Democratic debate so white? So what?

by Jeff Jacoby

NEXT WEEK, Americans will pause to honor the civil rights giant whose famous dream was of a society in which no one would be judged by the color of their skin. This week, however, some Americans who claim to care deeply about civil rights are judging the Democratic candidates who will debate Tuesday night by the color of their skin.

Six candidates have qualified for the Des Moines event: Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, Tom Steyer, and Elizabeth Warren. That sextet comprises Democrats who are male and female, straight and gay, old and young, superrrich and middle class, career politicians and political newcomers, ardent East Coast socialists and pragmatic Midwest liberals.

For a bunch of Democrats, that's pretty diverse.

Unless, that is, your idea of diversity is the kind that's only skin-deep.

Under an ominous headline — "Only white candidates have qualified for the Democrats' January debate" — the Washington Post reports that "the specter of an all-white debate" is prompting concern among party activists and "threatens to undercut the party's rhetoric of inclusivity." Indeed, the story notes, "the whiteness of the debate stage — and the top candidates — has been an issue for weeks."

An issue for whom? For social justice warriors and the political journalists they court? Maybe. For most Democratic voters? There's no reason to think so.

It's true that none of the six candidates in this week's debate are black or Asian. That isn't because minority candidates have been excluded from the Democratic debate process. It's because none of the candidates of color still in the race met the threshold for participating in the debate (contributions from 225,000 donors and 5 percent support in at least four polls). Neither did several white candidates.

The shrinking debate stage doesn't reflect a failure of "inclusivity" on the part of the Democratic Party, whose voters, officeholders, and priorities make it the most racially inclusive party in American history. Reasonable minds can dispute whether the party's criteria for joining the debates are sound, but even to hint that those criteria were adopted to keep nonwhite candidates from the spotlight is absurd. Party leaders would be thrilled if Deval Patrick, Andrew Yang, and Tulsi Gabbard had made the cutoff. (Another nonwhite candidate, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, ended his campaign Monday.)

Unlike party leaders, however, rank-and-file Democrats haven't shown much interest in the nonwhite candidates. Rank-and-file black Democrats haven't shown much interest in the nonwhite candidates. It is frequently said that black voters yearn for candidates who "look like" them, but there is no evidence of it in the Democratic presidential race. Quite the opposite.

A new Washington Post-Ipsos poll of black Americans demonstrates that African-American voters yearn above all for a nominee who can defeat President Trump. A solid majority, 57 percent, say that beating Trump is their most important consideration, far above the 33 percent whose top priority is a nominee with positions close to their own. When asked which candidate they think can win, a whopping 53 percent choose Biden. Sanders runs a distant second, with 18 percent seeing him as likeliest to defeat the incumbent.

Black voters are now the backbone of the Democratic Party. They know what most sensible voters know: The "rhetoric of inclusivity" is well and good, but the point of parties is to win elections. By a robust margin, older black voters think Biden can win, while younger black voters are counting on Sanders. That's why Biden and Sanders top the Democratic field. They are the candidates black voters support.

Obviously black voters aren't averse to supporting a viable black candidate. Their enthusiasm for Barack Obama was off the charts. But they aren't about to back a candidate just because his or her skin isn't white — nor reject a candidate just because it is.

Like nearly all candidates who run for president, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, and Julian Castro didn't make the cut. Their color had little to do with their lack of success: Most white candidates fail too.

In fact, the Post-Ipsos poll found, most black Americans don't care whether the Democratic vice presidential nominee is black.

If a white candidate wins the nomination, respondents were asked, "how important, if at all, would it be to you personally that the nominee choose a vice-presidential running mate who is black?" An overwhelming 72 percent said it was either "not so" important or "not at all" important.

Many candidates run for president. Nearly all of them fail. For black Democrats focused on November, the goal isn't to elect a president who isn't white, it's to elect a president who isn't Trump. The candidates they favor may not look like them, but they'll be front and center in the debate.

