President Clinton is apparently having a tough time getting his
ghostwriters to produce a book on race relations that he had hoped might
salvage his legacy.
Two deadlines have come and gone, and the lead consultant on the
project has come and gone as well.
Clinton planned to use the book to kick off a national dialogue on
race. Clinton loves national dialogues about anything and everything. He
sounds so sincere and compassionate when he talks about the
victimization of others and all the wonderful things his administration
has done to solve seemingly hopeless problems. OK, I’ll bite. If Bill
Clinton wants to have a national dialogue on race, let’s have one.
Evidently Clinton has in mind a pretty strong statement for his
unnamed book, which would set the tone for this dialogue. Christopher
Edley, a Harvard law professor who left the project recently in
frustration, is not only an unabashed supporter of racial preferences
(meaning discrimination based on skin color), but also apparently
considers himself a socialist revolutionary.
He labeled a book critical of racial preferences as “a crime against
humanity,” according to the London Times. He has attacked other
opponents of racial quotas as counter-revolutionaries who want to
“protect the distribution of privilege and opportunity that has produced
white male elites in virtually every sector.”
“Clinton has voiced sympathy with such views in the past and the
effusive support of blacks for the president in his worst political
crises, including the Lewinsky scandal, has helped to sustain him in
power,” reports the Times. “Perhaps the first president who appears
genuinely comfortable among blacks, Clinton used a visit to Africa at
the height of his troubles last year to apologize for slavery. He also
supports affirmative action.”
Clinton apparently wants the book to argue that if racial tensions
are ignored, the U.S. could face the sort of ethnic bloodshed witnessed
recently in Kosovo.
I would turn that statement around 180 degrees. If the prescriptions
chosen for racial problems in America are those of Clinton and Edley,
America is heading for a balkanization that will be violent and
You see, the problems in the Balkans are the result of hundreds of
years of division and strife between peoples of different ethnic and
religious backgrounds. At one time or another, each group has victimized
another, thus creating an endless succession of blood feuds. All we
witnessed last year leading up to the NATO bombardment of Serbia was the
latest eruption in 700-year-old conflict. Clinton called it genocide.
The U.N. called it war crimes. Many of us recognized it for what it
really was — overblown acts of civil war.
Interestingly, in the case of Kosovo, the “cure” administered by Dr.
Clinton and his associates in NATO was worse than the illness: More
civilians actually died as a result of bomb attacks than had been killed
during the events leading to the attack.
That’s just where Clinton is trying to lead the nation on race —
more division, more strife, more inflammatory rhetoric, more
bomb-throwing. During the 1960s, Clinton and his friends tried to
“heighten the contradictions” to bring about such reaction with marches,
protests, sit-ins and confrontation. Today, Clinton and his friends are
using all the coercive power of the most potentially violent government
in the world to show favoritism to certain racial, ethnic and gender
groups — with the same purpose, dividing people into classes so they
can be subjugated by government.
Clinton’s Kosovo analogy may not be far off at all. In effect, that
is just the strategy employed by NATO — selecting one warring tribe
against another and imposing our will on the target by force and
Don’t take Clinton’s words lightly. Occasionally he actually says
exactly what he means. When he tells us race relations in America are
headed the way of Kosovo, just remember how much Clinton enjoyed blowing
up those schools and hospitals and playgrounds in Serbia.