- The Washington Times - Monday, March 24, 2008

Victim card

“So, do I think [the Rev. Jeremiah] Wright is being racist, here? To be honest, no I really don’t. I think he is highlighting some truly egregious truth in the United States while exploiting some legitimate grievances to encourage a victim’s mind-set; he’s playing to the cheap seats with some of this, to be sure, but so did Gloria Steinem when she supported Hillary [Rodham Clinton] by writing that if [Barack] Obama were a woman with his resume, he’d never be where he is.

“What is going on here is a profound sleight of hand, or an illusionist’s expert misdirection. You are being told to think you’re seeing one thing, when you’re actually seeing another. Except for the fact that whoever released these tapes has played it, this sermon would not be an example of a ‘race card’ being thrown. It’s a victim card.

“This is about the Primacy of Victimhood over all else. And frankly, I think if white America falls for this and starts freaking out over Wright’s ‘racism’ then they will be submitting to a huge and insidious manipulation by the Clinton team, who … may reasonably be assumed to have brought this forward.”

The Anchoress, writing on “Jeremiah Wright, Steinem and Primacy of Victimhood,” March 13 at theanchoressonline.com

Facebook peace

“The ubiquitous social networking Web site Facebook has recently gotten some negative press. Users who live in the disputed West Bank were upset to discover that Facebook’s software (which can identify a user’s location by their town name or ZIP code) had listed them as living in Palestine. Towns in the West Bank, such as Hebron, Ariel, and Maale Adumim are either Israeli settlements or Palestinian territories, depending who you ask.

“After several upset posts and comments from users, Facebook now gives West Bank-based users the ability to choose whether they would like to list ‘Israel’ or ‘Palestine’ as their location.

“Whatever side you’re on, it’s clear that Facebook, despite what some of its more devoted users may think, cannot create world peace. Yet.”

Lilit Marcus, writing on “Political Lines Cross on Facebook,” March 17 at the blog Idol Chatter at beliefnet.com

Right vs. Left

“The Religious Right wants a politics and culture that are friendly to living a Christian life and raising a Christian family, not ones that promote sin. The Religious Right wants a society that will help its members get to heaven, or at least not make it unreasonably difficult. The Religious Left, on a completely different track, wants to erase all human inequality based on its view of human rights.

“The Religious Left ultimately cannot help the Democratic Party very much, because its message adds nothing and challenges nothing in the Democratic platform or on the political left. All it can really change is the perception that the Democratic Party is unfriendly to religion. Even then, the Religious Left will only mobilize those who fear the Religious Right and want to end its influence.

“The Religious Right, on the other hand, cannot get its message from secular conservatism. It does not seek to baptize traditional conservatism.”

Deal W. Hudson, in his new book, “Onward, Christian Soldiers: The Growing Power of Catholics and Evangelicals in the United States”

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide