Republicans have been playing defense on the race card for far too long. Their instinctive need to make nice with the trigger-happy race-baiting media has forced so many conservatives into a corner, preventing many of them from engaging in serious discussions about race--how it should matter less, but still matters only because of Democrats who exploit color differences to push their extreme, socialist policy goals.
The last controversy to blow open this genuflective self-loathing among conservatives has emerged around Congressman Steve King and remarks that he made to the New York Times a few days ago.
Here's what Congressman King said:
“White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization
— how did that language become offensive?” Mr. King said. “Why did I sit in
classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization?”
I submit that the one remark "white supremacist" is totally wrong. Putting nationalism and white supremacy in the same sentence is wrong. Supremacy based on skin color is patently ridiculous. Let's be clear, however: Congressman Steve King of Iowa did not advocate for White Supremacy. Congressman King was merely initiating a conversation to put an end to empty epithets from the left which have been routinely conjured up to silence conservatives.
He then went to further lengths to clarify his remarks:
After this article was published Thursday, Mr. King issued a
public statement calling himself a “nationalist” and defending his support of
“western civilization’s values,” and said he was not an advocate for “white
nationalism and white supremacy.” “I want to make one thing abundantly clear: I
reject those labels and the evil ideology they define,” he wrote.
There. Congressman King cleaned up his statements. Many people have uttered misstatements on a range of issues before, and they have corrected myself. So did Congressman King.
Then the real problem arises. What has caused this conflagration of fiery issues and misunderstandings to break out? If one looks closer at the article published by the New York Times, it is evident that they are pushing a substantially offensive bias of their own and right in the title of the article:
Congressman King has never opposed immigration per se. He has been a vocal, consistent critics of illegal immigration, and he has demanded the removal of illegal aliens from the United States. Here's some more context: Mexico enforces some of the most draconian immigration laws in the world. Along the Mexico--Guatemala border, Mexican national guardsmen are instructed to "shoot to kill" illegal alien invaders attempt to break into Mexico. Colombia has a wall with Venezuela, and Israel has two walls. Compared to these countries, the United States is extensively compassionate when it comes to illegal aliens.
As for the New York Times article, their bias toward call King, to call him "anti-immigrant" in the title, is unmistakable. It's worse to lump law-abiding men and women who came into the United States legally with those who break into the United States illegally. Besides that, within the article one finds the following passage:
At the same time, he said, he supports immigrants who enter
the country legally and fully assimilate because what matters more than race is
“the culture of America” based on values brought to the United States by whites
from Europe.
Did King talk about "whites from Europe"? He talked about culture, not skin color. The same Western Culture which taught mankind to value every person as equally precious in the eyes of God, that same Western Tradition animated Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's expectation for that promise to hold true for all Americans, especially black Americans who had endured 100 plus years of segregationist misery following the American Civil War.
The biggest problem time and again that emerges is this dangerous linking of skin color and culture. This discussion must focus on culture, not color. I am a nationalist, but I would not call myself a white nationalist, even if I am white, and even though I am an American nationalist.
Here's why:
First reason: I do not see skin color as immediately or essentially relevant. There was a time when Europeans were called "black" because they had dark hair and a dark beard. I learned this from an Armenian born in Soviet Russia who had heard that term used during her upbringing. She would later study to be a teacher in Long Beach, by the way.
Second reason: the term "white nationalist" has too often become synonymous with those who want a country filled with white people only. The term reflects on nationalism rather than the skin color of that specific nationalist every time. There are terms whose usage becomes so shaped and charged over time, that to use the term invites too much confusion. With all of this declared, let's recall that there is nothing to suggest that Representative King is a racist of any kind.
Then another problem presents itself: this burden for individuals to prove that they are "not racist". This challenge is necessarily frustrating and seemingly without end. How does one prove a negative? People on the Left will still play the race card against any opponent, even if that person had a black wife, Hispanic kids, Asian parents, a long pedigree of non-white, non-European ancesters, etc.
And this was the larger point that Congressman King was trying to make. The "Race Card" has turned into a perennial distraction from the more substantive concerns of our nation. Calling one's opponent racist has remained the number one tactic of the left to delegitimize and silence opponents as well as stifle meaning debate. Case in point? The Southern Poverty Law Center once labeled a Muslim as "anti-Muslim extremist" because of his political views. It did not matter what he thought of Islam or Muslims. His views did not suit the SPLC narrative on Sharia Law, so they smeared him. Thankfully, that individual, Maajid Nawaz, sued the SPLC for defamation, and he collected a $4 million settlement and a formal apologize from that corporate-financed online hate machine.
Today, Congressman King is being pilloried by a political establishment tso desperate to prove that they is "not racist". Worse yet, the GOP-Democratic Establishment is seeking to silence one of its most vocal opponents, an effective champion of border security and national sovereignty of amnesty and open border policies. Congressman King did indeed demand repeatedly for the securing of our borders. He modeled different types of border barriers a decade before Donald Trump even appeared on the horizon.
