Liberals don't know what to do

[Tigermike 3,053]

Ruben Navarrette Jr. / Syndicated columnist

Liberals don't know what to do with nondeferential minorities

SAN DIEGO — In the minds of many liberal Democrats, Hispanics and African Americans must seem to come in only two varieties: deferential or defective. And according to one angry caller — who was, from the sound of it, perfectly at home in a blue state — I fall into the second category. "I think you're deluded," he said, "and maybe insane."

I'm just guessing, but something tells me the caller would probably say the same thing about Janice Rogers Brown, who two years ago was nominated by President Bush to fill a vacancy on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Last week, Brown was finally confirmed but not before Senate Democrats and their accomplices in left-leaning advocacy groups such as People for the American Way did their best to try to paint this black conservative and California Supreme Court chief justice as an "extremist" whose views are outside the mainstream.

Translation: Brown doesn't defer to liberals. So she must be defective.

By the way, here's something I've noticed: When conservatives criticize a person of color, they often insult you. But liberals usually are condescending. They don't say they're upset as much as "disappointed" in you.

And so it was that the caller was disappointed in me. What fired him up was a column I'd written about Alberto Gonzales, the nation's first Latino attorney general. In it, I argued that liberal Democrats weren't really interested in promoting diversity unless they get the credit for it, and that this explained their lukewarm reaction to Gonzales —

an American success story whose nomination by President Bush they can't claim credit for.

It's not that the Democrats are suddenly anti-minority. I just think they're skittish and insecure when it comes to their own minority outreach efforts, such as they are. And so each time Bush or another prominent Republican tries to make minorities feel at home in the GOP, Democrats worry that the hold that they have on these groups may weaken and they won't be able to do much about it.

Just as they can't do much to stop Bush from appointing Hispanics and African Americans to top positions in the Cabinet and in the federal courts, something that further frightens and frustrates liberal Democrats. And when Democrats oppose these nominees, it's usually not because of who these nominees are or even because of what they believe. Rather, it's because of what they represent and what it means in the grand scheme. Just look at the line that was being advanced by Sen. Barbara Boxer of California.

"Her life story is amazing. It is remarkable," Boxer said of the California jurist as the Senate was debating Brown's nomination. "What I don't like is what she is doing to other people's lives. Her story is amazing, but for whatever reason, she is hurting the people of this country, particularly, right now, in my state."

So this is the Democrats' dilemma. How are they supposed to market themselves to minorities as the one-and-only party of opportunity when Bush is putting nonwhite faces in high places? Better to try to paint the Republican Party as a restricted club, as Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean did recently when he described the GOP as "pretty much a white Christian party." And minority Republicans as aberrations.

I bet all this would come as news to Janice Rogers Brown, who attends church regularly. Just as I bet it would come as news to Miguel Estrada, the Hispanic gentleman who, at one point, seemed headed for the D.C. appeals court for which Brown is now confirmed — until his nomination was unfairly derailed by rank racial politics.

Estrada is a top-shelf Washington lawyer who had, after coming to the United States from Honduras and graduating with honors from Columbia University and Harvard Law School, worked as an assistant U.S. attorney and an assistant solicitor general. Yet none of that prepared Estrada for the meat grinder of the judicial confirmation process. Before long, Estrada was — in an experience that must have seemed surreal to him at the time — fending off accusations from white Democrats that he "wasn't Hispanic enough." That was Estrada's defect. It was also complete nonsense.

I don't see why liberals won't say what they really mean. (I have wondered that as well) It's obvious that what concerns them is not that these nominees aren't real minorities, but rather that they aren't their kind of minority. You know, the kind that asks for permission before they speak and makes sure that what they say falls in line with the views of their liberal benefactors.

Ruben Navarrette's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times. His e-mail address is ruben.navarrette@uniontrib.com

SEATTLE TIMES

[Piglet 0]

Looks like Navarette sneaked the pea up his sleeve during the shell game. Liberals opposed those people for their extreme right agenda. Is he saying they would have been welcomed with open arms had they been white?

I can think of a lot of words to describe, say, Cynthia McKinney, Maxine Waters, and Al Sharptongue. "Deferential" isn't one of them.

[TrueBlue72 0]

Translation, just for Piglet: What he is saying is that liberals will not accept minority nominees unless they are in lockstep with the liberal mainfesto. Liberals can't stand the thought that conservative minorities exist! The demoncratic party has for decades believed that they "owned" minority voters.... back in the 70, they called them voting blocks. To realize that minorities can make their own decisions regarding politics and policies scares the hell out of the demoncrats.

[Piglet 0]

Yeah, whatever. They also don't accept "majority" nominees who aren't in lockstep. Seems like equal opportunity litmus testing to me.

Of course, it's real cute of the right wing to put up extremist nominees, and if they happen to be minorities and their views are unacceptable to the liberals, they act like it's because of their race. It's cute, but it don't fool anyone.

If you're saying Democrats take a bunch of core constituencies--blacks, unions, whatever--for granted, yeah, they probably do. Is that any different or worse than the Republicans acting like they "own" the evangelical Christian "voting block" or the big business lobbyists (who more accurately "own" the Republicans, but that's for a different discussion)?

Democrats by and large encourage minorities and everyone for that matter to make up their own minds, and hope they'll vote D to make prosperity available for all Americans, not just the privileged few. I think lockstep manifestos, I think of the DeLay Republicans.

[Tiger Al 0]

I'd say it's a matter of liberals fleshing out Martin Luther King's dream. We judge them on the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Conservatives seem to think that just because their right wing-nut nominee happens to be a minority that liberals are obliged to accept them.

[DKW 86 7,440]

I'd say it's a matter of liberals fleshing out Martin Luther King's dream. We judge them on the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Conservatives seem to think that just because their right wing-nut nominee happens to be a minority that liberals are obliged to accept them.

164314[/snapback]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMM!

And the point just went completely over your head....

We judge them on the content of their character, not the color of their skin..

No, Libs judge people on the strict adherence to Liberal Talking points, nothing more.

[Piglet 0]

No, Libs judge people on the strict adherence to Liberal Talking points, nothing more.

164350[/snapback]

As opposed to conservatives, who never demand strict adherence to conservative talking points or any other agenda-related stuff. Of course.