This morning I heard nonagenarian Daniel Schorr, hands-down NPR’s least informed, most annoying commentator, explaining away the protests against ObamaCare as a pre-packaged protest organized by the insurance industry. MyLeftnutmeg.com says the same thing. Former Enron adviser Paul Krugman pays lip service to that conspiracy theory in his latest NYT column but goes one better: it’s really all about angry white Americans who can’t stand the sight of a black man as our president.
[C] ynical political operators are exploiting that anxiety to further the economic interests of their backers.
Does this sound familiar? It should: it’s a strategy that has played a central role in American politics ever since Richard Nixon realized that he could advance Republican fortunes by appealing to the racial fears of working-class whites.
Many people hoped that last year’s election would mark the end of the “angry white voter” era in America.
I’m charged with racism by commentators here, too – apparently one can’t oppose Obama without being a racist because he’s uh, black, dude. Yes he is, and a majority of Americans voted for that black man so he’s now our president – every American’s president. I protest against him for the very reason I voted against him last November: I don’t like his policies. For some reason, Krugman, Schorr et als can’t understand that, even though they have no difficulty disagreeing with Justice Clarence Thomas. In their world, to disagree with a liberal black man is racist; a conservative black? Hey, dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
I think that this type of left think is blind, and I think that, by dismissing opponents of Obama as tools of the insurance companies and white racists, these people are missing what’s going on out in the amber waves of grain. You’d expect politicians to be more tuned in than that, but it’s so easy, and comfortable to ignore those who disagree with them that they sometimes get blindsided. “What’s the matter with Kansas?” They don’t like socialism. Period.