Last week, I posted a diary entry questioning the wisdom of challenging Dr. Ben Carson’s intelligence and motivation in handling his campaign in the way he wanted to handle his campaign, and it seemed as if I touched a collective nerve in such a simple expression of caution. In response to my “silliness of claiming media bias whenever someone says something that hurts yer [sic] feelings only serves as fodder for laughter…” caught me a bit by surprise. To me it was an odd response as in the post, I had only referenced Leon Wolf’s personal “bias against Carson, and his disagreement with the good doctor’s political beliefs.” Yet, there could be a point made to seriously examine the MSM bias against any conservative candidate.
What was quite unsettling to me, my personal feelings aside (which I didn’t think I had been wearing on my sleeve as I wrote – but to be honest, I didn’t think anyone would see), was that I was questioned as to what I was doing to dare post such questions on Red State, and why I was attacking Red State. Actually, in the plain and simple way of putting it: I was not attacking Red State; I was just expressing my First Amendment rights. I didn’t realize that I had to have a Party uniform and show the secret hand shake as I offered my humble opinion.
The actual point made in my diary (in case some people weren’t reading that carefully) was to question the wisdom of portraying Dr. Carson as ignorant on the issues, and to challenge the attempt to lead Red State readers to a false conclusion that the good doctor wasn’t serious about running for POTUS. It seemed a bit of a stretch.
Yet, in responses to my diary post, I was called out for attacking Red State, and using the cry of “media bias” in order to defend Dr. Carson. I was not sure that some of the responders had even read my post, as there was no attack against Red State. In reality, I even mentioned that many would miss Erick Erickson’s morning briefings. Let me make it clear: my challenge was directed at Leon Wolf. However, to be fair, in my diary I tried to compliment Mr. Wolf on what I viewed as a clever strategy to minimize Dr. Carson’s value in the GOP race for nomination for POTUS.
To me, it seemed at first glance that Mr. Wolf had slipped into his diary a personal contention that Dr. Carson was some selfish and greedy man out to use his political campaign to raise his personal profile and make a few extra bucks off of peddling books, and sandwiched this POV between Wolf’s two concessions that Carson was actually an intelligent guy and a well accomplished professional. To be honest, such an erroneous perspective was unleashed by the Left against Dr. Carson a while ago when the good doctor came out with another book last year.
Additionally, in 2013 and in early 2014, there were those who criticized Dr. Carson stating that he was not simply not interested to claim the GOP nomination for POTUS in 2016. It seemed to me that the contentions were essentially similar efforts (although rehashed and repackaged) to box and dismiss Ben Carson as a serious candidate. But, all that happened before he announced his intent to become a candidate in May of this year. Such stale perceptions to me, served as “fodder for laughter!”
Yet beyond the funnies, what I read from the various reactions from responders betrayed more about their personal perceptions of Dr. Carson than a clarity of who he is as a man who wants to risk his reputation to help his country. Ben Carson, as a black conservative, and a sincerely religious man, will be different in his take on the contemporary issues. And while it may be true that Ben Carson is on a steep learning curve in his campaign, he does express a genuine honesty and a broad and open mind – something that I felt as I read my critics on Red State that may be lacking from some responders.
It was quite noteworthy that one responder attempted the claim that Carson was not a conservative, which is another serious misunderstanding of this man. Ben Carson is quite capable of defending himself, but to state that he is not a conservative is deception. Carson may not fall into the Libertarian realm of conservative thought or political policy proposals, and regardless of such wishful thinking among some, Carson does fit more into the traditionalist conservative camp. He is definitely a constitutionalist, and one who is strongly defending the original foundations of the American Republic.
Since when did the Libertarian realm of conservatism take the center stage to determine what a true conservative represents? The great Russell Kirk expressed something quite clear when he stated that the essence of social conservatism is the preservation of the ancient moral traditions of humanity. Benjamin Solomon Carson may be closer to this perspective of conservatismB than any of the other GOP candidates that will debate tonight.
As a black man who lived in the poverty of urban America, and who emerged from that poverty intact, but also thrived after his escape, Carson is one who surfaces at a time in our country’s history when this nation needs desperately to look to its roots in order to survive. In this writer’s humble opinion without a connection to our roots, our national identity will drift away like a tumbleweed drifting across a desolate plain. Carson would be humble enough to admit he doesn’t have all the answers to America’s problems, but he reveres the fundamental principles at the foundation of this great Republic. He is in good company with those founders who set this great nation in motion.