Samuel Silver
http://www.jewishworldreview.com -- AFTER THE Republican Party’s Convention, the Democrats and the media constantly claimed that the inclusion of individual members of minority groups as speakers, especially Blacks and Hispanics, was nothing but an illusion.Newsweek referred to it as the “inclusion illusion.” This claim shows either a misunderstanding of the political distinctions between the parties, or at a minimum, a feat of intellectual dishonesty in order to mislead the American people.
The major distinction being ignored is that the Republican Party still believes (with some inconsistencies) in the underlying principle of our great country – individual rights; whereas, the Democratic Party and its liberal/socialist supporters believe (very consistently) in “group” rights.The Declaration of Independence states that all men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” This concept of individual rights gave birth to the freest nation in the history of the world, The United States of America.The notion of “group” rights, which came into mainstream America through the Democratic Party starting with FDR and especially since the 1960’s, creates an abstract right that takes away G-d-given individual rights and somehow assigns them to a “group.” The individual then becomes the servant of the group.
“Group rights" are not new.They were the basis for many primitive and brutal tribal societies, and in the 20th Century were the basis for modern totalitarianism – both Nazism and Communism – which led to the death of 100 million individual human beings.Both of these movements eschewed the Judeo-Christian values that were the foundation for individual rights in the United States.The Nazi’s, who were pagans, determined membership in their group (Aryans) and their enemies’ groups (non-Aryans) purely by genetics.The Communists, who were atheists, based membership on a combination of ideology and genetics, as they believed that ideology could be passed down genetically.Their use of ideology in dividing people into groups has become enormously popular today in the “political correctness” being enforced in most American Universities.
Of course, dividing Americans into groups is the best way to rule them. Divide and Conquer still works as a political strategy and has become the mainstay of the Democratic Party’s strategy for the Federal Government to rule instead of serve the people. That is why there is so much emphasis on groups: gays, seniors, Blacks, Hispanics, women, environmentalists, the disabled, public school teachers, etc.
The ideological approach to group designation leads to really unusual definition of groups.For example, politically conservative Blacks such as Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams are not considered part of the “official” Black community.In a sense, liberals define them as non-Black.In the same way, politically conservative women are not part of the “women’s groups” as presented by the Democrats and media.The most interesting example of this is Hillary Clinton’s assertion, never challenged by the media, that her opponents only disagree with her because they must not be able to deal with strong women. What about Elizabeth Dole, Margaret Thatcher, Lynne Cheney, Jean Kirkpatrick, Condoleeza Rice, Governor Christie Todd Whitman, etc? These are all strong women greatly admired by the “vast right wing conspiracy,” but since they do not share the liberal/socialist ideology, they obviously are not considered to be “official” women by Ms. Clinton and her supporters.
Democrats and believers in “group” rights look at people only as members of a group.When these groups are genetic, such as Blacks, women, or Hispanics, this leads to and exacerbates racism and discrimination.A society that recognizes and enforces individual rights through the free market and limited constitutional government will tend to minimize racism; whereas, a society that divides individuals into groups and only recognizes their rights as members of that group will by definition generate racism.Although, liberals consider themselves the champions of minorities, it is their ideology of dividing people into groups that fans the flames of racism – another example of the “law of unintended consequences.”
These two approaches to rights also lead to differing policy proposals.The individual rights philosophy leads to free market solutions for most policy issues, with focus on individual Americans regardless of “group” membership.The “group” rights approach leads to collectivist government solutions that focus on the various official “groups” as defined by the incumbent power structure.If you are not defined into one of the “in” groups, you are out of luck!
If one reviews the Republican Convention from a perspective of individual rights, you see a party reaching out to individuals of all races and backgrounds who share a common political philosophy based on individual rights.This was eloquently stated by Condoleeza Rice in her Convention speech, when she stated that she, a Black woman, was a member of the Republican Party because the Republicans accepted her as an individual.Her comments were critical to a proper understanding of the Republican approach to “inclusion”, yet I have not seen nor heard them in the mainstream media.She and other individual speakers from various minorities, such as General Colin Powell, were not on display as “tokens,” but as potential key participants in the Bush administration.
Since the Democrats and their supporters in the media view rights and politics through the lens of “groups,” they only appreciate policy prescriptions and political approaches directed to groups, not to the American people as individuals.Unfortunately for the Republicans, the media acts as if the Republicans do not have any ideas unless they couch them in the “group” rights terminology.Instead of lauding the Republicans for reaching out to individuals from all races and genders, they claim it must be an illusion since the Republicans do not adhere to the liberal approach to “group” politics.Either they do not understand or choose not to understand.I hope for the former, but fear the latter.
The mainstream media have accepted (whether consciously or subconsciously) the premise of “group” rights, and they do not see or make this distinction.As a result, they do not even realize the “liberal bias” they demonstrate by analyzing the Republican Convention from the liberal “group” rights perspective and not from the Republican’s “individual rights” point of view.This is typical of media “liberal” bias.They claim that their attacks on the Clinton/Gore administration prove their objectivity and lack of bias, but these criticisms are always about form, and never about substance.They will mildly criticize Bill Clinton for Monica Lewinsky or the administration for foreign policy tactics, but they will never challenge them on liberal ideology or for the substance of their “extreme left-wing” positions on issues such as the environment or healthcare.
If the media truly wants to be objective, they must understand the underlying premises of the political parties and present them within the
proper context. Out of context analysis and reporting serves only the members of the favored group (in this case, the Democrats) and does
not serve the needs of all the American
Samuel Silver, a board member of Toward Tradition, writes from Greenville, Mississippi. Comment by clicking here.
