Is Fighting for Smaller Government Racist?

Email Print



When the NAACP
allowed itself to be used by the Democratic party to try and smear
a grass roots movement for smaller government as racist, the resulting
controversy shone a light on more than just racism by individuals
associated with the NAACP, but with the organization’s inability
to delink class warfare from racism. If there is one thing that
both the white media elites at Jornolist and the NAACP leadership
agreed on, it’s that fighting for smaller government is racist.

The peculiar
notion that reforming government by reducing its size is racist
originates from the marriage of racial equality with class warfare
to create the 40 Acres and a Mule politics covering everything from
wealth redistribution to affirmative action to social welfare programs – all
under the aegis of the federal government. And yet this same brand
of 40 Acres and a Mule politics underlies the particular tragedy
of the black community, whose leaders traded in aspiration and equality
for government handouts, forcing them to make the argument over
and over again that there can be no social justice without total
government control.

When the Democratic
party was forced to make the transition from a party of Northern
businessmen and Southern plantation owners, after two Republican
Presidents, Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, put a severe
dent in their Southern plantations and the Northern business offices
that had formerly given the party a death grip on the country’s
economy – it did so by redefining the “Company Store”
to mean the Federal government. The Republican notion of individual
rights and free labor met the new Democratic notion of ward boss
handouts at the Federal level in a battle for the soul of the Black
community, and the Democrats won. Not immediately, not conclusively
and not absolutely – but they won, and the NAACP’s leadership
demonstrates why.

The black leadership
has gained distinct advantages for itself as a separate class, while
disadvantaging the black community as a whole. Civil rights leaders
who made their money on lawsuit shakedowns and diversity training
seminars, corporate executives and business owners who got where
they were through affirmative action programs that encouraged companies
to hire one black executive for appearance not merit, and rewarded
minority business owners for the color of their skin, rather than
for results – helped create a black leadership that owed its
position and power to government intervention, rather than ability.
And in the process that same leadership marginalized more qualified
people within the black community, while teaching the lesson that
aspiration and ability did not matter, only connections and politics

action politics closed far more doors than it opened

action politics closed far more doors than it opened, but those
who got through the open door knew exactly what they owed it to.
Creating racial quotas as a way to select leaders was an effective
tool for perpetuating the same system over and over again, marginalizing
black candidates and business owners as a whole, while rewarding
a select few who would then be in a position to praise and maintain
things the status quo.

the rest of the article

30, 2010

Email Print