By Kevin D. Williamson
Tuesday, March 08, 2016
Asked in Sunday night’s debate to talk about “racial
blind spots,” Senator Bernie Sanders, the Brooklyn red who represents Vermont
in the Senate, found a big one: “When you’re white,” he proclaimed, “you don’t
know what it’s like to be living in a ghetto. You don’t know what it’s like to
be poor.”
Set aside, for the moment, that a man of Jewish ancestry
apparently does not know the history of the word “ghetto.” Set aside that his
claim is plainly, empirically untrue: There are more poor whites in the United
States than poor people of any other background, mainly by dint of the fact
that there are more whites, period. Never mind that white poverty, like black
poverty and brown poverty, tends to be geographically concentrated, often in
ethnically homogeneous and isolated areas, i.e., in ghettos. (Seriously,
Senator Sanders should get a National
Review subscription so that he can read about the “Big White Ghetto.”)
Never mind that the pathologies of poverty in white communities generally is
similar — with the important exception of rates of violent crime in the poorest
white communities — to the pathologies of poverty in nonwhite communities.
Which is to say, in sum: Never mind reality — this is Bernie Sanders we’re talking about here, the
hippie-dippy socialist fruitcake who is too far to the left for the party of
Chaka Fattah and other Democratic Chavistas and Castroites, a man who has
argued that women suffer from cancers of the reproductive organs because of
orgasmic insufficiency. Rather, consider the politics of the thing from Senator
Sanders’s point of view.
Why in Hell would he say such an obviously untrue and
daft thing, even given his ordinary propensity for saying untrue and daft
things? (As opposed to Herself. We know why she says untrue and daft things: to
stay out of prison.) Why does the socialist class warrior deny the poverty of
the single largest group of poor people in these United States?
The answer is: cowardice.
Senator Sanders likes to pose as a man of great
conviction, but he is basically a grifter who has used public office as a way
to evade honest employment for most of his long life. (Yes, Herself is a
grifter, too, having used public office to avoid prison for most of her long
life. Nice choice Democrats have.) Herself is whooping his narrow white Yankee
ass among black voters, who feel, for whatever reason, a particular affinity
with the Clinton mob. Senator Sanders is the white man’s red, and that’s
killing him in the nomination fight.
So we are treated to the spectacle of a senator
representing the second-whitest constituency in the Senate (Hello, Maine!)
talking absolute nonsense in a sad, lame attempt to prove to black primary
voters that he feels their pain, as some lowlife once put it.
This pandering is not new for Senator Sanders. In the
first Democratic primary debate, the candidates were asked: “Black Lives
Matter, or all lives matter?” Sanders, who has the white leftist’s instinctive
cowardice on all issues touching African Americans, didn’t have to be mau-maued
into his answer: He mau-maued himself, an act of auto-maumauery. (You’re
welcome, Webster’s.) “Black Lives Matter,” he affirmed, silently adding, Please, please, please vote for the
doddering elderly white senescent desiccated socialist man over the doddering
elderly white senescent desiccated socialist lady!
That’s where identity politics has landed the Democrats:
Sure, there may be some poor white folks out there, or millions and millions of
them, but we have to prioritize here: Suffering picturesquely in the service of
Democratic political careers is a black thing, first and foremost, and has been
ever since Lyndon Johnson did that amazing 180-degree turn from opposing
anti-lynching laws to posturing as the champion of a national civil-rights
agenda that he’d stymied in the Senate for years. African Americans are the
gold-medal champions when it comes to poverty pimps like Bernie Sanders and
Hillary Rodham Clinton. The wise Latinas come in second, and the poor whites, if
Democrats have to admit they exist at all, are third place at best, bronze
medalists in the poverty Olympics.
Ironic, in its way: The Left loves nothing better than to
talk about race and poverty, but the leftists have never really learned how to
talk about race and poverty. What is so hard about admitting, as all honest
people must, that the black experience in the United States is unique — there isn’t very much that is
like chattel slavery or organized political repression on racial grounds — but
it is not exclusive? There isn’t a
good time or a good place to be poor, or a good ethnic background to have and
be poor. Poverty is poverty is poverty. The empty stomach is not much aware of
the skin’s melanin content.
If you wanted to add fuel to the Trumpkin fire — which is
really just this season’s version of Pat Buchanan’s smoldering resentment —
that would be a great way to do it: Tell poor and struggling white Americans,
or those who have been poor and struggling, that they “don’t know what it’s
like to be poor.”
They do.
Poverty isn’t a mystery to poor whites. What might be a
mystery to many of them — certainly to West Texas tornado bait such as myself —
is the working of the African-American political mind. For whatever reason —
and it may be something as simple as a cynically transactional view of politics
— black Americans never seem to get tired of being condescended to or being
used as props by dopey and sanctimonious white political careerists such as
Senator Sanders and, more important, Mrs. Clinton. Really, that’s the basic
Democrat M.O.: “We need to show the voters that the United States is horrible,
miserable, and deprived — find me some charismatically tragic black faces,
quick!”
Democrats should be embarrassed that that’s the best they
can do when it comes to race and poverty. Republicans should be embarrassed
that their best still can’t beat that weak stuff.
No comments:
Post a Comment