Why Are Threats Against Ben Carson “Off the Charts”?

The Secret Service will give agent protection to Ben Carson and Donald Trump while heavily upgrading Hillary Clinton’s existing detail, a Washington source close to the agency’s plans confirmed to Newsmax.

The deployment of agents around Republican candidates Trump and Carson is set to begin as early as next week. Approximately two dozen agents will be assigned to each candidate.

The threats to the retired pediatric neurosurgeon have been “off the charts,” the source said. Polls show Carson either tied with Trump for front-runner status or in second place.

Armstrong Williams, Carson’s business manager, told Newsmax he could neither “confirm nor deny” the Secret Service protection. “We don’t comment on security matters involving Dr. Carson,” he said.

[reported at Newsmax.com 10-17-15]

Why is Ben Carson, in particular, such a target for violence?

Not everyone who makes such threats really means them. People do these things because they wish to intimidate. Yes, some who threaten violence mean it; but most (fortunately) do not.

Why is Ben Carson such a particular target for intimidation? There are people who hold many of Carson’s views, but who are not threatened as much, at least if these reports are true. Is it because of his race? Perhaps. But what about his race is the factor?

We hear a lot about racism. For example, we hear about non-black people who hate persons who are black. It’s still true, even today, although it’s much less true than ever before.

But racism can work in numerous directions. The definition of racism is not “anti-black” or “anti-Asian” or anti-anyone else. The definition of racism is when you elevate race to the most significant factor in character evaluation. Yet character refers to choices, and racial make-up is not a choice.

One of the reasons I suspect Ben Carson is under such attack is because, in the minds of some, he holds views that no black person should hold.

Carson’s very critical of President Obama, for example. As anyone who is not black already knows, to not be black while critical of President Obama is to be routinely labeled a “racist.” I have been called that for not liking President Obama, and I have watched people (in my presence) be called racist for disagreeing with Obama’s policies on taxation, socialized medicine, or economics. What do these issues have to do with race? Nobody ever explains; it’s taken as self-evident, and to ask the question is to be further labeled a racist.

It’s a convenient way of shifting the debate away from such important issues as what are the nature of rights; which social system (e.g. capitalism or socialism) best respects and fosters human nature while delivering the goods; and what the U.S. Constitution really permits and says. Inquiry and debate in these areas have nothing to do with race. To some, it’s easier to simply say, “Either you agree with me, or you’re a racist,” and have that be the end of all intellectual discussion. It’s like the name-calling of children, with far less excuse.

When a prominent, amazingly accomplished black man comes out and says he does not like President Obama or his policies, it’s a glaring and high profile reminder that there are other reasons to oppose Obama, aside from his race.

This is a reminder that many proponents of Obama’s policies do not wish us to consider.

The Democratic Party, in particular, is all about group identity politics. “If you’re in favor of blacks [women, gays], you support our policies.” End of story. The Democratic Party holds a consistent position of wealth redistribution, strong government intervention in the economy, and all out socialization of major sectors of the economy. It also favors a policy of appeasement towards America’s enemies. Not all women, gays, blacks and Hispanics share these perspectives.

Their current second place candidate for the presidential nomination is Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist. If the Democratic Party used to dance around the issue of socialism and deny that it’s their ideology, those days appear to be waning.

All Ben Carson seems to be saying is, “I don’t like socialism.” Granted, his positions are vague and sometimes contradictory. For example, he has said he favors turning health care into the equivalent of a federalized utility. But that’s what Obamacare seeks to do; it’s just another form of socialism. Nevertheless, Carson is perceived as being against Obama’s policies, when we have been told — over and over — that the primary reason for being against Obama’s policies is because of racism.

Carson’s very existence flies in the face of group identity politics. If Obama’s economic and foreign policies are supposed to go with the territory of being black, female, Hispanic or gay, then it threatens the whole paradigm when someone in any of those groups comes out against Obama. It’s seen as a betrayal that has to be silenced, because it threatens everything. Hence the disproportionate number of attacks and threats against Ben Carson’s life.

Another reason for threats on Carson’s life is the recent willingness he showed in standing up to Islam, as a religion. We’re all supposed to tip-toe around the fact that nearly all of the violence in the world today takes place in the name of Islam. And we’re supposed to pretend that this religion is peaceful, even though the very definition of Islam means “submission.” Moderate or reasonable advocates of Islam appear to be few and far between, bordering on non-existent. If this were not the case, we’d see peaceful protests in the streets from the millions of Muslims in free countries who decry the violence and who love the freedom of separation of church and state. Where are they?

Ironically, it’s the “liberals” such as Obama who are the greatest defenders of and apologists for Islam, taking political correctness to dangerously and pacifistic new extremes. All Ben Carson recently said was that a Muslim president, given the attitudes dominant in that religion, would not be a good idea. The resulting death threats from Islamic militants are to be expected.

But I suspect the rage against Carson goes deeper than that. It probably comes from people who perhaps so dislike their own country, and maybe even themselves, that they cannot stand the fact that someone like Carson — who’s black, and who’s supposed to therefore tow the line and agree with Obama’s giveaway to Iran and refusal to fight ISIS in any meaningful way — dares to challenge the prevailing policy.

I’m not saying I endorse Ben Carson. I don’t agree with him on abortion or gay marriage. I find him contradictory, vague and confusing on most of the major issues, just like Donald Trump and all of the candidates on the Republican side (unlike the Democrats , who are quite consistent: socialism all the way).

Yet the attitudes Carson has expressed — the ones for which he’s in the most trouble– are the very reasons for liking him, in my book.