This seems like an odd question to ask. After all, can't we disagree on issues without being labeled as some sort of societal misfit? If I disagree with my wife (which does happen on occasion), does that make me some sort of male chauvinist or wife-beater? No. It just means we disagree on something. So why can't I disagree with someone who is a different race than what I happen to be? After all, I am an adult, able to form my own opinions, and I am not so shallow as to base my thoughts, feelings, and opinions on race.
However, as I read yesterday's Harrisburg Patriot News, my attention was drawn to an editorial written by a registered nurse by the name of Elizabeth A.K. Williams. Basically, what she is saying is that people are opposed to President Obama simply because he is a minority. In her words, "Halting anything and everything proposed by President Obama, is in major part, based on race and borders on being a crime against all American citizens." Excuse me, but under President Bush, it was our right to disagree with our leaders. Now, we are not allowed to? I thought the ability to disagree with our elected leaders was the hallmark of our democracy? I guess that only applies when Republicans are in charge.
As if this statement was not outrageous enough, she goes on to say: "Oppression of President Obama, along with other minorities, continues as an accepted practice in our society. It’s called institutionalized racism." If I disagree with the President, how am I oppressing him? It is the government that oppresses the citizens, not the citizens who oppress the government.
She then goes on to say: "With that said, I will now be accused of playing the race card. I do not accept that accusation, but rather pass it on to a large segment of our society whose hatred for minorities is being provoked by right-wing radio and TV show hosts." So let me get this straight - she accuses those who disagree with the President of doing so because they are racist, without ever providing any facts that might even come close to proving her point, yet she says she is not playing the race card. I would love to know, then, what it means to play the race card. And then, as all liberals do, they blame talk radio and network news (most likely, she is referring to Fox News).
She then goes on to insult the local talk radio station because they put talk show hosts on the air that foment racism towards minorities (her words, not mine). Without naming any talk show in particular, she is talking about Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity. Most likely, she has never listened to any of these men (and in the interest of full disclosure, the only one I listen to with any regularity is Limbaugh - the other 2 get on my nerves). However, I have never heard any of them say anything racist about Obama (or anyone, for that matter). Their disagreements with the President are all based on policy, not on Obama as a person. Sure, words are taken out of context and insults are hurled at them, but they have no validity. Let's remember that Democrats insulted George Bush for 8 years on a personal level. They were extremely cruel in some of their personal attacks. Yet conservatives keep the debate on a policy level and they are somehow extremely mean and racist. Go figure.
So, if I am a racist for disagreeing with the President, was Gov. Ed Rendell a racist for running against Lynn Swann for Governor of PA? Were the white people of PA racist for voting against Swann? Where was Ms. Williams when the pasty, white Senators in New England, as well as our current Vice President, were opposing Justice Clarence Thomas? Where was Ms. Williams in defending Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell for serving in President Bush's Cabinet? Why didn't she speak out when Jesse Jackson said that President Obama was not black enough? And, which of the national parties actually has a minority leading the party? That would be the Republican Party. The Democrats had the opportunity, but selected a rather pasty white guy from Vermont, instead. Apparently, it only suits her to bring out the race card at certain points in time. And of course, she only needs to make the accusation, because that is all that matters. She does not need to actually give any evidence.
I do not doubt that there are a few people in this country who do not like the President because of his skin color. I would be naive to think otherwise. However, the vast majority of those who disagree with the President are very concerned citizens who do not like the direction that this country is headed. We want fiscal restraint. We want to get rid of the government entitlements. We want to get rid of the socialism that is creeping into our lives. We are tired of being called names or being labeled because we disagree. We are not the ones who are dwelling on the President's skin color. It is his supporters who are constantly talking of his race. Those who are against him draw attention to his policies. And that is the difference between the two groups. The supporters are concerned about symbolism, while those who are standing up against him are concerned about substance.
No comments:
Post a Comment