If these remarks are not persuasive, consider this logical defense of Representative Steve King from Keith Hardine, a black American, self-defense trainer and teacher of constitutionalism based in South Los Angeles:
Let me begin by saying that: I SUPPORT CONGRESSMAN STEVE KING 100%.
Steve King, an Iowa Republican Congressman, delivered on the floor of
the U.S. House of Representatives, an explanation of the comments he made
during an interview with the New York Times that was published a day earlier.
Congressman King read into the record the following two questions from
the Times story that he asked:
“White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did
that language become offensive? Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the
merits of our history and our civilization?”
King did not dispute the quote, although he said it was taken out of
context. ” he said. “One phrase in that
long article has created an unnecessary controversy.”
The context of the comment, King said, was obscured in the article. He
was not complaining that those terms were no longer admissible in polite
society; instead, he was asking how “that offensive language got injected into
our political dialogue?”
“The New York Times is suggesting that I am an advocate for white
nationalism and white supremacy,” King went on. “I want to make one thing
abundantly clear: I reject those labels and the evil ideology that they define.
Further, I condemn anyone who supports this evil and bigoted ideology which saw
in its ultimate expression the systematic murder of 6 million innocent Jewish
lives.”
* Source—Rep. Steve King rejects the 'label' and 'evil ideology' of
white supremacy
https://news.yahoo.com/rep-steve-king-rejects-label-evil-ideology-white-supremacy-210418488.html
Moreover King emphasized:
"It's true that like the Founding Fathers I am an advocate for
Western Civilization's values, and that I profoundly believe that America is
the greatest tangible expression of these ideals the World has ever seen. Under
any fair political definition, I am simply a Nationalist."
But King also acknowledged this sad truth. That words and phrases such
as “racist,” “fascist,” “Nazi,” and “white supremacist” have been “used almost
always unjustly labeling otherwise innocent people.”
[H]ow does one come to the conclusion—based on the context provided
of what he said—that Republican Congressman Steve King is a racist?
My answer to Keith Hardine (who should have been a Congressman, but would have not had the time to educate young charges in LA United Schools), is that there is no drawing that conclusion whatsoever.
What is happening here?
1. Kevin McCarthy, the new GOP House minority leader, is consolidating power against conservative insurgents in the House Conference. Four years ago, McCaerthy had a chance to be Speaker of the House but for his own flippant remarks about the Benghazi investigations. He had suggested that those hearings were meant to hurt Hillary Clinton's Presidential election bid. How ironic that McCarthy wants to tar and feather Steve King for an inartful phrase, when he was publicly pilloried for the same failing.
Let's also not forget the festering allegations that
McCarthy was having a long-term affair with Chamber of Commerice Republican Congresswoman Renee Ellmers. All of that scuttled interest in McCarthy as the next Speaker of the House after John Boehner.
2. The Main Street, K Street, Big Business, Cheap Labor Lobby has been looking for any chance to get rid of vocal opponents of illegal immigration. Congressman King has not just be a long-standing champion of securing our borders and protecting our culture. He has demonstrated practical means for making this goal come true. He is a thorn in the side to every Chamber of Commerce donor and Congressional puppet in the House of Representatives and in the United States Senate. He was Trump before Trump appeared on the scene. If the press can't sink the President, they will take down King.
3. This hasty damage-control action from Minority Leader McCarthy is proof positive that the knee-jerk reaction of mea cupla in the face of the false claims of racism has still not left establishment-leaning Republicans. President Trump fights back against the Fake News Fraud of the liberal legacy media. They keep chanting "Racism! Racism! Racism!" about border security and retention of American culture. McCarthy launches into castigating King for inartful statements. Desperate to be liked by the legacy media, failed Presidential candidate and now carpetbagger US Senator Mitt Romney hostilely attacks Trump's manners and demeanor. Sad!
4. Rhetoric, especially when improperly understood, has triumphed over reality yet again. Left-wing critics are still carping about Donald Trump's uncouth comments in private and his rigorous insults in public. At the same time, his policy achievements have been nothing short of remarkable. Since when did so many Americans get hung up about what people say off-hand while ignoring the great works they accomplish on-hand? Substance should matter, but style still gets all the attention.
Even the NeverTrumper conservative mag National Review has jumped into the anti-King mosh pit.
The Weekly Standard would have done the same thing if they hadn't folded a month ago. Honestly, when even the former Buckley flagship rag wants to toss you overboard, you should prepare for smooth sailing. After all, their "Never Trump" issue didn't make a damn difference in stopping his election, and Trump has accomplished more conservative goals in two years than all the Republican Presidents elected during William F. Buckley's lifetime, including Reagan.
Final Reflection
Congressman Steve King is not a racist. The liberal media is going out of its way to paint him as a racist, and all the other Republicans in Congress are scrambling to denounce him right away so that they don't get tarred with the race card for saying "nothing."
This is so sad, so sickening, especially because they are targeting one of the most ardent, much-needed champions of the very "America First" policies which President Trump campaigned on.
