Race and America

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Of course, these are the words spoken by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on August 28, 1963, in a massive march on Washington to protest the racial divide that existed in this country. His words were wise and well-spoken, and they came at the height of the Civil Rights Movement in America.

But how far have we come since then? Have we truly become a color-blind society? Do we judge people by their character as opposed to the color of their skin? Do we treat all people equally? Does racism exist? Can anyone be a racist? What constitutes racism?

To start with, racism is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as "1) a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race; 2) racial prejudice or discrimination." According to this definition, anyone is capable of being racist. By holding to the fact that one race is superior to another in some manner or form, you are, by definition, racist. Likewise, if you make decisions based solely on your own racial prejudices, then you are a racist.

It would be foolish of me to say that racism does not exist in America today. Is it as rampant as some would make it out to be? I would say no. But are there people out there who are motivated by race in their daily lives? I believe that this answer is 'yes'.

But why are these people motivated by race? Why do people cling to this idea that one race is better than another? How do they benefit by believing this way? How can people be so naive as to believe this way? How can people be so motivated by hate? Some people may not know better. This is the way that they were raised, and no one has been able to reach out to them and let them know the foolishness of this stance. Some may be motivated by something that happened in their own life that has caused them to feel resentment. There are no good reasons that can be given to justify these beliefs, but people still hold to them.

The problem I have is that people are now being falsely accused of being racists. To oppose someone based on ideas and principles is not racist. To oppose an administration because you do not like the principles that are being pushed is not racist. But these people who are opposing the President on health care, or cap-and-trade, or ACORN, or anything else that he stands for are now being accused of being racist, even though these protesters are opposing all elected representation in Washington, and not just the President.

Yet, it is never mentioned that many of these same people supported the likes of Lynn Swann in PA, Ken Blackwell in Ohio, or Michael Steele in Maryland. These same people supported the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. Where were all of the Democrats then? They did not support Swann, or Blackwell, or Steele. They definitely did not support Thomas's nomination. Does this fact make those democrats racist? No, it doesn't. They were opposed because the nominees were not liberals/democrats.

Being called a racist can be very damaging to one's reputation, even though the charge is not true. That moniker can put the seeds of doubt in other people's mind about someone's character. It can ruin someone's credibility beyond measure. Just look at how the non-racial comments by Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) are being treated.

And all too often, it is thrown out at someone recklessly. We see cries of racism at the drop of a hat. It used to be that this was a ploy used only by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Now, it is being used by many prominent liberals and democrats, including the illustrious former President, Jimmy Carter. And it is usually used in times of political desperation.

The people that were in Washington this past Saturday protesting excessive government spending, universal health care, cap-and-trade, etc., were protesting not only the President. They were protesting the reckless way in which Congress passes laws and spends money like there is no tomorrow. Could there have been some people using this as a way to express their racist views? Yes, there could have been a few people there (maybe 5 or 6 of them) who were racists, and the media would go out of their way to find them. But the overwhelming majority were there to protest our government.

During the 2008 Presidential election, the media tried to turn everyone who opposed Obama into a racist. Forget about the fact that everything the Republican Party did and said was based on principle, not on race. Forget about the fact that the only people who ever brought race into the discussion were liberals/democrats. Conservatives are able to make decisions based on principle and do not have to bring race into the equation.

Just because people voted against Obama does not mean those people were racist. Many voted against him because of where he stood on the issues, because of who he called his friends (Rev. Wright, et al), because of what he stood for, because of what he wanted to do as President. How is it that voting against him based on principle is racist, but voting for him simply because he is black is not racist? Voting for someone based solely on his/her race is no more racist than voting against someone based solely on his/her race.

Let's be careful when throwing around the "racist" moniker. That is a scarlet letter that is thrown, not only at one's own character, but on their life, and on their family. And even in cases where it is not true, it can be a scar on one's life for many years.

Getting back to MLK's speech, where are we now? Have we reached that point in our society where we are judging others based on their character as opposed to their skin color? I would say that we have not reached that point. People continue to judge based on skin color. To me, it does not matter what skin color our President (or our Congressman, a football coach, a school teacher, etc.) has, but yet, we are often told of his skin color by our media. When we attempt to make a stand against someone based on character, then we are called racist.

