Posted by
Andrews on Wednesday, April 02, 2008 10:37:56 AM
The rules of race relations in the Democrat party continue to puzzle me.
Geraldine Ferraro looks at a candidate who is selling himself a a "racial healer", who has the endorsement of Oprah, and says that he is where he is because of his race. Apparently that statement, accurate as it may be, is deemed racist.
A minister thunders from his pulpit that the government created AIDS to kill minorities, attests that he adheres to Black Liberation theology, and grants an award to Louis Farrakhan, and we are to understand this as "the prophetic tradition in black churches", most certainly nothing like racism.
Which leaves me in a bit of quandary. A sober assessment of the reasons behind political success is racism, because it recognizes race, but postulating a G-d who is for blacks and against whites is not racist?
I could also understand if this were a Republican and a Democrat. Unsubstantiated charges of racism against Republicans is nothing new. But Ferraro is every bit as much of a Democrat as Obama is. Or I could understand if this came only from the Obama camp. it would
be self-serving and dishonest, but I could understand it. But, as it
comes from Democrats not aligned with Obama, I am at a loss to
understand.
The only rule I can see in it is a disturbing one I have run into before: blacks can say anything about race while whites are limited to professing guilt, anything else is racism. I would like to think that this is not the official rule of the Democrats, but from the handling of these two incidents, I really can't see any other rule which fits.