Have we come to a juncture in American history, where there is no effective remedy for a prevailing malady? Where it may be impossible to save the Nation & culture that made this Federation of once proud States, the envy of earth's other peoples? The answer, in brief, may be found in how resurgent American Conservative & Libertarian movements--including the Tea Party movement--respond to a growing smear; one that charges them with something popularly called--yet never precisely defined as--"racism."
We have frequently addressed aspects of the compulsion for uniformity--the pretense of human interchangeability on one hand & a barbarous elimination of dissidents & those deemed not to fit in with the compulsion driven uniformity in major Twentieth Century Socialist totalitarian regimes, on the other. What now forces a new look at this compulsion, has been the calculated Leftist attack on the Tea Party movement (and other reflections of growing popular outrage against the Socialist tide in America) as "racist."
It is not that the claim has merit, or that "racist" has even been precisely defined in a negative way. "Racist," without actual definition, has achieved the same effect as a Pavlovian electrical shock to a subject for experimentation; and it is the Pavlovian effect that the users intend. This was predictable to those who have challenged the Socialist Left over the decades. The danger is that some newly awakened Conservatives may divert their focus--indeed some already have--from defense & restoration of traditional American values, in order to counter such bogus accusations. This is a trap from which there may be no extrication. Why? Why, indeed?!
1. First, consider the sources of the "racist" accusation. The best known, the NAACP, has a century long history of seeking to undermine peaceful relations between White & Colored Americans. Founded by Leftwing Whites, as discussed in Chapter 13 of our Debate Handbook and other essays at this Site, its function was to substitute the politics of confrontation & agitation for the policy of cooperation & reconciliation, advanced by Booker T. Washington, the great Negro educator of that era. The NAACP mission, if you will, has always been to undermine the heritage of the Founding Fathers, the traditional America of limited Government, individual responsibility--of a people free to determine their own preferences, associations & social values, limited only by a social duty not to interfere with the like liberty of others.
There is nothing that the Tea Party movement, Tea Party members or anyone associated with them, can do--short of abandoning the very Conservative principles that drive the movement--that will ever satisfy or even pacify those now labeling the movement as "racist."
2. The Left uses the term "racist" as an umbrella. Unless one defines that term precisely, it has no objective meaning. If the contention is that a "racist" is one who seeks to do mean spirited things to other people, merely because they are of another race, most Conservatives would certainly agree that that is wrong, and should be condemned. But if the undefined suggestion is that merely to associate, or prefer to associate with those with whom one shares a common history, common culture and a many generational familial association; that such is "racism," any thinking Conservative should repudiate such labeling; and, whether or not so labelled, refuse to condemn such normal preferences.
The problem, here, is that the mere aspersion, without such definition, has proven sufficient to silence a great many on our side, over the past half century.
3. Ethnicity is derived from family, lines of descent. Obviously--indeed by definition--the same is true of race. At no time in American history, have there not been clear, ethnic influenced, voting patterns. This may be seen both in socially driven identification with emerging political parties in 19th Century America & with ideological orientation. The notion, on which the "racist" label is premised, that Tea Party members have "racist" sentiments because of a disproportionate White presence at rallies, is tantamount to a suggestion that there is something suspicious--even wrong--in gathering with those who share your personal ideological orientation!
To illustrate how absurd this is, consider voting patterns in the 2008 Presidential election. In many areas the Republican ticket obtained only a tiny percentage of the Negro vote. Should we accuse the Republicans in such areas with being "racist," simply because so few men or women of Color, would rally to their standard? It would be exactly the same point as the NAACP attack on Tea Party members.
While some may consider 2008 a special case, because of the Obama candidacy, those who do will completely miss the real point. It was not necessarily a matter of "racism" that led to such overwhelming "Black" support for Obama. Anyone familiar with patterns of social interaction in Africa will realize that this is not necessarily driven by race consciousness, in the ordinary sense--not that there is anything wrong, all else in balance, in a sense of racial pride or racial consciousness. Why would there be? Mean spirited hatred of others is wrong for all the reasons that unjustified hatred, on any basis, is wrong. There is nothing wrong with taking a constructive pride in one's ancestry; nothing wrong with trying to measure up to all that appeals to one in the character of the best of one's ancestors. But there is another factor, here, in an apparent tendency towards what has been casually described as "block voting."
