Trumping the Political Conversation

By Phil Erwin

Occasionally, a Conservative speaker rejecting the Left’s penchant for deceptive verbal gymnastics (“It’s not Islamic Terrorism, it’s Workplace Violence!”) quotes the old saw, “Let’s call a spade a spade!” That maxim promotes straightforward speech, but I always expect the speaker will be hammered for using a “racially insensitive” remark.

Because, in times past, African-Americans were sometimes called “Spades,” referencing the once-common descriptive simile, “He’s black as the Ace of Spades.”

That is not a “racist” statement, it is a descriptive one, along the lines of “He’s white as a ghost.” Still, I’m astonished the Left hasn’t made a Federal case out of this maxim, despite the fact that it pre-dates the Political Correctness nonsense by several hundred years.   (The “spade” is what we now call a “shovel”.)

Such are the pitfalls of public speech in a world where anybody can feign offense at pretty much anything you say – providing they represent a minority class to which you don’t belong.

Well, the PC Police better start re-tooling their antennae because, with a wide-open Southern border and a giant welcome mat for unvetted Middle-Eastern refugees, the minority will very soon be: White Americans.

Well-wishers might soon be upbraided for asking, “You OK? You’re looking a little pale today…”

But of course, that will never happen. Because making a Federal case out of an “insensitive” remark is just not how Conservative Americans behave.

That childish technique is the favored cudgel of the so-called “intellectual elite,” 100% Liberal, and 100% willing to re-cast Truth along whatever lines make them feel morally superior to Conservatives.

That’s why I’m astonished that “call a spade a spade” hasn’t become Verbotten. Liberals rarely pass up an opportunity to call Conservatives “racist.”

Political Correctness has turned public conversation into a minefield. The mere implication that you may have said something possibly “racist” will get you tarred, feathered and fired from the Human Race quicker than you can say, “Ace of Spades.”


Donald Trump Winning the Conversation

Witness the latest Trump-bashing. Within hours of Trump suggesting that the judge in his Trump University lawsuit may have allowed personal bias to skew his rulings in favor of Trump’s legal opponents, House Speaker Paul Ryan (a principled man, and normally a good thinker) called Trump’s criticism “…the textbook definition of a racist comment.”

Oh, really? What textbook were you reading, Sir?

Did Trump actually malign the Judge’s “race”? Or did he simply suggest that the Judge’s sympathies, as evinced by his political connections and contributions as well as his own heritage, might conflict personally with Trump’s stance on immigration?

(Recognize: Mexican is not a race.   It’s a nationality. Judge Curiel is an American son of Mexican immigrants. Suggesting someone might feel emotional ties to his parents’ homeland is absolutely not a racist remark, Mr. Ryan.)

Is it such an outrageous stretch for Trump to speculate that the Judge was issuing unfair rulings against him because he didn’t like Trump’s pledge to build a wall – and make Mexico pay for it?

Trump didn’t say Curiel was a bad judge because he was Mexican. He suggested the Judge was being unfair because he didn’t like Trump’s politics. That is not a “textbook racist” statement. That is a political observation, and a textbook legal objection. And there is some evidence to suggest that Trump may have been right.

Judge Andrew Napolitano, a Libertarian Law professor with abundant courtroom experience, says it is impossible for judges to never have their personal views affect their rulings. They are humans, not judicial automatons. If they don’t like you, they likely won’t favor you. So Trump’s suggestion of judicial bias is certainly possible.

Whether or not that is actually true in this case, Trump characteristically went about stating it the wrong way. Rather than making courtroom objections, Trump shot his mouth off in public, on camera, and in his usual intemperate way, giving his detractors so much quick-load ammunition, even Republicans felt compelled to step in and take some shots.

Well done, Mr. Ryan. You heard what the Left wanted you to hear, rather than really listening to Trump. And instead of calling Trump to be certain of his meaning, you reacted by running your mouth off in public, to the Press.

How Trump-like of you.


Newt Gingrich

Of course, Ryan wasn’t exactly alone in his careless reaction to Trump’s political faux-pas. Republican luminaries such as Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney jumped onto the Kick-Trump bandwagon, as did all the “talking heads,” even on FOX. No one, it seems, stopped to ask the relevant question: Did Trump – despite his intemperate, unfiltered bluster – actually have a valid point?

Was Judge Curiel making inappropriate rulings against Trump because he favors – shall we say, unchecked – immigration across our border with Mexico, where his own “homeland” sympathies may lie?

I don’t know the answer. But neither do Gingrich, Romney or all those talking heads.

What I do know is that Political Correctness has so infected our national conversation, it is no longer possible to discuss politics publicly without risking the PC Police diverting and completely usurping the conversation.

And you know whose side the PC Police are on.

Ryan had better wise up. He is called the nation’s “Top Republican.” He’d better learn not to reflexively jump to the Left every time the PC Police hit their sirens.


Phil Erwin is an author, IT administrator and registered Independent living in Newbury Park. He sometimes wishes he could support Democrat ideals, but he has a visceral hatred for Lies and Damn Lies, and is none too fond of Statistics. If his writing depresses you, he recommends you visit Chip Bok’s site for a more lighthearted perspective.


Get Headlines free  SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing – DONATE

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *