What the Left means when it cries "Racism"

From Spenser Ackerman (J-list 2008):

It's not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright's defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger's [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.

And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them--Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares--and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.

The word racism

Saw this on the internet.

"The word "racism" is so amorphous, taking on whatever meaning its user wants it to have, that it's become nearly meaningless. ("A racist is someone who's winning an argument with a liberal.") Unless we're talking government-supported segregation or the like, the bogeyman of "racism" is just an attempt at mind control. It's also very useful for gaining and keeping power; liberals are quite alive in general to the fact that dictators or even democratically-elected leaders use the specter of enemies, external or domestic, to expand their power, so I wonder how it is that liberals don't see that constant evocation of "racism" functions effectively the same way. Of course, it's the liberals who gain power from this, so maybe that's why. Just as Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia, our society has always and will always be at war with racism."

Tanenhaus Discusses WFB

An excellent Q&A in the NYT reveling much about WFB, Tanenhaus, and the NYT's readership.

The questioners seem obsessed with Buckley's position on "civil rights" and minorities. I counted almost 10 of the 30 something questions related to such ancient topics as "Brown v. Board" and "Segregation". Others wanted to know Buckley's position on Jews (He was in favor of them) and Gays (he was in favor of them, except for Gore Vidal).

I used to wonder what liberals would talk/write about when racism more or less died in this country - and now I know. They'll just keep talking about racism in the past. They just won't let the subject go or move on. To them its always 1965 and they're the brave liberals battling "Bull Conner" and his police dogs and helping poor black folks.