California Conservative

“Republicans are the party of rich white men.” — [Insert liberal here]

For the record, our role is not to defend any campaign manager who gets himself into trouble due to misunderstandings — even if he’s working for a Republican.

However, after reading Michelle Malkin’s comments this morning about James Seif and his recent remarks about Lynn Swann, we simply want to weigh in with another perspective.

There is no question that in politics today, race is a major issue. Everybody knows that. Quite often, especially in elections, it’s used as a leverage point — but only if you’re non-white.

Just look at Jackson, Rangel, Sharpton, all the usual suspects. They make race the central issue of every demand. Look to the L.A. mayoral race last year. Look no further than Dick Morris’ latest book, which he’s been peddling aggressively for months. Premise: Condi “is the best candidate to beat Hillary,” but not just because she’s a women, but because she’s black. Agree or disagree, Morris makes his argument.

In light of this, what did Seif (white) say about Swann (black)? He referred to him as “the rich white guy in this campaign…”

“If Mr. Swann finds it objectionable, I will apologize. But the fact of the matter is, he’s the guy at the country club that hangs around the country club, plays golf with the legislators and is the inside candidate.”

For those readers who don’t know anything about Lynn Swann, he’s rich, he’s famous, he plays golf, he hangs out at the country club, evidently, where he rubs elbows with politicians and other power brokers. Oh, yeah, and he’s a Republican.

Who has not heard this (or similar) description applied generally by liberals to the image of most conservatives? It’s the perpetuation of a stereotype. Democrats would have you believe that only they represent the poor and the “people of color.” Fortunately, many know better.

We believe it was Seif’s genuine intention to merely turn the stereotype on its head. No malice or disprespect intended. Certainly not being “racist.” As campaign manager, one could argue, he was looking to score points for his candidate by pointing out the irony.

Namely, “Bill Scranton is the insurgent.” (Maybe Seif should also be faulted for using the language of our war against terrorism?) According to his own words, Seif was trying to “emphasize who’s the insider and who’s the outsider,” thereby distinguishing the candidates. And pulling one from the playbook of modern politics, he was suggesting that Swann, being wealthy and connected, is the proverbial “rich white guy” in this race.

Unfortunately, Malkin doesn’t see it that way. She condemns:

“[P]roving that Republicans can be every bit as idiotic and craven as Democrats in invoking race traitor rhetoric, Seif dug himself deeper by denying the gobsmackingly obvious racial overtones of calling a black man white and implying that his success was a renunciation of his skin color.”

While we normally agree with Michelle’s views and greatly respect her opinions, in this case, we respectfully disagree.

It appears that she’s either misreading Seif’s intent, or reading more into it than possible. Who are we to know what’s in someone’s head? Obvious? Not really. But taken on face value, this is not about calling Swann an “Uncle Tom,” which would imply “renunciation” of skin color. Seif was simply being ironic. (Or is someone suggesting that black voters would really be swayed if they didn’t know better and thought Swann was a “rich white guy”?)

So, what’s the problem? Is Swann shocked and offended? Doesn’t sound like it. He’s probably been called worse. Although he could spin indignation in his favor to help his campaign. Sympathy works wonders, especially when a white man is accused of racism.

Let’s face it: If Seif were black and Swann were white, we wouldn’t be writing this. There would be no need for clarification. It would be shrugged off as just typical, throw-away rhetoric to define the image of an opponent during an election. It would be cliche.

Both in politics and outside of it, people are taking words far too seriously. It’s gotten out of hand. Most of us have been “trained” (indoctrinated, some could say) by the mandates of political correctness to avoid any language that could, might or may be deemed offensive by someone (non-white, female or otherwise). Yet, to what end? By scrutinizing every word, people no longer say what the mean or think. Most say what they think is expected. Credibility is secondary.They live in fear of saying something that could be perceived as un-PC, as it might cost them their jobs. (See Seif)

We rented a movie last night called The Island. Very entertaining flick. Provocative. Recommend it. But what struck us most was the portrayal of a world where everyone is uniform: in dress, in speech, in habit and behavior. And their actions are closely policed. The people are all wearing white, and the enforcers are all in black. Some things never change. While Hollywood probably thought they were giving a critical nod at the Bush administration (again, a stereotype), we would argue that it looked more like the future of political correctness, which already shows tangible results in mind-control.

