Why Won’t Black People Let Newt Gingrich Help Them?
Like many liberals, I have long bemoaned the use of racial politics by Republicans like Newt Gingrich, but his much-ballyhooed standing ovation moment at Monday’s Republican debate in South Carolina has opened my eyes. Newt skillfully talked directly to the straitjacketed white person imprisoned within my bleeding heart, and made me realize that he’s not race-baiting, he’s just using facts and truth to try to help black people. Why can’t the media get off his back?
I’ve been critical of Gingrich in the past, but his stirring performance at that debate, buoyed by the cheering of my fellow whites, ripped the scales from my eyes. He doesn’t want to feed white resentment of black people, he wants to help black people learn how to get jobs, and get off of the food stamps that our “Food Stamp President” has them strung out on.
In case you missed it, here’s Newt’s tour de force from Monday night:
Now, I know what some of you are thinking. Newt paid lip service to the PC crowd by throwing in references to “all Americans,” but we know who he’s talking about. Not because we’re psychic, but because he has bravely said so. In New Hampshire, he courageously voiced what so many white people wish they could say out loud, that black people “should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps.”
At the time, I was still confused, and thought Gingrich was just race-baiting, but now, I realize that his statement, like so many others, was based on facts and truth. Fact: black people are disproportionately represented on food stamp rolls, as a percentage of the population. I’ll get to why that is in a minute, but first, I’d like to fight back against the talking point that most food stamp recipients are white.
That is true, but you have to realize that there’s a key difference. White people on food stamps are just down on their luck, and mostly because of the one black guy who hasn’t lost his job in this economy, if you catch my drift. Newt’s far more subtle rival Mitt Romney explained it well when he said “Somebody who’s fallen from the middle class to poverty, in my opinion is still middle class.”
Those are the white people, and the good ones (the good ones are the black people that Newt isn’t talking about. You know, the exceptions to the rule). Why the difference? You think it’s because of skin color, but it’s not. As Newt has explained, time and again, it’s because black people haven’t learned how to work. That sounds racist, but he’s not saying they can’t work, or don’t want to work, but that America (and more specifically, liberals) haven’t taught them how to work. Newt’s a historian, remember, and black people do have a history of disproportionate poverty and unemployment that white people don’t.
My fellow liberals attacked Newt Gingrich when he made a series of factual observations about black children, and the example their parents set for them. First, he sensibly recommended that 9-12 year-old children in “poor neighborhoods” (you know what that means, right? “Urban?”) should clean toilets so they would learn to “show up on Monday.”
He referenced this again at Monday’s debate, explaining that if after-school jobs were good enough for white children who choose to work because they are thriving in school, they ought to be twice as beneficial to children in poor, failing schools, whose families desperately need the money after the real janitor got fired. But this isn’t just about “exploiting” child labor, it’s about turning around a destructive, observable cultural phenomenon. Here’s Newt speaking that truth:
“Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works,” the former House speaker said at a campaign event at the Nationwide Insurance offices. “So they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday. They have no habit of staying all day. They have no habit of ‘I do this and you give me cash,’ unless it’s illegal.”
Again, it sounds racist, but it is an observable fact that black people are disproportionately unemployed, and they’re way over-represented in our prisons. Ironically, the disparity in drug sentencing between black people and white people would seem to indicate that they haven’t even gotten all that good at the illegal jobs, amiright?
Rather than curse the darkness (oops! Did I say that?), Newt has agreed to light a burning, brilliant candle (perhaps in the shape of a cross, to emphasize faith) that will show the wayward blacks of this country how to “find a job, get a job, and learn someday to own the job.”
Here’s your first lesson, brothers and sisters: do something about your names so you don’t get put into the “special pile” of job applications. (You think it’s an accident that “Leroy” is Newt’s middle name?) Once you get your foot in the door, you can use all of your Google-assisted knowledge to make sure you don’t use “the language of living in a ghetto.”
Monday night’s debate was a real turning point for me. When Speaker Gingrich put that uppity Juan Williams in his place with that delicious pronunciation of his name – “No, Hwan…” – the penny finally dropped for me. I realized that Newt wasn’t playing to the racial resentment of that South Carolina crowd (how great is it that Newt made his stand in the home of the greatest black-people job-training program in human history?), but rather, he was marshaling our opposition to the Kenyan mau-mau President and his Democrat plantation masters who have kept black people down lo these many three years.
Have a tip we should know? email@example.com