As we endure the shrill protests being emitted by the Media against the Tea Party and the beleaguered citizens of Arizona, we can begin to attune ourselves to certain voices which stand out. The President, along with the Axis Press and Liberals in general, have chosen to go against their Countrymen, the People of Arizona, in support of the illegal aliens who are Mexican citizens living within the US.
Arizona's crime? Trying to enforce the law of the land as set forth by the United States.
Arizona's state law simply mandates that the State will now endeavor to enforce the Illegal Immigration laws due to the fact that the Federal Government has chosen not to. The Leftward have taken issue with this stance on the ridiculous basis that people may now be asked to identify themselves via an ID card. With Arizona's extreme problems with the Illegals, the question now becomes: How else does one identify an illegal?
Welcome to Bizarro World
It is apparently not enough for the Leftward to simply disagree with concerned Americans who have a valid yet opposite viewpoint. Nor is it enough to simply argue the merits of or to thoughtfully engage in a dialogue where an argument cannot be denied to exist. No, it would seem that we now live in an age of political vilification where if a viewpoint runs counter to or appears to threaten already unworkable Liberal ideas which are grounded in emotion and layered with hyperbole, the vocal opposition must be harshly branded--as has been the Tea Party movement by the Media and its acolytes.
One of these such voices, columnist Leonard Pitts, has now decided that anyone who is of another race and an opposing viewpoint must now automatically be a racist. No doubt he took a painfully long span (of at least several tortuous hyper-seconds) to reach his own personal epiphany of disdain. Pitts begins his "blindfolded" determination by pointing to a CBS/New York Times Poll of 1,551 adults who considered themselves supporters of the Tea Party Movement.
Pitts first states that the data garnered from the poll held few surprises, which would tend to mean that there were a number of preconceived notions at play for him going in. He then asserts that--according to the poll--only 20% of Americans are Tea Party supporters. This begs the question of what the definition of "supporter" actually means. If we allow ourselves to be constrained by the terminology used within the CBS/NY Times poll, we are most likely limiting ourselves to the truths as seen only by The New York Times and CBS news--two organizations known throughout the world as being editorially " in tune" with a Liberal Agenda.
White + Republican + Male = Racist!!
For instance, in a 4/16/10 AP/GfK Poll the number of persons who generally agree with the premise of the Tea Party Movement amounts to 33% of all voters. While in a March Rasmussen Poll, the question, phrased a bit differentially, indicates that a significant number of Americans--52%--believe that the average Tea Party member has a better understanding of the issues facing the average American than the average member of Congress, which would imply an overall acceptance, if not support, of the Tea Party when one looks at the 17% Congressional approval numbers according to another CBS/New York Times poll.
The point here would be that we actually have no true idea of how many people "support" the Tea Party Movement in all the various degrees that the word "support" encompasses. The percentages start at 18% and run to a possible 52%, if not more. Pitts goes on to state that, according to the poll, Tea Party supporters tend to be White, Republican males over the age of 45 and wealthier "than the rest of us." Here Pitts is rather impishly setting up an "Us against Them" scenario by implying that ALL Tea Party members are wealthy, middle-aged Republicans (who are favorable towards George W. Bush-- as if that is an oddity) and lastly are apart from Mr. Pitts himself.
The ironic part of of this statement is that, aside from Mr. Pitts being a non-White Liberal who constantly sees race, he would seem to fit right in with the Tea Party Demographic. Pitts then goes on to say that most Tea Partiers are ANGRY--a base emotion that Leonard has shown a singular adeptness at employing to considerable profit over the years, we might add.
I Got Rabies at the Tea Party!
Pitts then leaps off to yet another "poll" to hammer home a point that he never tires of making in support of his argument. According to the University of Washington Institute for the (profitable) Study of Ethnicity, Race and Sexuality, strong evidence is offered that President Obama's race plays a big role in the Tea Party's outrage and that researchers found a significant correlation between racial resentment and Tea Party "zeal." Pitts further indicates a particular statement within the poll (which is so leading it could be ascribed to any race or gender at any time and would most likely get the same results).
The leading "loaded" statement given to respondents goes as follows: It's really a matter of some people not trying hard enough; "if Blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as Whites." Now, for the numbers associated with the above statement, only 33% of those agreed who were "skeptical" of the Tea Party. Among Whites in general, 56% agreed. But among those who were most "rabid" of the Tea party supporters, a whopping 73% agreed. Now, if I may point out, I am still trying to find the percentage of Tea Party members who have been designated as "most rabid."
Further, being mistrustful of those pesky and yet cunning Liberals, what if only eight of the individuals were designated as "most rabid" and approximately six of those agreed out of 1,551 people--could this be their 73% ? Within this particular poll, the designation of "most rabid" does not appear anywhere. Further, "rabid" is a term that carries an extremely negative connotation, i.e. raging nuts; so here we are with Pitts, yet again, trying to lead the emotional charge of vilifying anyone in agreement with the Tea Party. My point here would be just this:
If you were to ask the general population the same leading question, but phrased it a bit differently, such as the following, what type of response do you think you might get? "If Whites could only study harder they could be just as academically successful as Asians." The answer, I am reasonably sure, all things being equal, would parse out nearly identically with the "most intensive studying" Asians being in the highest numbers of respondents in agreement. But yet, here again, another fact looms up that Pitts has failed to engage in thought. When the most intense of Tea Partiers state that Blacks can be just as well off as Whites, are they not also saying that Blacks have the same capabilities and capacity for success as Whites in general? And does not the imprimatur of racism believe in a superiority due to race?
