House of Eratosthenes

When Sonia Sotomayor made her comments about white guys, she was simply displaying what nowadays passes for mainstream dedicated-lefty thinking…which means it passes for mainstream thinking on behalf of us all.

Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases,” she declared. “I am…not so sure that I agree with the statement. First…there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life. [emphasis mine]

Better to have this thing done by that ethnic group than a bunch of white males, better to have that thing over there done by this group over here than a bunch of white males…et cetera. It’s not the same reverse-discrimination I remember from years ago, which sought to make the point it was someone else’s “turn” and left things at that. The message had to do with fairness and equality. Nowadays it has more to do with suitability. And differences. We like to talk about how little sense it ever made, to allow the white males to do anything. We w.a.s.p.’s have weaknesses other groups don’t have. Weaknesses, vices, phobias, we’re ignorant, we’re greedy, we’re cowardly…we lack empathy.

The next step after that is when someone calls you on your racist bullshit, you backpedal like crazy. So we’ve seen this stuff Before Sonia, and we’ll see it long after she’s confirmed. Or withdraws. Whatever.

James Taranto, writing in Best of the Web, notices something even more skewed. And I don’t know how you can top this. Today’s liberals behave exactly the way Archie Bunker used to behave…for laughs.

It reminds us of an exchange on an early episode of “All in the Family,” which we caught as part of a retrospective aired earlier this week on the TV Land cable network. Archie Bunker and the Meathead are arguing over a brochure advertising a slate of candidates for local office:

Archie: What’s the matter with this? I call this representative government. You’ve got Salvatori, Feldman, O’Reilly, Nelson–that’s an Italian, a Jew, an Irishman and a regular American there. That’s what I call a balanced ticket.

Meathead: Why do you always have to label people by nationality?

Archie: ‘Cause, how else are you going to get the right man for the right job? For instance, take Feldman there. He’s up for treasurer. Well, that’s perfect. All them people know how to handle money. Know what I mean?

Meathead: No, I don’t.

Archie: Well, then you got Salvatori running for D.A. He can keep an eye on Feldman. You know, I want to tell you something about the Italians. When you do get an honest one, you really got something there.

Meathead: Aw, c’mon, Arch.

Archie: Well, then here you got O’Reilly, the mick. He can see that the graft is equally spread around, you know. You got Nelson, the American guy. He’s good for TV appearances, to make the rest of them look respectable.

Like Sotomayor, Archie is not propounding a theory of racial or ethnic supremacy but describing the world in terms of culturally contingent stereotypes. He is engaging in identity politics.
:
Today, you can easily imagine a conservative uttering the Meathead’s earnest query: “Why do you always have to label people by nationality?” But somewhere along the line, liberalism lost its ideals and adopted Archie Bunker’s theory of representative government.

There was an elegantly veiled undertone of preaching in this show, for those who are too young to recall. The message was always crystal-clear: Only a cigar-chomping rube from Queens would stoop so low as to think ethnic groups have characteristics that separate them from other ethnic groups. It doesn’t matter if you hold one group to be superior to another (which, pointedly, Bunker doesn’t do in the exchange above). Simply believing in such differentials is enough. Because we’re all the same.

Sotomayor went further than Archie Bunker, though, since her comment made it quite clear that she holds white males to be inferior. Sure her primary point was that the white males have missed out on some kind of experience(s), not that they would be white, or male. But the whiteness-and-maleness was somehow worth mentioning.

The whiteness-and-maleness accentuates the inexperience…or it is more of a hindrance to rendering a reasonable decision than the inexperience. Does it matter which one? Either way, the whiteness-and-maleness, in her mind, is obviously some kind of liability.

So go ahead and confirm her. Just bear in mind, though, that she represents exactly the mindset that, in a day long gone, “everyone” was so eager to leave behind. Since, y’know, when you’re walking in circles, it’s important to at least recognize that’s what you are doing.

Since, y’know, when you’re walking in circles, it’s important to at least recognize that’s what you are doing.

Or, as we used to say at the railroad, “We may be lost, but we’re ahead of schedule.” Good points by all concerned, you as well as the writers at the WSJ. I particularly like the Archie Bunker analogy, and of course George Orwell nailed it as usual with “All Animals Are Equal. Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others.”

In other news, the San Francisco Chronicle today features an article on yesterday’s “grass-roots demonstration” in favor of Single-Payer Health Care, complete with photos featuring (gasp) pre-printed signs. The comments section on SFGate.com is already rife with class warfare, and includes a word-for-word comment touting “votingbloc.org” which has already been posted on the HuffPo and other of the usual suspects. (“Coming Soon, To a Neighborhood Near You!!!”)

Or in other words, “Keep the Pressure On” (Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals.)
- rob | 05/30/2009 @ 10:34
That was a great observation by Taranto, the “Todos en la Familia” bit.

But she’ll be confirmed, no doubt. It’s a free skate.

Krauthammer had it right yesterday. Not much this side can do but make the best of a bad situation.
- philmon | 05/30/2009 @ 10:38
an elegantly veiled undertone of preaching in this show

Jaysus, Morgan… I don’t wanna see your definition of “blatant.” I watched every episode, religiously, coz the show ran back during my moonbat days and reminded me oh-so-much of my Ol’ Man and me. There were times when I’d swear to the deity at hand the dialog between Archie and his son-in-law was taken directly from conversations I had with my father. The dialog on “All in the Family” was ANYTHING but veiled.

re: Sotomayor. Much ado about not much. The One could have picked worse… MUCH worse… as far as liberal ideologues go. And the overall balance of the court won’t be upset when she replaces Souter. I’m of the opinion the right should pipe down and focus on battles they have a chance of winning… like this disastrous cap’n’trade crap being crammed down our throats. This confirmation war just makes us (conservatives) look like small-minded idiots, which is exactly what The One and his buds want. Pick your battles, and all that.
- bpenni | 05/30/2009 @ 15:58
Help me out here.
Hasn’t it ALWAYS been folks that call themselves variations of Democrat that have ultimately been responsible for extending the misery of “We The People”?

Isn’t it ALWAYS self-proclaimed (and other) “well intentioned” Liberals that can ALWAYS be deemed dupes
of alleged “Democratic” rhetoric, simply by virtue of their repetition
of disingenuous “approved talking points” script?

I mean really, like, throughout history.
Dogs In the Manger?
Foxes At the Grape Arbor?
The Emperor’s New Clothes?
- CaptDMO | 06/01/2009 @ 07:07

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Liberals Acting Just Like Archie BunkerSaturday, May 30th, 2009

Liberals Acting Just Like Archie Bunker
Saturday, May 30th, 2009