Why Other GOP Candidates Cannot Speak Up about Perry-Gate
by KLH
(liberal)
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
In the wake of the recent scandal involving the name of a hunting camp owned by Republican Presidential hopeful Rick Perrys family (which I have officially dubbed asPerry-Gate), Herman Cain was the only other candidate to speak up about it. He did not call Perry a racist which I believe was the right thing to do and I think his statement was correct but unfortunately the only backlash has been directed toward Cain and now he will no longer talk about it. As much as I hate that Cain was blasted by fellow conservatives, nothing surprises me when it comes to the GOP and issues of race anymore.
Today, I read an editorial by Colbert I King of the Washington Post asking about why the other GOP candidates were so silent but there was no definitive answer. Well, I think that it is actually pretty easy to answer.
Recently, Michele Bachmann referred to a anarticle thatcriticized government programs that help minorities buy homes and enter the middle class. I did not know that minorities, including myself, should not bother to improve my socio-economic status and try to become a part of the middle class. I guess that is only for Real Americans. And lets not hold the lenders who convinced people they could afford over-priced houses accountable for anything. I guess one better be a financial expert before walking through the door of a bank!
Libertarian-turned-Republican Ron Paul, along with son Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) thinks laws protecting minorities from discrimination are unnecessary. Apparently, they dont think the government should not be in the business of making sure all of its citizens have equal rights. Some may think that civil rights elevates a person but remember there was a point in our history where a black person was only seen as 3/5of a person.Civil rights made them a whole person, making them equal to Whites. They are ok with businesses refusing to serve certain groups of people because they believe that the wholesome, moral and caring free market will push them to do the right thing.
John Huntsman and Mitt Romney belong to the Mormon Church in which Brigham Young had a revelation that blacks were descendants of Cain, whom God cursed with a black seed as punishment for killing his brother Abel. This position of the Church barred Blacks from serving as Mormon priests up until 1978, even though Joseph Smith appointed several of them prior to this policy and even after (he was the son of a priest who was appointed before the ban).
I am not going to say that they are racists because I believe that word is used to shut people down and we need to have a serious discussion about race and racism. And I do not know what is really in their hearts. That requires providing a safe space for people to talk about it and be honest with their feelings. But I am truly worried if a Republican is elected as President of the United States. They clearly are not taking a stand about and/or for civil rights which ushered in an era of endless opportunities for those who felt like outcasts in their own country for so long. As a person of color, I am grateful for those who fought to make sure I could reach my potential so their apathy for this topic seriously concerns me. But I see why the other candidates cannot speak up because if they do, their words, beliefs and faith can be used against them. Another more important question that might be worth an oped piece is What happened to the party of Abraham Lincoln?
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 4
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of KLH only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
KLH is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Actually, this sentence is not true: "Ron Paul, along with son Congressman Rand Paul (R-KY) thinks laws protecting minorities from discrimination are unnecessary." Try quoting what they said more accurately.
Please clarify. If those two actions do not imply he thinks laws protecting minorities from discrimination are unnecessary, what are they supposed to be taken as?
Quote:
"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society."
Translation: You should be free to not hire blacks, women, Catholics, Jews, etc and this should be perfectly legal because property ownership is more important than people's rights.
Quote:
"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife. "
Before racial quotas , whites didn't have to work with or even associate with blacks , so there was no "harmony" or "color-blind society". It was not until whites had to work with blacks and had their children go to school with blacks that there was any WIDESPREAD change in people's attitudes.
You can vote however you like. Please do not spread blatant disinformation.
I'm not the one spreading disinformation. You are. Read the quotes again. They didn't say that they were against protecting the rights of minorities. The quotes said that the approach wouldn't work. That's hardly the same thing as saying that the rights of minorities should not be protected.
This is one thing that really bothers me about the racial views of liberals. Anyone who even questions the overall approach taken is charged with opposing minorities from having rights that need protection. It's a black and white mentality, both literally and figuratively. You're either with us the way we want to do things, or you're against everything we stand for. There's no in-between. The charge makes it impossible to question anything, because the moment someone question your viewpoint, they're charged with opposing peoples' rights just because they raised a concern.
I charge that it's liberals who promote racism the most, because they're the ones who make the discussion impossible to have.
