John Malmin/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Is A New York Times Op-Ed Really Linking Charles Manson And His Racism To Republicans?

A NYT article really tries to tie Manson to conservative thinking.

The Howie Carr Show
November 21, 2017 - 6:05 pm

     To the surprise of no one this week, Charles Manson has moved on from our world to what we can only hope will be a tortured afterlife (depending on your beliefs). He made it to 83 years old even after lumbering through some health scares for a little while. He is known for ordering his "family" to commit the seven terrifying murders in Los Angeles during the summer of '69. Now instead of just calling Manson a cult leading reincarnation of the devil, the New York Times (or more specifically Baynard Woods) is taking this opportunity to lean Charlie's corpse to one side of the political aisle. 

     Here's the argument:

"Mr. Manson was not the end point of the counterculture. If anything, he was a backlash against the civil rights movement and a harbinger of white supremacist race warriors like Dylann Roof, the lunatic fringe of the alt-right." - B. Woods (New York Times)

     It should be mentioned that this reporter is mostly calling Charles Manson the epitome of alternative right beliefs rather than blanketly comparing him to the conservative right (although he certainly would like to). It's unclear what the end game is for this article, and at best it's a smattering of conjecture. With that being said it's an odd move to link a pure lunatic to one way of political thinking, and I'll tell you why.

     The main argument Mr. Woods is attempting to make is the relationship between the ideals of Manson and pure racist hate. The mentioning of Dylann Roof is almost a hack comparison simply based on the legitimate hatred they both shared for the black community. Even though Manson never claimed to be either, Baynard wants to claim he was right-leaning due to his racist and sexist beliefs. Mr. Woods either forgets, or is purposely ignoring the amount of racist and sexist behavior that has been widespread in the lefts history (including the 60's). If we are going to stay within the argument that is the decade of the 60's, it's the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that actually speaks volumes for congressional Republicans.

     Although the Act was sponsored by the "Dems," it was actually a higher percentage of Republicans that voted for it. So the idea that the Republican party was the advertised face of racial divide in the 60's is simply false. Let's also not forget J. William Fulbright and the southern Democrats filibustering that same Civil Rights Act. If that's not enough they also voted against the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The moral of the story is that there was a time when everyone was racist. To take a lunatic bent on world domination and placing him on the political side opposite you comes across as desperate, laughable, and alarmingly fruitless. You may argue it's equally pointless to answer back with another narrative, but easy writing is easy writing. 

     Manson and his model of an ideal world was truly born from racism. It's clear both political parties were rife with racial motivations in the 1960's, so couldn't we just as easily tie Charles to the left as we could to the right? Why do we have to tie him to either political party? Couldn't we just call him a murder happy cult lunatic, or does that not do enough for your crusade against the Conservative Republicans? I can see the headline now, "Trump disavows Charles Manson". 

Find the entire article HERE.

Comments ()