IRS Spells the “N-word”

Those Republicans are always trying to find new ways to use racial slurs that pass under the radar of non-racist Republicans. They can’t actually use words like the n-word anymore, thanks to the efforts of Progressives, but they have developed a whole vocabulary or code words that sound innocuous, but are, in fact, dog whistles that the racists understand perfectly. Michelle Malkin has compiled a short list of such words, which include; angry, constitution (written by slave owners), Chicago, inexperienced, golf, and many more. Martin Bashir from MSNBC has identified another code word used by racist Republicans, IRS.

MARTIN BASHIR: The IRS is being used in exactly the same way as they tried to used the president’s birth certificate. You see, for Republicans like Darrell Issa, who knows something about arson, the IRS now stands for something inflammatory. Those three letters are now on fire with political corruption and malfeasance, burning hot. Just like that suspicious fire that engulfed Mr. Issa’s warehouse back in 1982.

And, despite the complete lack of any evidence linking the president to the targeting of tea party groups, Republicans are using it as their latest weapon in the war against the black man in the White House.

This strategy is nothing new. And it was explained way back in 1981, by Lee Atwater, who was Bush 41’s chief strategist. In a tape recording, Mr. Atwater revealed how Republicans evolved their language to achieve the same purpose.

He said: ‘You start out in 1954, by saying ‘n*****, n*****, n*****. By 1968, you can’t say n*****, that hurts you, back-fires. So you say stuff like forced bussing, states rights, and all that stuff and you’re getting so abstract. Now you’re talking about cutting taxes. We want to cut this is much more abstract than even the bussing thing and a hell of a lot more abstract than n*****, n*****.’

So this afternoon, we welcomed the latest phrase in the lexicon of Republican attacks on this president: the IRS. Three letters that sound so innocent but we know what you mean.

I wonder if Lee Atwater really made the statements attributed to him, and if so, what context he made them in. Actually both states’ rights and forced busing are legitimate topics for discussion, even without any racial element. With the racial element, these topics might provide a good start to that discussion about race the liberals are always saying they want. Somehow, though, I think the discussion they want involves lecturing the rest of us on how racist we all are.

The debate over the balance of power between the states and the federal government is an old one, going back to the foundation of our country. The United States is meant to be a federal republic with powers and sovereignty divided between the states and the federal government. There is much to be said in favor of a decentralized government and the increasing power of the federal government at the expense of the states is legitimate concern. It is most unfortunate, however, that the cry of state’s rights has all too often been used to defend slavery and segregation. One can believe in state’s rights without supporting either of those two odious policies, but the modern day statist is quick to made the connection.

As for forced busing, surely it is simply insane to ship children to schools on the other side of a city just to achieve a racial quota, when they could be better off attending the nearest school. After all, the whole point of Brown vs. the Board of Education was that black parents did not want their children to have to attend a “black” school miles away when they could go to a “white” school just down the block.

But, of course, Mr Bashir is not really interested in uncovering racism at all. He, and others like him, want to forestall any discussion of the unethical and illegal antics of the IRS by simply labeling the entire topic as racist.

No Matter What… They’ll Say This Book is Racist

Early in his tenure as Attorney General, Eric Holder called his fellow Americans cowards for not talking candidly enough about matters of race. The reason for this supposed cowardice is obvious enough since any departure from liberal, politically correct orthodoxy results in immediate accusations of racism. In fact, any departure from liberal, politically correct orthodoxy on any subject may result in such accusations, as members of the Tea Parties, generally more concerned with fiscal matters than social or racial, have discovered.

Harry Stein is brave, or foolish, enough to start this conversation about race in his latest book, No Matter What… They’ll Call This Book Racist. Unfortunately, the title, which he adapted from a famous sign at a Tea Party rally, will turn out to be accurate, as one can see from reading negative reviews of this book. Undaunted, Stein examines the myths regarding such topics as affirmative action, the collapse of the family in the Black underclass, and other issues that need to be discussed openly and honestly, but almost never is.

It is all standard Conservative fare, and familiar to anyone who has read Thomas Sowell or Shelby Steele, though Stein makes the case better than most. The book has less of the humor of his two previous books, but this is a more serious subject. The problem is that the people who most need to read a book like this, the sort of guilt-ridden White liberals and up and successful African Americans who might agree with most of what Stein actually says, will simply dismiss it as racist without getting past the first page.

Still, there is cause for optimism. Charges of racism increasingly ring hollow as liberals have overplayed the race card to intimidate opposition. There is a growing number of Black Conservatives.  People across the political spectrum are more aware and more willing to admit that the old platitudes about race just don’t work anymore. Maybe No Matter What will make an important contribution to opening up a real conversation.

Ron Paul and the Civil Rights Act

Ron Paul has said that had he been in Congress in 1964, he would have voted against the Civil Rights. He’s not a racist and he opposed the Jim Crow laws, but he feels that the government went too far in banning discrimination by private businesses and organizations. I can see his point and even mostly agree with him. Freedom ought to include freedom to be a jerk or we’re not really free. Personally, if I knew of a business that discriminated against Blacks, or anyone else, I would take my business elsewhere.

There are a couple of problems with Ron Paul’s position though. First, economic pressure and boycotting might not have worked all that well in the Old Jim Crow South. In an area in which the majority of Whites are racist and determined to keep the Blacks in their place, virtually every business discriminated with the approval of most of their White customers.

Second, the nuances of his position do not translate well into 30 second ads. It’s much easier for the opposition to shout “racist!” then it is for Paul to explain why he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act. Granted, the Democrats will call any Republican racist anyway, but why make it easy?