worse than having a society that once, in the 19th century, drew one line down the middle of the country, in the name of “compromise,” separating north and south; one line that just so happened to presaged the near collapse of the union?
Now, there are so many lines that it is utterly, politically disorientating. What does this presage? Worse yet, the Left has managed to control debates and silence the objectors of division by creating a special language for those “in” and “out” of the debating process that should give life to our nation’s discourse.
And even worse, the “off limits” mentality has now, for the first time, extended toward, not just to the Spike Lees and Sharpton’s of the world, but to a president. We are now told to not consider for one moment that we can question his motives. “As a black man” he’s entered the sacred ground somewhere between the fawning, achingly, politically correct, liberal, media vacuum and the fog of indoctrinated shame espoused by the Universities from which the “reporters” sprang.
Many of us no longer have the right to enter into this hallowed domain, let alone raise our dissenting voices. For the domain is occupied by a vicious cult of diversity and headed by Barrack Obama.