Dear Ms. Kaplan,

I am writing in regards to your article entitled It’s a mad, mad, mad, mad world that recently appeared in the LA Times. I discovered the articled because of a link on the Religion Blog of the Dallas Morning News website.

While I support your right to express your opinion in print and commend you especially for having the courage to do so, I do strongly disagree with what appears to be an attempt to equate conservatism with the anger expressed by Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

You say in your article that “what (you) think Wright's critics really don't like is the fact that he is mad.” The truth is that it has nothing to do with his anger. As a conservative, I don’t like that he is teaching thousands of Americans to be victims. As a white American, I don’t like that he is directing his anger at an entire race of people. As a Christian, I don’t like that his sermons ignore basic biblical principals.  And as a parent, I don’t like the example he sets for the children in his congregation.

You say you find the criticism of Rev. Wright “strange, when you consider that we live in a culture that thrives on vituperation institutionalized by conservative talk radio -- guys such as Rush Limbaugh and Don Imus are paid to be mad.” I’ve never listened to Imus, so I won’t address him in this letter. I would like to address Rush, though, because it does appear from your comment that you have never heard his show. 

I realize that there are some in talk radio who might be regarded as “shock jocks”, but the majority of quality conservative talk radio hosts – guys like Rush, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and Laura Ingraham – are condemning an ideology not a race. It’s the proven historical failings of liberalism they are railing against. Their passion is for conservative values that work every time they are tried. And while Levin’s blood pressure may get slightly elevated at times, Rush Limbaugh has no deep-rooted anger. I would encourage you to listen for yourself if you get the opportunity.

Barack the Magic Negro was not meant to taunt Obama as your article claims. It is a parody playing off the subject of an article from the very own publication in which your writing appeared, the LA Times, ironically published one-year ago to the day as your essay, which first labeled Obama as the “Magic Negro.” The LA Times op-ed was entitled Obama the Magic Negro and said in part that “it's clear that Obama also is running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination — the ‘Magic Negro,’” and,“He's there to assuage white "guilt" (i.e., the minimal discomfort they feel) over the role of slavery and racial segregation in American history, while replacing stereotypes of a dangerous, highly sexualized black man with a benign figure for whom interracial sexual congress holds no interest,” and, "The only mud that momentarily stuck was criticism (white and black alike) concerning Obama's alleged ‘inauthenticty,’ as compared to such sterling examples of ‘genuine’ blackness as Al Sharpton and Snoop Dogg.”The parody is what Limbaugh calls “illustrating absurdity by being absurd,” the point being that evaluating the “authenticity” of a candidate’s race is itself a racist act.

As for Bill Buckley, I am unaware of any time at which he “sanction[ed] Jim Crow laws” as your article alleges. What I do know is that he was vocally against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as was Barry Goldwater, but his opposition was based on a constitutional issue – not racism. I assume this is to what you are referring when you say “Buckley’s real genius was dressing up white anger in the guise of intellect.” I would argue that this is not a fair point. Buckley acknowledged that the Civil Rights Act accomplished great things, and his fifty-plus years of speeches and writings certainly do not contain racist themes.

You go on to say that “black anger is never seen as intellectual in nature, merely primal, and black public figures therefore have no such latitude,” noting that “there are exceptions. Martin Luther King Jr. is lauded now as a paragon of peace and disciplined black leadership, but it's useful to remember that he was mad most of the time.” 

There is a distinct difference here. Dr. King’s anger was against an institution whose policies and laws were inhuman, but Dr. King told his fellow African-Americans that “you are somebody” and “you can succeed.” The anger you say you have, and certainly the anger in Rev. Wright’s sermons, appears from my perspective to take the role of a victim to whom something is owed. This is the wrong message.   Anyone can be a victim, as a victim’s role does not have to be based in racism. It also does not lead to success.

Conservatism is an ideology that does not pit black against white or rich against poor. It’s a philosophy that says that anyone can succeed as long as they are willing to work hard enough. Conservatism recognizes that the less taxes and regulations you place on the wealthiest among us, the more jobs you create for everyone else. It says that if you leave us alone and let us work, we will produce, we will provide, and we will succeed.   And most of all, the public policies of conservatism reflect the private philosophy to which most Americans already adhere in their daily lives.

I’m not black. I’ve never experienced racism, and I’m not pretending to know what it feels like. I think it takes tremendous courage to put forth your opinions publicly as you do. But the source of your anger is misplaced. Conservatism is not “white anger”.  On the contrary, conservatism is a proven vehicle by which to improve the lives of every American regardless of color.

Sincerely,

Walt Curtis

Dallas, TX

txag007.townhall.com