So after witnessing the waves of antipathy across the country toward President Obama’s policies, New York Times writer Charles Blow introduces his readers to the term, “aversive racism.” It’s a sinister kind of prejudice, Charles explains, that reveals itself in disagreements based on factors “other than race.”
A simpler definition of aversive racism?
If you say it’s not about race, then it’s really about race.
See: if you’re against socialized medicine, it’s really because our President, who’s for it, is black. If you’re against the redistribution of wealth because it goes against your own beliefs in free markets and individual achievement – it’s because Obama is black. If you’ve done a lot of research on global warming, and decided it’s hypothetical hooey – that belief is now racist, since Obama buys into climate change hysteria.
Isn’t it awesome how everything you believe in, is now just proof you’re a bigot!
That’s why aversive racism might be the greatest invention ever for the left, because it exempts them defending their own screwy beliefs. If you disagree with any worn out or destructive “progressive” idea – then you must be a hood-wearing hater. It’s the low-down trick to end all low-down tricks, and it gives the left what it so desperately needs: immunity for their reviled beliefs.
As a rightie, I don’t see color – a black liberal and a white liberal are all just liberals. But it’s different on the left. Progressives hate conservatives, but they hate black conservatives more. They hate right wingers, but they hate Hispanic right wingers more. They hate Republicans, but they hate female Republicans more. This intolerance it directed purely at people different from themselves, reflecting the reverse of aversive racism: real racism.
And if you disagree with me, then you’re most definitely a racist.
Tonight we’ve got S.E. Cupp, John Devore, Trace Gallagher and a special guest (hint: it’s another Breitbart blockbuster…he really is a human firework).