Some conservatives are concerned with President Bush's New
Orleans speech because of the unlimited federal spending it seemed to
promise, but I was far more concerned with his arguable vindication of the
wrongheaded notion that racial discrimination is responsible for the
disproportionate impact of the flooding on blacks.
After all, opening up the federal coffers for a disaster is far
less objectionable than so many of the projects presently funded by the
government. And, the president is using this as an opportunity to launch
market-based ideas, including enterprise zones and private ownership, rather
than giveaways with no accountability. Plus, we can always fantasize that
the monies expended toward rebuilding the damaged areas might lead to more
scrutiny and the eventual scaling back of federal pork and other largesse
across the board - like the prescription drug plan.
But I don't see any silver lining in the president's seeming
adoption of the Jesse Jackson school of thought concerning Katrina's racist
component. The president said: "As all of us saw on television, there is also some deep, persistent poverty in this region as well. And that poverty has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America. We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action."
I was more than a little disappointed when I heard him utter
these words. I thought to myself, "President Bush is so unwilling to give
quarter on other issues, such as his commitment to the war in Iraq and
preserving his income tax cuts. Why is he so malleable on the subject of race?"
You will recall that the president railed against affirmative action during the presidential campaign all the way up to the Supreme Court's Grutter case, in which his team filed a brief in support of race-based preferences in a law school admissions policy.
Story Continues Below
Perhaps he's just not as convinced as he earlier appeared to be about the destructiveness of "remedial" racial preferences or has had a change of heart on the subject. Or, concerning his New Orleans speech, maybe he didn't mean to imply that this "history of racial discrimination" was recent - within the last generation or so. Surely most would agree the government has taken bold steps to end state-sponsored discrimination.
Either way, his injection of race into the speech is troubling
if for no other reason than it gives ammunition and a degree of legitimacy
to the race-hustlers' unconscionable ploy to blame delays or inadequacies in
the federal response on the administration's alleged racial prejudice
against blacks.
I'm not talking about the political downside to Republicans in
the president's remarks, but the way others will use those remarks to
further divide and alienate the races against each other.
After close to $7 trillion has been spent on the war on poverty,
how can anyone seriously argue that liberal solutions have any remote
prospect of eradicating poverty or its often-disproportionate effects on
blacks?
Isn't it time we consider other possible contributing causes,
such as cultural ones? It's hardly an original idea that illegitimacy leads
to poverty, and there are very high rates of illegitimacy among blacks in
New Orleans. Is that because of too little federal attention or money
dedicated to programs designed to lift up the poor? Or too much?
As long as liberals own the vocabulary of compassion in this
country, I suppose many are too afraid of being branded racist for saying
that simply throwing money at poverty is not going to make a dint in it.
Even less likely are they to say that other factors may be contributing to
black poverty as well - including the perpetuation of the sinister and
patronizing idea that blacks simply can't lift themselves up without the
white man's largesse.
I happen to believe that promoting permanent victimhood and
dependency is what is racist, not according all races equal respect and
dignity. It is difficult to quantify the cumulative destructive impact of
all the reckless, knee-jerk charges of white racism leveled by
race-exploiters of both races who have something to gain by their
accusations and by fanning the flames of racial tensions. When sanctimonious
white guys in positions of authority, like Ted Kennedy, jump on this
infernal bandwagon, it can't help but reinforce fears in blacks of white
racism.
I am disappointed that President Bush's words could be construed
as an admission that racism played a role either in the federal response or
in current federal law or policy. But I am encouraged that his policy
proposals cut the other way - toward helping the poor lift themselves up
through entrepreneurial and investment opportunities.