The Irrelevance of Liberal Hypocrisy

Why Richard Thompson Ford’s opinion doesn't matter. (He's a moonbat)

Stanford Law School Professor and author of Racial Culture: A Critique,Richard Thompson Ford, recently wrote an article on Slate claiming Joe Biden’s latest racist sentiments, that Barack Obama is "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy" do not matter ostensibly because 1) he is a Democrat and 2) actions speak louder than words.

Ford claims LBJ was a racist, but still passed civil rights legislation, therefore, LBJ’s "professional and personal dealings seem free of the stain of bigotry." In other words, actions speak louder than words.

Ford continues his point:

By contrast ... one need not think President Bush a bigot in his heart to think that his reaction to Hurricane Katrina bore the hallmarks of racial insensitivity. If Bush didn't care about black people in New Orleans, that was not because of his personal racial animus, but because of his institutional priorities. This was not a political constituency that mattered to him.

... a political party or executive branch that allows racial prejudice and indifference to affect decisions is a larger problem than the bias of an individual. Presidents don't make decisions in a vacuum—they make them as leaders of administrations and in reaction to political pressures. So, their decisions are more like institutional decisions. A president who resists the pressures to ignore the needs of relatively powerless minority groups, like the Katrina victims, is one who deserves our support—whatever his latent personal attitudes. My vote's with the next LBJ

Translation: Sure, Biden may be a racist at heart, and Bush may not be a racist at heart, but it is better to have a racist like Biden as president, who we can pressure to stick up for minorities, than a President like Bush, who is not a racist but will fail to stick up for minorities because Republican administrations do not favor minorities or feel their political pressure.

Let me break this down a little: Liberals like Stanford School of Law Professor Rich Ford believe that it is OK for Democratic leadership, even the President of the United states, to be bigoted racists... as long as they are Democrats. As long as they are "one of us."

Republican Racism = Condemnable, nay villifiable
Democrat Racism = No big deal.

Of course this is blatant hypocrisy, but Stanford Law Professors can justify such blatant hypocrisy. Rich Ford believes that the entire executive branch, which ironically is composed heavily of lifelong bureaucrats of both the Republican and Democratic persuasion, becomes a racially prejudiced branch of government, indifferent to the plight of minorities and immune to their political pressure when a Republican is in office; however, when a Democrat is President, even when he is a bigoted racist, the executive branch magically transforms into an institution which reacts to political pressures in favor of minorities.

Put another way, Rich Ford believes that it’s OK for Democratic Leadership to be racist because ultimately the racist leadership must appease their voting base, which is comprised of many black voters.

The irrelevance of liberal hypocrisy is this: no-one cares that a distinguished law professor from an elite Ivy League Law School, who is himself a minority, will write an amazingly hypocritical article downplaying remarks made by a disgusting racist like Joe Biden. The article will go largely unnoticed and pass quietly away into the garbage heap of history.

Here is the relevance of liberal hypocrisy: You get what you vote for. Enjoy your racist leadership, you deserve it for voting for them.

And a final note for Stanford Law School: You are only as good as your faculty.

Ford's Thinking at work:

Thoughts on '08: Democrats

As is a growing trend, I am breaking up this post into segments because it is running long and so I can work on the segments at my leisure

Can you believe how much talk there is about '08? I think the 2008 Presidential Elections will be the most vicious, divisive, ridiculous election yet. The Democrats, coming off of a strong 2006 election season are trying to keep their momentum going through 2008. Unfortunately for them, they will likely repeat the same mistakes they made in '04: the dems will pick a loser.

Here is what I mean: in 2004, the two front runners going into the primaries were a flip-flopping, waffling, whatever-the-consensus-is-at-the-time, poll watching hack who had an extremely weak record on defense (mainly because after Vietnam he slandered his fellow soldiers, repeatedly making accusations which either made him an admitted war criminal OR a liar) and who was largely considered to be "very liberal," John Kerry. His opponent was the relatively unknown candidate who appeared even weaker on defense. This candidate literally blew his own chances with a resounding YeeeHaaaw!!! The even more liberal, antiwar candidate: Howard Dean.

Neither candidate was a particularly good choice to unseat a relatively popular (at the time), strong on defense, wartime incumbent president. Democrats might point out that the election was still, very, very close; however, the Republicans won across the board. For Democrats, '04 was another step back and a loosing grip on the throat of the American taxpayer.

But then came '06. The lies about Iraq and one-sided reporting, after years of failing to get real traction, finally took hold. The left succeeded in turning the American public against the war effort (otherwise known as the effort to kill terrorists and keep America safe). With public discontent on one of the biggest national issues, and a fair dose of discontent with a Republican congress that failed to keep promises and lost sight of its conservative values, the democrats were able to win enough seats in the House and Senate to turn the political tide in D.C.

Believing they have a "mandate" from the people, the Democrats have begun down a path of self-destruction. From "symbolic resolutions" to threats of impeachment, the Dems are pursuing an extremely risky approach to governance. With only razor thin margins in the House and Senate, the Democrats must walk a fine line. Unfortunately for Democrats, they don't know where that line is, and they continue to cross it.

Speaking of crossing the line, Kerry did it.. again.

Updates: As I continue to update my thoughts on '08: Democrats, I will post new links here:
Hillary Clinton.