This morning in the roundtable segment of ABC’s This week Reuters editor Chrystia Freeland executed what may have been the most delicate and devastating put-down I’ve ever seen of Georgetown scholar Michael Eric Dyson. I don’t remember it verbatim but it went something like this. After Dr. Dyson had held forth on the problems that President Obama has had to deal with because of his race, Ms. Freeland asked him something to the effect “Do you mean that he’s been a less effective president because he’s black?” You could almost see the wheels turning in his head. That was very much what he’d said. Zing!
Ah, the Sunday talk shows. I used to watch them (still do catch CBS Sunday Morning usually – I show I grew up with), but it seems to me they are long on talking points and short on analysis.
Similar to Andy I watch the talk shows less than I used to. It’s usually the same divisions of thought between the left and right — pretty predictable. However, for a Reuters editor to ask such a candid question, as was done by Freeland, is a phenomena which strays from the predictable column, landing in the “I would like to see that clip” one.
The aspect of ‘color’ has become the instant affirmative action remedy/rationale for so many events these days. From decreeing what is violent (white against black) versus what is blase (black against white), or what constitutes the reasoning behind a politician’s policy failure (Bush = dumb, Obama = bias because of color), qualifications for school, employment, sub prime mortgages, the list just trails off into the sunset.
For me, prejudice is not color coordinated. It is measured by actions, deeds, merits. Take the color away, and simply look at the person… which, IMO, was the core message of the MLK’s civil right’s movement.
I would have answered that yes, Mr. Obama probably has been less effective because of his race. The racism that is still pervasive in the GOP explains in part the GOP’s leap into nihilism and its absolute refusal to participate in governing this country.
Those wishing to deny racism in the GOP (Jan and no doubt Drew) might want to explain this: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/john-derbyshires-bizarre-rant/
Yes, one obscure writer – who got fired from his main gig because of his column – slearly indicates all Republicans are Klansmen.
I’ll note that items 10a through 10e, if observed, might have helped out the fellow at the center of this story. I linked to a UK paper because they were kind enough to include the whole video in their story. I’ll also note that not being a drunken knucklehead would have helped out the victim.
I’m also wondering which of the people condemning Derbyshire would themselves move to, say, Pine Hills voluntarily? Or even come here just to see the sights? I’m willing to bet the answer is exactly ZERO.
I also wonder how many noticed that Derbyshire’s children are half-Chinese? Doesn’t matter, I guess, because it’s a Black Thang.
Icepick, it might help if I explained one of the prevailing definitions of racism. According to this definition, racism is an issue of group identity and power. If the group to which you belong is the group in power, you can be and probably are a racist. If the group to which you belong is not in power, you can’t be a racist. Whether you, personally, have power is irrelevant. All that matters is your group identity and whether that group, collectively, has power.
Whites are in power; East Asians are in power. Blacks are not in power. Consequently, according to this definition whites are capable of racism, East Asians are capable of racism, blacks are not capable of racism.
I don’t subscribe to this particular definition but I’ve known plenty of people who do and had it explained to me often enough. I doubt very much that Michael Reynolds subscribes to it. The subject has never come up. But I strongly suspect that Michael Eric Dyson does.
Scanned through the video to find that segment – basically starts about the 3 minute mark. Dyson’s argument is basically that the unreasoned opposition to the President (in his view) can only be explained by racism.
Schuler, I know that definition of racism well, having attended college not all that long ago. It is assinine.
For example, my state representative is black, my Congresswoman is black, the sheriff in my local law enforcement jurisdiction is black. I believe the chief judge of the state court in this area is also black. So’s my President. (Or is it only the white half that is my President? Is that how this game is played?)
So explain to me how it is I am “in power” again?
You also don’t couch your criticisms of the president in terms of his being a crypto-Muslim, Kenyan anti-colonialist, America-hating, Marxist nigra, Icepick.
I do not subscribe to that definition.
To me racism is essentially contempt toward a group based on skin color or ethnicity. I do not believe African-Americans are excused from this. If a black man hates or feels contempt for Asians he’s a racist.
