The Racism Card

Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida, not-yet candidate for the GOP nomination for the Presidency, and up-until-a-moment-ago favorite target of Donald J. Trump, issued a statement regarding Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg's indictment of Trump on what, as of my writing this, are rumored to be some rather picayune financial disclosure violations.

"Morning Joe" Scarborough helpfully wokesplained that DeSantis was playing the "international Jewish banker" card, i.e. that his tweet was an anti-Semitic dog whistle.

This is patent nonsense, of course. It's a fact, and an open one at that, that George Soros spent millions donating to the campaigns of district attorneys who share his progressive views on criminal justice reform (more on those on a moment), and that Bragg got a bucketful of support from Soros money this past election.

Is mentioning Soros intended to add information to his tweet?

Of course. Soros is one of the big voices in non-prosecution of small-time offenses, a philosophy that has ravaged cities such as San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, and NYC. When Defund The Police lost steam, the focus shifted to the prosecutors' offices, and Bragg notoriously issued a "thou shalt not prosecute" memo the moment his ass hit the DA's seat in Manhattan. To point out that Bragg's (in)actions not only mirror Soros's philosophy, but that Soros worked to put Bragg in that office, serves to highlight the selective nature of Bragg's prosecution of Trump.

Is it racist?

Give me a [redacted] break.

Am I surprised that someone on the Left sought to rebut DeSantis with such an accusation?

I'm about as surprised as I was when my morning coffee tasted like… coffee.

That is to say, not even one iota. Tigers gotta tiger, scorpions gotta scorpion.

Scarborough's accusation is not a rebuttal of DeSantis's points, nor is it a refutation of his assertions. It is, in the parlance of fallacies, an ad hominem attack.

This accusation of racism or bigotry is such a common gambit (especially from those who often exhibit more of it than anyone else) that I think it deserves its own label.

Latin translators (i.e. Google and my brother) got me the rest of the way.

So, I hereby offer:

No matte who does it, it’s a logical fallacy. And deeply insulting. If you see it, call it out. If you’re subjected to it, reject outright rather than defend, then counterpunch. They want you to defend, because it derails you from your original point. Dirty tactics, but effective, unless you stand up to it.

---

P.S. If any Latin scholars want to offer a different/better version, please hit me up in the comments.