Great advice on the left’s race-card playing

Don’t allow them to define the parameters of the debate. Black conservative Lloyd Marcus writes:

I am so sick of the Left being allowed to make the rules. Imagine the absurdity of a competition in which one side is allowed to set the rules against their opponent. The Left tells us what is racist. The Left tells us what we can and cannot say. The Left published a cartoon depicting former black Secretary of State Condolezza Rice as an Aunt Jemima; another depicted Rice as a huge-lipped parrot for her Massa Bush. Neither were considered racist by their creators or publishers, or even widely condemned on the Left.

In opposition to black Republican Michael Steele’s campaign to run for U.S. Senate, a liberal blogger published a doctored photo of Steele in black face and big red lips made to look like a minstrel. The caption read, “Simple Sambo wants to move to the big house”. Not one Democrat denounced these racist portrayals of black conservatives.

And yet, a sign seen at a tea party depicting Obama as a witch doctor is considered by the Left to be beyond the pale and obviously racist. Why is the Left, given their track record of bias, granted final authority to determine the intent of the sign? Why do we conservatives so quickly and easily allow ourselves to be put on the defensive?

The rules set by the Left are extremely clear. Racist images of black conservatives and negative images of Bush are fair game. Even a play about murdering President Bush was called “harmless art”. Meanwhile, all unflattering images of Obama are racist, and constitute dangerous, potentially violent hate speech.

Read the whole thing.

Mark Steyn responds with some advice of his own:

But, if we’re talking about letting the Left “set the rules,” Mr. Marcus’s column reminded me of a larger point: Don’t take your opponents at face value; listen to what they’re really saying. What does the frenzy unleashed on Sarah Palin last fall tell us? What does Newsweek’s “Mad Man” cover on Glenn Beck mean? Why have “civility” drones like Joe Klein so eagerly adopted Anderson Cooper’s scrotal “teabagging” slur and characterized as “racists” and “terrorists” what are (certainly by comparison with the anti-G20 crowd) the best behaved and tidiest street agitators in modern history?

They’re telling you who they really fear. Whom the media gods would destroy they first make into “mad men.” Liz Cheney should be due for the treatment any day now.

[…]

The media would like the American Right to be represented by the likes of Bob Dole and John McCain, decent old sticks who know how to give dignified concession speeches. Last time round, we went along with their recommendation. If you want to get rave reviews for losing gracefully, that’s the way to go. If you want to win, look at whom the Democrats and their media chums are so frantic to destroy: That’s the better guide to what they’re really worried about.

Yep. They’re worried about real change, a change in the way people think, act, and feel about government intrusion into every aspect of our lives. They’re worried that the smaller government message might start getting through to people, and that those same people will start rejecting big government fascism and abject moral relativism.

Take a look at how the murder Census worker Bill Sparkman in Kentucky is being played out by the far left. Make no mistake about it: They WANT the perp to be some anti-government nut. That’s why the MSM is pursuing it, and why the left keeps “speculating” over details that are very sketchy at the moment. It’s pretty pathetic when your political opposition wishes for someone’s murder to be as a result of some political bias. You know why this happens, right? Because the left believes if they can use a few nutballs to paint an entire party as “nuts” and “crazies” then they can use the victims of the senseless crimes to promote the idea that the right are nothing but fringe lunatics whose opinions on any issue shouldn’t be taken seriously.

It’s why the MSM and the far left have engaged in a concerted effort to brand the Tea Party movement, for example, as nothing but “racists” who all believe Obama is Hitler. Of course they always manage to leave out reminders of the almost daily comparisons of Bush to Hitler by leftist icons in the anti-war movement, and other anti-Bush types like Code Pink who routinely marched against the administration. Funny how the “Kill Bush!” and “Bush is Hitler!” posters, and the routine acts of violence against military institutions (for example) were portrayed as mere “fringe” acts but yet a handful of “O’Hitler” signs – some of them carried around by LaRouche DEMOCRATS who support single payer healthcare – and a handful of violent acts by mentally ill anti-government types all of a sudden makes it an “epidemic” that “must be” addressed.

Contrast this with how the left always bashes the right for allegedly ‘broadbrushing” all Muslims for the acts of Islamofascists. “Look at the number of Muslims in the world, and then look at the number who commit acts of violence. It’s a tiny percentage of the population, so this is not a widespread problem” they assert (paraphrasing) . Assuming that’s true, can we start applying that rule to the number of Republicans living both here and the US and abroad and the acts of political violence committed by a tiny few? Same same for the number of Christians around the world versus the rare acts of violence carried out by a tiny few in the name of Jesus? I won’t hold my breath waiting for the left’s standards on this to be consistent. They don’t want to be. It’s all about eliminating legitimate voices of opposition by making mainstream Americans believe the opposition are nothing but backwater fruitcakes. It’s the “By Any Means” strategy – alive and well, and brought to you by Rahm/Axelrod and Co.

Never forget that.