So, what’s the bottom line? There’s black, there’s white, but let’s not forget there’s also plenty of gray. And, hopefully, there’s still some common sense left.

Comedian Carlos Mencia recently visited San Francisco, our hometurf and the hotbed of liberalism, as we like to call it. The Chronicle ran a story last week, entitled: “Stand-up comic Carlos Mencia is not afraid to offend ethnic groups. Luckily, he’s funny.”

They failed to mention another important fact: He’s not white, or else he wouldn’t get away with it.

In his act, Mencia has made fun of white people, black people, people of Middle Eastern descent, gays, the mentally disabled and a few other groups we’re forgetting — and he is not shy about hurling racial epithets. He has saved himself only a little grief by skewering his own demographic the hardest; one of Mencia’s less Nobel prize-worthy moments is his nearly single-handed re-introduction of the word “beaner” into the mainstream lexicon.

Maybe James Seiff should’ve used a snare drum when he delivered the line. Ba-da-boom!

So, why did we reference this story? Because Carlos Mencia, whether you find him funny or not, offers some excellent perspective on the matter.

When Mencia hears a groan or two amid the uncontrollable laughter in the audience, he stops the show only long enough to taunt the offended parties, and then once again defends his words.

“If I’ve got a black joke and I can’t tell it in Oakland, then I shouldn’t tell the joke anywhere else,” Mencia said during the show. “If I’ve got a gay joke I can’t tell here, I shouldn’t tell it anywhere else.”

Offstage, Mencia doesn’t apologize for anything. If anything, he seems excited that his newfound fame allows him to tell a larger audience to chill out.

“Here’s the problem: People have completely and utterly forgotten one thing when it comes to communication — intent,” Mencia says during the interview, explaining why he thinks it’s OK for a white or Latino guy to call a black guy “nigga,” as long as the black guy is cool with it. “We focus so much on words today — the actually literal bull — grammar, that no one asks about intent.”

Exactly. Apply some reason. People need to stop being so reactionary, because it’s leading us down a path where we don’t want to go.

For some, being reactionary is a political tool; it gets them attention. But for most, it’s become a learned habit.

In recent weeks, many having been expressing concern about protecting liberty and freedoms, but wiretapping is not the culprit. What should be really feared is the continued practices of forcing behavior and dictating speech. Group think, that which controls how people interact with each other is, by far, the greatest enemy of freedom.

In the meantime, we’re sure James Seif and his semantical faux pas will be forgotten. Just as long as he doesn’t try to apologize too hard, and decides to call Swann his “nigga” — cause that just ain’t gonna fly.

DISCLAIMER: We haven’t been following Pennsylvania’s gubernatorial race and don’t know much about either candidate. However, we are pleased that Swann is running as a Republican.

“Swann, who is seeking to make history by becoming Pennsylvania’s first black governor, has no experience in public office but enjoys statewide name recognition from his years as a Pittsburgh Steelers player and a college-football analyst for ABC Sports.”

We recognize the importance of attracting more blacks to the GOP, and are glad that the odds are in his favor. Hopefully, that doesn’t make us racist.

UPDATE: (1/29)
We can’t get a link to this story from Michelle, but others blogging on the subject:

Rodger Morrow
TigerHawk
Independent Conservative

Looks like we’re the only ones giving Seif the benefit of the doubt. Guess there’s none of that these days in matters of race.

This entry was posted on Saturday, January 28th, 2006 at 12:06 pm and is filed under Culture, Elections, Liberals, Op-Ed, Race. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.