By David C. Stolinsky | November 3, 2011
We’ve seen it all before, and we hoped not to see it again − but we are, 20 years later. “It” is the hypocrisy of Democrats. “It” is the thinly veiled racism of liberals. “It” is the disgusting stereotype of the hypersexual black male, which used to be spread by Southern Klansmen, but now is spread by Northern liberals.
I used to put “liberals” in quotes when I pointed out the profoundly illiberal beliefs that some so-called liberals hold. But if people define themselves as liberals, who am I to deny them their self-assigned description? If that type of behavior is what they consider liberal, then who am I to say it isn’t? Liberal is as liberal does.
Let me take you back to an ugly chapter in American history. In 1991 the first President Bush nominated Judge Clarence Thomas to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court. Let me remind you of the witness who testified against Thomas, Professor Anita Hill, who had worked for Thomas a decade earlier at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Hill spoke of sexual harassment, which she had not complained of at the time, but on the contrary had asked to continue working for Thomas. In fact, when testifying in support of Hill, a witness mentioned that Hill had complained of harassment before Hill worked for Thomas, when Hill was working for a prior employer. But the hearing was promptly recessed, and when it resumed, the witness corrected her “error.” And who was the attorney who advised the witness? Janet Napolitano, now Secretary of Homeland Security. How “secure” is that?
But what do I know? I’m not a lawyer. I alter my conclusion to suit the evidence, not the other way around. In any case, this is some of what Hill testified about Thomas:
He spoke about acts that he had seen in pornographic films involving such matters as women having sex with animals and films showing group sex or rape scenes. He talked about pornographic materials depicting individuals with large penises or large breasts involved in various sex acts. On several occasions, Thomas told me graphically of his own sexual prowess…
He got up from the table at which we were working, went over to his desk to get the Coke, looked at the can and asked, “Who has pubic hair on my Coke?” On other occasions, he referred to the size of his own penis as being larger than normal, and he also spoke on some occasions of the pleasures he had given to women with oral sex.
So there you have it: the archaic stereotype of the black male: hypersexual, interested in sex with animals, boasting about the size of his organ, and posing a threat to all women in the vicinity − especially white women, Hill didn’t have to add.
Thomas was finally moved to utter a stern rebuke, calling the hearing a “high-tech lynching” and adding that even a seat on the Supreme Court wasn’t worth being humiliated in this way. Thomas was confirmed, but barely − the Senate voted 52-48. Thomas went on to a distinguished career on the Supreme Court, which I hope will continue for many years. But the cloud of unsubstantiated allegations will follow him to his grave − and no doubt will be mentioned prominently in his obituaries in the mainstream media.
Of course, if a conservative were to accuse President Obama of having sexually harassed a female employee a decade ago, he would be called a racist − and then ignored by the media. But being liberal, liberals believe themselves immune to the charge of racism.
And so we come to the present, and to the accusations against Herman Cain − which he denies. The accusations are unsourced, so there is no accuser to be questioned as there was in the Thomas case. The accusations are second-hand, so there is nothing specific to prove or disprove. Logically, this makes the case weaker − there is nobody and nothing definite to back it up. But psychologically, it makes the case stronger − how can Cain disprove vague allegations from unknown sources?
Thus far the accusation appears to be that 12 years ago, when Cain headed the National Restaurant Association, two female employees accused him of sexual harassment − or was it merely making them feel uncomfortable by his language? Reportedly no complaint was filed, and the association paid the women severance packages.
I was once called on the carpet by my boss because a female employee overhead me talking to someone in the hallway and using the word “childish.” She thought this referred to her, but in fact it referred to my own colleagues. Fortunately, this did not affect my career, but it might have if I were younger and just getting started.
Thus far there is no one testifying before TV cameras. But perhaps we can look forward to more details:
● Perhaps liberals will explain why they are focusing on trivia when 9% of Americans are unemployed and 15% are on food stamps, Iran is developing nuclear weapons, and the Muslim world is falling under the domination of extremists.
● Perhaps liberals will explain why they believe women are strong enough to be in ground combat, but also weak enough to need protection from unwelcome words in the workplace. How self-contradictory.
● Perhaps liberals will explain why they now pose as protectors of women, but they laughed when Letterman called Sarah Palin “slutty” and joked about her 14-year-old daughter being “knocked up.” How self-revealing.
● Perhaps liberals will explain why they trivialized President Clinton’s real sexual activity with an intern half his age in the Oval Office (“It’s only sex”), but they pretend deep concern about Cain’s allegedly making women feel uncomfortable 12 years ago.
● Perhaps liberals will explain why they looked the other way when Democratic Congressman Barney Frank’s partner ran a gay prostitution ring out of their Washington apartment, but they feign outrage at Cain’s alleged misdeeds.
● Perhaps we can be treated to versions of what Cain was alleged to have said to the women, or what the alleged “gesture” was that made them uncomfortable. According to Cain, he held his hand to his chin and said, “You’re about as tall as my wife.”
● Perhaps we can even hear about hairs on Coke cans and the size of organs.
● Perhaps the mainstream media can again lower themselves to the level of tabloids.
● Perhaps journalists and TV anchors can lower themselves to the level of paparazzi.
● Perhaps we can all lower ourselves to the level of Peeping Toms, eager for some juicy piece of raunchy gossip or lewd innuendo.
● Perhaps politics can sink even lower, though this seems unlikely.
But once, just once, wouldn’t it be grand if a black male conservative could rise to national prominence without being smeared with archaic, nauseating sexual stereotypes? Wouldn’t it be nice if once, just once, a prominent African American could run off the liberal plantation without the dogs of sexual accusation being set on him? And wouldn’t it be nice if once, just once, a prominent Hispanic like Marco Rubio could escape from the liberal plantation without being accused of falsifying his résumé?
Democrats accuse Republicans of being racists. But it is Republicans, especially conservative Republicans, who back Cain, a black man, to be their president. And it is Democrats, especially liberal Democrats, who accuse conservatives of racism, yet these same liberals are the ones slandering Cain.
You could call this situation paradoxical, but it is typical of liberal hypocrites who project their own racist feelings onto conservatives. It is liberal hypocrites who believe that blacks are inferior and need their help. And it is liberal hypocrites who become furious when blacks are impertinent enough to become self-reliant − that is, free at last.
Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.
www.stolinsky.com
No comments:
Post a Comment