No, 'Taking Our Country Back' Isn't Racist

Michael Medved, one of the squishiest conservative pundits around, has written a column at Townhall.com in which he suggests dropping the TEA Party slogan of "taking our country back", because some on the left might misconstrue that language as racist, given we are currently experiencing our first non-white president.

Mr. Medved writes:

"Talking about 'taking our country back,' conjuring images of an eternal battle between us-and-them, can only alienate that crucial element of the populace with few ideological attachments and chronic disinclination to firm allegiances. The moderates who decide most political battles feel uncomfortable with harsh rhetoric from either right or left, treating rivals as some alien other. After all, Howlin' Howie Dean ran his ultra-liberal presidential campaign of 2004 using precisely the slogan favored by today's conservatives, and promising to 'take our country back'—in his case, from the dreaded Bush regime. Though once hailed as the Democratic frontrunner, Dean's campaign developed an apocalyptic and paranoid edge that finally repelled even liberal voters in Democratic primaries. Republicans should avoid replicating that aura of off-putting self-righteousness.

There's also an unmistakable, uncomfortable whiff of racial animus in demanding to regain lost control of "our country" during the term of America's first non-white president. Naturally, left-wingers will seize on any excuse to charge their conservative adversaries with hatred of black people, and they have logically asked, "from whom, exactly, do conservatives mean to take their country back?” From liberals, or from people of color?"

Like the NAACP's ludicrous attack on the Tea Party as the second coming of the Klan, these charges may seem opportunistic and implausible, but why risk even the vague appearance of race-baiting when it's entirely unnecessary?"

What utter nonsense. First of all, the Left doesn't misconstrue anything about the conservative movement or the TEA parties. They purposefully construct a false premise and use ad-hominem attacks to demonize anyone who doesn't agree with them. Orders to do this come from the highest levels of race-baiters in the Obama administration, aided by the partisan enablers of the Journolist group, who you might recall suggested smearing Fred Barnes and Karl Rove with the 'racist' label in hopes of taking the spotlight off Obama's relationship with the infamous Rev. Wright.

As Ann Coulter brilliantly points out in her latest column, to suggest in defense that "both sides have their fringe elements" is no defense at all. Every time the Left plays the race-baiting or personal attack game (because they can't win on the merits of their ideas and their president's job performance is abysmal), these political hacks should be called out as the liars that they are. There is no truth or proof to their claim whatsoever, and even with a $10,000 reward to produce evidence of so-called racist slurs at a TEA Party rally at the Capitol with thousands of video cameras around, the Left has been unable to produce one second of footage. 

The truth is if the Left really felt concerned about racism in this country, they wouldn't have all flocked to Sen. Robert Byrd's funeral to pay homage and make excuses for his membership (and time served as a recruiter) in the Ku Klux Klan. And they might show a wee bit more concern for the voters who were faced with New Black Panther members forcefully wielding sticks and batons at a Pennsylvania polling station.

But here's where Medved really misses the boat. "Take our Country Back" isn't the rally cry to replace Obama with a Republican or to overthrow a political party. The rally cry to "take our country back" is the call of the people to strip the ruling class of its power and restore government back in the hands of the citizens. The aim is to take our country back from lifelong politicos and entrenched special interests who have been hawking the nation into debt for years at their own personal gain, Republican and Democrat alike. In the case of this administration, it probably also means we need to take our country back from the Harvard eggheads who operate under the direction of economic theories instead of proven principles and immutable laws, because as William F. Buckley famously stated (and I'm paraphrasing), "we'd be better off being governed by the first 2000 names in the phone book than the Harvard faculty."

I might also add that Howard Dean's campaign ran into a lot more trouble than just a strongly-worded slogan. And if you've heard Howie speak since then, you realize just what a loon he is - that weird yell was no exception. Further, words to "take our country back" ring hollow from the left, because the left's view of progress is the opposite of our founding ideals. They want to take our country forward, away from our stale past rooted in liberty, as evidenced by the hostility of this administration to free enterprise.

Michael Medved's squeamish campaign for a duller slogan does the conservative movement no favors and will have the opposite effect of his intention, pushing moderates away who may not fit into an ideological camp per se, but know the difference between being ruled and being governed. When you are being ruled over and disenfranchised every day, as this Democrat-led Congress has done to the American people, it's definitely time to point out the lost voices of democracy, to not mince words but set brushfires in the minds of fellow citizens of all political stripes, and "Take our country back."