Saturday, October 30, 2010
Analysis of a Taibi Rant
Matt Taibbi gets on my nerves. I see him as purely partisan, rabidly partisan. I have never seen him say one kind thing about any of his opponents. He does seem to be in possession of a wider fund of factoids than the average lefty talking head. But I have quit trusting his use of factoids since I feel sure that he would never offer any context that might in any way diminish their support of his pet positions. He is just too much on the a constant offensive to inspire trust. Brad Schaeffer who wrote a piece for Breitbart’s Big Journalism on a recent piece by Taibbi seems to like him more than I. But he ends up as suspicious of Taibbi’s arguments and conclusions as I am. I am offering a couple of long quotes from Schaeffer’s piece since they are very insightful. Keep an eye on Big Journalism because Schaeffer is due to write more about Taibbi.
"For Matt, like many on the far left, can only see one possible explanation for the genesis of the movement. The Tea Party’s appeal must be rooted in… (wait for it)… RACISM! Well of course! And so (yawn) here we go again.
"Taibbi offers as evidence that at a right-wing Gospel rally in Kentucky he didn’t see a single black face (doubtful, but for sake of argument we’ll take him at his word). Therefore, the Tea Party is a racist movement. I would imagine if he set foot in a Baptist Church in Harlem he wouldn’t see a single white face. Would that make the entire Baptist Church an anti-white organization? Here’s a thought. Could it be more a matter of mathematics than attitude that the Tea Party is predominantly white? This is an admittedly ad hoc equation, but do the numbers: Blacks made up 13% of the 2008 electorate. Now, in the last election 94% voted Democrat. So, in all of the country, the pool of black Americans who did not vote Democrat is just 6% of 13% or a mere .78% of the total voting population. That is a pool of roughly 1 million people. This paltry sample out of a voting population of over 131 million. Perhaps then the true story behind the mostly white complexion of the rallies is not that blacks are excluded, but rather an overwhelming number of them are affiliated with the opposition party. Cynically keeping an entire race captive as wards of the state to ensure a reliable voting block suits the Democratic Party and profiteering race hustlers like Al Sharpton just fine. But it belies Taibbi’s thesis of rampant bigotry inside the Tea Party movement and, by default, a GOP which has fielded more black candidates this election cycle than ever before.
"Among many charges Taibbi claims that: “They blame the financial crisis on poor Black homeowners” Really? I didn’t know Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, the execs at Fannie, Freddie , AIG, various Wall Street banks, Countrywide (just to name a few culprits with whom the Tea Partiers I know have issue) are poor black men. Franklin Raines is black, yes, but hardly poor. He goes on to harp on the right’s “reports about how the New Black Panthers want to ‘kill cracker babies.’” Is that not what their Philly leader King Samir Shabazz said? Try to imagine Taibbi’s outrage if a Tea Partier suggested “killing non-white babies.” And since when is questioning racial favoritism in the Justice Department off limits? Incredibly Taibbi even sees racism in the Tea Partiers’ objections to Charlie Rangel, who, yes, happens to be black. So what? Naturally, it has nothing to do with him a being chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee who cheats on his taxes. Does he honestly believe that were Rangel white he’d get a pass? Give me a break Matt! I myself have penned several articles on Rangel’s indiscretions.
"As you can tell, the man’s color never enters my mind. But it does enter Matt’s. And that’s the point isn’t it? In fact, to label Taibbi as a tad race-obsessed is about as much of a stretch as to label DeNiro’s Al Capone handy with a baseball bat. And, propelled by his textbook liberal white guilt complex, Taibbi’s race-tainted Louisville slugger comes whistling down hard on the back of the head of a movement that in my travels I have found to be anything but racist."
"The thing is, it never dawns on guys like Taibbi who deal out the race card with the proficiency of a riverboat gambler that perhaps of all the people viewing the world through race-tinted glasses, he is among the biggest offenders. Oh right, I forgot, only right-wingers are capable of racism. A white male left-wing journalist who spends so much of his time characterizing everyone and everything he sees on the basis of ethnicity, who surely sees a black person or awhite person rather than just a person, surely is not a racist at all. Just ask him. This is a man who, in a discussion with Dana Loesch recently, found Glenn Beck’s rally “offensive” because all he saw was “100,000 white people gathering on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.” Don’t tell that to Alveda King. Again, race, race and more race from this post-racial reporter. When pressed, however, he admitted he wasn’t even there."
". . . As much as they pay lip service to “the marketplace of ideas” liberals stopped caring about any opinions but their own a long time ago – and are quick to either patronize or demonize those with opposing views, all the while preaching tolerance. (Ask Juan Williams). This close-mindedness is grounded in a sense of intellectual and moral superiority through which they view their place in the world. It is a condescending attitude that practically oozes off the pages of this article. They see themselves as the sole arbiters or truth, justice, and enlightened thought and so if you oppose them you cannot be doing so from a reasonable point of view. Therefore some baser motivation must be driving this opposition to their iconic symbol, Barack Obama, who by the way is black. Ah-hah! Any opposition must be driven by racial animosity then. And that is the arrogant premise from which the Matt Taibbi’s of the world strike out in search of their stories. The problem for him is that outside of the dwindling group of the MSM faithful, no one but themselves are buying the false narrative anymore. And so, as the election nears, and they see the tidal wave of rejection (based on principles, not skin color) of so much of what they stand for – and thought they had finally achieved in 2008 - building on the horizon, they will lash out with ever more disingenuous pieces that masquerade as journalism."