Liberals are fond of calling the GOP the party of old white males.  When liberals use this term they are not simply commenting on Republican demographics.  Rather they are using the term in the pejorative sense as if there is something wrong with being old, white, and male. I find this both an odd and an inaccurate description of the GOP.  Since I frequently speak to Republican groups, I have a pretty good feel for the make-up of the Party.  When I speak to these groups, the audience in front of me invariably looks pretty much like a cross-section of America.  When I look out at the audience I see old people and young people, black people and white people, Hispanic people and Asian people.  I also see both men and women. What I don’t see is a crowd of old white males.

Admittedly I am an old white male, and I am a member of the Republican Party (although the GOP continually disappoints me with its propensity to lean ever farther to the left).  As an old white male and a member of the GOP, I have a question or two for liberals: First, what’s wrong with old white males?  Most of the greatest contributors to world civilization, philosophy, art, literature, science, technology, and government were old white males.  Second, what do you have against those of us who are old, white, and male?  Your disdain for us makes no sense.  Think about it.  Take old white males out of American history and you lose such noteworthy individuals as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Ronald Reagan and many others who contributed immeasurably to the freedom, liberty, and prosperity enjoyed by Americans.

When liberals use the term “old white male” to criticize the Republican Party they are trying to conjure up an image of grouchy old codgers who are out of touch, set in their ways, and one step away from Eldercare. This makes me wonder what liberals think about their own parents.  I also wonder if it is the old, the white, or the male in old white male that bothers liberals.  After all, I never hear liberals disdainfully use such terms as old black males, old Hispanic males, or old Asian males.  Ironically, some of the liberals who use the term old white male in the ad hominem sense are themselves old white males (e.g. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Chris Matthews of MSNBC).  But then when have liberals ever let a little irony, accuracy, or logic stand in the way of their attacks on those who refuse to toe the line of liberal orthodoxy?

According to conservative columnist Dennis Prager (The Washington Times, October 14, 2013), “Low regard for the old is also a major factor in the left’s dismissal of the Founders and of the original intent of the Constitution.  Talk about ‘old white males,’ the Founders are white males who are now over 200 years-old.  What could they possibly have known or understood that a progressive living today does not know more about or understand better?”  Prager has a good point.  Historical revisionism—a favorite tactic of liberals—is easier if you simply ignore or at least discredit the old white males who lived and made history.

Prager offers two answers concerning why liberals have such low regard for old white males: “One is the yearning for utopia.  Since Marx, the left has sought utopia in this world.  By definition, those who seek to transform (the ever-present goal of liberals) consider the old essentially worthless.  The other answer is self-esteem.  The left began the self-esteem movement in large measure because of its own high self-esteem.  Those on the left are certain they are smarter, kinder, more moral and more compassionate, and in every way superior to their opponents.”  Prager nails it when he writes: “If the old is great, then they (liberals) and their new ideas are probably not that great.”  Thank you Dennis.  I agree.  This old white male feels better already.