In my February 14, 2008 column I wrote as follows:
The 2008 primary campaign season may be best noted for exposing the hypocrisy of Democrats and race. Ever since the days of Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale we have had to listen to the noblesse oblige attitudes of Democrat leaders as they sniff with disdain and lecture us about race and bigotry. They engaged in revisionist history when it comes to addressing the checkered past of our nation’s treatment of blacks. . .
“Like most of the liberal elite, the Democrat leadership likes to preach more than to practice racial tolerance.”
That assessment has proven to be ever more true as the contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton turns ever more bitter. But the most interesting aspect is not that the latent racism in the Democrat party has raised its ugly head. Rather it is that the Democrat elites have found yet another way to deflect the charges of racism in their “oh so perfect party.” They’ve found another group to blame. And, as usual, it is a group that apparently is fair game to stereotype, criticize and castigate.
It is White Ethnic Male Catholics.
Given that “white males” are the only group that everyone is free to disparage without fear of being labeled racists, or sexists, or ageists, or homophobic, you just knew that the group to take the fall for the Democrats would have to be some subset of white males. And given that the liberal elites in the mainstream media and academia routinely dump on Christianity in general and Catholics in particular, it is not surprising that the subset is limited to Catholics.
I first heard the term White Ethnic Male Catholics used during a discussion amongst the “talking heads” the day before the Pennsylvania primary. They were chagrined to learn that there was a gap of ten percent of Democrat voters who remained uncommitted the weekend before the election and they needed an explanation.
Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post Writers Group, ever a barometer of the Democrats far left thinking, synthesized the explanation in a recent column:
“In the days leading up to Pennsylvania’s primary, White males — those knuckle dragging, chaw chompin’, beer swillin’ bitter troglodytes — were suddenly the debutante’s delight. . .
“. . . Would White males go for the woman or the Black? Or as Nora Ephron more pointedly posed the question: Whom to White males hate more — women or blacks.
There it is folks, according to the liberal elites, the only reason that a White male would vote for Clinton or Obama is because they are either a racist or a misogynist. Now the fact that Blacks vote in overwhelming numbers for Obama does not make them racists. And the fact that Clinton has substantial support amongst women does not make them man haters. No apparently the only people capable of prejudice choices are White males and even worse, when they make choices it is only in furtherance of their prejudices.
But the real kicker here is that these elites felt constrained to limit this conduct to “ethnic Catholics.” Quite frankly, I’m not sure whom this includes. Is it the Irish who endured their own period of prejudice with signs that said “No Irish Need Apply” or listened to the slur of “Mick” and “Papist” for years? Or is it the Italians who were branded as “Wops” and thought all to be a part of the Mafia? Or maybe the Poles who were maligned as ignorant and incapable of more than menial work. All of these ethnic groups have large Catholic populations. Does this sobriquet include the Kennedys, the Cuomos, and the Kulongoskis.
Well, I am a White Ethnic Male Catholic and I take offense. First I take offense that, as a Catholic, I would even be considered a Democrat voter since the litmus test of Democrats is that one support abortion on demand, up to and including partial birth abortion — all of which practicing Catholics consider murder. To suggest that there is some moral middle ground that would allow a Catholic to reconcile this abomination with support of either Obama or Clinton is particularly offensive.
Second, like most Americans I am of mixed heritage. I am Scot-Irish-German and while I am proud of my entire heritage, I am not defined by any of it. The whole problem with stereotyping is that it is seldom accurate and never more so than when it comes to politics or morality.
And finally, I’m tired of the Democrats in general and their far left wing in particular, trying to deflect attention from a serious problem that is and has been theirs for years — racism — active, ugly, persistent and pernicious racism. It is not their problem alone for there are racist elements in the Republican Party as well as the minor parties.
But the Democrats, as much as they would like us to believe otherwise, are not immune from it either. And it isn’t confined to White male Democrats. There are White female Democrats who are racists and simply use the support of another female (Clinton) as cover for their disdain for people of color. There are Black Democrats who engage in the most malicious speech about Whites, Jews and Asians (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Wright, etc.) but who are never held to account. And there are wealthy Democrats who malign the poor while giving lip service to their plight.
But, as I noted before, “Like most of the liberal elite, the Democrat leadership likes to preach more than to practice racial tolerance.” As for me, I would rather debate an acknowledged racist than a hypocritical Democrat.