Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Why I Must Defend Barbara Boxer

Why I Must Defend Barbara Boxer

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

We’ve all heard about the little dust-up between Black Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Harry Alford and Democrat senator Barbara Boxer during an Environment & Public Works (EPW) hearing on “green” jobs. Boxer, the chairman of the EPW committee, was trying to refute a report commissioned by Alford’s organization stating that the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act — which I’ll call “cap-and-sap” — would actually cause a net reduction in jobs. So, marshalling her arguments, she cited many sources that support cap-and-sap — among them the NAACP and the leader of 100 Black Men of America.

This didn’t sit too well with Mr. Alford. He responded, “Madam Chair, that is condescending to me. I’m the National Black Chamber of Commerce, and you’re trying to put up some other black group to pit against me…All that’s condescending, and I don’t like it. It’s racial.”

In a later interview, Alford was even more pointed in his criticism, saying that his Boxer match was “like being in Mississippi in 1945” and “vile Jim Crow.” He described the essence of the senator’s comments thus, “Colored boy, what are you doing with this sophisticated report?”

Well, Mr. Alford, tell us how you really feel.

Now, although I had never heard of Alford before this brouhaha, I like what I see; he seems a stand-up fellow, down-to-earth, commonsensical, sincere and spirited. In other words, the antithesis of a liberal. I also could not agree with him more on cap-and-sap. I go even further in fact: it is part of a destructive agenda often animated by diabolical motivations. Nevertheless, I must do something that is a first for this scribe: defend Barbara Boxer.

At least, that is, a little bit.

Lest I be misunderstood, I think Boxer is the worst politics has to offer — this makes her the worst of the worst. And I can certainly see why she would have irked Alford, as she was not only condescending, she was her usual imperious, supercilious, paternalistic self. And this is par for the course. Remember when Boxer chided Brigadier General Michael Walsh for abiding by military protocol concerning the addressing of those of higher rank and calling her “ma’am”? It was a pathetic display. But, then again, the general did err. It takes a bit of detachment from reality to view Boxer as any kind of superior. There are better things to call her.

Yet, having said all this, a good man can be wrong and, well, you know what they say about a broken clock. So, I ask, was her approach during the hearing truly reflective of bigotry?

It was certainly racial. Boxer never would have cited the NAACP had a white man been locking horns with her. But everyone seems to be missing the pink elephant in the middle of the room: Alford isn’t the president of the Chamber of Commerce.

He is the president of the Black Chamber of Commerce.

I’ll illustrate this fairly obvious point further. Let’s say I’m head of an organization called the Catholic Chamber of Commerce and I appear before the right honorable Senator Boxer. Now, would it be surprising if, in an effort to sway me, she cited opinion rendered by the Catholic League and Opus Dei? Or should I accuse Boxer, a Jewish woman, of anti-Catholic bias? Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure the woman is anti-lots of things; regardless, it wouldn’t be just to accuse her of bigotry simply because she inferred my passions from my associations and built her argument around them. After all, if you’re going to define your organization based on a characteristic, you cannot blame people for viewing you through its prism.

I’ll also point out that during Alford’s opening statement he said the following, “that [the projected disparate impact of cap-and-sap] worries me and my members because the black community suffers mightily when the economy goes south.” Of course, Alford’s emphasis on the black community reflects a special concern for it; given this, however, is it surprising that Boxer would counter by citing entities that lay claim to having the same special concern?

The answer is obvious. Despite this, however, many of my ideological brethren are now using the EPW incident to paint Boxer as a bigot. And, insofar as this goes, I regret to say that they’re guilty of intellectual honesty. Oh, I do understand the overwhelming temptation. The senator and her leftist ilk wrote the book on playing the race card and using Stalinist tactics to destroy opponents — and they do it for the most specious of reasons. There are the examples of Bill O’Reilly and golf commentator Kelly Tilghman, who innocently used a variation on the word “lynch” during commentary about blacks; there was university student Keith John Sampson, who was persecuted simply for reading an anti-Ku Klux Klan book; and then there was the pillorying of Rush Limbaugh over his analysis of black quarterback Donovan McNabb’s boosters. These are just a sampling of numerous instances where the left sent lynching parties after those they hated for only one reason: because they could.

Thus, just as when Hillary and Bill Clinton were accused of bigotry while campaigning against Barack Obama, the Boxer controversy is an example of liberals being mauled by a hoary and horrible monster of their own design. And many conservatives relish the chance to give the left a taste of its own medicine because, well, now they can.

It takes a good dose of rationalization to convince oneself that something only racial is “racist.” This may be easy for the left, but for those on the right it probably takes a bit more effort. This is because many liberals are so detached from reality, so solipsistic and relativistic, that they mistake their feelings for truth. They have the lie on retainer. Conservatives, on the other hand, embrace it only occasionally, as a consultant.

Another difference between the right and left is that we traditionalists know we’re called to be better than that. We know that the Truth will not only set us free and carry the day when the last chapter is written, but that it’s all we have. The lie will never serve us like it does the liars. That is, unless, as they have done, we make it our master.

And the Truth is the point. Whenever we peddle that lie called the race card, we contribute to the mass delusion and lessen the chances that the Truth will be known, all for some momentary political gain. We trade something beautiful for thirty pieces of silver. Liberals make this a practice, and it’s why they’re contemptible. But, remember, silver is all they have.

As for my friends on the right, for the moment, I could be even madder at you. After all, your trespass is the greater. You forced me to defend Barbara Boxer.

Powered by

About Selwyn Duke

  • Clavos

    Interesting point, with more than a grain of truth as regards this episode.

    That said, Barbara Boxer is still a despicable, arrogant, condescending shrew.

    Her tongue lashing of General Walsh was ignorant and childish.

  • Baronius

    I saw a clip of the incident. I don’t know what transpired beforehand, but Alford was thoroughly ticked off even before Boxer entered those statements. Maybe it was his fault, maybe hers, but they were already on the train to Bittertown.

  • RJ

    Excellent column. It’s absurd for the head of the BLACK Chamber of Commerce to accuse anyone of being “racial.”

    That being said, Barbara Boxer is still lower than pond scum. Just for other reasons.

  • RJ

    Hmmm. This column is over 24 hours old, is highlighted on the front page, is well-written, and focuses on both race and politics…and it’s only got 3 replies???

    Has the recent site redesign reduced the volume of comments that significantly?

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Well, I can’t speak for anyone else, RJ, but personally I’m not quite sure how to respond to a conservative who’s decided that pretending racism doesn’t exist is more important than opposing Democrats.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Or it could just be that the points made in the article are basically indisputable.

    Dave

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    Or it could be a subject no one cares about.

    Or it could be that the author is narrow-minded ideologue whose previous work has turned people off.

    Or it could be that Roger hasn’t stumbled across it.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Leave Roger out of it.

  • Arch Conservative

    Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein…..it’s a full time job keeping tracking of all the useless liberals [gratuitous vulgarity deleted] from CA.