I believe it is now time to take Dr. King's words and make them a realization, because, in my opinion, that has not happened yet. There are many who seem all to willing to erect that racial wall in today's society rather than eliminate it once and for all. I believe that Dr. King would be upset, were he alive today, at the way his dream is being taken out of context and twisted. It is time to finally honor him and make his dream come true.

The Supreme Court is not about diversity

I read with interest an opinion column by Cynthia Tucker, the editorial page editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. She uses the same liberal talking points concerning Judge Sotomayor's 'American success story' that we have heard from the beginning. Tucker speaks of Sotomayor's hard work, determination, sacrifice, poverty, personal tragedy, and ancestry. Apparently, Tucker is not familiar with Justice Clarence Thomas and his upbringing (if you have not read the book, My Grandfather's Son, I encourage you to read it). His story is just as (if not more) compelling. But that does nothing to qualify one to sit on the Supreme Court.

She then goes on to criticize Republicans who oppose Sotomayor's nomination because "she represents the activist-judge liberal-elite", according to Tucker. All you need to do is review the now infamous firefighter's case that the Supreme Court just overturned to see that she is an activist, liberal judge. In the past, she has also stated that law is made at the Federal Court level. I think she fits the definition of an activist judge.

Tucker states that many Republicans will oppose any judge that a Democrat President will nominate. This happened throughout the Bush Presidency with Democrats in the Senate - they opposed just about everyone, including Miguel Estrada. President Bush nominated Estrada to sit on the bench, but the Democrats filibustered his nomination any chance that they had. In fact, there were memos revealed that stated the Democrats were against him simply because he was Hispanic and nominated by Bush, and they thought a Democrat President should be the first person to nominate an Hispanic person to such a position. Racism? Yes, it is, but the Democrats actually had some Republican staffers fired for leaking the memos instead of answering for what the memos said.

Tucker then plays the race card, which is her expertise. She states that "there is a less articulated but equally intense reaction to Sotomayor on the right that has nothing to do with issues and everything to do with ethnicity." What? Is this woman serious? I have not seen anyone mention her ethnicity except for the liberal elites, whether in Congress or in the press. The Republicans have opposed this woman on ideological grounds. To them, it has been about her decisions and her judicial temperament. It has been about her legal beliefs and what her view of the role of the judiciary happens to be. It was Sotomayor who said that wise Latina women will make better decisions than men. No one made that up. She said it. It is the liberals that want race to become the issue.

Tucker then spouts off about Pat Buchanan and a column that he wrote. Buchanan, in my opinion, has some good things to say, but he is off his rocker in many things he says these days. Anyway, he compares Sotomayor and the positive treatment she gets vs. Sarah Palin, and the treatment that she has been prone to receive. This is definitely a legitimate comparison, as Sotomayor has been praised beyond belief, while Palin has been scorned and derided at every opportunity to do so. Tucker proves this point, and she did not even try to.

Tucker then closes her column with this:

"There's just one problem: That vision of America - a country run by and for God-fearing white people of smalltown heritage - is losing its appeal in a country that grows more diverse and more urban every day.

As long as the Republican Party is held hostage by a group of voters who refuse to let go of that image of America, it cannot hope to be a national party. Sonia Sotomayor, not Sarah Palin, represents the future."

This is nothing but race-bating on Tucker's part. Yes, we are more diverse, and I know no one on the conservative side of the aisle that has a problem with that. What we want is people to hold important positions who are qualified to be there. Race does not enter into the equation. One's ability to do the job correctly is what matters. It is the liberal establishment that is concerned about race and diversity, not the conservatives.

Where were the liberals when President Bush had the most diverse Cabinet in history? They were too busy saying that minorities sold out to conservatives. Where were they in supporting the Voting Rights Act and during the Civil Rights movement? They were trying to filibuster the legislation. Where were they in support of Lynn Swann? Or Ken Blackwell? Or Michael Steele? Oh, that's right, they were supporting the white guys that were running against them.

And I believe Sarah Palin has a lot of support. In the latest polls, she is only a few points behind the President in a theoretical 2012 head-to-head Presidential race. Palin is popular, and she also has a very compelling life story.

So, in summation, conservatives care about qualifications of those being appointed, not their race, not their life story. It is the liberals who are interested in diversity at the expense of qualifications and ability to do the job. Being a justice on the Supreme Court carries a lot of power and responsibility. It should only be those who have the qualifications who should serve on this most prestigious bench. All other characteristics should be cast aside.