SOURCE 





Why things are about to get a lot worse for Jussie Smollett

If Jussie Smollett had last year pleaded guilty to some minor charge, done 90 days of community service and paid a substantial fine to reimburse the $130,000 worth of overtime costs rolled up by Chicago police detectives investigating his ludicrous assault claims, he might today be in full rebound mode. Picture it: The tearful, dramatic mea culpa with Robin Roberts. A bold admission — “This is on me” — followed by a deflection of blame to drugs or alcohol or the dark demons of hate we all know are lurking out there, waiting for third-tier television stars to emerge from sandwich shops. A charity concert. A blessing from Al Sharpton. Some lighthearted banter with Stephen Colbert. Then, gradual forgiveness and maybe another TV deal.

What Smollett did instead looks increasingly stupid. He admitted nothing and even doubled down on his fantasy tale of a late-night attack by men supposedly roaming the streets with a noose and a bottle of bleach. He was handed the opportunity by the office of State’s Attorney Kim Foxx, which dropped charges without demanding a guilty plea because he had supposedly already been punished enough, by secretly serving a few hours’ community service and forfeiting a bond of which he paid a mere $10,000. But if he was the victim of a crime, why should he forfeit one dollar or agree to one hour of community service? Worse: The real criminals are still out there!

Led by the then-mayor and the then-CPD superintendent, outrage about Smollett’s lies caused the appointment of a special prosecutor, Dan Webb. So the story lives on. Smollett has not been nailed, and Chicago wants him nailed. He will get nailed. The postman always rings twice.

Webb has won the right to comb through Smollett’s e-mails, the Chicago Tribune reported last week. Smollett is not exactly a meticulous master criminal. The day the story broke, Jan. 29, he was already telling different versions of his tall tale to the press and the police (who, if I know anything about police, therefore grokked that he was lying on the very first day).

A Chicago judge approved the special prosecutor’s request for search warrants to obtain from both Smollett and his manager “not just e-mails but also drafted and deleted messages; any files in their Google Drive cloud storage services; any Google Voice texts, calls and contacts; search and Web browsing history; and location data.” Ouch. There is no chance that all of this information will back up Smollett’s made-for-TV claims about men roaming around looking for gay television actors to beat up while chanting MAGA slogans.

The search warrant was granted way back on Dec. 6, and since the judge ordered Google and its “representatives, agents and employees” not to disclose his order to turn over the records because it might “jeopardize an ongoing criminal investigation,” Smollett presumably had no idea his records were even being seized until the Tribune report ran on Jan. 8. So lots of things Smollett said privately before and after the most notorious fake attack by nonexistent evildoers since “The War of the Worlds” radio show are about to become public. Smollett’s career appears to be on pause. His income must be minimal after Fox fired him from “Empire.” His legal bills are piling up. Oh, and Dave Chappelle openly mocked him and rechristened him “Juicy Smollée.” Will the humiliation never end?

Smollett is not the only one on the hook. Foxx, Smollett’s apparent ally who let him skate, seems to be feeling the heat and has retained outside legal counsel. Foxx hired a lawyer to represent her personal interests and also brought in a former chief judge to respond to Webb’s inquiries about the state’s attorney’s office. This latter problem is costing taxpayers a significant amount: The lawyer is being paid (at a rate of $250 to $375 an hour) with public funds. Foxx is running for re-election but faces three Democratic opponents in a March primary. Seems like it won’t be long before Special Prosecutor Webb uncovers what really happened with the case. The good news for Smollett, who in November 2018 posed on Instagram in a shirt emblazoned with the word “TRUTH” in gigantic letters, is that he will at last be freed from his lies. After being forced to confess, he can get to work on rebuilding. Let the fake-apology tour begin!

SOURCE 





Omar Blasts Iran Sanctions, Defends BDS

This radical leftist appears to view the U.S. (and Israel) as the villain and Iran as the victim.

Blasting President Donald Trump for raising new sanctions on Iran over its missile attack against U.S. military personnel in Iraq, Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar (MN) ridiculously asserted, “This makes no sense. Sanctions are economic warfare. They have already caused medical shortages and countless deaths in Iran. You cannot claim to want deescalation and then announce new sanctions with no clear goal. This in not a measured response!”

