Linda is actually advancing progressive notions under the cloak of conservative rhetoric. "We conservatives can’t have it both ways," she says, "either we’re for race-neutral justice or we’re not." That turns “race-neutral justice” into a phrase as vaporously promiscuous as “social justice.” The conservative case is for common sense not sloganeering. "Race-neutral justice" is not an abstract ideal divorced from all factual context. We are for race-neutral justice when considerations of race have no proper place in the matter at hand. But I can’t imagine that Linda would prevent a prosecutor in a mafia case from proving that "membership" in a Cosa Nostra "family" requires Italian heritage. And based on our many conversations about national security, I’m betting she does not support purging terms like "jihadist" and "Islamist terror" in favor of "violent extremist" and "man-caused disaster" on the rationale that our commitment to "race-neutral justice" requires us to ignore the ideology that inspires modern terrorism.I think I'd point out here that the Italians mentioned are probably in court because they've been arrested for an actual crime - and the crime would exist outside racial identity - and also that "jihadist" is not a racial category.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
The Cloaca of Conservative Rhetoric
Posted by Substance McGravitas at 6:37 PM