Queen of Hearts: the Newest Race Card

The American Left—and by extension its devotees in the media and followers in Washington—has decided that anyone who does not agree with its radical policy priorities is, ipso facto, a racist. 

Gone are the days when to be a racist required skulking around with hoods at night, destroying ballots, or intimidating citizens on the basis of race.

Now racism has been fast-tracked to mean mere advocacy of deregulation, free-markets, and equal justice before the law. Is this move occurring because real racism is so rare in 2020 that finding examples is hard work? Or was the Left never committed to racial equality and instead merely uses the fight as a means of gaining power? In any event, modern-day charges of racism—having little to no real justification—are now the tactic du jour. Predictably, this has negatively affected discourse in America.

Rather than take the time to debate, persuade, and convince policy opponents of the merits of their radical priorities, progressives have found categorical name-calling a more efficient way to stamp out disagreement. If you haven’t yet been on the receiving end of this tactic—just wait; they’re coming for you. 

Like the crazed Queen of Hearts in Lewis Carroll’s Wonderland, Progressives prefer a “verdict first, trial later” approach—it’s faster and keeps their “cancel culture” agenda moving along more briskly.

The Proud Boys—a little-known group that President Trump told to “stand down and stand by” during the first presidential debate—and the 17-year old Kyle Rittenhouse who defended himself during the Kenosha riots are the latest to be branded “racists” and “white supremacists” by the Left and Joe Biden’s presidential campaign. Why debate the legal distinctions between murder and self-defense, or where to draw the line between a riot and a political protest, when calling the other guy a “racist, white nationalist” will end the discussion? 

Regrettably, preferring epithets to civil debate is nothing new for the Left. They’ve been doing it for a while.

Recall that in 2014, the Southern Poverty Law Center, or “SPLC,” a chief officer of the cancel culture police put Dr. Ben Carson, now the Secretary for Housing and Urban Development, on one of its so-called “extremist watch lists” because the doctor dared to explain that marriage traditionally has been considered to be between a man and a woman. After intense scrutiny over this smear the SPLC was forced to issue an apology, but not before progressives all over America jumped in to declare Dr. Carson a bigot.

Before that the Left came after Maajid Nawaz, a devout Muslim and founder of the Quilliam Foundation. He was called anti-Muslim and worse for issuing a critique of radical Islamism. He was forced to sue and won a $3 million judgment.

During the first presidential debate America got a chance to see this strategy at work yet again with the unfounded claim that President Trump is a racist. It’s all part of a concerted effort to deny legitimate disagreement and difference of opinion—and to deny anyone who differs from the prevailing leftist narrative a seat at the table of public discourse. \If they can get away with it against the president, this tactic will work against anyone.

Americans have always understood the value of hearing different opinions, gaining new perspectives, and seeing things from a point of view that is different from their own. Most Americans were taught to respect other people’s rights to express their views, to debate those views, and to politely and even publicly disagree with prevailing views. Now we are being taught a different way.

The Left no longer accepts this framework. To progressives, discussion, debate, and respect for differences of opinion are all overrated and stand in the way of swiftly imposing their radical policy agenda.

Name-calling and epithets like “racist,” “white supremacist,” and “hate group” are part-and-parcel of the cancel culture currently on display. This approach is not only radical, it is antithetical to the American way and the values and freedoms that the Constitution and its Bill of Rights were designed to protect.

Ironically, those who self-righteously declare “tolerance” to be their guiding virtue have just as loudly declared that disagreement will not be tolerated, and they do so using the most scurrilous accusations possible. Either their opponents must stop championing opinions that offend their own sensibilities, or they will be charged with racism. Regrettably, this has caused the charge of racism to lose all meaning. Meanwhile, the rest of us must remain vigilant and push back against these tactics or else we’ll be the next target.

Support Free & Independent Journalism Your support helps protect our independence so that American Greatness can keep delivering top-quality, independent journalism that's free to everyone. Every contribution, however big or small, helps secure our future. If you can, please consider a recurring monthly donation.

Want news updates?

Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.

7 responses to “Queen of Hearts: the Newest Race Card”

  1. This is all simple Economics 101 in regards to the concept of “supply and demand”. Basically, the demand for racism far exceeds the supply of racism, hence, the “racist/grievance industrial complex” applies simple Economic principles and thus increases the supply of racism with cheaply made counterfeits to meet the demand by willing consumers.

    Simply put, this is a distorted form of blood-Capitalism.

      • You saw how disappointed Leftists were when the FBI concluded that the rope was a mere garage door rope; they very much wanted this to be a noose so to fit their narrative.

        In a logical world, everybody would be glad that it was not a hate-event; not the Left, they wanted hate.

  2. Year Zero and mass graves will be pretty funny to watch once the Left takes over. Thankfully I’m old and won’t see as much of the future as most of you.

  3. every human being on the planet is racist to one degree or another. history is irrelevant. all people have the right to be supportive of their on self interest. whites supporting whites, blacks supporting blacks is not racist. btw, as long as someone is not violating another person’s private property and rights, what’s wrong with being racist.

    • I hope you’re joking Bob. What’s wrong with being a racist? Just because you don’t infringe on another person’s rights does not mean that racism is not intrinsically evil. It denies the humanity of others based upon traits they have no control over. Helping people that are similar to yourself is fine but it is a greater good because it is a greater effort to help those that are dissimilar. I will pray that you see the difference one day.

  4. Spot on with this write-up, I honestly feel this amazing site needs
    a lot more attention. I’ll probably be back again to read more,
    thanks for the info! dildok3