Julian Sanchez header image 2

photos by Lara Shipley

Thanks for Clearing That Up!

October 4th, 2009 · 10 Comments

Instapundit points his readers to an explanation of just why it’s so “dangerous” to impute racist motives to the Tea Party protesters.  Apparently, the danger is that lazy, criminal negroes “who are looking for any sort of reason to justify their anti-social behavior will latch onto such screeds as a defense.” Instead, we learn, they should be asking themselves such questions as:

Why is it that every other group of immigrants who come to this country, including those from Africa but not born in this country, manage to achieve the American dream and seem able to made life better for each succeeding generation but you can’t?

Way to put to rest all of those ugly, unfounded suspicions about racial animus having anything to do with your movement.

Tags: Journalism & the Media


       

 

10 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Dave // Oct 4, 2009 at 4:04 pm

    Remind me, how many of those other groups of immigrants did we bring to North America to work as slaves for white landowners?

  • 2 Jake // Oct 4, 2009 at 4:38 pm

    I’m ashamed of white America. I really am.

  • 3 jre // Oct 4, 2009 at 7:38 pm

    Unbelievably perfect passage:

    …the new snarky word that the loony liberals have fallen in love with, to label the Tea Party attendees, one which most Tea Party attendees had no idea what it meant and needed the deviants on the left explain to the rest of the world.

    OK; it’s in the cause of anthropology and all that, but is it ethical for Glenn Reynolds to point a finger at this poor soul?

  • 4 Hit 'n' Run // Oct 4, 2009 at 10:38 pm

    Great post!

    P.S. Keep sending out those resumes and don’t give up! We believe in you!

  • 5 Julian Sanchez // Oct 4, 2009 at 10:43 pm

    Your snark is long out of date, #4. But don’t give up!

  • 6 Michael T Sweeney // Oct 5, 2009 at 5:08 am

    As a white guy, this is the sort of thing I hear a lot from conservatives in conversation (it’s almost a cliche), but that they’re generally too smart to publish, and especially too smart to link to on a prominent blog like Insta. It’s sad to consider the two possibilities for the conservative movement: Will the increasingly explicit racist appeals 1) discredit the movement even in the eyes of those who would be swayed by subtle racism 2) create an acceptable space in mainstream discourse for explicit racism? I hate to say it, but it’s probably number 2. Who wants to set the over/under on how long it’ll take before David Gregory asks this question on “Meet the Press” in the name of “balance?”

  • 7 sam // Oct 5, 2009 at 6:46 am

    Somebody over at Volokh pointed out that Woody Allen captured the state of the current Republican party re the loons perfectly in a joke at the end of Annie Hall:

    “Geez, my brother’s got a problem. He thinks he’s a chicken.”

    “Gosh, maybe you should have him committed.”

    “I would, but I need the eggs.”

  • 8 The Other Anderson // Oct 5, 2009 at 12:07 pm

    I guess they skipped “slavery” as a topic when Reynolds took U.S. history. Maybe it was all about tariffs instead.

  • 9 Barry // Oct 5, 2009 at 4:31 pm

    Well, Glenn seems to have missed the Constitution and basic logic, which coming from a law professor is pretty f*cking bad. His latest foray into Limbaughism is hopefully a sign that he feels he needs to be more openly extreme to keep the money rolling in.

  • 10 Davebo // Oct 6, 2009 at 10:04 pm

    Actually Hit and Run could use Julian.

    It would be nice if a Libertarian blog had more than one writer who cared about civil liberties.

    Radley can’t carry the whole load.

Leave a Comment