That said, there is history here. Whites have mistreated blacks in this country since the 17th century. That’s what gives charges of white racism extra weight. Had blacks spent the last nearly 4 centuries enslaving, raping and murdering whites then we’d be right to consider that as relevant.
As for the GOP it is simply ahistorical nonsense to pretend that race is not a problem for the GOP. Too many Republicans have acknowledged that it is. The GOP still wins elections off the back of Nixon’s southern strategy. Limbaugh, Fox media, and many, many GOP politicians have been caught race-baiting.
Whites in America don’t have many of these in their background.
Works for me.
What bugs me about the historical argument is that it’s so darned selective. White mistreatment of blacks counts. Anti-slavery whites don’t count.
One of my great-great-grandfathers, for example, grew up in Lincoln country, was anti-slavery, and fought for the Union for five years with the Army of the West.
None of my ancestors mistreated blacks. Some did hire blacks and paid them honest wages when they did. I’ve got the receipts to prove it. That doesn’t count but my collective guilt as a member of the oppressor group does.
Did I benefit from being a member of the oppressor group? I can’t tell. But I can tell you that in my family racism was about the worst sin you could commit.
If I haven’t mentioned it before, my primary gripe with the Republican Party is that I can’t forgive their accepting the Dixiecrats.
To steal someone’s line, I forget whose, I’m as Jewish as Olive Garden is Italian. But I’m Jewish enough to know that within living memory my people were being hunted down and slaughtered in the millions for the crime of being however Jewish — however attenuated.
I also know that within a few years of the holocaust there were Germans who were sick and tired of being identified with the Nazis. I don’t believe in collective guilt, responsibility is individual not collective.
But to take that the next step and pretend history didn’t happen is wrong. To pretend that there is no history between Jews and Germans, or between African-Americans and white Americans is immoral. We are meant to learn from history, and among the harsher lessons of history is that contempt toward races, groups and religions leads to horror. The response to that history should be vigilance and a determination to do better in the future.
Anti-slavery whites don’t count.
I don’t know how blacks feel about abolitionists or whether they are honored.
But for Jews the Righteous Among the Nations carry the weight that saints do for Roman Catholics. I cannot imagine the courage and moral clarity of those people, some of them listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Righteous_among_the_Nations_by_country
Well, the wife of my 4th grandfather came from a family of slave traders. And three of my direct relatives fought for the Confederacy in the Civil War.
Before I dropped out of college and joined the Navy I spent a summer road trip visiting Civil War battle sites. At Shiloh I was walking back to the parking lot and talked to a young southern mother and she eventually asked me if I was a northerner or a southerner. I replied that I was neither, I was a westerner, which seemed to confuse her. It was only a decade later or more later I discovered my paternal ancestry whose roots are southern going all the way back to the Revolutionary War. So, yes, we can’t ignore the history, but we also can’t let it do our thinking for us.
That’s certainly true. It’s also ahistorical nonsense to suggest that so-called “unreasonable” opposition can have no other source but race. There is, no doubt, a racist component in the GoP that’s much larger than the racist component in the Democrats. There is, no doubt, opposition to our President based on racism. It’s one thing to acknowledge that, but it’s quite another to ascribe racist motives to an entire party much less everyone opposed to a particular person’s policys.
I don’t know Dyson’s motivations, but it’s quite a stretch to suggest that the only explanation for opposition to the President and his policies is racism. Maybe, given his background (which I don’t know anything about), he can’t conceive of any other reason. Maybe it’s plain old politics and playing the race card. Maybe it’s simply lazy thinking. I don’t know and I don’t really care, but whatever the case, such simplistic explanations are wrong.
I’ll put my playing Cinderella with a black prince in 1966 against your abolitionist ancestors anyday, Mr. Schuler.
I played Cinderella with a black prince in an elementary school play with an otherwise black cast. My mother made the costumes.
If I haven’t mentioned it before, my primary gripe with the Republican Party is that I can’t forgive their accepting the Dixiecrats.
But you were fine with them being Democrats to begin with? The national Democratic party has a history of slavery, sedition, segregation and love of Communists. But the problem is that Republicans wanted to win elections back in 1968 and 1972? Bullshit.
Your remberance of history is very one-sided, as I would expect from any Democrat. Always circle the wagons, always blame the Republicans, and never ever admit that maybe your own side has a problem with anything.
I seem to recall that as recently as two years ago the Democratic Party had a former Klansman fourth in line for the Presidency. But I guess that was okay because he hated white niggers too, and not just the black kind.
And of course the Dems also have Jesse Jackson. “There is nothing more painful for me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start to think about robbery and then look around and see it’s somebody white and feel relieved. How humiliating.” HE can notice that black people commit most crimes, and that black people scare him, but woe unto anyone else for noticing the crime statistics. How’d Jesse do in the last 18 years stamping out the scourge of black-on-black violence? Oh, you mean he spent the time trying to get rich as a race hustler instead? I guess that’s all right, too. We all know Jesse is a good Democrat. From the Washington Post:
Reynolds has said that any racist is someone that could send Jews to the ovens. Of course, I’m sure he’s got no problem with Jackson, though, because he’s black and a Democrat. (I’m sure Michael is down with Louis Farrakhan, too. You know how the Transitive Property of Identity Politics works.)
NBC News is doctoring 911 calls trying to stir up some race riots to get their favorite candidate for the Presidency elected. And we all know what a raging bunch of Republicans infest NBC News, Klansmen like Al Sharpton. Clearly this is all for the benefit of Mitt Romney. After all, if Mitt had a son he would look like – someone. Probably the guy who developed the property where that No Limit Nigga got a cap popped in his ass by some half-Peruvian, er, I mean completely white motherfucker.
Yeah, the racism gig is so clearly the property of those “typical white people” in the Republican Party. Democrats are pure of heart and soul on all matters racial.
To me racism is essentially contempt toward a group based on skin color or ethnicity.
What about basing it on a predilection for violent crime? Is that permitted? Or is it permitted only if the person is a Democrat?
I do not believe African-Americans are excused from this. If a black man hates or feels contempt for Asians he’s a racist.
What about Obama’s obvious contempt for “typical white people”? Barry gets a pass because he’s a Democrat, or because hating Whitey is permissable in and of itself?
And I love how Marion Barry is one lonely soul who is the only one accountable for his actions, but John Derbyshire (whom 99% of Americans have probably never heard of) is proof that every Republican is a Klansman.
What a lousy stinking shill you are Reynolds.
But to take that the next step and pretend history didn’t happen is wrong.
Unless you are whitewashing (AHEM) Democratic Party history. The Southern Strategy is EVIL, but actual slavery, sedition and segregation are A-OKAY! Afterall, they’re the good guys!
Some people cannot let the biases of the past go. There were blacks who enslaved blacks, black slave traders who sold blacks… history is replete with the denigrations of humans against humans, based on race, tribal affiliations, ethnicity, cultures, status, all over the world. But, here in the U.S. we are stuck on getting mired down in expanding and holding onto a blemished era, giving it life, extending it misery, into the 21st century.
By continuing to separate people by their color, exuding political correctness in every crevice of society — school, work, neighborhoods — we don’t allow a color-blind society to take hold. Every time people begin to heal we have some kind of racial event raise it’s head, and people begin to point political fingers, at primarily republicans, in order to keep the message alive that it is the democrats who minorities need to look at for justice and equality.
However, it was the republican party who voted in larger percentages to pass the Civil Rights Act, then the Democrats. In fact, it was an Illinois republican, Everett Dirksen, who tirelessly spearheaded this legislation in order to achieve a majority to push it through a LBJ Congress. Further tracking the legacy of the democratic party, with it’s linkage to black civil rights, shows that it was the party who created the infamous KKK and instituted the Jim Crow laws, something that Eisenhower tried to mitigate when he wanted to enforce desegregation of the Little Rock High School.
All these historical facts, though, are lost through the revisionist rhetoric of the democratic party in their wanton desire to keep this minority constituency within the sympathetic folds of it’s party, through continuously inflaming partisan divisions, and saying it’s the GOP who has racism running through it’s veins.
