After I finished reading a New York Times op-ed
about South Carolina’s newly appointed U.S. senator, I was puzzled as to why
this “prestigious” paper would publish the incoherent ravings of a political
science professor. This lunatic is upset
that a Republican governor, who happens to be a woman whose parents are
immigrants from India, would have the nerve to appoint a black conservative to
fill out the term of a white conservative.
Why the audacity of that.
According to Professor Adolph L. Reed Jr. the appointment
of Tim Scott is just a ruse. The
esteemed professor believes this black man is being used much like a bug zapper
to attract other blacks to the Republican Party. It
wasn’t because Mr. Scott’s ideals and beliefs mirror that of fellow conservatives
in the Palmetto State. That had nothing
to do with it at all. It was because of
his race. Such are the musings of an
identity oriented academic.
Not only is Professor Reed an elite racist, he is
also inconsistent. Here is his take on
the Tea Party:
Mr.
Scott’s background is also striking: raised by a poor single mother, he
defeated, with Tea Party backing, two white men in a 2010 Republican primary: a
son of Thurmond and a son of former Gov. Carroll A. Campbell Jr. But his politics, like
those of the archconservative Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas, are
utterly at odds with the preferences of most black Americans. Mr. Scott has
been staunchly anti-tax, anti-union and anti-abortion.
Even if the Republicans managed to distance
themselves from the thinly veiled racism of the TeaParty adherents who have
moved the party rightward, they wouldn’t do much better among black voters than
they do now. I suspect that appointments like Mr. Scott’s are directed less at
blacks — whom they know they aren’t going to win in any significant numbers —
than at whites who are inclined to vote Republican but don’t want to have to
think of themselves, or be thought of by others, as racist.
Why would the Tea Party vote a black man into
office if they’re a bunch of racist?
This is laughable. What is even
more laughable is the esteemed professor calling the Republicans cynics, when in
fact it is he who’s the cynic:
For
Mr. Scott, the true test will come in 2014, when he will presumably run for a
full six-year term. As Mr. Obama has shown, the question is not whether whites
are willing to vote for a black candidate, but whether black candidates can put
together winning coalitions (no matter their racial makeup) and around what
policies. I suspect black South Carolinians will not be drawn to Mr. Scott.
The trope of the black conservative has
retained a man-bites-dog newsworthiness that is long past its shelf life. Clichés
about fallen barriers are increasingly meaningless; symbols don’t make for
coherent policies. Republicans will not gain significant black support unless
they take policy positions that advance black interests. No number of Tim
Scotts — or other cynical tokens — will change that.
I have a suggestion for Professor Reed. Why don’t we elect people who advance the
interest of all Americans, and not just subsets? That concept is alien to liberals, especially
the ones in academia.
