NAACP Smears the Tea Party as Racist

The NAACP has been in the news a lot lately. Perhaps trying to maintain some relevance in today's America. At their National Convention, they went after the Tea Party. Deroy Murdock:

The NAACP’s original resolution sought to “repudiate the racism of the Tea Parties” and combat their supposed efforts to “push our country back to the pre-civil rights era.” This statement reportedly was toned down, although it was debated behind closed doors and will remain unseen until the NAACP’s board approves it in October.

The original resolution sort of reminds me of this ad, in which the former civil rights icon, Congressman John Lewis puts on his tinfoil hat with regard to the possibility of electing a moderate Republican, endorsed by a very liberal newspaper, to a county commission. Jaw-dropping.  But this vile, wildly inflammatory ad full of fantasies of hate and disaster was effective in the election. The Republican lost. And in the process, the importance of the entire civil rights movement in which Rep. Lewis had bravely participated many years ago was seriously reduced, at least in the rhetoric of the ad.   Rep. Lewis warned that the election of a moderate Republican, endorsed by a very liberal newspaper, to a county commission would lead to a situation more dangerous than fighting off dogs and water hoses.  And all gains of the entire Civil Rights movement would be lost if a moderate Republican won a county election.  "Your very life may depend on it".  Whew.

Congressman Lewis was also involved in the false claims by members of the Congressional Black Caucus that numerous racial epithets were shouted at them in the run-up to the vote on Obamacare (links below).  How the mighty have fallen.  The NAACP attempted to resurrect the discredited claims of the CBC members in its resolution against the Tea Party.   They pretended that the statements of Lewis and the others were unassailable.  But many in a younger generation (and some in the Boomer generation) do not seem to consider the veracity of these men to be beyond challenge just because of their history.

Scott at Powerline:

Mona Charen addresses the descent of the NAACP from a bona fide civil rights organization into a rump of the Democratic Party. The NAACP was of course back in the news this week on account of its having consigned the Tea Party movement to double secret probation. Mona calls out the NAACP on its ginned-up charge of racism against the Tea Party:

Charen gives a good, brief history of the organization's decline. It is the natural tendency of all ethical organizations to lose their original focus over time and to become distracted into actions which would have been unthinkable for the founders of the organization.  Only organizations with an extremely solid charter of some sort have a chance of consistently maintaining their original focus over time.  (Though some organizations undergo descent followed by reform).

Many of the once-venerable volunteer and professional organizations in America have become politicized and/or radicalized.  Part of this is due to the natural tendency of strong partisans or ideologues to seek out leadership positions in these organizations.  They derive their meaning in life from their activism, while people with more balanced outlooks find meaning in other parts of life.  The lives of people in the second category are already full without a leadership position in such an organization.  Such leadership becomes a source of anxiety and pain if they have to fight with determined partisans or ideologues when seeking or serving in such a position.  For such people, service in a community or professional organization is now largely a sacrifice,  without much honor -- because they often encounter some nasty opposition while  trying to hold onto principles which partisans or ideologues within the organization are agitating to cast aside in their zeal to reach their tactical goals.  For many partisans and ideologues, leadership in these organizations is viewed as a path to significance or even to a measure of glory.

In the case of the attempts to vilify the Tea Party movement, the NAACP is just following the lead of congressional Democrats and the mainstream media. They continue to do things like this because vilifying others provides them with influence and because such tactics have been effective in the past. But things are starting to change a little, perhaps due to push-back spearheaded by Andrew Breitbart's offer of $100,000 for evidence that the claims made by the Congressional Black Caucus were true.

Tne New York Times is still hanging onto the story about racial epithets against the CBC members.  And the paper is getting some push-back.    Note in the video at the link that the men at the front and back of the group of congressmen seem to be holding up cell phones to record what the crowd says.  And the crowd was filled with people carrying recording devices.  Mark Steyn points out that it's easy to capture epithets when they are actually flying.  So, why can't anybody claim Breitbart's $100,000 if it really happened?

And why didn't the four TV cameras at the event capture ANY of the 15 uses of the N-word claimed by one representative?  And why did the congressmen keep changing their stories when video evidence challenged their first reports?

The NAACP got a little push-back on its proposed resolution, too, and later claimed that their resolution DID NOT call the entire Tea Party movement racist.  Wonder if they were intimidated by Andrew Breitbart's promise to release racist video from an NAACP event?  Although they have not released the text of the resolution, they reportedly continue to insist that "leaders" of the Tea Party repudiate "racist elements", as if that were not already being done.  In other words, they try to present a false picture of the nature of the Tea Party movement and they still accuse it of condoning racism.

Unfortunately for the NAACP, people don't seem to consider the it to be as sacred and untouchable because of its important history anymore.  Joe Hicks, a formerly-liberal (radical, even) black man, presents some other issues upon which the NAACP might want to focus, then writes:

Here’s the bottom line. The NAACP is the nation’s oldest black civil rights organization. This once-proud institution took part in the strategic dismantling of Jim Crow laws and in-your-face white supremacy.

This is a group that has struggled – and failed – to maintain is bearings in modern times and now plays the sad role of an adjunct arm of Democratic Party politics. Seemingly the NAACP only exists now to promote the politics of Big Unions, Big Government and racial identity.

Would anybody really care, or notice, if it just folded its tent and slunk quietly away?

The Anchoress, a white woman, presents another perspective the NAACP could have offered:

“…while there is still work to be done in America, it is heartening to see that when racist behavior is exhibited it is quickly condemned by people of good will in all spheres of society; we work toward the day when racism will exist no more, and the fact that it cannot grab a foothold even among those whose concerns we do not share gives real hope too us, that the dream of Martin Luther King and of so many anonymous, tireless workers for social justice can and will be realized for all God’s children.”

That would be a statement everyone can get behind, because all reasonable people want that. If people really do want to see continuing progress made in converting distrustful hearts and minds, a positive statement like that would be much more effective than the one they’re using.

This country needs someone in authority, somewhere, to acknowledge something good about its people, and to mean it. Lacking that–and we are–such a statement from the NAACP would be something good. And it would have the added benefit of being true. . . .

Have people meant what they’ve been saying for the last 50 years, or has it all been just words?

I don’t believe it was all “just words.” I don’t believe that Martin Luther King, whose soaring rhetoric galvanized the nation and motivated all sorts of people to work for equality and justice, died for “just words.”

If it has all been “just words,” then how can we ever move forward?

Sometimes, I feel like a motherless child.

With musical accompaniment.

Wasn't this supposed to be a New Day, under a Post-Racial President?  Dennis Prager suggested on air that President Obama could do much to heal divisions in the nation if he handled this issue wisely.  Michael Medved puts similar thoughts in writing:

With the administration's most fervent critics accused of outright racism by the nation's most prestigious African-American organization, Obama ought to reach out to his political enemies on the right, publicly defend their good intentions and call a White House "summit meeting" between leaders of the tea party and the NAACP. 

If he did so, his generous actions would confound his critics, make headlines around the world and rekindle the flickering hope that Barack Obama could transcend the tired old politics of polarization. . . .