Fraters Libertas

A Monkey on My Back

Yesterday, for one segment of one post, I decide to turn off the swiveling machine gun of random attacks and present a positive contribution to the debate on race with a limited defense of Al Sharpton - and THAT’S when I get called a racist in the press!?

To be fair, the accusation is only an implication, and the racism is the soft variety of low expectations, and the press in question is our friend Brad Jones at Infinite Monkeys (talk about low expectations). But it stings nevertheless, especially in his use of a quote by the much admired (by me) Thomas Sowell, to slam home his point:

"As a black man, I am offended when white people take the likes of Al Sharpton seriously -- or pretend to."

Out of context, I’m not sure what Sowell is referring to. The key words are “taking seriously” and if by that he means as a candidate for President, then I’d accept his offense, as a black man (him, not me). But is my recognition of the fact that Sharpton may have something to add to the conversation (in the absence of any more legitimate voices) considered as “taking him seriously”? If so, then color me guilty. Because for the Democrats purposes, I think Sharpton does add a needed perspective to their debates. Yes, it’s purely a political consideration on their part, pandering to one of their core constituencies. But until Brad Jones succeeds in getting all politics extracted from political campaigns, I’m not going to sweat the implications.

Would I feel differently if a Sharpton-esque character were being pandered to by the Republican party? Yes, I think I would. The Republicans have higher standards and a stronger commitment to principal. Being the standard-bearer for this party actually means something besides being the lowest common denominator of various special interest groups and societal victim lobbies. The Democrats are dysfunctional in so many other ways, why does the presence of Al Sharpton merit special attention? You could just as easily waste your energy asking why Howard Dean is given time in the debates. If I’m guilty of having low expectations, it's based on party affiliation, not race.

My man Brad (who was able to get through to Lileks last night, and provided his typically entertaining contributions to the show), also mentioned he wasn’t able to find John Derbyshire’s praise of Sharpton as a preacher. A lot of that took place in the Corner, but he also summarized it in this NRO article. I conclude with an excerpt:

..the thing that struck me after listening with attention to an hour of Al Sharpton was what a very good speaker he is. This remains true even if you mentally subtract out the preaching component. As a preacher, he is simply tremendous. Towards the end of that sermon he has got up a real head of steam and he soars off into the sky, chanting and alliterating with a fluency and passion that make the bristles stand up on the back of your neck. He is simply a terrific, terrific preacher. But even when just laying out a case, his oratory has an energy and conviction that is all too rare in our public discourse.