Every once in a while I see a piece of establishment press propaganda so insidiously deceptive and diabolical that I find myself hoping they keep Hell good and hot for the person who wrote it.

The May 24 New York Times piece by Patricia Cohen entitled Public-Sector Jobs Vanish, Hitting Blacks Hard is such a work. There’s a good critique of the article by Dr. Susan Berry, writing for Breitbart on the following day; Berry correctly pegs the offering as one that bemoans fewer public sector jobs available for blacks than there were in 2008, then disingenuously lays the blame at the feet of budget-slashing, big fat meanie Republicans.

It’s much worse than that, though – or rather, there’s much more to this article than meets the eye.

Certainly it’s no surprise that a ‘Times writer would exploit negative economic developments in order to reinforce the liberal narrative. Nor is it out of the ordinary that such a person might use the distress of an ethnic minority group as a vehicle to do so.

Yet, hiding in plain sight is the sort of evidence that would impel black voters to abandon progressive Democrats en masse – if only they could interpret it effectively.

There certainly have been drops in public sector employment in some areas – mostly in states, counties, and municipalities where the shrinking tax base (thank you, progressives of both parties) dictates that these markets can no longer bear as many workers.

Cohen’s article is engaging; it tugs at the heartstrings quite a bit as she elucidates upon blacks’ unemployment woes, or the prospect thereof. There’s the story of Richard, a second-generation Miami-Dade County bus driver, and his son, who wants to take the transit system exam, but who faces much tougher competition and more job scarcity than when his father signed on.

Such I imagine is the fate of many hard-working black families suffering the repercussions of the economic downturn along with their fellow Americans of many ethnic backgrounds, but of course, it’s part of The New York Times’ mandate to showcase the suffering of blacks, and make it Whitey’s fault. Cohen does not address how generously the current administration has contributed to high black unemployment.

To be fair, Ms. Cohen’s piece is also very well done and well-sourced, including graph data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics illustrating that blacks indeed have suffered inordinately due to the attrition of government jobs. Largely this is because the percentages in which they were employed in these areas was disproportionately high to begin with – which the graphs also show.

Those who’ve been paying attention know that some of these figures should be taken with a grain of salt, since federal agencies (such as the U.S. Census Bureau, for example) have been known to employ “creative” statistics analysis to favor the Obama administration’s narrative. There’s also plenty of data that supports federal employment having far exceeded private sector job growth for several years.

More than advocating for abysmal public policy in the area of employment or exploiting blacks, the patronizing tone of this piece is singularly illustrative of the liberal attitude toward blacks overall. It comes from a place of such high-handed arrogance that it broaches no question, challenge, nor analysis. It is also completely bereft of moral qualification, save for the relative morality toward which the heartstring-tugging anecdotes beckon.

These characteristics are so well-inculcated into the liberal mindset that I doubt it even occurred to the writer what a dead giveaway this piece was relative to liberals’ racist view of blacks.

For example: The sweet reminiscing (in which the article engages) over bygone days when a black man willing to work could pick up a government job as easily as a cup of coffee reminded me of an argument that invariably ensues when someone points out that black families and communities were far more stable prior to the Civil Rights Movement than at present. Immediately, some limp-wristed liberal loudmouth leaps up and lisps “See! They want to re-institute Jim Crow!”

As one might surmise, such observations have nothing to do with Jim Crow or segregation; their demise just happens to have been concurrent with the incremental establishment of the Welfare State. This, blacks were ensured, would aid in the process of restitution for that whole 200-plus years-of-generally-shabby-treatment thing. Now, millions of black Americans are trapped in the vast belly of that leviathan.

Yet in this ‘Times piece, it’s quite all right for a liberal to offer up what amounts to an anti-abolitionist, right out of the Civil War era position: “Our darkies were perfectly happy workin’ and eatin’ and breedin’ until you Yankees came ’round trying to tell us how to handle ’em!”

The contention is that blacks were thriving in public sector jobs that were practically made for them, until Republicans came along and ruthlessly eliminated the jobs. Despite many of these jobs having been on the low-skill end, they effectively brought more blacks into the sphere of government dependency – which was precisely the idea. It’s just as selfish a motive as that of the1850s and 1860s pro-slavery crowd.

To hell with quality education and the prospect of enterprising blacks turning their communities into boom towns across America; progressives just herded them right back onto the plantation.

This paternalism is a contempt I’ve seen evidenced countless times, such as when a black man or woman decides to espouse conservative or libertarian principles, for example. Blacks are supposed to be grateful for liberals’ largesse, and that means obedience. If this is not forthcoming, then it is acceptable to call them every racial epithet in the book.

And they do…

Source