I'm Not a Successful Black Person--but I Play One on TV
What about the following phrase? "If Blacks did not try harder, they could not be as successful as Whites." This statement is inversely phrased from the first question--and yet the answer would be racially loaded in either a "yes" or a "no" response. A "yes" response would seem to indicate that in order for Blacks to be as successful as Whites they must try harder. While In fact there are many, many very successful Black people who are probably extremely insulted by the entire premise of the poll. Further a " no" response could also indicate that Blacks are in actuality on an equal ability footing with Whites and do not need to try harder, which points to an actual complement by the most intense Tea Partiers regarding members of the Black race.
Sometimes, when clarifying a point of logic, you can take an inverse phrasing to counter-pointedly clarify whether a flaw might exist within a given principle, such as here. Remember, also, that many Tea Party members are ferocious in their Constitutional as well as Biblical belief that all human beings are created equal.
So, by equating the inverse of both examples on this footing, I believe we have pointed out a flaw in the entire premise of the question that has caused the Liberals their particular brand of racial smugness. When the same question is asked inversely and the answer--being opposite--yields up a premise of insult--even while both statements mean the same thing --in essence, a flaw in the logic of the question has been exposed. We would have to delve into each "rabid" Tea Partier's mind to see their actual intent in order draw a judgment as quickly as Pitts and the other racist mongers do.
Um...We Found Out Where the Global Warming "Professors" Ended Up....
Dare we point out, also, that while Pitts and the esteemed doctors who run these particular studies are assumed to be "neutral," the fact is that when one is looking for an effect and assumes a particular quotient to be at play which will produce the desired "effect," a flaw will naturally occur within the process simply because it is "expected" if not designed for. Doubtful? Please see "Global Warming Meltdown" for the full treatise on this subject. Pitts then states that "ideology plays a part and politics do too" but "once you control for partisanship, party identification and ideology there's STILL a significant, robust effect for race."
As if these very "fluid and subjective" political ideas can be equated with a certain mathematical co-efficient and precisely adjusted for within the study. But in that vein and while on the subject of politics as racism, how are we to interpret the fact that 96% of all Black voters voted for Obama? Can anyone honestly state or prove that this did not AT ALL involve the issue of race?
In fact, this would mean that while 4% of all Black voters voted for a candidate other than Obama (McCain, primarily), a whopping 43% of all White voters voted for Obama.
Bears repeating. 43% of ALL WHITE VOTERS VOTED for OBAMA. Not a majority, in terms of race, but a number that is significant and cannot be ignored, comparatively speaking.
Why is it that Black pundits and Liberals never drag out this "interesting" fact?
The Final Solution
Looked at in another way, when we examine the number of voters by race who voted for a member of the opposite race, Whites voted for a Black individual by over a ten-to-one margin as compared to Blacks who voted for a White individual. Does this, by using the Liberals' own tools against them, mean that Blacks are more racist than even those (now) sheet-claden Tea Partiers--never mind all White people?
Am I saying that Blacks are racist for voting for Obama? I would never make that presumptive leap--but neither should the racist Instigators be trying to microscopically study a political sector of the population, grasping for flaws, while then further painting them with the brush of racism simply because a sizable grouping of individuals disagrees with the radical ideas of a President who just happens to be Black.
One idea comes to mind which Pitts might gleefully support: Perhaps all Tea Party supporters should be required to sew the yellow flag of Gadsden onto their apparel so that they can be identified while out among members of the populace. I feel certain that this would make all of the Progressives more comfortable when they lay down to sleep at night.
Teasing Out The Numbers--The Fix Is In
Pitts, then speaking of the Tea party and the Poll results, startlingly admits, "some of us needed no polling data to know this...some of us needed only to observe the timing of the Tea Party's rise." To which I would query, Mr. Pitts, that the rise of the massive deficit, and the ridiculously impotent stimulus spending spree were just coincidence to the Tea Party's rise? You see, Sir, the financial upheaval along with the bank bailouts also happened in this time period.
The simple fact is that the concern of Americans regarding a now massive deficit, taking over of 1/6th of the Country's economy, taking over manufacturers, regulators stepping on the necks of banks wishing to lend, Unions being selectively catered to--all of this is plays into the reason for the rise of the Tea Party. It ain't rocket science--at least not to "most" of us.
Pitts then cites the Tea Party's lack of a concern of Tyranny with regard to G.W. Bush's claim that he need not be bound by laws which he disagreed. In our research we could find no such claim by former President Bush. Perhaps Mr. Pitts might consider sourcing his citations--if he can. Pitts continues through a litany of the things that the Tea Party should have been yelping about while Bush was in office--each item steeped in half-truths at best, completely meaningless at worst--within his entire specious argument. Pitts even drags out a paltry $407 Billion Bush-era deficit while we are looking at a current deficit of $1.4 Trillion just for 2010. And yet, who is to say, Mr. Pitts, that we were not yelping? It takes time to start a movement, and many of us had been yelping singly, now we can yelp in groups!
Finding Utopia in Hell..You Go First
Pitts then rounds into the homestretch of his already dubiously stretched column, citing the works of several prominent Conservative Columnists who have accused Obama of various negative deficiencies yet "have not" been accused of racism for their attacks. When the pale of racism has, indeed, been applied to any Conservative or Libertarian in general who disagrees with the President over so many occasions with a very broad brush. In fact, throughout Pitts' entire article--his quotes pulling down my Flesch-Kincaid level not withstanding--we have seen no actual name or singling out of anyone or any actual instance where racism has been demonstratively proven.
Pitts has, in fact, led everyone down a path that leads to no particular point--beyond calling a group of people racists based upon evidence that is not in actual attendance. Pitts' whole argument is based upon a vague polling question, for Heaven's sake!
Pitts ends his superficial diatribe by dragging out uncited utterings along with the quote "I want my Country back" as apparently also being racist. He goes on to state of the Tea Party the following:
"They are looking for the America that was. We're searching for the one that ought to be"
Leonard Pitts, Jr., we just elected a Black man for President!...Good Grief.
The Country is more racially divided than it has ever been, the nation is broke, our children and grandchildren will be in debt from our actions for a long time to come with no letup in sight. Many successful companies have gone out of business, we have the highest foreclosure rates since Noah, minorities, including Blacks, have been harder hit than any other sector (see multiple links below). The Tea Party is very,very terribly concerned about all of the above.
The measure of Melanin content within our collective skin cells has nothing to do with it.
Unemployment Rates 2008
Unemployment Rates 2009
The numbers are in.
Thanks to a new CBS News/New York Times poll, we now have a statistical picture of the "tea party" movement. There are few surprises.
It turns out not quite 20 percent of Americans are tea party supporters. They tend to be white, Republican, male, over 45 and wealthier than the rest of us. Fifty-seven percent hold a favorable opinion of George W. Bush. And where most Republicans describe themselves as "dissatisfied" with Washington, tea partiers are apt to use a different term. They say they're ANGRY.
It is a telling word, especially in light of another survey, from the University of Washington's Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality. That poll offers strong evidence that, contrary to the denials of tea party enthusiasts, President Barack Obama's race plays a big role in their outrage. Indeed, researchers found a significant correlation between racial resentment and tea party zeal.
Respondents were read loaded statements such as this: "It's really a matter of some people not trying hard enough; if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites." Among those skeptical of the tea party, only 33 percent agreed. Among whites in general, 56 percent did. But among the tea party's most rabid followers, the number spikes to 73 percent.
As Dr. Christopher Parker, who led the study, observed via e-mail: "If one believes that blacks don't try hard enough, use slavery as an excuse, and ... have received more than they deserve (racial resentment), they are 37 percent more likely than those who don't believe this ... to support the tea party."
Yes, he says, ideology plays a part. Yes, politics does, too. But as he put it in a follow-up phone conversation, "Once you control for partisanship, party identification and ideology, there's STILL a significant, robust effect for race."
Some of us needed no polling data to know this. Some of us needed only to observe the timing of the tea party's rise.
After all, if they were truly only concerned about so-called "tyranny," they'd have started howling when Bush claimed he need not be bound by laws with which he disagreed.
If they were just worried about a "socialist" takeover of private industry, they'd have yelped when he took over troubled financial institutions.
If they were just anxious about the budget, they've have hollered when he spent a $128 billion surplus into a $407 billion deficit.
If they were just outraged over their income taxes, they'd have screamed at Bush first, given that their taxes ARE THE SAME as when he was in office.
It is telling that they "discovered" their burning concern over these things shortly after Obama came to power.
Contrary to what some in the movement would argue, it is not the case that any criticism of Obama brings charges of racism. Columnist George F. Will accuses Obama of timidity, columnist Charles Krauthammer calls certain of his policies "terminally naive," columnist Jonah Goldberg charges him with dirty politics. Yet there has been no national hue and cry accusing those conservatives of racial bias.
The reason is simple. Unlike certain tea partiers, they did not claim Obama favors white slavery. Or depict him as a witch doctor with a bone through his nose. Or cry, "I want my country back."
For those of us trying to build a country that does not fear difference, a country where access to opportunity is not a function of skin color, for those of us seeking an America that will finally live out the true meaning of its creed, that battle cry of the tea partiers says all that need be said about the differences between them and the rest of us.
They are looking for the America that was. We're searching for the one that ought to be.
Leonard Pitts is a Miami Herald columnist, 1 Herald Plaza, Miami, Fla. 33132. Write him at firstname.lastname@example.org. He chats with readers every Wednesday, 1-2 p.m., on www.MiamiHerald.com</a>.
Subscribe to The Charlotte Observer.