Adam Serwer and Jennifer Rubin are still arguing about the New Black Panther Party controversy. In the latest round, Serwer complains about "the feverish alternate universe of racial resentment in which some conservatives seem to reside":

It's not just that they casually accuse the president and the attorney general of being "allies" with a black hate group, it's the implication that there was some political benefit to this relationship, as though the black community as a whole is somehow deeply moved by the NBPP's racial hatred, and the narrowing of the case represents a kind of quid pro quo. We're supposed to believe that without the racist rhetoric of the New Black Panther Party, black people would never have been motivated to go to the polls for Barack Obama?

That black separatism has some broad mainstream appeal among African-Americans? This gets more disgusting the more one thinks about it, which is why conservatives rarely go beyond mere implication.

As to whether or not there is "colorblind" enforcement of civil rights laws, I find the use of the term in this context, by both liberals and conservatives, to be a symptom of America's near-pathological affinity for political correctness. The Civil Rights Division was created by President Dwight Eisenhower in order to ensure that the federal government could enforce the civil rights of black Americans in the South during Jim Crow. There's no question that civil rights laws cover Americans of all backgrounds -- and indeed, the voting section under Obama has intervened on behalf of white voters. But civil rights enforcement can't be anymore "race-neutral" than our own society or history. Ensuring that people's rights are protected regardless of race can't actually be achieved through color-blindness.

That's Colbert-bait. And true.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.