Race and color have become the latest ways to defeat an argument. Facts and reason no longer count when a subject is debated. I suspect that the reason for their non-use is that most people who come out of today’s government schools don’t know how to reason and don’t know how to identify a fact.

It’s easier to use popular emotive epithets that are designed to attack a person where facts and reason can’t be used to prove the case. It’s become the industry standard.

Love-information voters are easily persuaded by such arguments, and, of course, that’s why they are used.

When you point these things out to people, you’re accused of a personal attack. They can’t argue their case any other way.

The latest example comes from Greg Giroux who tries to make opposition to many of Obama’s policies as a white thing:

“The core group of Republicans who are pushing the House toward a showdown with the White House over the debt ceiling and government spending is made up of 41 members — all white men except for two.”

I suspect that a good case could be made that the majority of blacks support Obama’s agenda because he and they are black no matter what his policies.

Neither argument deals with the merits of his legislative agenda.

We’re now confronted with the operating assumption that a white person can’t evaluate the legislative agenda of a black person no matter the facts, constitutional legitimacy, or long-term negative effects.

White can never be right. It’s gotten so bad that “Children should be provided with paper other than white to draw on, and paints and crayons should come in ‘the full range of flesh tones.’”

One sane person has the audacity to ask, “After all, if white paper can cause racism, what about white socks, or white automobiles, or snow?”

Such a question requires reasoning, something that low-information voters are lacking.