Five Reasons Democrats Truly Are the Real Racists

By Brad Betters | December 15, 2020 | 11:01am EST
Featured is a hat bearing the Democrat donkey and a likeness of Hillary Clinton. (Photo credit: TIMOTHY A. CLARY/AFP via Getty Images)
Featured is a hat bearing the Democrat donkey and a likeness of Hillary Clinton. (Photo credit: TIMOTHY A. CLARY/AFP via Getty Images)

For years now, establishment conservatives have tried to divert Democrats’ routine accusations of Republican racism by pinning it on Democrats themselves. As they’ve claimed, with their historical connections to the Confederacy and liberal-led issues like abortion, welfare, unions and minimum wages disproportionately hurting blacks, it’s Democrats who are the real racists.

It’s not quite accurate, however. While Democrats of any background push policies that inadvertently hurt blacks and other minorities, and often hypocritically refuse to live “integrated and diverse” lifestyles, most likely do not have animus toward blacks.

Who Democrats have animus towards is whites.

It’s far from exhaustive, but the list below should be more than enough to indict the left (from the self-hating white woke to Black Lives Matter extremists) for their racial antagonism and disparate treatment toward white America. Again, the conservative establishment is clearly willing and eager to use the charge of racism against Democrats. Just in a misdirected way. The below talking points can serve as a more honest, accurate, and effective way to lay that charge, as well as cut into Democrats’ acute sense of moral righteousness.


1.    White Slavery

According to some estimates, more than 1 million Europeans were enslaved by modern-day Moroccans, Algerians, Libyans, and Turks before and during the period of U.S. black slavery. As the indefatigable Douglas Murray reminded us recently, among those nations that were victimized—from modern-day Ireland to Russia and most places in between—all went on to economically outpace the victimizers very soon after liberation and handedly so. For the elite media and the Democratic Party to ignore this history and push on about the “vestiges of slavery” in America today is a race-based double standard that simply can’t be reconciled.

This is doubly the case when it comes to white slavery right here in America. Although unmentioned in Murray’s article, it's estimated that 300,000 whites—that is, almost as many as the number of Africans brought over to colonial and post-colonial America—were shipped here from the British Isles as serfs and, much of the time, outright slaves. The first boats arrived in 1619—funnily enough—and kept on coming for about a century longer. Many were branded and whipped; most had zero legal rights; and a disproportionate amount were homeless children kidnapped off the streets of England.


2.    Disparate Treatment from Traditional Media 

Why have over 300 hate-crime hoaxes been perpetrated over the last few decades and why is the media, which pounces on them initially, so slow (and sometimes silent) when the time comes to correct the record?

Why has there been just a single book written about the 1970’s "Zebra Killings" where over 70 whites in San Francisco are believed to have been murdered by Nation of Islam members—the worst mass hate-crime in modern American history?

How come no major newspaper or broadcaster ever covered the beyond heinous “Knoxville Massacre?”

Why isn’t it household knowledge that the notorious "D.C. Sniper" shootings of 2002 were later found to be based on hastening a race war?

These are all questions black economist Wilfred Reilly raises in his own indictment against the elite media’s racial double-standards: his excellent 2019 book, "Hate Crime Hoax: How the Left is Selling a Fake Race War." The above facts should be common knowledge for US conservatives and independents today.


3.    Disparate Treatment from Social Media

Picking from the mound of examples here is tough, but the light-touch treatment of the Black Hebrew Israelites should be flagrant enough. It was, of course, this group, not Nick Sandmann and his school pals, that shouted racist insults at tribal charlatan Nathan Phillips. When the unedited film at the National Mall finally started making the rounds, BHI members could be seen and heard calling him and his group “Uncle Tomahawk” and “$5 Indians”, in addition to making anti-white and homophobic slurs against Nick and his friends.

Far more serious, the same group was later directly and indirectly connected to two separate attacks on Jews in New Jersey and New York, the former involving multiple killings, the latter, multiple slashings.

