With all that’s being said about what went wrong with the Romney campaign, maybe there’s still something to be said about how poorly he did with black and Hispanic voters. When the demographics are compared to the election of 2000, there’s a difference of a few percentage points among these voters. Bush had 35 percent of the Hispanic vote, and 9 percent of the black vote. Whereas Romney was 27 percent among Hispanics, and 6 percent among blacks. Given that each group also had a 3 percent larger share of the total vote, a big question has been what could Romney have done, and what do the Republicans do in the future.
Something which needs a much closer look is the way in which the left’s near constant turning of everything political into a race issue has affected the shift in demographics. I mean how often did Chris Matthews bring up race in this election, and then compare that to 2000? Not knowing what he thinks of Saul Alinsky, I googled the two together, and it was surprise to see that Matthews actually said in front of a camera that Alinsky was a hero of his.
In Rules for Radicals, Alinsky said “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule.” He wrote elsewhere about how effective it was to confound the enemy with accusations he couldn’t possibly disprove. And such was the power of ridiculing (or insinuating) that the white Republican is a racist. Even if Romney had gone with Marco Rubio, it is certain the left would have made a racial issue out of that too.
In planning for the future, I think the Tea Party had a remarkably thorough defense against this kind of ridicule. And yet their supposed racism is remembered more than the real anti-Semitism of Occupy Wall Street. Alinsky’s brilliance may nowhere be more evident than that ridicule is the radicals most powerful weapon. Maybe there is still a unique attitude and posture that strips ridicule of its power.
Let’s take a look at Matthew 5:39-41: “Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.” Contrary to common belief, the passage does not describe the spirit of resignation in the face of defeat. I’ll summarize what I once heard James White say about this. In the culture of the time, a backhand across the right cheek is an example of how a master would hit a slave. But to turn the left cheek to a person of power like that, means that they would have to hit you with an open hand, which would only be done to a person of equal standing. And for some reason they didn’t slap people with their left hands.
So by turning the other cheek, you admit that you are powerless against them, but that they are no better than you. And by giving up your cloak, when you are unjustly sued for your tunic, you have taken the shirt off your back, and in that culture it is as offensive as stripping naked is for us. And how unique is the offense when you can do it in full public view of a corrupt court. Again its an offensive admission of powerlessness, which is intended to bring shame to the injustice. And finally, if someone forces you to go a mile, as for instance when a Roman guard forced a Jew to carry a heavy load for some distance, it is better to go an extra mile than to walk away kicking the dirt.
I’m not exactly sure how this will look in responding to a Marxist who is using false charges of racism to tear you down, but I think it begins with acknowledging the power his ridicule has because of our past racism. That and something particularly offensive that even the corrupt media cannot ignore.