Why I Must Defend Barbara Boxer

By Selwyn Duke

We’ve all heard about the little dust-up between Black Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Harry Alford and Democrat senator Barbara Boxer during an Environment & Public Works (EPW) hearing on “green” jobs. Boxer, the chairman of the EPW committee, was trying to refute a report commissioned by Alford’s organization stating that the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act — which I’ll call “cap-and-sap” — would actually cause a net reduction in jobs. So, marshalling her arguments, she cited many sources that support cap-and-sap — among them the NAACP and the leader of 100 Black Men of America.

This didn’t sit too well with Mr. Alford. He responded, “Madam Chair, that is condescending to me. I’m the National Black Chamber of Commerce, and you’re trying to put up some other black group to pit against me . . . . All that’s condescending, and I don’t like it. It’s racial.”

In a later interview, Alford was even more pointed in his criticism, saying that his Boxer match was “like being in Mississippi in 1945” and “vile Jim Crow.” He described the essence of the senator’s comments thus, “Colored boy, what are you doing with this sophisticated report?”

Well, Mr. Alford, tell us how you really feel.

Now, although I had never heard of Alford before this brouhaha, I like what I see; he seems a stand-up fellow, down-to-earth, commonsensical, sincere and spirited. In other words, the antithesis of a liberal. I also could not agree with him more on cap-and-sap. I go even further in fact: it is part of a destructive agenda often animated by diabolical motivations. Nevertheless, I must do something that is a first for this scribe: defend Barbara Boxer.

At least, that is, a little bit.

Lest I be misunderstood, I think Boxer is the worst politics has to offer — this makes her the worst of the worst. And I can certainly see why she would have irked Alford, as she was not only condescending, she was her usual imperious, supercilious, paternalistic self. And this is par for the course. Remember when Boxer chided Brigadier General Michael Walsh simply because he abided by military protocol concerning the addressing of those of higher rank and called her “ma’am”? It was a pathetic display. But, then again, the general did err. It takes a bit of detachment from reality to view Boxer as any kind of superior. There are better things to call her.

Yet, having said all this, a good man can be wrong and, well, you know what they say about a broken clock. So, I ask, was her approach during the hearing truly reflective of bigotry?

It was certainly racial. Boxer never would have cited the NAACP had a white man been locking horns with her. But everyone seems to be missing the pink elephant in the middle of the room: Alford isn’t the president of the Chamber of Commerce.

He is the president of the Black Chamber of Commerce.

I’ll illustrate this fairly obvious point further. Let’s say I’m head of an organization called the Catholic Chamber of Commerce and I appear before the right honourable Senator Boxer. Now, would it be surprising if, in an effort to sway me, she cited opinion rendered by the Catholic League and Opus Dei? Or should I accuse Boxer, a Jewish woman, of anti-Catholic bias? Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure the woman is anti-lots of things; regardless, it wouldn’t be just to accuse her of bigotry simply because she inferred my passions from my associations and built her argument around them. After all, if you’re going to define your organization based on a characteristic, you cannot blame people for viewing you through its prism.

I’ll also point out that during Alford’s opening statement he said the following, “that [the projected disparate impact of cap-and-sap] worries me and my members because the black community suffers mightily when the economy goes south.” Of course, Alford’s emphasis on the black community reflects a special concern for it; given this, however, is it surprising that Boxer would counter by citing entities that lay claim to having the same special concern?

The answer is obvious. Despite this, however, many of my ideological brethren are now using the EPW incident to paint Boxer as a bigot. And, insofar as this goes, I regret to say that they're guilty of intellectual dishonesty. Oh, I do understand the overwhelming temptation. The senator and her leftist ilk wrote the book on playing the race card and using Stalinist tactics to destroy opponents — and they do it for the most specious of reasons. There are the examples of Bill O’Reilly and golf commentator Kelly Tilghman, who innocently used a variation on the word “lynch” during commentary about blacks; there was university student Keith John Sampson, who was persecuted simply for reading an anti-Ku Klux Klan book; and then there was the pillorying of Rush Limbaugh over his analysis of black quarterback Donovan McNabb’s boosters. These are just a sampling of numerous instances where the left sent lynching parties after those they hated for only one reason: because they could.

Thus, just as when Hillary and Bill Clinton were accused of bigotry while campaigning against Barack Obama, the Boxer controversy is an example of liberals being mauled by a hoary and horrible monster of their own design. And many conservatives relish the chance to give the left a taste of its own medicine because, well, now they can.

