The Liberals Black Mascot
The title of this post will in all likelihood recieve harsher criticisim than the words that follow, however after reading Thomas Sowell’s editorial today, no other title would be appropriate. The title of the article is “Mascot Politics” with a subtitle of an ugly reality, which unfortunately it is. The basic premise of Sowell’s editorial is that liberals present themselves as allies to the African American community, while actually causing more harm than good.
For people on the Left, however, blacks are trophies or mascots, and must therefore be put on display. Nowhere is that more true than in politics.
The problem with being a mascot is that you are a symbol of someone else’s significance or virtue. The actual well-being of a mascot is not the point.
Liberals all across the country have not hesitated to destroy black neighborhoods in the name of “urban renewal,” often replacing working-class neighborhoods with upscale homes and pricey businesses — neither of which the former residents can afford.
In academia, lower admissions standards for black students is about having them as a visible presence, even if mismatching them with the particular college or university produces high dropout rates.
The black students who don’t make it are replaced by others, and when many of them don’t make it, there are still more others.
The point is to have black faces on campus, as mascots symbolizing what great people there are running the college or university.
Many, if not most, of the black students who do not make it at big-name, high-pressure institutions are perfectly qualified to succeed at the normal range of colleges and universities.
Most white students would also punch out if admitted to schools for which they don’t have the same qualifications as the other students. But nobody needs white mascots.
Various empirical studies have indicated that blacks succeed best at institutions where there is little or no difference between their qualifications and the qualifications of the other students around them.
This is not rocket science, but it is amazing how much effort and cleverness have gone into denying the obvious.
Sowell’s words are nothing new mind you, although I am certain they will be met with scathing remarks from those on the left who are dillusional enough to believe that placing a below average student in an above average school will somehow benefit that student. Before anyone plays the racism card against Sowell (or myself for that matter), I would like to remind readers the words of Malcolm X who said:
“…the white liberal is the one who has perfected the art of posing as the Negro’s friend and benefactor; and by winning the friendship, allegiance, and support of the Negro, the white liberal is able to use the Negro as a pawn or tool in this political “football game” that is constantly raging between the white liberals and white conservatives.
Politically the American Negro is nothing but a football and the white liberals control this mentally dead ball through tricks of tokenism: false promises of integration and civil rights. In this profitable game of deceiving and exploiting the politics of the American Negro, those white liberals have the willing cooperation of the Negro civil rights leaders. These “leaders” sell out our people for just a few crumbs of token recognition and token gains. These “leaders” are satisfied with token victories and token progress because they themselves are nothing but token leaders.”
It was true when Malcolm spoke those words and it is true to this day. Liberals will continually speak of a “level playing field” both with regards to race as well as wealth, but their ideology is backwards. A look at a liberals policy towards a level playing field never involves lifting one group up, they prefer to pull the other group down.
Sphere: Related ContentIf you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!


I’m struck by your referring to ‘the liberals’ as if they were a monolith, with no differences in opinion whatsoever… It’s pretty insular of you, I must say.
But what I have to ask is what is the implication? I don’t see Obama’s name in this article, at least not ACTUALLY, but are you implying, Charlie, that he’s somehow a puppet of the left simply because he’s black? Because that would be too shortsighted even for a conservative masquerading as a lover of the constitution. I wonder sometimes what makes you tick. What passions stir you, what motivates you, what angers you, what pleases you… I mean, from looking over the broad, broad gamut of sometimes disparate views you express on this blog… It’s interesting, to say the least. What do you believe? Do you believe our unilateral and unconstitutional invasion of Iraq was sound foreign policy? Do you think our continuing presence in Iraq is sound foreign policy and constitutional? What about Guantanamo Bay? Abu Ghraib? What about those, Charlie? Are you a man of the right, the center, the LEFT (!!!), or are you just going through a little bit of a midlife crisis?
P, Obama’s name was not mentioned in this article, nor was there any implication that he was a puppet of the left. While I have no hid my feelings about Obama on this blog, this article had nothing to do with him. This was a reference to the liberal’s agenda of courting black voters by pretending they actually care about the people themselves when all they really care about is the votes they cast.
In reference Iraq, I do believe it was sound foreign policy when we invaded, although I would have prefered a declaration of war from Congress as oppossed to Congress simply authorizing the use of force.
“In reference Iraq, I do believe it was sound foreign policy”
Wow. Where are the WMD? Why are we fighting the Iraqi police force Paul Bremer dismissed while he was there instead of taking the fight to Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, instead of taking the fight to a resurgent Taliban in Waziristan and Quetta? Is that sound foreign policy? Is it sound foreign policy to, after sending thousands of troops to die for a mistake–because we went over there for WMD and there were none–keep them there and change the mission whenever necessary to justify our keeping them there, dying needlessly while more than 60 percent of Iraqis believe they were better off with Saddam Hussein? Is that sound foreign policy? Are you f*cking kidding me?
It’s exactly this kind of country-building, this policing of the world, this foreign policy of bluster and bravado that the founders of the conservative movement inveighed against–people like Goldwater and Reagan. And for you to call yourself a conservative, or even an American, while you defend our invasion of a country for reason X and our keeping our troops there in the midst of a sectarian strife beyond our purview and theirs for reason Y, is not only logically risible, it’s a new low.
Respond, please.
Tonight, my friend, the general election begins. One could say it’s the beginning of the end for McCain and the GOP. And America–the country you claim to love–will only be the better for it.
At the time we went to Iraq it was widely believed by both Democrats and Republicans that they did have WMD’s. After overthrowing their government it would be bad policy to simply walk away and leave the country in turmoil. We have to stay there as long as necessary to ensure they can govern themselves.
Well, I wonder, was it sound foreign policy then to engage in the subversion of other governments and the building of countries on a whim, or is it still sound foreign policy?