No Such Thing As An Opinion!

Today, CNN published an article written by Contributor Ruben Navarrette Jr.

After reading it, I'm shocked:  I agree with much of what Ruben has written!

I didn't expect that at all!

Why am I surprised that I would agree with him?

Well, although I couldn't recall Ruben with certainty, his name sounded familiar.  For some reason, I felt that he may have once been a member or leader of a pro-illegal immigrant group.

And readers of mine know that I'm certainly not in favor of promoting illegal immigrants who severely drain America's wealth, much less a legal immigration policy that reduces America's competitiveness!

After reading Ruben's article, I did some research.

Ruben's website displays a quote attributed to Lou Dobbs:

"' A few journalists are part of a network, a closed loop, if you will, of radical left-wing, open borders, amnesty-seeking advocates. One of them is a columnist by the name of Ruben Navarrette, who knows, really, in my opinion, nothing about the issue of illegal immigration or the economics of it and certainly even less about journalism. He attacked me in a column, titled Stirring up Anti-Latino Sentiment.   This is the kind of nonsense you get from these ridiculous, small-time, closed-loop journalists seeking amnesty and open borders.'"

Hmm.  I guess my initial inclination likely is correct.  That Ruben is a radical.

Note:  I purposely stopped myself from writing "left-wing radical".  Why?  As of recently, I'm trying very hard to avoid terms that could further polarize political divisions of my readers; sometimes, however, one can't avoid using the terms "left" and "right".  But I'm going to try.  

I'm serious about trying to convince people to reduce their reliance on ideology, serious about promoting the idea that both sides should instead be focusing on determining which policies are best supported by logic and evidence!  Serious about helping to eliminate the fact that there are even sides at all!  

During the first several months my site was published, I found that many readers made it difficult for me to avoid thinking in terms of left versus right.  Readers often incorrectly assumed that I consider myself conservative (either that or, they were simply being accusatory for the sake of it!), and hence would attack me as such (in the comment section).  

No longer.  Although my responses were understandable given the context, I will now attempt to avoid their goading.  I won't let them frame my commentary.  In order to help achieve that, and to improve society's overall communication, I will minimize the use of "left" versus "right" terminology in my articles :)

OK, back to my article :)

Again, after finding out that Ruben may be a radical, it makes it even more surprising that I agree with his article!  (I think "radical" is a fair term if indeed he promotes illegal immigration, since illegal immigration is illegal activity that robs Americans of jobs, wealth and transfers wealth from America to foreign countries!)

Here's what Ruben wrote...my commentary is intermixed.  


What Ruben Wrote

1) The title of his article:

"Both sides must move past Obama's race."

You can imagine my surprise at reading the title.  After all, don't you normally expect pro-illegal persons to play the race card, not to downplay the race card?

Very interesting.


2) He writes:  

"With Barack Obama, it has always been about race. And it probably always will be.
 
Now, as President Obama stands for re-election -- hampered by a job approval rating of just 41%, according to a recent Gallup Poll -- a few of his supporters are playing the race card. Their strategy seems to be to silence critics by implying that anyone dissatisfied with Obama's performance must be motivated by racism. 

Really? Not this again."

and

"'This total lack of respect is downright contemptible -- if not unpatriotic,' Wickham wrote. 'Such contempt, I'm convinced, is rooted in something other than political differences. Today, you might not see the overt actions of racist Southern governors like Ross Barnett or George Wallace in the 1960s. But the presence of Jim Crow Jr. -- a more subtle form of racism -- is there.'

Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts was also blunt in assessing the motives of those who are dissatisfied with the president's performance.

'Obama's denigrators are appalled by the newness of him, the liberality of him, the exoticness of him and, yes, and the blackness of him.'

So, Obama's difficulties, setbacks and shortcomings as president are all because of racism? Someone should check the expiration date on that red herring."


Bravo Ruben!  I'm so glad to see someone speak out about this!

That's what you call logical and balanced writing.

Now, don't get me wrong.  If Obama is being targeted by some due to his race, then it's fair game for discussion (and in fact Ruben's article later provides legitimate examples of people steering the conversation toward race).

But it seems, and it appears Ruben agrees, that race based accusations occur so frequently that they've lost their credibility.  Don't you think?


The Problem With Current Race Related Political Discussions

It's not just that race based accusations have lost their credibility.

Race based discussions aren't balanced. 

Now, do some of Obama's detractors dislike the fact that he appears black (after all, he's as much white as black!), or that a black man is in power?  Of course!  Group based tenses appear all over the world; why would America be any different?

But do some of Obama's supporters support him because he's black?  Do they dislike, or disfavor white candidates because they are white?  Of course!

But you never hear about that, even though it's plausible that racial discrimination plays a much greater role in the voting habits of blacks than it does whites!  After all, 95% of blacks voted for Obama, whereas only 55% of whites voted for McCain (or Ralph Nader or other candidates).

That's 95% black favoritism versus 55% white favoritism.

And yet all you hear from the media are accusations of white favoritism! Rarely black favoritism!  Unreal.

My point is that the narrative in the media is rarely balanced.  It's about as unbalanced as you can get!  Not just because the race card is overplayed when it comes to discussion about white criticism Obama, but because the race card is underplayed when it comes to discussion about black support of Obama.


Are Any Race Related Political Conversations Appropriate ?

You know what?  I'm actually not convinced that it's a poor idea to discuss racial voting habits publicly, but I think that the credibility problem would first need to be overcome.  Remember, the big problem is the fact that the current discussion isn't balanced and is overly accusatory.

But I see nothing wrong with public discussion about the obvious, such as:  A black person is more likely to vote for a black person and a white person is more likely to vote for a white person.

Perhaps if such a discussion were to occur, perhaps people who do vote based primarily on race will start to have second thoughts.  And perhaps they will begin to vote based primarily on a candidates policies.



As for my preferences...although I haven't fully examined the all GOP competitors' views, based on my current impression I would support Herman Cain (unless Donald Trump enters the race again.  I can only hope!)

For those of you that incorrectly believe me to identify as deeply conservative, yes, you read that right:  A white "conservative" supports the black candidate more than all others.