Equal Opportunity Bigotry

Keith Koffler yesterday listed Seven Reasons Why Romney Lost. Sadly, No. 6 was the color of his skin:

I don’t think we need affirmative action tickets on either side of the aisle. But I think, running against the nation’s first black president – something which is deeply moving even to many of Obama’s political opponents – that this just wasn’t the year to run two pasty white guys with pretty blond wives.

 

I didn't do the subject justice, but posted this comment:

Sorry, Keith, but I must say I am offended by the expression, “pasty white guys” — every bit as much as I resented Obama’s characterization of his grandmother as a “typical white” person. You are not alone in this meme; I heard Dee Dee Somebody-or-other (who worked for one of the Bush administrations?) refer to our Republican candidates as “doughy white.” This is racism… flat out… such that everyone’s hero “on both sides of the aisle,” MLK Jr,. would be appalled.

And from another angle, less based in principle, what is Bill Clinton if not a pasty/doughy white guy? John Kerry? Harry Reid? James Carville? Howard Dean? Al Gore? Chris Dodd? Is not Janet Napolitano even more pasty and doughy than Mitt Romney or John McCain – or their blonde wives?

All this “outreach to minorities" in the form of equal opportunity bigotry is not the Great New Direction people are claiming. Underlying all this is the real point, that if we don’t secure our southern border, not only will Republicans continue to import cheap labor, but the Democrats will continue to import cheap voters who will swing our elections ever leftward.

 

I would be interested in your thoughts :/

 

 

Comments

[Elan]

It is a brilliant comment. The day after the election everyone has seven reasons why it turned out the way it did, providing incisive analysis that would have been more valuable a little earlier in the campaign. Keith is a great blogger, but the day before the election he predicted (in his words) "a big Romney win" in both the popular vote and the electoral college. A week later, he suddenly notices that the color of the candidates' skin and their spouses' hair were one of seven insuperable obstacles. You are right to call his sloppy slurs racism (and sexism) and to focus on cheap labor and cheap voters.

[Walt Gottesman]

Your comment is honest, lucid and penetrating. It points out a type of bigotry that has become all too common amongst people who profess to be against such discriminatory language. It also alludes to the even greater problem of people who vote for a presidential candidate based on appearance rather than character and capacity to promote the general welfare and provide for the common defense of the entire country, not just those who voted for that candidate.

[Mannie Sherberg]

The choice here seems prettty clear: Either we continue to nominate candidates without regard to the color of their skin or we become as racist as the Dims have been for well over a century. The mere discussion of a candidate's skin color (or the color of the spouse's hair) has no place in Conservative discourse -- never has and, I hope, never will. If we're ever going to win national elections again, we'd better get busy talking about constructive subjects. Let the Dims debase themselves talking about skin pigmentation.