Some folks’ bias is so strong, minds are so narrow, and economic illiteracy are so profound that they’re totally incapable of understanding why other folks don’t view Obamacare as a good thing. A big explanation, they surmise, must be racism.
The latest smear comes from an article in today’s Washington Post, written by a Kate Julian, which touts a “study” in which people sorted “stereotypically ‘black’ and ‘white’ words and names (Tyrone and Shaniqua vs. Brett and Jane) into positive and negative categories.” More “black” words in negative categories implied racism. By this logic, the fact that most white people don’t choose “black” names for the kids means that most white people must be racist.
What about the names Matilda or Gertrude or Vladimir? (No offense to anyone named that.) If those are mainly in a research participant’s negative categories, does that make the participant racist against whites?
Hey Kate, I don’t know what race you are or whether you have kids, but if you’re white and you do have kids, are they named Tyrone or Shaniqua or something along those lines? If not, does that make you a racist? (Of course no, but yes if you take Kate’s premise to its logical conclusion.)
The “study” found that people alleged to be racists were more likely to oppose Obamacare. But that can’t hold because the original premise – based on the misleading sorting exercise – was faulty.
What if, say, RNC Chairman Michael Steele, who is black, proposed Steelecare where healthcare is reformed along more free-market lines. What if the alleged “racists” were more likely to support Steelecare? Would that mean support for Steelecare is based on racism?
While I can’t rule out that there isn’t someone, somewhere in the U.S.A. who opposes Obamacare because he or she is genuinely racist, I am confident that at least 99.999 percent of those who oppose Obamacare do so because of legitimate concerns with this monstrosity of a plan.