A logical exercise on the issue of racism

It comes as a shock to many black friends of mine when I reveal to them that for at least 25 years, possibly the worst social taboo among whites is to be labeled a racist. To be considered a racist has severe economic, social, personal and political consequences for white folks.

As a consequence, it is hard to find whites that utter racist epithets in private, much less in public; and much more so hard to find whites that act out racism in any venue.

The occasion of this long thought out exercise is, ironically, the blatantly racist words and acts of President Barack Obama’s first nominee to the U.S. Supreme Sotomayor decision concerning job promotions.

No one has denied that her statement is racist on its face:

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

Defenders have said that she misspoke. Ok.

However, many people can make racist statements and not “be a racist.” And of course, the Drive-by left and leftist Democrats have convulsed over the racist label that the former Speaker of the House and the most prominent talk radio host have attached to Judge Sotomayor.

But, if one uses the criteria of the Left, specifically the criteria of liberal Democrats and the media against Republicans, then the racist label obviously applies.

Trent Lott (pictured) was forced to step down as Senate majority Leader position because he said that former (see 40+ years former) segregationist Strom Thurmond would have been a good president, on the occasion of his 100th birthday, as he was dying.

Robert Bork was denied a Supreme Court seat due to his academic suggestion that Brown v. Board relied upon the wrong argument in de-segregating schools. Mind you, Bork agreed with the result. He merely suggested that the best grounds would be to reverse Plessy and say that separate but equal was empirically not equal, rather than conclude that black children could only be equally educated if they occupied chairs next to whites in the classroom. Seems to me that Bork was opposing a racist rationalization.

Examples of racist appellations affixed to republicans by liberals are legion. But of course, the Left is not driven by logic or truth. Conversely, doesn’t the racist label attempt an impossibility, i.e to read one’s heart, and wouldn’t we be happier with a person who harbored racist ideas in his heart but who didn’t publicly express racist ideas nor, more importantly act upon them?

The classic definition of a racist is one that believes their race to be superior to another. Most whites in the 19 century believed this, yet slavery was outlawed by whites. Many believed this in the 20th, yet mostly whites outlawed de jure discrimination.

Many people would label a person as a racist for using the n-word, yet I have known many that use it, that have many black friends and hire black people and them well. Conversely, I know many, mostly liberal whites, who would ostracize people that would ever use the n-word, but who never hire blacks and have no close black friends.

We can’t read hearts; hence, I rarely label anyone a racist. But when I see a combination of statements and acts that lead to the inevitable conclusion, I have been known to affix it.

Surely Judge Sotomayor is guilty of same unless she can rebut the presumption her statements and acts have presented.

I don’t blame senators and other conservatives for not affixing the label as they state that the statement of Sotomayor was racist. But I don’t think it proper that they denounce those that verbalize the obvious conclusion one would draw from it.

What matters most is how this nominee will rule on cases that come before her, and on that, she has made it crystal clear that, not only that she cannot be trusted to dispense color-blind justice, but that she intends to start exacting racial and class reparations consistent with the leader of her party and the most powerful man on Earth.

A man that was elected by a majority white nation.

The burden of proof is on Sotomayor to rebut the racist charge.

Senator Cornyn and his colleagues would do well to focus on the outrageousness of her statements and acts than on those that state the obvious even by objective standards, by the usual standard the left applies to republicans.

Senator Cornyn as over the line in his NPR diatribe shot at Newt and Rush:

NPR REPORTER: “What do you make of the rhetoric that’s tumbling out of these people [Rush and Newt] these days, Senator Cornyn?”

CORNYN: I think it’s terrible. This is not the kind of tone that any of us want to set when it comes to performing our constitutional responsibilities of advice and consent. Neither one of these, uh, men (chuckles) are elected Republican officials. I just don’t think it’s appropriate. I certainly don’t endorse it. I — I think it’s wrong.

My conclusion is that anyone is justified in calling Sotomayor a racist. The burden is on her to refute the obvious import of her words and acts. No one is justified in denying that her statement was racist, but anyone is also justified in refusing to conclude that she is “a racist”. No one is justified in denouncing those that conclude she is a racist given the evidence.

I don’t blame Republican senators, especially the GOP leader on the Judiciary Committee for not going there.

What I can’t abide are race based policies, hence my conversion from the Democratic Party to the GOP in 2000. No matter the condition of one’s heart nor the vile nature of one’s speech, what matters when it comes to lawmakers and judges is whether they promote race based policies.

The 14th Amendment outlawed such policies after a bloody war. Supreme Court justices with ideas akin to Sotomayor re-wrote that equal protection in Plessy and re-wrote the 1964 Civil Rights Act to allow race based policies and negate the 1th Amendment again even after Brown v. Board.

We now have a majority that rejects that racist policy with a Chief Justice that famously announced that:

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” – The Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts

I know that most Americans, including liberal democrats, reject policies that would deny them jobs, promotions, etc. based on racial reasons like those favored by Sotomayor in the Ricci case.

The problem is that no matter who Obama nominates, they will favor such policies, but a strong opposition to Sotomayor, whether she is conformed or not, is crucial in the long run for this country.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.