Illogical logic example: "proof" that the Tea Party is racist

I know a lot of people would like it if the Tea party movement were racist, so they could marginalize it, and ignore it. All I know for certain is that there have been rivers of accusations, but ne'er a trickle of actual, unambiguous, unmanipulated evidence.

But I want to focus very briefly on a bit of "logic" I heard Wednesday on Michael Medved's show. A very polite caller was trying hard to pin "racism" on the Tea Party. One of his proofs went like this:

1. Do you deny that most of the Tea Party is white?
2. Doesn't that prove that it is racist?

I didn't think that either the guest-host or his guest (R. Emmett Tyrrell) got to the heart of that progression, beyond heartily denying the charge. Well, one of them did ask whether the NBA was also racist by the same token, but the point seemed to elude the caller entirely.

I think part of why they didn't hammer the heart of the charge is that the charge itself puts one on the defensive. Honestly, how do you prove you're not a racist? "Some of my best friends are ____" is ridiculed as a response — but why isn't it actually a pretty good answer?

Regardless, it is deucedly hard to prove a negative. "Here, look! Here's a picture of me not being a racist!" Worse, the more you defend yourself, the guiltier you look.

And let's face it, to most of the accusers, the evidence phase of this trial is a mere formality. It's like Sherriff Cobb in the movie Silverado promising, "We're gonna give you a fair trial, followed by a first class hanging."

What I wanted to ask the caller is, "Do you have evidence of rivers of 'colored' people trying to join the movement and being shut out because of their skin-color?"

(In fact, I wanted to ask the caller if he wanted to join up, right then and there. When he declined, I'd ask him whose fault that was.)

I think the same thing about the GOP. One hears constantly that the GOP has to "reach out" to "people of color." Well, okay, fine... but how? First, show me evidence that "people of color" are trying to get in to the party, and are being shut out in some way. Then, stop that.

Why is the onus on conservatives to explain why more people of color don't join their efforts? Why, rather, isn't the onus on non-whites to explain what their issue is with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, with individual liberty and responsibility in a Judeo-Christian moral framework, with protecting babies, with sanity regarding marriage, with opposing tyranny and securing our borders? Why isn't the onus on them to explain why they want to support efforts to regulate everything, legislate everything, tax everything, flatten everything, turn everyone into dependent and subservient wards of the State?

In particular, why isn't the onus on non-whites who profess faith in Christ, yet voted for a man who opposes every distinctively Christian value they hold, a man with whom they share (or should share) no bonds except pigmentation? Church parking lots with cars still bearing Obama stickers — there is a problem.

I think that's where the burden of explanation lies. In saying that, I am also confessing that I don't know the answer. I know of some forces that have contributed... but if you show me a manure-pile, and I then dive into it, it isn't you who has the 'splaining to do.

I'll be completely candid. I don't know one conservative, private or public, who wouldn't weep for joy (virtually or actually) to see "minorities" pouring into the conservative movement and filling up positions of leadership.

Also: everything I've just finished saying about the conservative movement goes double for Calvinistic Christians.

So in sum: I'm not even close to being convinced that the blame for white majority numbers among conservatives — or Calvinists — lays on whites themselves.

Not even close.