The world of politics cannot function without one major rule recorded by the late Saul Alinsky.
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
This previously unwritten rule was and is used frequently by both sides of the political isle. Politicians and blowhards have often used emotionally charged words to lob at opponents as paper bullets of the brain. The words usually fit in with immediate culture and the latest news. One insult often used by the left and the right in tandem is to compare a person to Hitler or the Nazis. The comparison used to carry weight. It was a dreaded idea that one would do to his or her country what Hitler and the Nazi’s promoted such as genocide and eugenics. The insult has been used so often that it has become a very recognizable as an ad hominem that is not taken seriously.
The lack of shame in America is an example of using a strategic attitude or word to the point that its potency is diluted. Public shame, or ‘the shame finger’ was a strategy that drew attention to the immoral actions of an individual. The left and the right have used this tactic ad nauseam with the result that people now have little shame. Their heart strings have been plucked to the breaking point and caring comes only after a huge emotional investment. The shame finger has backfired causing a fight reaction instead of a flight reaction. Whether it is a Christian, a Pagan, a promiscuous girl, or a member of the LGBT community, they all have responded to the label of shame by standing up and declaring loudly that they will be accepted and if not then tough. Shame is a universal trigger word that has been cheapened. While shame is a universal trigger each party also has its own unique phrase to hurl at a political opponent
In recent years since President Obama has taken office the old insults of the Red Scare era have come to the forefront in conservative circles. Most debates, arguments, and campaign attack ads have either insinuated or outright referred to a liberal opponent as a communist or a socialist. The word invokes caution and suspicion towards big government and a Brave New World type of outcome. Typically liberals and Democrats attempted to thwart this label by ridiculing the term because if the label of socialist stuck it could mean losing independent voters. The ridicule of those using the phrases of socialist or communist and the frequency in which those words are used have diminished the effect and numbed the public to the ideas.
Liberals are not innocent of using an idea, term, or insult to death. However the term they picked to bastardize and cheapen is far more serious, it is the term racist. Now it is accepted that there are racists just like there are socialists and communists, but the truth behind the statement no longer holds the impact it once held. Being labeled a racist or a bigot, until recently, was not only a high insult it could ruin your life. In some ways it still can, but because of the misapplication more people have been counteracting the accusation. Again, people have chosen fight as opposed to flight and in doing so further misused the term racist.
During the Obama campaign pretty much anyone who did not support him was labeled a racist. This accusation took many people, who legitimately opposed his ideas, off guard. People asked how they could be called a racist for not agreeing with his stances. The answer is simple, the conservative agenda has been labeled racist. If a conservative calls for less government involvement the liberal stance is to accuse the person of being racist and mislabel the small government stance as an anti-minority stance. Big government means laws and programs that help the poor and minorities. Conservatives began to fight back by labeling big government programs as racist because conservatives claim these programs are designed to keep people poor and voting for the liberal supported party. They liken welfare and social programs as tools of the ‘Democrat Plantation,’ alluding to these programs as modern tools for enslavement and subjugation. Conservatives and whites began to cry racism against programs that were designed to teach tolerance, granted some of those programs did cross a line but many were appropriate. Finally, Obama was called a racist for attending a black liberation theology church and for many of the ideas he expressed or agreed with in his books.
Now the claims of racism against a person are holding very little weight when perhaps there are legitimate concerns. Just like the little boy who cried wolf, our society has cried racist so many times that we can no longer trust the word. Even though more people have become numb to the accusation it seems it has been brought up again in the Presidential race and a legitimate concern about a candidate may be swept under the rug because the media has gone overboard.
Ron Paul was the publisher of a newsletter in the late 80’s and early 90’s. These newsletters at times held articles that were racist and bigoted. Paul has disavowed the newsletters claiming he did not read them and that he was a poor publisher for not reading them. His money was behind the newsletters and enabled racists statements to be published unfettered. Every year that Paul runs for political office these newsletters and the support of various extremist groups are brought forth as a brand new discovery and that he is not fit to run for being a racist. Are these claims legitimate? That would be up to the reader to research and decide.
The claim of racism against Ron Paul seem legitimated to Jonathan Capehart a writer at the Washington Post who recently published an article about the inherent racism of the Republican party. His accusations piled one on top of the other with some being legitimate and others being ridiculous. The worst statement he made was to accuse voters in the Iowa caucus of inherent racism. During his rant he claimed the Republican party must admit to how racist it is because Ron Paul has a chance at winning the Iowa caucus the admission will not come anytime soon.
Sooner or later, a major candidate for the Republican nomination will have to give the equivalent of President Obama’s speech on race during the 2008 campaign. A frank assessment of the issue that discusses the party’s role in exacerbating tensions and sowing division, the state of race relations from his or her perspective and how they see their role in making this a more perfect union. That Ron Paul rides high in Iowa demonstrates how far off that day is. -Jonathan Capehart
If one reads between the lines he is saying that the voters in Iowa are racist and voted for Paul because of his racist newsletters.
The accusation of racism towards these voters is one more example of the tactical usage of racism. People who may not know about the newsletters, or are not sure what to believe, but do agree with the minimalist federal government stance with more powerful state governments, want to vote for Ron Paul. Mr. Capehart has turned their consideration of the platforms of many Republican candidates into a simple mindless action of a group of troglodytes who have not moved forward into enlightenment.
There was a time a racist was a person who denied a minority a job and made them ride at the back of the bus. Racists made people drink from separate water fountains based on skin color and condemned mixed unions for being unclean. Racists made minorities enter from the back of buildings and dine in separate dining areas. Racists killed black men for looking at a white woman. Those are examples of racist actions.
Jonathan Capehart and many other people have slapped American society in the face by not acknowledging how far we have come. They call people racist who have been raised better and who have never had a racist thought. They will not let some matters drop and insist black and white children be introduced to victimizing and blaming one another. They have changed the word racist so now it is only a menial insult and so it has little meaning. The word ‘racist’ is now akin to the words ‘Hitler’ and ‘Nazi.’ From now on when a person says racist they will lose the argument just like they would if they said Hitler or Nazi. It is a sad day when a word that helped shine the light on the pain and suffering endured by many people becomes nothing more than a logical fallacy.
People have listened to Saul Alinsky with how to polarize a target, but perhaps they have forgotten another rule that is just as important.
“A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
