Reid Unmasks Realities of Liberal Democrat "Sensitivity"

Were Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) ever to switch political parties and become a Republican, the liberal media reaction would be to suddenly "discover" his past membership in the Ku Klux Klan, which would thereafter be relentlessly reported until he was hounded from office in disgrace. Yet as a Democrat, his former participation in an organization that harassed, oppressed, and at times murdered black Americans is known. But Byrd somehow remains immune to that dubious association, and to this day he sits as one of the most esteemed and venerated members of the United States Senate.

In the newly released book "Game Change" that has generated enormous controversy, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D. NV) was quoted asserting Barack Obama's electoral advantages for being "light skinned" and capable of speaking with "no Negro dialect," while former President Bill Clinton disparagingly harkened back to a day in which Obama would have been relegated to "getting us coffee."

Had either been Republicans, calls for their censure (and in Reid's case, immediate removal from office) would have been instantaneous from both sides of the political aisle. As Democrats however, their standing is in no more peril than that of Robert Byrd. Democrat sensibilities on issues of race are only "inflamed" when doing so will advance their political agenda. Otherwise, such matters are derided as cheap distractions from the important issues of the day.

In truth, Democrats have never been the champions of racial justice that they claim to be. The tasteless words from Reid and Clinton, and more importantly, the unfettered willingness of the Democrat Party and its media lapdogs to rally around them, cannot be construed in any other manner. Appalling as this single episode is however, the entire scope of the situation is far worse still. Liberal Democrats will patronizingly champion minorities, if so doing might gain them political traction. Yet they will just as quickly invoke the lowest and most demeaning racial stereotypes and degradations of minority opponents who pose an obstacle to their agenda.

Harry Reid's appraisal of Barack Obama, abominable though it may be, pales in comparison to the malicious and overt racism from liberals directed at Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. Yet then as now, the remainder of the Democrat cabal offered no complaints or apologies. Their real disdain for minorities, and in fact, all liberal "special interests" (other than as fodder for the liberal agenda) was on parade then and, as proven by their solidarity in supporting Reid, remains so to this day.

The real truth of liberal Democrat contempt for the black community is much more egregious still. The plight of urban families can be directly tied to the malignancy of the "nanny state." Rampant crime, drug addiction, and the general hopelessness of the inner cities were maladies born not from officially sanctioned segregation and discrimination (such things have been outlawed for nearly half-a century) but from the entanglements of a bloated government that thrives on the backs of a dependent underclass.

Likewise, the overt racism of a failed public school monopoly, itself a product of Democrat political efforts, promises to maintain the oppression of inner-city blacks to a degree that Jim Crow ordinances could never have accomplished. And as long as the hapless recipients of this insidious poison are willing to accept it, thereby enabling its sponsors, they and their progeny can expect more of the same from the liberal political machine.

Similar principles hold true for every other subgroup of the American population that the liberal establishment seeks to first isolate and then court on the basis of its victim status. Many misguided women accept the absurd notion that as the Party of abortion, the Democrats are their personal champions.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Women, even those who had been faithful liberals, but who became potential political liabilities to the Clinton Administration can well attest their grim fate once their usefulness to the liberal cause is depleted. And the moment a woman dares to advance herself on the public scene by any means other than toeing the liberal party line, the real regard held by liberals towards femininity in general will be revealed. The vicious, demeaning, and by any liberal standard "sexist" attacks against former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin stand as irrefutable evidence.

Likewise for Asians, Hispanics, or any other segment of the population to which the left seeks to grant favored status. Hacked computer files revealed that Miguel Estrada, as a Hispanic judicial nominee in the Bush Administration, faced a coordinated Democrat attack specifically based on his ethnicity. Yet did the Democrats seek to amend or correct their overt bigotry in any way? On the contrary, they merely stuck to their despicable plan while caterwauling about the wrongful means of gathering the information.

Liberal sanctimony on the issues of race, gender, national origin, and religion is, and has always been, invoked on an extremely selective basis, surgically targeted for the sole purpose of advancing liberalism. And as such, it is the epitome of hypocrisy. Ultimately, the fate of its beneficiaries and/or victims is of no consequence to those at the pinnacle of liberal power.

It is sad that all too often, the conservative opposition has allowed the left to play such games with impunity. It is sadder still that those groups pandered to by the left will not see the current situation for what it is, and will not recognize the real purpose why, as ostensible "special interests," they are maintained in that status. Thus they do their utmost to ensure that their marginalization from the bounty and promise of America will likely continue in perpetuity.