What’s that saying, about repeating a lie long enough that pretty soon people begin to believe it.
Quite frankly, IMO, our black/white president has done little to bridge or further ameliorate any lingering racial differences in this country. If anything, his presidency has used the racial card as a way to avoid taking responsibility for his unsuccessful ways of dealing with our ailing economy, hostility in health care reform, as well as a myriad of other lackluster legislation and regulation that has bogged down our recovery since Bush left office. However, if one criticizes him it’s because of his color, not his incompetence. That’s a cop out.
@Icepick
‘What about Obama’s obvious contempt for “typical white people’â€?
Could you elaborate on this? I simply don’t see it.
You’re making an ass of yourself, Ice. Your remarks are full of absurd assumptions.
Did I ever say I was fine with the Democrat’s past? Why would you leap to that absurd conclusion? Obviously I know the Democratic party was the party of the KKK and Jim Crow. I lived in the South during Jim Crow.
Likewise the rest of what I have to assume is a drunken screed. Stupid, factually wrong assumption piled atop stupid, factually wrong assumption.
What about basing it on a predilection for violent crime? Is that permitted? Or is it permitted only if the person is a Democrat?
Yeah, because whites and Asians don’t have any of that. If you overlook both world wars, the Civil War, a few hundred other wars of succession and religious wars and conquests and slaughters of native people and the entire history of Rome and so on and on and on. And the Asians what with Genghis and a few others.
You become unhinged when the subject is race. Your standards of proof evaporate entirely. Your IQ plummets. You need to take a look at yourself.
My wife was attacked (unsuccessfully) by a black man. I had an automatic shoved in my face by a white man. I conclude that if there’s a race I should fear it’s the human one.
All these historical facts, though, are lost through the revisionist rhetoric of the democratic party
No. They are not lost. In the 60’s we had a choice. The Democrats went one direction, the Republicans went another. This is not controversial. Since you love history, I’m surprised you seem to have forgotten the very recent history known as the southern strategy.
If anything, his presidency has used the racial card as a way to avoid taking responsibility for his unsuccessful ways of …
Can you supply any evidence in support of this statement?
Andy:
I agree with everything you said.
I’ve never argued that racism is all that causes opposition to Mr. Obama. He’s the POTUS, people are going to object to one thing or another for rational and irrational reasons. Goes with the territory.
Nor do I think the GOP is entirely racist, or defined as racist. They employ racism, they profit from racism, they know they do it, many, perhaps most, know it’s wrong. But they can’t seem to move past it. It would cost them electorally to do the right thing, so they don’t. This makes them moral cowards, it doesn’t make them all racists.
My point in bringing up ancient history is that, if you believe in blood guilt and don’t believe in blood innocence, then all you believe in is guilt. By that standard we’re all guilty.
Dave,
I figured that was the case. While it would be nice if my ancestry wasn’t tied to slavery it just doesn’t matter at all in defining who I am. Since I was raised in the mountain west the civil war was a lot more distant that for other parts of the country. The collective guilt inculcated in me was more about Sand Creek than Shiloh.
Michael,
Fair enough, but it seems to me you often paint with a pretty broad brush.
Ice,
I don’t see it that way. I don’t think it’s about race, I think it’s about his status as a member of the Ivy League elite. He doesn’t understand “typical white people” but then neither does Mitt Romney.
I don’t think that’s true. I think he’s gone out of his way to avoid playing the race card. And really, he has to politically – the race card didn’t get Jesse Jackson very far in his runs for the Presidency and the President really does have to avoid it. The President’s surrogates and allies, such as Dyson, however, can and do use it frequently. It’s an annoying argument, but I find it difficult to get really worked up about it.
The point is not that Republicans continue to be tarred with a checkered past on race and Democrats get a free pass, only that the Republican Party’s flirtation and courting of the racist retard vote from the bottom of the gutter is ONGOING. You could not watch the South Carolina debates without hearing repeated and vicious uses of the racial dog-whistle by the candidates, or the vile and animalistic responses of the audience each time Welfare Queen was blamed for all of white society’s ills.
