I don’t know how to fix race issues, but anger at race-baiters won’t help

By David McElroy · April 7, 2015

I just saw a politician engaging in ridiculous race-baiting and my first reaction was to angrily denounce her.

My anger was hot and my self-righteousness ran strong. I wanted to condemn her in strong language and make it clear that she’s the sort of person who continues to make race a serious issue in the country. (I’m not going to mention which extreme she was representing, because it doesn’t matter.)

But in the space of 60 seconds, I went from anger at her to frustration with myself. I’ve now stifled my instinct to angrily point out how wrong she is and how she’s using race in a divisive way — not because that would be inaccurate, but because paying so much attention to such divisive people is what gives them so much power.

Race is one of the ugliest problems we have in this country today, and I understand the frustrations and grievances of certain people on both sides of the black/white divide. (Adding Hispanics and the interests of smaller ethnic groups complicates the question even further.)

I understand why so many blacks are angry at the way they were historically treated. That’s not ancient history to many of them. It’s family history — things that happened to parents or grandparents or aunts or uncles — or maybe even things that have happened to them. Many black people have been treated in shameful and disrespectful ways, both by government and individuals, and it has left scars and mistrust of white people and of authority. I do understand why they feel that way.

On the other hand, I understand the frustration and anger of many whites who see black race hustlers gain power and use the rhetoric of race to destroy cities through taxation, abuse of power and pure neglect and incompetence. Many white people are angry at being blamed for things they had no part in, so they’re resentful of efforts of many people to make them feel guilt. They’re angry at continued efforts to set up official double standards of racial discrimination as an alleged remedy for racial discrimination.

There are plenty of grievances to go around — and it’s not always easy to understand someone on the other side. I’ll never know what it feels like to be a black male who is automatically deemed less trustworthy and as more of a safety threat. Yes, I understand the statistical reason for why some people feel this way, but it’s more of a cultural heuristic at this point. Blacks and whites don’t know what it feels like to grow up in the world of the other, to a large extent.

Although there is more racial closeness than there once was, the truth is that most whites and most blacks live in their own cultural bubbles. Even when we intellectually understand each other, it’s almost impossible to emotionally understand the other, even though some of us try.

But as long as we keep paying so much attention to the angry race-baiters on the other side, we just get more and more divided. When black people see an example of race-baiting white politicians, it’s easy for them to unconsciously believe that represents what white people believe. When white people see examples of race-baiting black politicians, it’s easy for them to unconsciously assume the same.

Before long, everything we see is confirmation of what we already believe. We see bad people on the “other side” as typical. We see bad people on “our own side” as aberrations, if we notice at all. And the racial gap gets wider and wider this way.

There has to be a better way, even if I don’t know what it is yet.

I don’t pretend to know how to fix racial problems. I only know that when we attack the extremist idiots on either side of this, we frequently perpetuate stereotypes of both — and we make those people stronger because those on their own side become even more sympathetic to them because they’re being attacked.

I’m angry and broken-hearted by the overall situation, not just one group or the other. Something has to change, but indulging in the need to angrily point out what somebody on one side or the other has done isn’t going to help. It’s just going to harden positions and make people feel even more separate.

Even if I can’t fix things — because I don’t know how — I don’t want to make things worse. So I’m not going to call out a ridiculous politician who was playing to her ignorant voters today. I’m not going to indulge in my instinct to be self-righteous.

I’d rather think about how people of good will on both sides can know each other better and I’d rather think about how we can marginalize the angry race-baiters on both sides. Attacking them because of their public statements simply makes them stronger.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts