the Your Political Animal blog

While watching a rather animated exchange this morning between MSNBC Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough and former Republican National Committee chair Michael Steele, I was struck by how condescending Scarborough was toward Mr. Steele. It was as though the master were lecturing one of his slaves when Scarborough said to Steele that there was pretty much nothing that he (Steele) could tell Scarborough that would enlighten him. They were discussing the pros and cons of GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich’s sudden rise in the national polls, and Mr. Steele was eloquently attempting to make what he thought was a rather cogent point. But I guess that Mr. Scarborough, in his typical It’s my show and I’ll cry if I want to fashion, all but verbally eviscerated Mr. Steele for daring to have an opinion that would be equal to or, God forbid!,  superior to his.

Upon witnessing this as I prepared to leave for work, I began to think to myself and I asked, “Who’s more condescending to minorities; conservatives or progressives?” This question begs an answer because both political/social ideologies claim with divine fervor and certainty that they are the friend of the oppressed, the downtrodden, the poor, the hungry, and the hapless. Conservatives make the claim based on their belief that the only way to help formerly oppressed people is to give small and large businesses/corporations (after all, they ARE people) substantial tax breaks, breaks which in turn will, to use Ronald Reagan’s terminology, trickle down to all who need them. According to the conservative bible, these tax breaks then will be translated into jobs, which in turn will help those in need to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, assuming of course that they still have boots because, as the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King put it, “It’s hard to tell a bootless man to pull himself up by his own bootstraps!”

Progressives/Liberals, on the other hand, believe that it is the federal government’s role to provide as wide a safety net as possible, a belief which pretty much has its foundations in FDR’s New Deal, in order to constitutionally provide for the general welfare (yes, the word welfare is in the  Constitution’s preamble) of the people. The problem here is, some see this as being very paternalistic, even condescending, as though liberals/progressives have a view that minorities are somehow children who must be provided for, lest they go astray and eventually perish in the social/political wilderness .

I personally see flaws and virtues in both points of view, but let me say this: Any group, whether African American, Latino, poor White, Native American, Asian, or other, which does not consistently challenge both the premises and promises of those who claim to have their best interests at heart is setting itself up for heartbreaking disappointment which will lead to long-term resentment. If African Americans are going to ride the Democrats’ bus, then those same African Americans must constantly inspect the wheels, the transmission, the oil, and anything else which might profoundly affect the ride. More importantly, African Americans must make sure that they have more than a symbolic ownership in the bus as well as the bus company, as well as the manufacturer of the bus.  If Latinos choose to take the conservative airplane, then they must constantly do exactly what I just mentioned about African Americans’ responsibilities. Long story short, I don’t think that any ethnic group should throw all of its eggs into any one basket because if the basket is in any way corrupted or stolen,  . . .

That’s my opinion; what’s yours? (c) 2011, Sherman N. Crockett, Jr. All rights reserved