OPINION:
The lighter your skin is, the older you get, and the more time you spend in the sun, the more likely you will get skin cancer. Other than that, the endless preoccupation with race and skin color is largely a waste of time.
As everyone who pays attention to the news knows, Republicans did very well in last week’s elections, particularly in Virginia. Many who deny Republicans had better policy proposals retreated to the old standby of race and skin color to explain the outcome.
Republicans have, in recent elections, been doing better and better among Hispanics. One of the “explanations” for this is that 80% of Hispanics identify themselves as having lighter skin, and only 20% identify themselves as having darker skin, according to a new Pew Research Study. Some assert that if you’re a Hispanic with lighter skin, it means you are more likely to vote Republican. And if this sounds like a stretch, that’s because it is.
Several commentators on MSNBC and CNN claimed that the reason Republicans did so well –– particularly in Virginia –– is that the Republicans used “racial dog whistles.” They ignored that these Republican voters elected a Black woman who emigrated from Jamaica, Winsome Sears, as lieutenant governor and elected a Hispanic man, Jason Miyares, who ran against a White incumbent. Miyares’ opponent, Mark Herring, had also admitted to wearing blackface in the past.
The Pew study was based on the Yadron-Ostfeld skin color scale, which gave the respondents ten different skin colors from light to dark to identify with. The analysis is quite detailed, but the bottom line was the obvious: Hispanics do not constitute a single racial group and come in a variety of colors.
Many other peoples that get lumped together also come in various colors, such as Asian Indians, who can be as white as many Europeans to as dark as many Africans. East Asians and Europeans also exhibit a variety of skin colors. (Many Europeans and others are very “white” in January but would be classified as “light brown” in July – it is called a suntan). Trying to explain the behavior of a particular group based on the pigmentation of their skin is, in effect, a modern update of the discredited “race scientists” who were prominent before World War II.
Assume for the moment that everyone on the planet had exactly the same skin color. Yet income and wealth distributions both within and between countries are the same as they now are. How would you explain the differences?
Economists have spent decades studying income disparities. Even though some countries have high-income disparities and other countries have relatively low-income disparities, the evidence shows that there’s not necessarily more inequality in diverse societies than in nations where one race is predominant or vice versa.
However, we know that countries with a strong rule of law, and well-managed civil institutions, tend to be prosperous and successful – regardless of the racial makeup of the people.
In modern-day America, anyone of any skin color or race can reach the top of any profession or attainment, as has been proven time and time again. A Black man was elected president twice in this century and largely did so because he won over the working-class White voters that liberals now routinely decry as racist.
President Barack Obama did much better with these White voters than the following two Democratic nominees for president, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, who, needless to say, are White. Yet, many Democrats argue that when voters of any color refuse to back White candidates like Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Biden and Virginia’s Terry McAuliffe, they do so because of “white supremacy.”
The truth is that the vast majority of Americans do not want to be divided by race. They want to live in a multi-racial democracy where people are judged on their character, not their skin color.
Sadly, the left has decided that the only reason people reject their tax hikes, wasteful spending, and insane cultural agenda is because of racism. They don’t seem to understand that calling voters “racist” at every opportunity –– which seems like it will remain the Democrats’ strategy, despite the warnings –– is unlikely to endear Americans to the left’s ongoing assault on capitalism and traditional values.
Obsession with race and skin color is indeed bad for the country, especially for the children forced to parrot this garbage by some demented teachers. But it’s also bad for Democrats, as shown by recent elections and the declining viewership for channels like CNN and MSNBC, which is remarkable, given how few people were watching those channels, to begin with.
Let’s be thankful for that silver lining. The left may have lost its mind on race, but as long as they’re shouting about skin pigmentation and whatnot, conservatives and libertarians will keep winning elections. Now, if we can only quickly cure skin cancer!
• Richard W. Rahn is chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth and MCon LLC.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.