Astoundingly, BHI still has its Twitter and Facebook accounts in full operation. This at a time when mere comedic trolls like Gavin McInnes can be almost completely removed from the internet and even have their children’s school leafletted by antifa.

Also worthy of mention is the elite media’s “black” stylization change. When the Associated Press, followed by the New York Times and others, changed “black”, as a racial descriptor, to “Black”—breaking standard grammatical rules about adjectives and proper nouns in the process—they stated that, unlike blacks, American whites did not have enough in common culturally and historically to merit the same treatment. On top of them failing to substantiate their newfound expertise in cultural anthropology, they refused to explain how such a change wasn’t dehumanizing and Europhobic. Nor did they bother to show how an oppressed victim-group could have identity, but that it’s supposed oppressor-group couldn’t.

4.    Nationalism and Group Rights

Although progressives are natural globalists, they do recognize community rights, group sovereignty, and the sacrosanctity of tradition. For some.

Most white Americans thankfully couldn’t care less about ethnic identity, but the discriminatory treatment they face here should nonetheless cause alarm. As Soviet dissident and Israeli statesman Natan Sharansky wrote in "Defending Identity," for the Soviet elite “there was the bad nationalism of a strong West and the good nationalism of a weaker third world.” A good example of this is Tibet. When the Noble Peace Prize was given to the Dalai Lama—someone the Global Left has supported for decades—he put the problems of unmanaged, mass immigration in the starkest of terms, stating:

The issue of most urgent concern at this time, is the massive influx of Chinese settlers into Tibet…Tibetans are rapidly being reduced to an insignificant minority in their own country. This development, which threatens the very survival of the Tibetan nation, its culture and spiritual heritage, can still be stopped and reversed. But this must be done now, before it is too late.

But political scientist Yael Tamir has skewered the left’s hypocrisy on this issue. As she wrote in her book, "Liberal Nationalism":

Liberals often align themselves with national demands raised by "underdogs," be they indigenous peoples, discriminated minorities, or occupied nations, whose plight can easily evoke sympathy. But if national claims rest on theoretically sound and morally justified grounds, one cannot restrict their application: They apply equally to all nations, regardless of their power, their wealth, their history of suffering, or even the injustices they have inflicted on others in the past.

5.   “White Exceptionalism”

Following the election of Donald Trump, Shadi Hamid of the Brookings Institute said while there may be overlap between white American self-interest and racism, the two are not the same. Tell that to a Democrat.

Since Trump’s election, political scientists have shown in detailed surveys that among those white Americans who prefer lower immigration rates for cultural reasons, most do so out of a sense of in-group attachment and not out-group hatred—Considering most conservatives are an extremely generous and tolerant people, this shouldn’t surprise; but it’s still nice to see it borne out in polling figures.

In 2017, political scientist Eric Kaufmann commissioned a survey in which a giant majority of Clinton voters thought that “a white American who wants to reduce immigration to maintain her group’s share of the population is being racist.” Presumptuous, but fair enough.

But when the same group was asked whether it was racist for “a Latino or Asian American who wants to increase immigration from Latin America or Asia to boost her group’s share of the population”, just 18 percent said so. Such barefaced disparate treatment is simply eerie.

Kaufmann calls this discriminatory treatment “White Exceptionalism.” In a piece for the UK’s Spectator, he summed up the problem as follows:

One assumption is that the attachment of powerful whites to their own group will spell disaster for vulnerable minorities. But that is not the case. Social psychologist Marilynn Brewer shows that in-group attachment is not correlated with out-group hostility except in cases of violent conflict. A white American’s warmth towards their own group is, for instance, associated with warmer feelings toward African-Americans (emphasis mine).

Considering that today, accusations of race-based discrimination are nearly akin to allegations of pederasty, they should only be made with serious care and consideration, and be supported only by the hardest of facts. Democrats and the elite media absolutely meet this standard. For their rush to judgement, their blatant race-based hypocrisy, and their increasingly dehumanizing treatment of white America, they absolutely deserve the label they so promiscuously pin to others: racial bigots.

Brad Betters is an attorney who previously worked in politics. He has written for The Federalist as well as other outlets.

MRC Store