Monday, May 10, 2010
Why Left Talks about "White" Tea Parties
A good piece from Mr. Dennis Prager
May 2, 2010
Why Left Talks about "White" Tea Parties
By Dennis Prager
Opponents of the popular expression of conservative opposition to big
government, the tea parties, regularly note that tea partiers are
overwhelmingly white. This is intended to disqualify the tea parties
from serious moral consideration.
But there are two other facts that are far more troubling:
The first is the observation itself. The fact that the Left believes
that the preponderance of whites among tea partiers invalidates the
tea party movement tells us much more about the Left than it does
about the tea partiers.
It confirms that the Left really does see the world through the prism
of race, gender and class rather than through the moral prism of right
One of the more dangerous features of the Left has been its
replacement of moral categories of right and wrong, and good and evil
with three other categories: black and white (race), male and female
(gender) and rich and poor (class). BRILLIANT analysis
Therefore the Left pays attention to the skin color -- and gender (not
just "whites" but "white males") -- of the tea partiers rather than to
One would hope that all people would assess ideas by their moral
rightness or wrongness, not by the race, gender or class of those who
hold them. But in the world of the Left, people are taught not to
assess ideas but to identify the race, class and gender of those who
espouse those ideas. This helps explain the widespread use of ad
hominem attacks by the Left: Rather than argue against their
opponents' ideas, the Left usually dismisses those making the argument
disagreed with as "racist," "intolerant," "bigoted," "sexist,"
"homophobic" and/or "xenophobic."
You're against race-based affirmative action? No need to argue the
issue because you're a racist. You're a tea partier against
ever-expanding government? No need to argue the issue because you're a
As a Leftist rule of thumb -- once again rendering intellectual debate
unnecessary and impossible -- white is wrong or bad, and non-white is
right and good; male is wrong and bad, and female is right and good;
and the rich are wrong and bad, and the poor right and good. For the
record, there is one additional division on the Left -- strong and
weak -- to which the same rule applies: The strong are wrong and bad,
and the weak are right and good. That is a major reason for Leftist
support of the Palestinians (weak) against the Israelis (strong), for
This is why, to cite another example, men are dismissed when they
oppose abortion. The idea is far less significant than the sex of the
advocate. As for women who oppose abortion on demand, they are either
not authentically female or simply traitors to their sex. Just as the
Left depicts blacks who oppose race-based affirmative action as not
authentic blacks or are traitors to their race.
In this morally inverted world, the virtual absence of blacks from tea
party rallies cannot possibly reflect anything negative on the black
and minority absence, only on the white tea partiers.
But in a more rational and morally clear world, where people judge
ideas by their legitimacy rather than by the race of those who held
them, people would be as likely to ask why blacks and ethnic
minorities are virtually absent at tea parties just as they now ask
why whites predominate. They would want to know if this racial
imbalance said anything about black and minority views or necessarily
reflected negatively on the whites attending those rallies.
And if they did ask such un-PC questions, they might draw rather
different conclusions than the Left's. First, they would know that the
near-absence of blacks and Hispanics no more implied racism on the
part of tea partiers than the near-absence of blacks and Hispanics in
the New York Philharmonic implies racism on the art of that orchestra.
Second, they might even, Heaven forbid, conclude that it does not
reflect well on the political outlook of blacks and Hispanics that
they so overwhelmingly identify with ever-larger government. Leftist
big-government policies have been disastrous for black America just as
they were in the countries that most Hispanics emigrated from. But
like the gambling addict who keeps gambling the more he loses, those
addicted to government entitlements keep increasing the size of the
government even as their situation worsens.
Finally, if one eschews the "racism" explanation and asks real
questions, one might also conclude that America generally, and
conservatives specifically, have failed to communicate America's
distinct values -- E Pluribus Unum, In God We Trust, and Liberty
(which includes small government) -- to blacks and Hispanics.
Unfortunately, however, no real exploration of almost any important
issue in American life is possible as long as the Left focuses on the
race, gender and class of those who hold differing positions. And that
will not happen. For when the Left stops attacking people and starts
arguing positions, we will see what the Left most fears: blacks and
Hispanics at tea parties.