I will never forget the first time I felt comfortable with my
decision to become a Republican. It was just before the 1990 Texas
elections. My wife and I were leaving an Austin fund-raising “wake”
for Clayton Williams, the Republican nominee for governor of Texas.
“Claytie” was a bright businessman with big ears, a wide smile, a
quick wit, tremendous wealth … and not a lick of political sense at
all.
Claytie started his campaign with a sizable lead over Ann
Richards, a former school teacher who represented the left wing of
the Texas Democrat Party. By that sad night, his mouth had clearly
opened once too many. Somehow, Claytie had managed to spend
$8 million of his own dollars to snatch defeat out of the jaws of
victory.
As my wife and I walked past camera crews waiting for
candidate Williams, a young white couple shouted “what are you
minorities doing supporting a Republican? What have these people
done for your people?”
The arrogance of these white, liberal racists stunned my wife
and me. I quickly responded that “I am not a minority. I am an
American and I can support whomever I want. You know, I left the
Democrat Party because of racists like you who can only see a black
face and not an American citizen.”
The male said: “You are not an American, you are a minority.” I
got right up into his face and said, “I am not a minority. That is a
word that white liberals created that I reject.” He yelled back, “Oh
yes you are a minority, there are more of us than there are of you.” I
told him that “you are so wrong. There is only one of me and only
one of you. Anyway, there are many more people of color in this
world than whites. I am an American and you can’t define me.”
At that point, I was ready to send him straight to hell, but my
wife grabbed my arm and pulled me away. As we walked away,
white Republicans who had witnessed this “discussion” looked back
at the camera crew in shock. For the first time, they saw the power
and fury of white liberal racism. For the first time, they saw how
white liberals try to act like plantation owners. For the first time,
they saw why most Americans of color cannot stand bleeding heart
white liberals.
Before that confrontation, I had been struggling with the
tension between my conservative beliefs and my feeling that
Republicanism equaled southern racism. That encounter in 1990
erased any doubt I had about the wisdom of my conversion. From
then on, I was committed to the destruction of bleeding heart
liberalism, wherever its slimy head appeared.
When I started my career as a legal services attorney in 1972, I
thought that liberals really cared about the poor, the oppressed and
people of color. Twenty-six years later, I have learned that while
some have good intentions, many liberals are closet racists. They
claim to be “sensitive, progressive and concerned,” while in reality
far too many of them truly do not believe that blacks or Latinos are
as smart as they are. In fact, their liberal orthodoxy cannot exist in a
world where blacks and Latinos no longer “need” their help.
Strong people of color threaten bleeding heart white liberals.
This tension has existed since the days of the abolition movement.
In the 19th century, Frederick Douglass had to fight his white
“brothers” so that he, an ex-slave, could speak out against slavery at
abolition meetings. The history of white liberalism is a history of
their refusal to respect Americans of color who defied white liberal
orthodoxy. We saw it most recently when white feminists refused to
acknowledge the significant contributions of black women in the fight
for suffrage.
One of the most egregious examples of white, liberal racism
occurred in Texas in 1996. White liberals who controlled the
Democrat Party of Texas did everything they could to deny Victor
Morales sufficient funds to wage an effective campaign against
Republican Sen. Phil Gramm.
Many Democrats told me that the leaders of the Democrat Party
of Texas decided that they would rather concede a Senate seat to the
GOP than to help a Hispanic become the most powerful Democrat in
Texas. The reason was simple. In many counties in South Texas
where 80-95 percent of the residents are Latinos, white Democrats control
the political machinery. The fear was that if Victor Morales won or at
least ran a strong race, he would empower Latinos all over South
Texas to throw off the yoke of their white liberal Democrat plantation
owners. That simply wouldn’t do.
Bleeding heart white liberals give lip service to the ideal of
intellectual equality. When you scratch them, you find insecure
people who need to “know” that blacks and Latinos cannot compete
with them on an equal footing. It is not surprising, therefore, that
bleeding heart liberals are the loudest supporters of “separate but
lower” affirmative action admission standards. They like race-based
affirmative action programs because they reinforce their belief that
whites are the master race.
Bleeding heart white liberals argue that we must integrate
schools so that their children will have access to a “diverse”
classroom. What do they mean by this word “diversity?” Do they
mean that they want their little children to know what it means to
compete with and lose to brighter black and Latino children? Does it
mean that they want their children to learn that most people of color
are conservative or moderate?
No, for most bleeding heart white liberals, “diversity” means
that they want to bus black and Latino children across town like zoo
animals so their children can get a head start on “relating” to their
future employees. It is not surprising, therefore, that black and
Latino parents are at the forefront of efforts to end busing and
expand school vouchers. They know that white liberals don’t care
about the education of their children.
Americans of color are still amazed at Bill and Hillary Clinton’s
refusal to fight for Lani Guinier, a “close friend” and former Yale Law
School classmate. Bill planned to nominate Lani as his assistant
attorney general for Civil Rights. However, when conservatives
labeled Lani the “quota queen,” Bill refused to send forward her
nomination. He claimed that he had not realized how “radical” Lani’s
positions were.
I have known Lani Guinier for decades. She is a thoughtful,
decent, brilliant woman. While I do not agree with all of her
positions, Lani deserved the right to defend her beliefs before the
Senate Judiciary Committee. Bill Clinton claimed that he hadn’t read
Lani’s writings and didn’t know what Lani thought. That was an
outright lie.
Bill, Hillary, Lani and I were all classmates at Yale. Bill and
Hillary stayed in touch with Lani after graduation and even attended
Lani’s wedding. When it was time for Clinton to stand firm with his
“colored” friend, however, he left her hanging in the wind.
To this day, black Democrats ask me how Clinton could fight for
a crook like Webster Hubble and not stand by Lani Guinier. To this
day, black Democrats ask me how Bill Clinton could abandon a black
woman who was his friend when George Bush stood tall for Clarence
Thomas, a man Bush didn’t even know. To this day, black Democrats
ask me why Bill Clinton has only white males in his inner circle when
George Bush had black men in charge of the military and White
House relations with Congress.
I tell them that Clinton’s betrayal of Lani Guinier is further
evidence that bleeding heart white liberals do not respect people of
color. I tell them that bleeding heart white liberals are parasites
whose economic survival demands the continuation of oppression,
racism and poverty. I tell them that they will never be free until
they reject the oppressive yoke of bleeding heart white liberal
racists. Unless, of course, they like what they see in Appalachia.
