The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Democrat Texas Congressional Candidate Colin Allred Is Anti-White Hate-Monger

Posted on | August 9, 2018 | No Comments

 

Republican political consultant Matt Mackowiak discovers dangerous ideas embraced by Democrats hoping to ride a “blue wave” in November:

One of the prized Democratic recruits of the 2018 cycle is former NFL player and Obama administration official Colin Allred, who was just endorsed by former President Obama. He is running against House Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions in a Dallas district.
This past April, Mr. Allred was interviewed on the “Law for the People” podcast with Eric Cedillo, a Dallas immigration attorney. In that conversation, he bragged about serving as a research assistant for the “really well-known” and “really well-respected” author Ian Haney Lopez, who wrote the 2014 book “Dog Whistle Politics.”
I will save you the time of reading the book, which includes chapters entitled, “The GOP’s Rise as the White Man’s Party;” “What’s the Matter with White Voters? Common-sense Racism;” and “The Wrecking Begins: Reagan.”
Among the more vicious and divisive passages in the book, Mr. Haney Lopez and Mr. Allred argue that whites are racist for living in suburbs: “[W]hite professionals have mainly avoided integration by retreating to private academies, gated suburbs and protected professional worlds. Their ability to flee integration reflects both the resources available to better-off whites as well as the greater sway they exercise over government. As a result, well-off whites have experienced integration only on their own terms — in controlled settings, such as elite colleges and universities, and with only token numbers of non-whites. Beyond these managed interactions with integration, well-off whites remain the most racially isolated group in the United States.”
In another passage, the book argues that, “for many whites, the measure of whether they’ve made it increasingly turns on being able to set the terms with which they associate with minorities.”
Mr. Haney Lopez and Mr. Allred apparently believe it’s racist to live in the suburbs and that whites feel successful only if they can avoid interacting with minorities. Pretty extreme.
As a candidate, Mr. Allred wants citizenship for up to 12 million illegal immigrants and supports the full government takeover of health care known as Medicare for All, which the Mercatus Center just said would cost $32 trillion over 10 years. . . .

Read the whole thing. Mackowiak highlights two other Democrat challengers in Texas with even shoddier records, making the point that many of these candidates have not been subjected to critical scrutiny as individuals. They are presented to the public with glowing praise in the so-called “mainstream” media, and Republicans have failed to target them with the kind of opposition research and attack ads that Democrats routinely use against Republicans. Pete Sessions has a long record to defend, whereas his challenger Allred is depicted benignly as a football hero whose views cannot possibly be labeled “controversial.”

Of course, my headline is deliberately tendentious. It may be in some sense unfair to brand Colin Allred an “anti-white hate-monger.” However, ask yourself what Democrats would be saying about a Republican candidate who contributed to a book that made negative generalizations about black people the way Dog Whistle Politics generalizes about whites. As illustrated recently by the case of Sarah Jeong’s anti-white rhetoric, liberals have developed a bad habit of casually disparaging white people, in the belief that they will never be called to account for such rhetoric. Colin Allred’s claim that racism is the only reason white people live in the suburbs (or vote Republican) has the effect of inciting racial paranoia, encouraging non-whites to view white people with fear, contempt and suspicion. If liberals are allowed to make negative generalizations about white people in political propaganda (which is what Dog Whistle Politics actually is), and are never publicly confronted over such divisive rhetoric, then these divisive assertions will obtain the status of “truth” in the public mind.

Unless and until Democrats are made to pay a political price for using this kind of rhetoric, we can expect to see it continue to be used to incite hatred. The way to fight back must begin by calling this discourse what it is — racial hate propaganda — and asking voters to consider where this type of rhetoric has historically led. What happened when the Hutus began making radio broadcasts that demonized the Tutsi minority in Rwanda? Or to choose a more recent example, what have been the consequences of anti-white rhetoric in Zimbabwe and South Africa?

“Social justice” rhetoric involves demonizing entire groups of people as perpetrators of oppression. The accusation that white people are generally racist — look at them there, living in the suburbs and voting Republican! — implies that whites are untrustworthy and secretly engaged in wrongdoing, a collective guilt that deserves punishment.

Democrats have long been permitted to get away with this kind of divisive rhetoric, because the so-called “mainstream” media is controlled by progressive ideologues who will eagerly tell any lie (or conceal any truth) necessary to help their Democrat friends win elections.

Call them out. Force them onto the defensive, even if they respond by calling you “racist.” The alternative — giving Democrats and their media allies a free pass — is more dangerous in the long run.



 

Comments