Left reacts to growing Jindal threat to its power, privilege

Already liberals and their media allies are finding creative ways to rain on Gov.-elect Bobby Jindal’s parade. Expect them to do their best to continue this over the next four years because of the fundamental threat Jindal represents to their hold on power and privilege.

Upon Jindal’s election, news reports surfaced about how his relatives and others of Indian heritage celebrated the win. So the next day a story appears to inform us that “not all Indian-Americans were celebrating.” One must wonder where this came from, or why it was a story at all. Did the Louisiana Gannett News Service editors see the other story and suddenly felt inspired to find somebody of Indian background to provide an opposing view? Or did some political operatives, displeased at Jindal’s election, volunteer to give an opposing view?

Regardless of how he came to the attention of the media, one Toby Chaudhuri said he had “mixed feelings” about Jindal’s election. He said Jindal wasn’t the “typical Indian-American” because he was a conservative Republican and because of his Catholic faith. Of course, it would appear that this Chaudhuri is something of a moron because he called the Republican Party “historically a white-only party” and also asserted that “Jindal may have cornered the Mother Teresa vote, but Mahatma Gandhi certainly would have opposed him on principle.”

Where to begin in the face of such ignorance? First, while few systematic studies have looked at the Indian-American community in terms of political attitudes, they conclude there aren’t many differences between it and the American public at large. This would imply more of them call themselves conservatives than liberals and more Democrats than Republicans. This guy probably doesn’t know there is at least some organization of Indian-Americans favoring the GOP. So, politically at least, Jindal isn’t that different from others of his ethnic background.

Second, this dummy obviously needs a history lesson. The Republican Party started as an organized abolitionist movement that branched out into electoral politics just prior to the Civil War. In fact, its rise to prominence triggered the Civil War, among other causes, as southern Democrats believed the new party would be able to roll back slavery of blacks. After the Civil War, many blacks were elected as Republicans both at the state and national level – until Democrats began to find ways to prevent them from even participating in politics in the south. Currently dozens of blacks serve as GOP elected officials. If anything, it’s been Democrats who for so long (and maintained this by law) were “historically whites-only.”

Third, as near as I can tell from the almost incomprehensible, if not bigoted (and ignorant – Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu was a Macedonian of Albanian descent) statement Chaudhuri made about religion, he seems to imply that Jindal and Gandhi would be political opponents. Rather, they have more in common than differences. For example, Gandhi hoped to liberate Indians from a government that restricted their political rights and self-determination. That stands as a basic conservative principle: limiting government to prevent it from curtailing individual liberty through transfer of power and privilege to others.

Idiocy aside, the key to understanding what provoked these comments lies in who Chaudhuri is and what he represents. This worker with “progressive non-profit organizations, political campaigns,” and public officials who “worked hard to protect sick and hungry children from the right wing” is communications director of the wacko leftist Campaign for America’s Future. These people are the most threatened by Jindal’s victory not only because he is an articulate conservative, but also because he is an ethnic minority in America.

The left retains power in this country only because it can hornswoggle non-whites into thinking it can help them, by a strategy of disinformation and disempowerment of them. Part of their strategy is to shamelessly call Republicans and conservatives not just uncaring of minority Americans’ fortunes, but hostile to them. It’s a house of cards ready to come down, and they fear Jindal, not only as a symbol contradicting their lie but that he can be effective in persuading non-whites through deeds to open their eyes to understand the condition of servitude in which liberalism entraps them.

Liberal activists cannot afford to have Jindal invalidate the entire mistaken worldview from which they draw the resources that protect their power and privilege. They will do what they can to prevent Jindal from gaining more national prominence. On the propaganda front, statements such as these represent their first, but by no means their last, move to do so.