White Supremacism, Liberal-Style
January 16, 2003
by Joe Sobran
The affirmative-action debate has returned to the
U.S. Supreme Court, and the Bush administration, defying
liberal demagogy, has weighed in against racial
preferences. President Bush himself says the University
of Michigan's anti-white admissions policy is
unconstitutional.
This comes as something of a surprise from a
Republican Party that flinches easily at charges of
racism, especially after the recent uproar over Trent
Lott. Ever since that episode the Democrats have been
screeching that Lott merely exposed the Republicans' true
feelings about race. But all the Republicans have really
done has been to adhere to the color-blind principles the
Democrats used to espouse, but have long since abandoned.
The Democrats have moved on -- to white supremacism.
Nearly four decades after the 1964 Civil Rights Act,
which the Democrats at the time swore would never be used
to authorize racial privileges -- especially quotas --
for minorities, they have committed themselves to quotas
for all eternity.
Yes, of course, these measures are "temporary." But
like so many "temporary" measures, they have no
expiration date. No Democrat says they will be necessary
for only a definite term -- say, 10 or 20 more years.
There is no clear criterion by which their success can be
judged, so that we might say, one fine day, that they are
no longer needed. By now it's clear the Democrats intend
to maintain them permanently.
Why don't they come out and say it? They don't
believe blacks and Hispanics will ever achieve equality
on their own in competition with whites, any more than a
paraplegic will ever be able to discard his wheelchair.
The Democrats thrive on racial inequality, especially
while racial privileges are politically lucrative.
Different racial groups have different aptitudes.
Why? Who knows? Even some "Hispanic" groups have
different aptitudes than others. It's the same with white
and Asian groups. It's absurd to ascribe all these
differences to racism, prejudice, and discrimination. In
fact it's a sign of human diversity.
The Democrats pay lip service to "diversity," as
long as it means uniformity. And uniformity requires
discriminatory coercion. Whites are presumed capable of
success without government assistance; even, in fact,
when burdened by conditions imposed by government itself.
The implication is that whites, unlike minorities, can
take care of themselves. They don't suffer from
individual acts of injustice, it seems, because they are
a superior race. They can handle it.
This implicit white supremacism also assumes that
only whites can be treated as responsible moral agents.
They can be expected to behave properly, to transcend
mere causation. Minorities can't. They are mere passive
victims of an environment created by others, and those
others are white.
But to treat only whites as responsible or guilty is
to reduce nonwhites to a subhuman level. The old-
fashioned white supremacists contradicted themselves by
simultaneously blaming nonwhites for acting like animals
while insisting they were capable of nothing better; the
liberal white supremacists contradict themselves by
demanding equality for blacks while excusing them for
gross behavioral failings.
The height of circular reasoning is reached when
whites are blamed for black crime rates. This is the
liberal version of blaming the victim: whites are
reproached for fleeing black-dominated neighborhoods,
even though interracial violent crime is
disproportionately committed by blacks (and would be even
more so, but for "white flight"). But liberal ideology is
immune to objective facts of life. Oddly enough, black
rates of crime, illegitimacy, and other social disorders
were much lower before liberal thinking -- and liberal
policies -- caught on.
Many so-called racial prejudices aren't prejudices
at all, but sensible empirical conclusions. People often
reach them, for their own safety, in spite of official
propaganda. They don't want to be robbed, raped, stabbed,
or shot, that's all. If whites were merely racist, they
would be as fearful of Asians as they are of blacks.
And what about those Asians? This category includes
Arabs, Indians, Chinese, and many others who thrive here
without racial privileges. Think of the Vietnamese "boat
people," who arrived in this country destitute, racially
different, not even speaking English, certainly not
privileged; yet a few years later their children were
high-school valedictorians. How did that happen?
Maybe someone forgot to tell them they were victims
of the white man.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read this column on-line at
"http://www.sobran.com/columns/2003/030116.shtml".
Copyright (c) 2003 by the Griffin Internet
Syndicate, www.griffnews.com. This column may not
be published in print or Internet publications
without express permission of Griffin Internet
Syndicate. You may forward it to interested
individuals if you use this entire page,
including the following disclaimer:
"SOBRAN'S and Joe Sobran's columns are available
by subscription. For details and samples, see
http://www.sobran.com/e-mail.shtml, write
fran@griffnews.com, or call 800-513-5053."