Blah, Blah, Racist, Blah, Blah, Racist, Blah, Blah, Blah, Racist
I love white meat, and if you love white meat, you’re most likely reacting to some inner anti-dark worldview, because, according to Ron Rosenbaum at Slate, “Dark meat represents slime and viscosity. Dark meat embodies all the menace of dissolution into the nothingness that is the slimy ground of being itself!” What he’s trying to say, if you like white (white meat and white bread), you’re not right. Rosenbaum’s high brow but sad piece is the end-point of how liberals think these days. They find a narrative that resonates with their constituency groups and blast its sound 24/7 from the highest media outposts. The sad thing is, it works.
When you can’t win an argument by challenging someone’s operating assumptions or marshalling of the facts, pull the ad hominem card. To argue ad hominem (“against the man”) means to attack the person making the argument instead of the argument itself. Ad hominem reasoning is an informal fallacy of irrelevance. A person making an argument can hold to horrible opinions and live a scandalously immoral life but still make a valid and sound case for or against a position. That is, he can like white meat and white bread and not be a racist.
Usually ad hominem arguments are arguments of last resort when logic and facts are not on the attacker’s side.
The attacks made against someone can be either true or false. The goal is to delegitimize an argument by calling into question the character of the person making the argument or manufacturing a charge in order to obscure the truth or falsity of an argument. If you’re a white-meat eater, there are really dark thoughts in your soul (if you even have one).
Liberals are skillful in the use of the ad hominem attack. “How can we take this man’s criticism seriously when it’s obvious that he’s a racist? Look how white he is!” It doesn’t matter if the charge is true; the goal is to divert attention away from the weakness of the argument being made by the person who makes the ad hominem allegation.
Throughout the 2012 presidential campaign, any criticism of President Obama’s policy was said to be wrapped up in a thin veneer of racism. A similar tactic was employed when conservatives objected to using tax payers’ money to pay for contraceptives. This was seen as a “war on women.” We’ve seen the combination of the racism and war on women charges when Republicans wanted to question Susan Rice, the current Ambassador to the United Nations, and the way she explained the Benghazi attacks. Sure enough, even to question anything she said or did was anti-woman and racist. What else could it be?
Now Ken Burns has joined the “it-must-be-about-racism” crowd. Burns is best known, and maybe only known, for his many documentaries. He first gained notoriety for his documentary The Civil War (1990), and then went on to direct and produce documentaries on baseball (1994), jazz (2001), the national parks (2009), war (2011), and the dust bowl.
While appearing on a Meet the Press panel to discuss Steven Spielberg’s new film Lincoln, Burns asked the guests, “Do you think we’d have a secession movement in Texas and in other places … if this president wasn’t African American?” Secession + white meat + white bread = racism. The math is easy when you know how to do it. Who knows what Rosenbaum would think if you sleep on white sheets.
If it’s always been about racism, then why wasn’t there a call for secession after Obama won in 2008?
Burns even brought up the Tea Party in his racism charge. Why did the Tea Party get behind Ted Cruz, who is Hispanic, in his Senate race in Texas if the Tea Party is all about “vitriol” and “racism”? There were Republicans Mia Love in Utah and Allen West in Florida, both black, that Democrats would not vote for.
It’s the Democrats who keep making race an issue. They are the ones who have to drag it into every conversation. The reason for their preoccupation with race is that they do not want to talk about the issues.