Well, the president’s goal is to defend Americans and to stop Iran from terrorizing its neighbors in the region. Trump merely responded with more sanctions when he would have been fully justified to respond to Iran’s provocative missile barrage with more deadly force. That seems the epitome of a measured response.

However, Omar, claiming to be suffering a PTSD moment, failed to see the irony in her own defense of the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement — a movement that calls for sanctions against Israel simply because it is a Jewish state. “The BDS movement is a movement that is driven by the people,” she lamely pontificated. “The sanctions on Iran are sanctions that are being placed to create maximum pressure by a government. That’s very different.” It is very different — sanctioning the terrorist-sponsoring regime of Iran is entirely justified.

Omar’s response brought a quick rebuke from Congressional Leadership Fund Rapid Response Director Matthew Foldi, who observed: “By ‘very different,’ [Omar] is referring to the fact that BDS is a bunch of racist anti-Semites whereas government sanctions have nothing to do with bigotry.”

Omar seems to view America and American values as the problem and an enemy to be condemned an attacked, not her homeland that should be loved and defended. It’s as if Omar is living in a fantasy world where the U.S. is the villain and Iran is the innocent victim.

And with anti-Americans like Omar and “The Squad” leading the way, is it any wonder so many young Americans don’t find much to love about our country?

SOURCE  




Why Two-Parent Homes Are Still Better

No, the benefits of in-tact families are not "a myth," as argued by some on the Left

A family built around two parents has many advantages. Two-parent families are statistically less likely to be poor. They are also less likely to suffer addictions or engage in criminal behavior. Children who grow up in homes where both mom and dad live under one roof have a greater chance to live successful, well-adjusted lives and create stable familial relationships for themselves.

This is not to say that children who grow up in one-parent homes are doomed to miserable lives, but it’s hard to deny that the opportunity for a better life takes a lot more work. One-parent households are predominantly lower income, less educated, and more susceptible to crime and drug problems.

Sociologists, economists, and politicians have struggled for years to find ways to alleviate the inequities dealt to one-parent households. Potential solutions abound, but those suggested by Dr. Christina Cross, a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard University, ignore the core issue and risk making matters worse.

In a shockingly obtuse New York Times op-ed last month, Cross claimed that for black Americans the problem is not a lack of two parents under one roof, but, rather, it’s a lack of access to resources compared to white one-parent families. In other words, more taxpayer money will fix it.

Cross points out that black one-parent households have a tougher time than white one-parent households when it comes to getting and maintaining jobs, obtaining a good education, owning property, and so forth. She then makes the cognitive leap that access to resources alone is the problem for one-parent black families because one-parent white families perform statistically better in these areas. The power of a two-parent household among blacks is “a myth” according to Cross. Rather than stepping back and looking at the larger issues that face all one-parent families, Cross chooses to make a racial divide and drive home the tired leftist narrative about a racist system that has it in for black families.

Perhaps one-parent white families do perform statistically better than one-parent black families across all of Cross’s data points, but what difference does that make? White or black, they are still more likely to be poor, less educated, and more susceptible to a tougher life.

Ian Rowe, senior visiting fellow at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, takes Cross to task for her misguided analysis. Rowe points to data from the National Center for Education Statistics that shows the proportion of black children living in poverty decreases from 45% for mother-only households and 36% for father-only households to 12% for two-parent households.

Rowe also questions how Cross narrowly cites evidence to play down the importance of two-parent households for blacks while ignoring the broader issue of family structure for children of all races. Why does the problem have to be confined to one race? Non-marital births among white women under 24 numbered 238,000 in 2018, far higher than any other racial cohort.

Cross is right to be concerned about the issue of single-parent families, but by choosing to make a racial argument, she makes it that much more difficult to implement the real solution: A more stable family structure benefitting all children, no matter their skin color.

SOURCE 

******************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

************************************