Over a Candle

In case you haven’t heard, the NAACP has charged elements within the Tea Party movement as racist. I’m not interested in evaluating those charges here. What interests me are the reactions to those charges that I’ve seen online and in editorial pages.

Some of the responses are something of a red herring. They at least miss the point. These are the responses from members of the movement who claim not to be racist themselves. Of course, if the charge is, as I understand it, that some members of the movement are racist and should be purged, saying that you aren’t racist isn’t really the point. If the NAACP had claimed that all members were racist, then your response would be relevant.

What is really obnoxious, though, is the form of ad hominem that some of the responses have taken. Rather than defending those charged with racism, these response simply claim that the NAACP is itself racist. This is the tu quoque fallacy, or more colloquially, “I know you are, but what am I?”

In essence, they claim that they can be racist, and ignore charges of racism from the NAACP because that organization is also racist.

Counter-charges are as old as politics itself, I suspect, but they are a crappy way to reason.

If you think the NAACP is racist (and I’m not saying they are, but I’m not going to have that argument here), then they are being hypocritical. But that doesn’t mean you get to be a racist, too. Racism is wrong. If the NAACP engages in it, it is wrong to do so. And if the Tea Party is doing so, it’s wrong, too. It’s no defense to point out your accuser’s hypocrisy.

I don’t think the Tea Party is inherently racist, not from what I’ve seen anyway. But if there are racist elements in it, then it should seek to eliminate those elements from its ranks. Instead, its supporters seem mostly interested in giving fallacious defenses of people most of them don’t even know.