Find me the Democratic equivalent of The Derb speaking about a racial group as though they are pets in need of better breeders and I’ll concede there may be a double standard here.
And let’s discuss the Democratic Party’s mproblem with its leaders, espeically the black ones, claiming that everything that happens is because of racism. The Congressional Black Caucus has introduced a desolution in Congress calling George Zimmerman a racist and a vigiliante. In light of the evidence that has come out about the shooting and george Zimmerman’s past, those charges are completely unfounded. Not to mention the President claiming that Trayvon Martin looked like his hypothetical son. This goes beyond calls for proper investigationg to outright scapegoating.
These are scurrilous attempts at race baiting and inciting riot for the personal benefit of these politicians and their fund raising. not to mention that most of the press has been completely in their pockets. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that something like a Journolist email made the rounds telling everyone to get on board and alter the evidence at the news networks. (NBC, ABC and CNN have all had to walk back serious claims.) It’s not like it hasn’t happened before.
But yeah, it’s all about Nixon in 1968. That is THE serious blight on American racial politics…..
Typical of Michael (and Drew – I guess it is a failing of the ricfh that they cannot tolerate disagreement and must assume character failings in those who oppose them) to assume I’m drunk. I rarely drink, Reynolds, and haven’t done so to excess in almost 20 years. (That was back in the days of my misspent youth.)
I assume you are okay with Democratic Party racism because the only time you ever even acknowledge it happened in the past is when I call you on it. On the other hand, anytime any Republican ever opposesObama on anything you are quick to indite all Republicans as Klansmen.
Yeah, because whites and Asians don’t have any of that. If you overlook both world wars, the Civil War, a few hundred other wars of succession and religious wars and conquests and slaughters of native people and the entire history of Rome and so on and on and on. And the Asians what with Genghis and a few others.
Great, except that we’re talking about crime stats in the United States of America. Clearly blacks commit violent crimes at a much greater rate than whites. The fact that you WILL NOT ADMIT THAT shows that you are just lying to make political points. Just as every Republcican (non-Democrat, really) is a Kalnsman to you. What a fucking joke.
My wife was attacked (unsuccessfully) by a black man. I had an automatic shoved in my face by a white man. I conclude that if there’s a race I should fear it’s the human one.
Again, let’s discuss this statistically. Of course, despite your alleged intelligence, you are completely worthless mathematically.
Does a young black male have more to fear from a white person or a black person? The numbers aren’t even close on this, and they are sickening. But that doesn’t matter so long as you keep them all voting Democratic. This isn’t even the racism of low expectations, this is cynical exploitation on a massive level.
The Democrats went one direction, the Republicans went another.
Yes, they went the direction of exploting race relations for electoral gain by getting over 90% of the black vote in return foir neglect of the lives of black people. Look at the murder stats by race of the victim and race of the perp. Those numbers get little attention from Democratic pols, but by Gawd, they’re going to get George Zimmerman no matter what it takes. Because that is the real threat. I mean, that’s the real opportunity for ginning up votes and money and outrage.
Ben, the fact that Obama will classify someone he knows very well as just another “typical white person” and that that person (typical, in his words) is a racist is all that needs to be said. He has damned himself by his own contempt for his own grandmother.
“I don’t think it’s about race, I think it’s about his status as a member of the Ivy League elite. He doesn’t understand “typical white people†but then neither does Mitt Romney”
I think this is exactly right. It’s doubtful “contempt” even applies here, it’s just that both candidates (bred to think of themselves and those like them as the beating heart and brain of America) see the public as drudges who ought to be silent and do as they are told. The difference is Democrats occasionally throw the peasants a bone to avoid the appearance of a “let them eat cake” moment.
@ Icepick
Look, I’m going to be honest here and say that I agree with what Obama said. My experience with that generation is such attitudes were typical and unconcious. For most americans I don’t believe there’s a decision made to think in a way that is prejudiced. It’s just something they grow up with, are programmed with and never give another thought to. My grandparents (who more or less raised me) got on very well with their black neighbors and co-workers, speaking as well of them as any. Yet they harbored the contradiction that blacks as a whole were lazy, promiscuous and dangerous.
