CNN in a very earnest article reports:
Analysts say black women this year never have been more engaged in a political campaign or held such power in determining the Democratic nominee.
Recent polls show black women are expected to make up more than a third of all Democratic voters in South Carolina’s primary in five days.
For these women, a unique, and most unexpected dilemma, presents itself: Should they vote their race, or should they vote their gender?
No other voting bloc in the country faces this choice.
No other voting bloc? Well, isn’t this the same choice faced by black men or white women voting in the Democratic primary? And, for that matter, white men too have a dilemma because one of their own is in the race with John Edwards?
This illogic is what the modern discourse on race amounts to. Non-white races and victim groups are considered real, vital, and worthy of self-identification. Tribal loyalties among these groups are perfectly permissible, as are bids for group power and group rights. This is a natural instinct and not unjust per se. White men, however, must continue to abide by the older American ideal of individualism and individual judgment about the merit of others, whether in voting, on the job, or otherwise. To ask the formerly disenfranchised groups to abide by this same standard of justice is simply too much to ask. It’s “their turn.” As a consequence, we have an approach to inherited identity that amounts to unilateral disarmament by the majority. Everyone can think tribally and seek out group interests except for the historical and traditional elite and majority.
This is why the entire ideology of multiculturalism and diversity is not simply seeing things as they are after centuries of blindness, but instead consists of the willful denial of reality. For CNN, white men are neither white nor men. More accurately, for CNN they are not allowed to identify as such when voting. (Of course, they must acknowledge their status when it’s time for ritual self-flagellation, such as when too many CEOs, coaches, rich people, jurymen, or voters are white.)
A certain amount of group identification is healthy, especially when tempered by the traditionally American commitment to individualism, merit, and fair play. Yet the entire world of identity is skewed towards a very narrow goal: the disempowerment of America’s traditional elites and the reshaping of America’s demographics and values. The objective decline and endangerment of the traditional nation and its majority is portrayed as the march of universal justice. Our meek defenses are recast as offensive “attacks.” This is why James Burnham called liberalism an “ideology of western suicide.” Liberalism functions to redefine our destruction as a good thing that we should welcome.
Subscribe To This Feed
I agree with much of what you say, but I don’t agree with the Liberal/Conservative thing, because we tend to identify with these bodies by the extremists that belong, but for the most part, I believe people are a lot like myself, given time, we look at the situation for what it is and decide our course of action at that time. However unlike most like myself, I write or speak about it, most don’t, until they have to.
It was a very well written post.
“Race doesn’t matter. Ethnicity doesn’t matter. Religion doesn’t matter. Gender doesn’t matter.”
I’m voting for Obama because he is black!
I’m voting for Romney because he is a Mormon!
I’m voting for Huckabee because he is an evangelical!
I’m voting for McCain because he is a veteran!
I’m voting for Hillary because she is a woman!
We are the first universal nation. We are beyond tribalism – LOL!
[...] is becoming a land where ethnic spoils are openly sought by different minority groups. I wrote less than one month ago : Non-white races and victim groups are considered real, vital, and worthy of [...]
[...] his white ancestry) to the other in the name of meaning, authenticity, healing, and justice. This is the same program that he wants our country to embrace on a national scale. [...]