PayPal

Monday, February 18, 2008

NY Times’ Frank Rich: White Men Must Commit Political Suicide

By Nicholas Stix

In Frank Rich’s New York Times column yesterday (you know, the same one he’s rehashed hundreds of times before, with slight edits), he speaks of the “demographic monotony: all white and nearly all male” of Sen. John McCain’s (Media-AZ) victory “posse” (“The Grand Old White Party Confronts Obama,” February 17, 2008).

Rich tells us that in victory, “McCain looked like a loser,” and that his white men supporters are an “albatross.”

Imagine if he had said that female or black or Hispanic political supporters were an “albatross” around a candidate’s neck, and made him “look like a loser.” But he wouldn’t dare. He’d be out of a job, and the column would be killed.

If, as Rich says, white men supporters are an “albatross” around McCain’s neck, then the only thing for the Republican frontrunner to do is to tell them, “White men, leave me alone; I only want women and people of color to vote for me.”

That would guarantee Gov. Mike Huckabee (Christian Opportunist-AR) the party nomination. And if the Huckster followed Rich’s advice, it would guarantee the Democrats the biggest landslide in American history.

Rich claims that in being dominated by white men, “A cultural sea change has passed [the GOP] by.” On the contrary, today’s GOP is a response to that sea change. Beginning in the 1960s, the Democratic Party undertook its Northern Strategy. Its leadership decided that promoting racist and sexist hatred towards heterosexual white men was the wave of the future. Millions of heterosexual white men got the message and exited the party. The rich ones stayed, because the party’s policies did not harm them, as long as they mouthed the racist, sexist slogans, and made generous contributions.

Rich wants the Democratic ticket to win, whoever heads it, because he is a Democratic hack. His pompous, racist, sexist rhetoric is the expression of his party loyalty. Rich is one of those privileged, white, heterosexual males who still have status in the Democratic Party. He’s probably not even aware that, as Steve Sailer first showed about eight years ago, the statistical and political key to any Republican winning isn’t in jettisoning white men and pandering to blacks and Hispanics—which McCain’s already been doing for years—who will never support him, but in reaching out to more whites. As Sailer has shown, were any GOP candidate to get 60 percent of the white vote, he would be guaranteed the White House.

In contrast, the innumerate Rich closes with, “A national rout in 2008 just may be that Republican Party’s last stand.”

But McCain won’t get 60 percent of the white vote, because he’s not reaching out to "that Republican Party." For the past eight years he’s done everything in his power to appease the Frank Riches of the press corps. He’s consistently screwed over white folks, and given Rich & Co. everything they said they wanted: Unconstitutional campaign finance reform; unconstitutional open borders; opposition to tax cuts.

Rich actually acknowledges McCain’s anti-white, anti-Evangelical, and anti-American positions (though not in those terms), but they don’t matter to him, because, at the end of the day, McCain is still an old white man. He’s not cool. Obama is black, and thus cool.

Rich conjures up a couple of wealthy, white male Republicans, including a political operative, who support Obama. In what used to be called rhetoric, this is called “bandwagoning,” and is real bottom-of-the-barrel stuff. ‘See, they eat Diabetic Shock Cereal, you should, too.’

Similarly, Mark McKinnon, the Bush media maven who has played a comparable role for Mr. McCain in this campaign, reaffirmed to Evan Smith of Texas Monthly weeks ago that he would not work for his own candidate in a race with Mr. Obama. Elaborating to NPR last week, Mr. McKinnon said that while he is “100 percent” for Mr. McCain and disagrees with Mr. Obama “on very fundamental issues,” he likes Mr. Obama and what he’s doing for the country enough to stay on the sidelines rather than fire off attack ads.


As craven and decadent as the elites running the GOP are, the idea that wealthy, influential, white Republicans would vote for a racist, socialist Democrat just because he’s black is still pretty hard to take.

Let’s take another look at that title again: “The Grand Old White Party Confronts Obama.”

No. For the title to bear any relation to Rich’s words, he would have had to come up with more than one named political media operative and an anonymous “staunch anti-Clinton Republican businessman” that we’re supposed to believe is a “friend” of Rich’s.

Between the title and the text, this is Frank Rich projecting his hopes. Ever since Times columnist and black, racist newsroom enforcer Bob Herbert began his subliminal liar campaign on behalf of Barack Hussein Obama (Race-IL) in 2004 (‘He transcends race/vote for him because he’s black’), the Times has sunk to new lows in political rhetoric, in its attempts to gin up support for the racist, socialist, sometimes kinda Moslem, sometimes kinda Christian, biracial senator.

In any event, there’s a certain poetic justice to a man like McCain, who has stabbed so many people in the back, getting a dose of his own medicine from his media guy.

I used to be a Democrat; I even considered myself a “liberal,” until I figured out that the word meant “socialist/communist/whatever.” But after years of facing Democratic racism, sexism, and heterophobia, I left the party. I never bothered changing my voter registration because, after all, I still live in New York City, and aside from that, at present, it really doesn’t matter what party I register under.

Unlike Frank Rich, I’m not a hack for any party.

According to Rich, the hip thing for white, heterosexual, working and middle-class white men to do would be to vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama. But he can’t give a single argument on behalf of his position. All he can do is mock white men Republicans, in the hopes that he will somehow shame them into voting against their own interests.

And he wonders why the majority of heterosexual, white men vote Republican.

Poor Rich. Fifty-eight years old, and never had a thought. Intellectually, he’s still a virgin. He’s always lived in an echo chamber of socialist (or is it communist?) slogans, and never stepped outside. He shows no awareness that Republican politicians were more supportive of the 1964 Civil Rights Act than Democrats. Does he even know what party Lincoln led?

If Rich left his echo chamber and had a thought, he’d know that the GOP has no more to offer working and middle-class white, heterosexual men than the Democrat Party does.

It’s time for a new party.

A cultural sea change has passed you by, Frank.

5 comments:

Michael Watts said...

This is a stunning, stunning article. I am floored by the directness, the forcefulness, the righteous anger. I'll bet Nicholas will never write one of those disgusting "affirmative action is unfair to blacks" articles. This site has just been dragged to my favorites bar. I was looking for a donate button -- maybe I missed it.

Right on!

Howard (Las Vegas,Nevada) said...

If Frank Rich drove a cab in New York City would he still love "minorities" so much?

Anonymous said...

The diverse white American men (also known as the diverse European American men) must learn to speak out of their proper continent-of-origin voice to resist the widespread campaign of defamation that is carried out against them. Freeing themselves from names, labels, slurs, and stereotypes that have been pasted on them by the Other will be the first step in regaining our continent-of-origin voice.

Anonymous said...

Frank Rich, meet Nora Ephron:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nora-ephron/white-men_b_97669.html

Anonymous said...

"until I figured out that the word meant “socialist/communist/whateve"

Mr. Stix, I appreciate your making the point that, while we understand what the lefties are up to, we do not have a good, accurate label to stick on them that we can make stick.

One thing the left is good at is changing definitions of words to suit their purposes. This makes them too slippery for us to call them on their misbehavior.

I have, many times in debating with a lefty, pointed out his hypocrisies, etc. But rather than address my complaint, they use semantics tricks to dodge the issue. "I'm not X. I'm Y." So my complaint gets buried in the faux outrage they express at me using the wrong term.

I have, like you, started saying "Marxist/leftist/Communist/whatever." But it gets too wordy for me to make my point.

Which IS the best term for them? Collectivist totalitarians, maybe?Need something pithier.