Commenting on her speech at the RNC on Tuesday night, Juan Williams said he thought that Ann Romney came off as a “corporate wife” whose “husband takes care of her.” You know- a wholly privileged gal who’s never worked, never suffered (besides that whole “having multiple sclerosis and cancer” thing), so everyday American women, like single moms, just can’t relate to her.
First of all, this is funny because it’s essentially doubling down on the “she never worked a day in her life” gaffe that compromised Hilary Rosen and cost Democrats swathes of support from women voters, so this’ll be fun to watch play out again among women voters.
But the most hilarious thing is that, by proxy, he is suggesting that Michelle Obama just exudes this normalcy that Ann Romney lacks. As if Michelle Obama’s trek from Princeton to politics with Barack was a perilous journey fraught with hardships, culminating in some kind of modest life those poor single moms can relate to so well that they couldn’t possibly relate to Ann Romney by comparison.
I wonder just what would give Juan Williams this impression that single moms can just relate to Michelle, and not Ann? Is it the nearly two dozen assistants Michelle has to help her with her day to day activities? Is it the fact that she wears “consistently high-end” outfits upwards of $2,000 each when she and her family get away on one of their many opulent vacations to Martha’s Vineyard, Hawaii, or South America? Just what is it, Juan?
Could it be because… shhhh… because she’s black, and Ann Romney is white? Could it be because you are making the assumption that single moms, when given the choice between two clearly affluent politicians’ wives, will relate to the affluent black woman more readily than the affluent white woman?
Of course he is making that assumption, because he is playing to the left’s ideological narrative. In that narrative (nicely encapsulated by Chris Matthews’ recent, wild accusations of racism here), rich, power-hungry corporate interests are represented by white people, and the poor masses that they repress are represented by minorities. It’s a familiar dichotomy that elicits class struggle, the roots of which are firmly engrained in twentieth century socialism, but particularly, the “white oppressors” and “greedy capitalist” themes, found liberally peppered into every aspect of modern progressivism, stemmed from 60s radicalism and its fondness for Communist figures like Ho Chi Minh and Ché Guevara, who regularly employed such rhetoric about America and Europe. For them, the enemy was white, capitalist, and is eternally symbolic of oppression of the masses- and thus, it became so for the generations of ideologues spawned by 60s radicalism, too. Today, we know them as progressives, and Juan Williams is among them.
Ann Romney walked onto that stage and delivered a message about the importance of love and family, and she expressed pride in American exceptionalism. Juan Williams will spend days, maybe weeks doing verbal gymnastics to explain what he found so disagreeable about that simple message. But if he were to be honest with himself, he’d probably come to the conclusion that, in his mind, Ann Romney didn’t have a snowball’s chance in Hell to reach common voters when she took that stage- because she’s a rich, white woman with the wrong set of political ideas. (my emphasis)
By William Sullivan for American Thinker
By permission American ThinkerPrint This Post Send To A Friend