The Race Card and Opposition to Progressive Policies

Barack Obama is the first African-American President of the United States. Rather than lauding the fact that a member of an ethnic minority group that has historically been the victim of heinous racism has achieved this, progressives have exploited President Obama’s ethnicity. While it was possible to oppose the policies of Bill Clinton during the 90s, progressives play the race card anytime a critic dares to speak out against policies of President Obama. Even when those policies are similar to those held by Democrats regardless of race.

In 2009, Keynesian economist and The New York Times columnist Paul Krugman accused those who opposed “Obamacare” of being racists:

They may believe some of the disinformation opponents of health care reform are spreading, like the claim that the Obama plan will lead to euthanasia for the elderly…. But they’re probably reacting less to what Mr. Obama is doing, or even to what they’ve heard about what he’s doing, than to who he is….  Does this sound familiar? It should: it’s a strategy that has played a central role in American politics ever since Richard Nixon realized that he could advance Republican fortunes by appealing to the racial fears of working-class whites. Many people hoped that last year’s election would mark the end of the “angry white voter” era in America. Indeed, voters who can be swayed by appeals to cultural and racial fear are a declining share of the electorate.

Rhode Island Congressman Sheldon Whitehouse lumped in opponents of“Obamacare” and opponents of President Obama in general with “the birthers, the fanatics, [and] the people running around in right-wing militias and Aryan support groups,” claiming that “it is unbearable to them that President Barack Obama should exist.” 

Recently, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) suggested strongly that defending the Second Amendment against President Obama and others who favor more gun control are racists. Richard Cohen, the President and C.E.O. of the SPLC wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano on March 5, 2013. In this letter, Mr. Cohen urged the DOJ and DHS “to establish an interagency task force to assess the adequacy of the resources devoted to responding to the growing threat of non-Islamic domestic terrorism.”

The SPLC justifies this request by citing its recent report “The Year in Hate and Extremism.” The report begins with the alarming news that the number of antigovernment groups has reached an all-time high while the number of hard-core hate groups has remained high:

Capping four years of explosive growth sparked by the election of America’s first black president and anger over the economy, the number of conspiracy-minded antigovernment “Patriot” groups reached an all-time high of 1,360 in 2012, while the number of hard-core hate groups remained above 1,000. As President Obama enters his second term with an agenda of gun control and immigration reform, the rage on the right is likely to intensify. 

The SPLC warns that the reaction to President Obama’s gun control proposals is similar to the reaction to the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban of 1994:

The passage of those bills, along with what was seen by the right as the federal government’s violent suppression of political dissidents at Waco, Texas, and Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in the early 1990s, led to the first wave of the Patriot movement that burst into public consciousness with the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. The number of Patriot groups in that era peaked in 1996 at 858, more than 500 groups fewer than the number active in 2012.

The SPLC groups “Patriot and Militia Groups” and “Hate Groups” together in the category of “the radical right.” In one fell – and completely unjustified – swoop, the SPLC places individuals including Senator Rand Paul, Congressman Trey Radel, former sheriff and gun rights activist Richard Mack, Constitution Party member Chuck Baldwin, and members of the Oath Keepers willy nilly under the same umbrella as those who belong to “Hate groups.” Not content to stop there, the SPLC lumps in opponents of UN Agenda 21, opponents of socialism, and advocates of states’ rights with radical racists.  

Any group is likely to contain racists. The Tea Party and various Constitutionalist groups will inevitably contain racists. But so will the Democratic Party. Woodrow Wilson, Lyndon Johnson, and Robert Bird were anything but tolerant when it came to members of minority groups. Demonizing any group as a whole because it might or does contain some unsavory members is itself a form of collectivist bigotry.

Categorizing an individual as a radical racist extremist simply because he or she shares some view unrelated to race with radical racist extremists – e.g. affection for the Second Amendment, disdain for socialism, etc. – is fallacious. Many members of PETA are vegetarians. Hitler was also a vegetarian. It does not follow from this that PETA members are Nazis. Members of the Sierra Club believe that “Global Warming” is a great threat to humanity. Osama bin Laden also believed this. It does not follow from this that Sierra Club members are also members of al Qaeda. 

Playing the race card and accusing critics of President Obama of racism merely because these individuals are critical of one of the President’s policies is itself racist. Playing the race card in such a cynical manner disrespects those who have actually been victims of racism. African-Americans have been enslaved, deprived of voting rights, and lynched during this country’s dark history. Being criticized for political policies is simply not on the same level. Given that society rightly takes racism seriously, making a knowingly false accusation of racism against someone is also immoral.

Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. dreamed that his children would live “in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Barack Obama was not elected to office because of the color of his skin. He was elected because a majority of voters preferred his vision of the country’s future and believed that he had a strong moral character. Like any American politician – regardless of his or her race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, age, etc. – President Obama’s policies and ideology may be respectfully questioned without racism being the motive.