When sex­ism and racism are not prob­lem­atic

The Washington Times Weekly - - Commentary - David Lim­baugh

If I were an as­pir­ing sex­ist or racist — God for­bid — yet still cared what peo­ple thought about me, I’d make sure I be­came a con­spic­u­ous lib­eral. I’d also make sure my tar­gets were con­ser­va­tive. That’s the ticket to im­mu­nity for all kinds of ou­tra­geous con­duct and state­ments.

If you are a lib­eral dar­ling, like Bill Clin­ton was for a decade and a half, you can ex­ploit, abuse and sex­u­ally ha­rass women and still be con­sid­ered a cham­pion of women’s rights. When you’re his equally left­ist wife, you can be the com­man­der in chief of bimbo erup­tions, oblit­er­ate your hus­band’s vic­tims’ char­ac­ters, and be cel­e­brated as a fem­i­nist icon.

If you’re a lib­eral icon like Jimmy Carter, you can re­fer to Barack Obama as a “black boy” without any­one bat­ting an eye. If you’re a lib­eral like Joe Bi­den, you can “praise” Mr. Obama as clean and ar­tic­u­late or joke about In­di­ans and Dunkin Donuts’ with barely a whis­per of dis­ap­proval from the mono­lith­i­cally lib­eral main­stream me­dia.

If you’re a lib­eral car­toon­ist like Ted Rall, you can cap­tion Con­doleezza Rice as the pres­i­dent’s “House Nigga.” If you’re a lib­eral talk show host like Sly Sylvester, you can re­fer to her as Aunt Jemima. And when con­ser­va­tives de­mand an apol­ogy, you can say: “It is with a heavy heart that I apol­o­gize this morn­ing to Aunt Jemima. She wasn’t a self-serv­ing hack politi­cian who got up in front of Congress and lied.” And the quick­est path to the top of the lib­eral class is to ridicule Jus­tice Clarence Thomas.

So when it comes to the lib­er­als’ treat­ment of Sarah Palin, it’s busi­ness as usual — and then some.

For the past three decades, th­ese guardians of the sa­cred codes of po­lit­i­cal cor­rect­ness have been lec­tur­ing us about the pa­tron­iz­ing treat­ment of women, telling us that any whiff of dis­parag­ing or dis­crim­i­na­tory in­nu­endo is ev­i­dence of full-blown sex­ism and ac­tion­able in the court of pub­lic opin­ion.

Yet when Sarah Palin comes along and in­jects her pretty con­ser­va­tive coun­te­nance into the pub­lic square, she and her fam­ily are im­me­di­ately fair game for the lib­eral talk­ing class.

They can vi­o­late ev­ery last one of their stric­tures against sex­ism with lib­eral fra­ter­nal im­punity. It’s so strik­ing that a ca­sual ob­server, un­aware of the lib­eral pen­chant for dou­ble stan­dards and an ab­sence of self-re­flec­tion, might think he were wit­ness­ing satire. Surely, lib­er­als wouldn’t openly em­bar­rass them­selves with such con­tra­dic­tory be­hav­ior.

But sadly, they are dead se­ri­ous, and their mis­sion is to de­stroy Mrs. Palin, whom they rec­og­nize as a threat to their grandiose plans for the com­ing po­lit­i­cal or­der un­der Barack Obama.

Their aban­don­ment of their own rules and their ab­ject nas­ti­ness will con­tinue to rise in di­rect pro­por­tion to their grow­ing (and jus­ti­fied) fear of the formidabil­ity of Mrs. Palin, who has scared their pants (and pantsuits) off.

They’ve sav­agely at­tacked her 17-year-old daugh­ter, even spread­ing vi­cious slan­ders that she is ac­tu­ally the mother of Sarah’s fifth child, con­tra­dict­ing their edicts about the sanc­tity of the pri­vate lives of pub­lic of­fi­cials and their fam­i­lies, let alone ba­sic de­cency and ci­vil­ity.

They’ve con­demned Sarah for shirk­ing her moth­erly du­ties be­cause of her ca­reer com­mit­ments, break­ing an un­told num­ber of com­mand­ments from the fem­i­nist code of con­duct.

Af­ter she de­liv­ered a phe­nom­e­nal con­ven­tion speech, they rushed to in­form view­ers she couldn’t pos­si­bly have writ­ten it — some­thing I’ve never heard about any other or­a­tor in the wake of such a barn­burner. Do they think she’s just too pretty to have come up with those lines on her own?

How about their mind­less mantra about her lack of na­tional se­cu­rity ex­pe­ri­ence and her fail­ure to ad­dress that con­cern in her speech? Do you re­call any such con­cerns about pres­i­den­tial can­di­date Mr. Obama, who has no more na­tional se­cu­rity ex­peri- ence than she does?

And they were all be­side them­selves with how mean, snip­ing and nasty her barbs against Mr. Obama were, wholly ig­nor­ing, of course, Mr. Obama’s stri­dent as­saults on John McCain.

But even more pointed was their con­de­scend­ingly phony con­cern that Mrs. Palin, de­spite her speech home run, wouldn’t be able to sur­vive the com­ing press scru­tiny without a teleprompter. This was most no­tice­able from the pun­dits on MSNBC, which I watched to pro­tect my­self from over­dos­ing on post-speech eu­pho­ria. An­drea Mitchell was prac­ti­cally bad­ger­ing in­ter­vie­wees to con­fess their fear of Mrs. Palin’s in­evitable im­plo­sion.

Could this be their sub­con­scious recog­ni­tion that Mr. Obama gives a whale of a speech but is a fish out of wa­ter without his teleprompter and their pro­jec­tion of the lat­ter de­fi­ciency onto Mrs. Palin?

Is there any ev­i­dence that Mrs. Palin has no savvy or sub­stance without her script? Quite the con­trary. But again, have you ever heard them ac­knowl­edg­ing Mr. Obama’s no­table de­fi­cien­cies away from his teleprompter, of which we have ac­tual ev­i­dence, as op­posed to their stereo­type­based ex­pec­ta­tions con­cern­ing Mrs. Palin? Maybe it’s that pretty thing again. So much for break­ing glass ceil­ings. David Lim­baugh is a na­tion­ally syndicated colum­nist.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.