The Redhunter

In discussing the supposed hate crime that Reps. Andre Carson, Emanuel Cleaver, and John Lewis imagined for the benefit of the press corp when they marched to the Capitol to approve Obamacare, Mark Steyn sounds surprised that Rep. John Lewis would engage in such behavior. But he should not be.

The so-called "icons" of the civil rights movement who have gone into politics have proven on many an occasion that they are willing to slime their opponents with false claims of racism for political gain, including John Lewis. When I was nominated to the FEC, Lewis claimed I had "downright contempt" for the law and the "voting rights of Americans" and that I wanted to suppress the votes of black Americans. My crime? Supporting state laws that require voter identification at the polls, a requirement that the Supreme Court has found to be perfectly constitutional. In fact, I had committed the unspeakable act of publishing a law review article on the subject! (I kid you not). Yet because I held a view of the law that the Supreme Court agreed with, Lewis basically accused me of being a racist, someone in the same class as the hateful segregationists he fought against half a century ago. My experience with him and civil rights organizations like the NAACP and the Leadership Conference for Civil Rights is that they are willing to say or do anything, no matter how false or malicious, against anyone they perceive as their political opponents.

Well then. If Lewis will accuse someone of being a racist over this, he's at one with Joe McCarthy himself.

Ever since I could first vote I've had to show identification when I voted. It's seemed like a commonsense way to avoid fraud. Yes yes, in the past we had the poll tax, and I'm sure requiring an ID was used to prevent black people from voting. But it's 2010, for pete's sake. I'll support a law giving people free ID's if that's what it takes. But in this day and age if advocating voter ID makes you a racist, then the term has no meaning.

Thursday Update

Democrats Reek of George Wallace
The Washington Times
By Ray Hartwell
April 7, 2010

Charges of intolerance are leveled routinely at those who question the administration's policies. To listen to the accusers, one would think the entire history of racial discrimination and discord in this nation were properly laid at the feet of Republicans. History teaches otherwise.

I grew up in the Deep South, a John F. Kennedy Democrat....

The shameful politics of racial division were practiced skillfully by the demagogues of the day. They were all Democrats...Sen. Al Gore Sr. of Tennessee and other Democrats, filibustered against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 57 days.

It was the Democratic Party that conceived, implemented and perpetuated the pernicious system of racial discrim- ination and preference that arose early in the last century and finally crumbled in the 1960s. They did this in order to sustain their own power. It worked for them, but not for the people. The Jim Crow system not only was morally reprehensible and responsible for much injustice over many years, but also clearly retarded economic growth. This hurt whites and blacks alike for decades.

As of 1963, the Republican Party had a long record of support for civil rights legislation - not so the Democrats. Republican support for the major civil rights legislation enacted during the presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson was stronger than that of the Democrats...

There was a time when majorities in both parties (even if narrower among Democrats) endorsed the equal treatment of all Americans, without regard to race...

Sadly, however, the ascendancy of "colorblind" politics in the Democratic Party was fleeting. The Democrats were the masters of racial patronage; with hardly a hiccup, they took the game to another level. Where once they played on the fears and prejudices of whites, they found new "victim" constituencies to "protect" with pledges of government largesse and favoritism.

So, blacks and perhaps Hispanics, among others, became the new and increasingly dependent beneficiaries of racial preference. Other "peoples of color," such as Indians and Asians, perceived as intent on self-reliance, generally were not among the favored. Thus, the same old game resumed, with a cynical new arrangement of pieces on the playing board. Once again, the Democrats sought gain through divisive means, playing on fear and resentment.

Then as now, opponents were attacked personally. For a Wallace supporter, it was easier to brand someone as an "agitator," or worse, than to engage in a substantive discussion about the virtues and vices of racial segregation and discrimination. Better to smear the opposition, especially when your position on the merits is weak.

Today, many Americans are unhappy that Congress has enacted, in a dramatically partisan fashion, sweeping "health care" legislation that entails unprecedented federal interference in doctor-patient relationships, an array of new and higher taxes, and unsustainable increases in government spending. Similarly unwelcome are the union sweeteners, the student loan takeover and the "expert" panels that will restrict access to medications and treatments...

In response, the Democrats revert to Jim Crow tactics: Change the subject via personal attacks. They hurl accusations of "racism," and use the vulgar sexual innuendo "tea-bagger" to assail fellow Americans who oppose the administration's aggressive expansion of federal power.

In fact, in all of the issues raised by the dissenters, there is not a trace of race. Would people be equally concerned if Hillary Rodham Clinton were in office and moving forcefully to implement the same agenda as President Obama? I think so. Or, would people march in protest if a President Colin L. Powell or Condoleezza Rice were pursuing more moderate policies? I think not.

I don't know that "Jim Crow tactics" is exactly right, but that's quibbling. Our modern-day Democrats are certainly McCarthites.

While we're at it, let's define our terms. The Free Dictionary defines McCarthyism thusly

1. The practice of publicizing accusations of political disloyalty or subversion with insufficient regard to evidence. 2. The use of unfair investigatory or accusatory methods in order to suppress opposition.

Seems like what John Lewis and others like him are doing.