Those two models could literally come out in adjacent sentences, and I don’t think it genuinely ever occurred to them to question it. I’d be willing to bet that if you could speak to Obama in a moment of candor he’d say he meant what he said about his grandmother and her peers. I’d also be willing to bet he’d say those attitudes have diminished with successive generations.
The point is not that Republicans continue to be tarred with a checkered past on race and Democrats get a free pass, only that the Republican Party’s flirtation and courting of the racist retard vote from the bottom of the gutter is ONGOING.
As opposed to Obama and the CBC tarring George Zimmerman in order to get money and votes? As opposed to Jesse Jackson stating that what happened in Sanford Florida is exactly the same as what happened in Selma Alabama decades ago? Who’s pushing for the race riots right now? It’s Obama, and Jackson, and the CBC, and NBC and ABC and CNN. All for cheap political gain.
Where was Obama telling his buds at the new Black Panther Party that bounties on citizens weren’t kosher? Where were any of the other black leaders on this? Did any of them speak out again that?
Have any of them spoken out about the obviously stilted and actively fraudulent coverage of 3 out of 5 of the major TV news networks?
No, because that would not benefit them. They’re smearing Trayvon Martin’s blood all over themselves for simple personal gain. There’s precident for that, too.
And how has Democratic rule helped out blacks in places like Chicago and New York and Newark and New Orleans (aka Chocalate City – I guess chasing the Whities out of town is okay)? Has that helped fix the problems? Jesse Jackson said he was going to do something about black-on-black crime 20 years ago. What’s he got to show for it? What does the black community have to show for it? Well, Jesse got rich, the Democratic Party has a hammerlock on the black vote and the black community got …. ? The correct answer is that they got jack & shit, and jack done left town.
But the problem, of course, is that John Derbyshire noticed some patterns….
Speaking of which, what part of
implies that blacks should have their citizenship revoked and be bred as pets? (The linked quote is in the original. I’m sure it will pass completely unnoticed.)
The difference is Democrats occasionally throw the peasants a bone to avoid the appearance of a “let them eat cake†moment.
And how have those bones helped the black community? How did public housing work out? How did welfare for unwed mothers work out? (Moynihan doesn’t get mentioned much by liberals anymore. Nothing worse than being a prophet proven correct.) I’d ask how the sub-prime push worked out but I can look out the front or back doors and see that. Property values about 20% of what they were (and still falling), abandonded house and shattered dreams. (I’ll note that Republicans where quick to jump on this one too, especiall George W. Bush.)
How are those scraps working out, that it is worthy of not just near-monolithic support, but the active public shaming of blacks that dare step off the plantation?
This is a good opportunity for me to put my oar in again and suggest that, if you haven’t already seen it, see the movie Precious. I’m surprised that more people haven’t pointed out how conservative it is.
Yet they harbored the contradiction that blacks as a whole were lazy, promiscuous and dangerous.
Blacks as a whole? No. But look at population groups. Are blacks more or less likely to be unemployed, regardless of the nature of the economy? Are blacks more likely to have children out of wedlock than whites? (Since as we all know this is only about whites and blacks I will dispose of mentioning other minorities.) Are blacks more likely to have children by multiple partners than whites? Look at the violent crime rates – which race is more likely to produce the perpetrators? (This becomes really stark when adjusted for population.) Which race is more likely to produce the victims? (This also becomes really stark when adjusted for population.)Note: these last two have the same answer.
These are patterns, and these patterns impact perceptions because humans are designed to notice patterns. Unfortunately most people think in simple cause-and-effect terms, and not statistically. The President (and you, Ben) are guilty of doing the same. Do you really think it was only white folks who noticed these patterns back in the day? Do you think any black mothers ever crossed the street to avoid black males they didn’t know? (Or perhaps did know?) Or did you only notice the white ones because those were the only ones you were ever around?