The political structure, as well as observable residential patterns in many areas of Tribal Africa, suggests a much greater tendency towards the pursuit of broad based consensus, than might be expected in a European settlement. For example, though remote from the West African origins of the American Negro, the South African Zulu Indaba offers stark contrast to the New England Town Meeting, though both deal with current issues. In the former, the emphasis is towards coming to a common viewpoint; in the latter more towards a spirited exchange, from which the uncommitted (or less committed) may pick & choose. A contrast in housing patterns in rural areas, in lands of origin, may provide an even starker contrast in sociability factors in group personalities.
These distinctions are not intended to put anyone "down," or anyone "up." There is room for different preferences, different patterns of social interaction. True toleration of others accepts this. But the Left has never been interested in actual toleration.
4. As noted, race & ethnicity involve family groupings; common traits, both physical & cultural--both nature & nurture--of those sharing a common history. Within racial & ethnic groups, there are quite varied levels of achievement. Breaking down the macro images of great aggregations of people, one finds immense variation. The egalitarian premise of almost all Socialist movements, that there is some form of "social injustice" in the greater achievement of some, as compared to others, is itself a basic attack on fundamental principles that led to the American experience. One need look no further than the signers of the Declaration of Independence, the framers of the Constitution, or the leaders of America in her first generation under the Constitutional Federation, to understand the point. They leaders, virtually without exception, were men of property, men of great material achievement. To accept the Socialist premise that "social justice" requires some form of redistribution of wealth, some form of apology for men of achievement rallying together, is to deny some of the most fundamental premises on which America was based.
Of the varied prongs in the Left's three generational onslaught against the America, we once knew, the most significant have been the instillation of fancy or fantasy driven guilt among affluent Americans who have succeeded, whether individually or family-wise, towards those who have failed, and a variation on the same theme, to convince those who have failed--particularly those of other races--that they have been wronged by a rooted White population; that ongoing wrongs are responsible for ongoing problems, and that those who have not achieved are entitled to ongoing compensation, in a variety of forms, for those "wrongs" until no apparent differences, in social or economic condition between any racially or ethnically defined populations, remain. (In this racial "grievance" fantasy--for such it is--high achievers with East Asian roots must be included with the rooted White targets. Both groups have displayed better aptitudes than those who have fallen behind; better aptitudes for skills in contemporary demand. While chance events may have decisive effect on individual achievement, these will average out in aggregated populations. The marked differences in average group achievement are simply based on the realities of nature & immediate economic demand. This is supported by every objective psychometric test over the past Century.)
So long as Conservatives seek to appease error by not attacking these fantasy driven pillars for an ongoing assault against reason, property & tradition, our plight is hopeless. Those who mean to destroy our way of life will simply continue to exploit the basest emotions of a rapidly growing dependent class, drawn from the lesser achievers among all races, while undermining the will of the rest of us to resist their proffered solutions; "solutions" clearly intended to dismantle all once held dear.
The reality is that we can find many, who will attack political symptoms of Socialist success. Yet so long as most Conservatives avoid the core underlying concepts, the fundamental fallacies, we will continue to lose the war--even as we win an occasional battle.
You will never have participation in any ideologically based movement, directly proportionate to the ethnic makeup of a cosmopolitan population. To seek such a representative participation is to abdicate the principles on which your movement is premised. This goes for any ideologically based movement, whether of the Right or Left, whether secular or religious. The pity is that even those who proclaim their adoration of humanity--even over God--continue to deny the wonderful variations of His Creation. The tragedy is that many Conservatives have been so conditioned by two generations of Academic & Media propaganda--the ex cathedra pronouncements of the visibly prominent but intellectually light--that they do not perceive the trap into which they fall, when they accept an Egalitarian environmentalist mantra that denies the effect of race & ethnicity on personality; or personality on both ideology & achievement.
We will continue to play this game to our own destruction.