So after witnessing the waves of antipathy across the country toward President Obama's policies, New York Times writer Charles Blow introduces his readers to the term: "aversive racism."
It's a sinister kind of prejudice, Blow explains, that reveals itself in disagreements based on factors "other than race."
A simpler definition of aversive racism: If you say it's not about race, then it's really about race.
See: If you're against socialized medicine, it's really because our president — who's for it — is black. If you're against the redistribution of wealth, it's because Obama is black. If you believe global warming dogma is hypothetical hooey, that belief is now racist, since Obama buys into climate change hysteria.
So everything you believe in, is now proof you're a bigot.
And that's why aversive racism might be the greatest invention ever for the left, because it exempts them defending their own screwy beliefs. If you disagree with any worn-out or destructive progressive idea, then you must be a hood-wearing hater. It's the lowdown trick to end all lowdown tricks and it gives the left what it so desperately needs: Immunity for their reviled beliefs.
As a rightie, to me black liberals and white liberals are all just liberals. But it's different on the left. Progressives hate conservatives, but they hate black conservatives more. They hate right wingers, but they hate Hispanic right wingers more. They hate Republicans, but they hate female Republicans more.
This intolerance, which is directed at people different from themselves, reflects the reverse of aversive racism: real racism.
And if you disagree with me, then you're most definitely a racist.