Tea Party “racism” has roused The Washington Post to editorial indignation. “The angry faces at Tea Party rallies are eerily familiar,” read a March 27th editorial by Post columnist Colbert King, an eye-witness to one such event. “Those were the faces I saw at a David Duke rally in Metairie, La., in 1991: sullen with resentment, wallowing in victimhood, then exploding with yells of excitement as the ex-Klansman and Republican gubernatorial candidate spewed vitriolic white-power rhetoric.”
If by “vitriolic white power rhetoric” Mr. King means “exemption from property taxes,” he has a point. Championing Louisiana’s homestead exemption was the issue that got David Duke elected to the Louisiana legislature, as admitted even by his opponents.
It so happened that your loyal servant here spoke at a Tea Party in Mandeville, Louisiana on April 9th (essentially a Metairie bedroom community.) You’d think some of the angry faces that so traumatized Mr. King might have been in evidence. Instead, the opening prayer was given by a black pastor who was greeted with a warm and lengthy ovation.
“The Rev. Stephen Broden drew at least six standing ovations from a mixed but predominantly white audience gathered by the Greater New Orleans Tea Party,” wrote the New Orleans Times-Picayune about an earlier Tea Party conclave.
Nonetheless, on April 18th, Washington Post editorialist E.J. Dionne wrote, “Race is part of this picture,” and proceeded to cite findings from a recent CBS poll. “A quarter of Tea Partiers say that the Obama administration’s policies favor blacks over whites, compared with only 11 percent in the country as a whole.” More horrifying still: “Sixty-three percent of the Tea Party folks say they most watch Fox News for information about politics and current events.”
Among policemen for political correctness, the Post has long prided itself as one of the most industrious and vigilant. To wit:
- When a sports team owner defended his team’s name (Redskins) the Post pounced: “Redskins is not a term fashioned by American Indians,” tutored a Washington Post editorial. “The nickname was assigned to them just as the pejorative designation “darkies” was once imposed on African-American slaves. That was wrong then – this is wrong now.”
- When Republican Sen. George Allen made an off-handed “Macaca” crack about his Democratic opponent’s Asian campaign aide, the Post was all over him. The comment was clearly a “slur.” The Washington Post editorial scolding Allen received was titled, “Many Indian Americans are Disturbed by Allen’s Remarks,” they cited “frustration over ethnic stereotypes,” as the provocation for this disturbance.
- When Bill Bennet made an oblique reference to black crime rate, a Post editorial scolded him as, “the poster child for racism.”
- When the National Rifle Association’s Paul Blackman made a similar reference while citing mountains of irrefutable statistics, he had “adopted a racist position.”
And if you think advisories against unsafe Chinese imported foods might pass muster with an editorial staff usually quick to trumpet the dangers of anything from Alar on apples to almost everything in a Hostess Twinkie (see “Twinkie Deconstructed,” Washington Post, April 27, 2007) think again. One editorial detected “Yellow-peril imagery,” in recent advisories about Chinese imports. “They conjure images of the fiendish juggernaut of the Chinese Poison Train bearing down on the hapless American consumer, tied to the tracks by a nefarious evildoer with a Fu Manchu mustache.”
The point is, the Washington Post is immensely proud of their hyper-sensitive olfactory abilities in sniffing out bigotry. So, Tea Parties were long, long overdue for a few of their whiffs, gags, and consequent scoldings.
No Tea Party has advocated the mass expulsion of U.S. citizens for the crime of belonging to a particular ethnic group, however. With that in mind, I call your attention to a cartoon run by the Washington Post on August 22, 2007. Here it is. Note that a smiling Uncle Sam insults an entire American ethnic group as “nuisances” while forcibly expelling them from the nation in a rickety boat labeled, “Cuban-Americans.” Also note that Uncle Sam is not cast as the villain. The head explodes imagining the mainstream media’s reaction to such a depiction had it been against any other ethnic group.
Interestingly, The Washington Post’s habitual hyper-sensitivity in these matters finds them on record denouncing the expulsion of illegal immigrants — denouncing the very enforcement of U.S. law. “Nativism’s Toxic Cloud” ran the ominous title of their editorial on July 22, 2007. “By singling out illegal immigrants,” explained the righteous screed, “local politicians are contributing to what is becoming a poisonous, increasingly nativist atmosphere that will infect relations with Hispanics generally” (italics added.)
But, this same Washington Post sees nothing “poisonous,” “infectious,” “shameful,” or “nativist” about a cartoon gloating over the mass expulsion of U.S. citizens of Hispanic origin from America’s shores. How can such a thing be?
The answer is simple: Americans of Cuban heritage historically register and vote overwhelmingly Republican. Exit polls show that Cuban-Americans voted against Obama by the highest margins — and by far—of any U.S. ethnic group, including “anglos.” Even with the third generation registering to vote, a measly 13% of these incurably obtuse and unenlightened people register with America’s majority political party (Democrat.) This is the most diminutive Democratic registration of any ethnic group in the U.S. On the other hand, 72% of Cuban-Americans are registered with America’s minority party (Republican.) This is the highest for any ethnic group in the U.S.
Even worse, to the historic exasperation of Democratic operatives, these insufferable people do significant voting in the key swing state of Florida. More exasperating still, Cuban-Americans have never sought admittance into the Democratic plantation. In fact, they persist in looking at Democrats with a fishy eye and standing afar while holding up one hand. Close inspection shows it’s not the peace sign they’re giving. Indeed, only one finger seems upraised.
The 1998 census shows that second generation Cuban-Americans have higher educational and income levels — not only than the ethnic groups who dutifully punch-the clock at the Democratic plantation every morning, and get a little pat on the head when leaving in the evening — but higher than the U.S. population in general.
When referring to these Cuba-American scoundrels, liberals’ painstaking etiquette on ethnic commentary shuts down. Their commandments and canons on avoiding ethnic offense become void. On the topic of Cuban-Americans, there’s no need to verbally tiptoe through the rhetorical minefield that blew up on Jimmy the Greek, John Rocker, Earl Butz, Fuzzy Zoeller, Mel Gibson, Axl Rose, Michael Richards, Don Imus, etc., etc. Instead, America’s premier vigilantes and hanging judges on matters ethnically offensive can flaunt a cartoon celebrating a variation on the “send ‘em all back to Africa” theme.
And without a peep of protest from anyone within the mainstream media/Democratic axis of power.