Yet it takes a good dose of rationalization to convince oneself that something only racial is “racist.” This may be easy for the left, but for those on the right it probably takes a bit more effort. After all, many liberals are so detached from reality, so solipsistic and relativistic, that they mistake their feelings for Truth. They have the lie on retainer. Conservatives, on the other hand, embrace it only occasionally, as a consultant.

Another difference between the right and left is that we traditionalists know we’re called to be better than that. We know that the Truth will not only set us free and carry the day when the last chapter is written, but that it’s all we have. The lie will never serve us like it does the liars. That is, unless, as they have done, we make it our master.

And the Truth is the point. Whenever we peddle that lie called the race card, we contribute to the mass delusion and lessen the chances that the Truth will be known, all for some momentary political gain. We trade something beautiful for thirty pieces of silver. Liberals make this a practice, and it’s why they’re contemptible. But, remember, silver is all they have.

As for my friends on the right, for the moment, I could be even madder at you. After all, your trespass is the greater. You forced me to defend Barbara Boxer.

                     © Selwyn Duke — All Rights Reserved

Comments

[Rick Newton]

Selwyn, I have always enjoyed and generally agreed wholeheartedly with your commentaries. On this one, however, I appreciate your points in why you are defending Senator Ma'am, but I beg to differ. As much as I am offended by any organization that defines and names itself by the race of it's members, I do not subscribe to the notion that they only have interests in racial issues. To provide input to this committee on the (ridiculous) notion of 'green jobs' has nothing to do with the racial composition of the group - it's simply their opinion on behalf of a group of businesses. What the entire debacle demonstrates, however, is that the Democratic Party is hardly the party of civil rights - and certainly not one of empathy for blacks - but then again, we all knew that already.

[Miles Grant]

The week after Alford testified, Trenton Mayor Douglas Palmer testified before the same committee. Unprompted, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) suggested Mayor Palmer read the NBCC report. Palmer happens to be black. Was that an outrage, too?

[Bob3]

Duke: ..."it wouldn’t be just to accuse her of bigotry simply because she inferred my passions from my associations and built her argument around them."

Okay then, she's a profiler! ;-)

[Philip France]

I am still trying to understand Selwyn's point in defending the mental midget that is my own US Senator Boxer.

Is he implying that by making a factually accurate quote from the NAACP she accidentally and innocently offended and insulted a prominent man whose skin happens to be dark?

If so, Mr. Duke is being far too generous and may be as duplicitous as the sissies in Great Britain who banned Michael Savage to "balance" their indictment of an undesirabke list that slanted too heavily toward Islamofascists.

If not, please explain further what the hell you did mean.

Senator Barbara Boxer is as Selwyn described: the worst of the worst. She is, as I said before, a mental midget. Dr. Michael Savage accurately says of her (I am paraphrasing) were it not for her Senatorial position, she is incapable of running a brassiere department in a clothing store.

I have heard the interchange between Mr. Alford and Senator Boxer. While I do not buy into the verbatim facts that she was race-baiting, I believe that she surely was.

[LI Mike]

I don't think the point in the article was defending Barbara Boxer as much as defending the truth. The Black Chamber of Commerce defines itself and uniquely draws power and representation racially. Harry Alford in a sense 'went Gates' in his response.

Among several other excellent points, it's well taken that conservatism naturally draws vastly greater power from its commitment to truth and intellectual honesty rather than to pragmatism.

[Walt]

Well said LT Mike. Although I can't say that I approve of anyone "going Gates" on anyone else, it was kind of funny to see the tables turned. I do not think Harry Alford had intentions of creating a race divide in this matter but I do think he was giving notice to Boxer and the democrats that they do not own the blacks. The democrats still treat the black people as if they own them because they owe them for giving them free stuff. Black, brown, yellow, red and white folks can think for themselves and do not need Boxer, the NAACP, BCC the DNC or any other special interest group to speak for them as a whole. If they do, that blind, unthinking unity will cause race tension; but that is the plan of the leftist-division. When people vote for a president based upon the color of his skin rather than the content of his character we have a problem. There is no room in any intelligent conversation for race differentiation. I wonder what the white chamber of commerce had to say about this exchange.

[Philip France]

The Congressional Caucasian Caucus appears to be mum as well. How ironic.

[dissertation writing help]

Thanks a lot for a bunch of good tips. I look forward to reading more on the topic in the future. Keep up the good work! This blog is going to be great resource. Love reading it