Social activism and the obsession with race

AP Photo/John Bazemore

I’ve written before that I prefer the term “social activist” to “liberal” because the term was hijacked some time ago by progressives backing social change.  I prefer to think of liberalism in the classic sense, the Libertarian sense, where individual property rights, rationality, free markets, and individual freedoms are held high.  

Anyway it is obvious that the social activists are obsessed with race.  After the infamous outburst from Joe Wilson (never mind that Obama wasn’t telling the whole truth) the “racist” charges flew.  Maureen Dowd wrote an op-ed piece obsessed on the topic – and perhaps on her own “white guilt.”

“Surrounded by middle-aged white guys...snapshot of the days when such pols ran Washington like their own men’s club,” writes Dowd to set up her explanation as to why Wilson made his exclamation.  Dowd’s writing is nothing but a false rant, a complete stab in the dark without any basis in fact – the fact remains that Wilson had specific knowledge about the subject Obama was speaking about but Dowd chooses to ignore that.

“But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken work in the air: ‘You lie, boy!’” Dowd concludes.  I find it stunning that she could actually come up with such a blatantly racist claim.  Who is the racist here anyway?  Is it Dowd who can actually frame this response?  Perhaps Dowd is so wracked with guilt over some aspect of her family history that she must assume that any white man vocally disagreeing with our black president also shares in that guilt.  I don’t know how else to explain her ranting.

Jimmy Carter then jumped into the fray, even though he wasn’t asked.  “I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man,” quipped Carter.  Never mind the fact that the disagreement is on policy and stances that could radically transform the freest country in the world to some bastardization of the Euro-socialist ideal.

Honestly I feel the social activists have no answers to the charges lobbed their way.  All they can do is resort to name-calling because they have no facts to base any reasonable arguments upon.  Labelling dissenters “racist” effectually disqualifies any statement a person makes – well it does if it’s believable anyway.  The only people who believe this charge are supporters of radical social reform, or perhaps others who, like Maureen Dowd, only see a person’s race instead of thoughts and ideals.

President Obama deserves some credit for disavowing Jimmy Carter.  This afternoon he publicly disagreed with the statements of the former president.  This has to be an affirmation that the racism charge isn’t sticking and the White House knows it.

If the social activists are going to get their agenda passed, they have to argue from a reasonable standpoint based upon facts.  We live in the information age where a limitless source of information is available at our fingertips.  We also live in a time where people who would have otherwise been silent have decided they must share their opinions in blogs to speak out against the travesties developing around them.