…
Derbyshire’s main crime is that he noticed the patterns, he inferred safety rules from those patterns, and he had the bad taste to state them publically. Other than the safety rules, he didn’t remark on anything that any number of black pols and commentators have noticed in the past. He just had the bad taste to notice while white. A minor offense, but one that gets much publicity, especially since the media needs to cover its ass from getting caught for trying to incite riot and race-baiting.
I’m surprised that more people haven’t pointed out how conservative it is.
There’s a lot of natural conservatism in the black community, and not all of it pretty. (Which makes them much like conservative white communities. Racial Reconcilliation for the Peeps!) Which is why it is simply ridiculous that blacks only vote Democratic – it is in fact the only permissible choice, or the Michael Reynolds of the world will call the violators Uncle Toms. Various electoral trends can be easily inferred from this behavior. I won’t bother doing so, as we all know noticing patterns is BAD.
I’d also be willing to bet he’d say those attitudes have diminished with successive generations.
You mean amongst the bitter clingers? I bet he’d say it was worse, and mean it. After all, if it was better those whities would all vote for him too, just like all the good blacks do. His minister told him that in church every Sunday for TWENTY YEARS.
I can’t think of anything recent, but I’m sure I could come up with something given enough research time. But really, what’s the point? I think the most pernicious racism practiced by some on the left are the various “Uncle Tom” accusations made against black people who don’t subscribe to Democratic political views. I see a lot of the same thing with misogyny and women too, actually.
But that’s kind of irrelevant unless one is interested in keeping score in the never-ending contest of which political party is worse. Personally that’s something I try hard to avoid.
Regarding the so-called racist retard vote here’s how I look at things: In my view we live in a participatory democracy where everyone gets a voice and a vote. As a free-speech purist, the simple answer for me is that I don’t want to see anyone disenfranchised from the political system, no matter their views. Therefore, I take a particularly negative view toward calls to politically disenfranchise people we disagree with or don’t like. Historically, when such efforts succeed, the result is usually not good.
Secondly, how big is the “racist retard” vote? Is there still a significant number of people for whom racism is their primary political consideration? Or, are racist notions secondary or tertiary considerations? For example, if a politician gets the “racist” vote on a host of issues that have nothing to do with race, is that politician “courting” the racist vote and should they be ? How much of the GoP success in the south can be ascribed to racism vs conservative values such as opposition to abortion, a limited federal government? What about the Democratic embrace of progressive politics – how big a factor is that in driving southerners to the GoP, including the racists?
In short, I don’t think the whole “racist vote” thing as simple as it’s usually described.
More often it seems to me the bone turns into paternalism run amok.
The John Derbyshire kerfuffle tended to bring out my inner Jeffersonian. What does he know? He’s a Brit, for goodness sake. The National Review has always tended to be Anglophile and I don’t draw conclusions about race relations in the U. S. based on the bloviations of transplanted Brits.
@Andy
“More often it seems to me the bone turns into paternalism run amok.”
Hey, I never claimed that bone hadn’t been injected with Drain-O. Just that the Democrats are prescient enough to craft something that looks tasty at the same time Republicans are running a “Fuck You” campaign slogan.
I’m disappointed that we haven’t progressed further in 50 years.
But even for me, the move from the Temptations to Rap is jarring.
And I haven’t liked my younger stepson’s slouched pants.
And I haven’t liked my younger stepson’s slouched pants.
Those pants are going to cut down on burglary, armed robbery and assault. It is impossible to run in those ghetto pants and carry anything – both hands are needed to hold them up so the wearer doesn’t trip. Shop lifting might go up, but that’s trading down to a lesser evil so it’s a net win.
Both major political parties have always employed or played upon racism and harbored racists and continue to do so up to this very moment I am typing. Likely this will be the case long after I am dead.
Dyson is a habitual special-pleader in racial and partisan causes and in my experience, has nothing new or interesting to say.
President Obama faces rhetorical partisan abuse but it is markedly less pervasive than that which was heaped upon his two immediate predecessors ( though it might be as venomously intense and far more objectively racist in verbiage in the quarters where it prevails). No one is trying, for example, to subpoena him to take photographs of his genitals for a lawsuit, impeaching him or are accusing him of deliberately murdering thousands of Americans in a vast conspiracy.