Why Conservatives Support the Duke Lacrosse Team

A number of conservative bloggers have come to the defense of the young men on the Duke lacrosse team accused of rape. It might not be obvious why conservatives have already taken sides on a case that hasn't even gone to trial. So for liberals who don't understand the complex reasons why conservatives have already rendered a verdict in the case, I thought I would lay them out for you.

First of all, I want to make it clear that there is absolutely no racial dimension to this case whatsoever. The fact that the alleged victim is black and the alleged perpetrators are white is a complete coincidence. Conservatives are totally colorblind and we pride ourselves on our blindness. You see, it is actually liberals who are racists because they always take the side of black people against white people and we are just reacting to that. If one day all the liberals got together and tricked us by supporting a white person against a black person, we would then end up supporting the black person, whom we wouldn't even know was black because of our color-blindness. Try it someday and you'll see it's true.

One reason conservatives may be sympathetic to the lacrosse players is because of the game itself. Lacrosse is a more Republican sport than, say, basketball. The oldest sport in North America, lacrosse is steeped in tradition (which conservatives love), and can be traced back to the 1400s when Native Americans invented the game, while basketball wasn't invented until 1891. When the Indians played it, they would beat each other with the sticks to try to get their opponents out of the game. Lacrosse was later named by Jesuits, who thought the racket looked like the shepherd's crook Bishops carried. The image the game still conjures of Bishops beating their opponents with sticks may be a subconscious source of its appeal to conservative youth. (And let me just nip in the bud the idea that lacrosse is a "white" sport. The Duke lacrosse team had one black player.)

Now it might seem odd to some people that conservatives would be on the side of young unmarried men who hired an exotic dancer to strip at a drunken party. Generally, conservatives are opposed to all sexual activity that does not occur in the confines of a heterosexual marriage utilizing missionary-approved acts for the purpose of procreating. We are also opposed to any rape unless it is combined with pillaging and alleged against members of our Armed Forces. But conservatives are also realists. That's why we support oppressive regimes as long as they say they are anti-Communist or anti-terrorist or rule over oil-producing nations. Henry Kissinger used to call this Realpolitik before he learned how to speak English. We know that in the real world "boys will be boys." We know that they all go through a period when they are "young and stupid" that sometimes lasts until their early 40s.

But the main reason conservatives are defending these men is because in America everyone is innocent until proven guilty. It is one of the ideals our country was founded on. The only exception to this rule is if someone is accused of being a terrorist, in which case that person has no rights whatsoever. If it turns out they have been falsely accused of being a terrorist, then all I can say is that next time they should be more careful.

I hope this clears everything up. If more evidence comes in exonerating the boys you can be sure we will broadcast it and cite it as evidence of how the liberal media is trying to railroad them. If any evidence comes in against them, I'm sure there is a logical explanation.

Jon Swift, Duke, Lacrosse, Duke Lacrosse, Rape, Crime, Realpolitik, Henry Kissinger, Liberal, Conservative, Terrorism, Politics, Sports, Racism, Weblog, Blog