Monday, April 19, 2010
Race as a political weapon against the right
Conor Friedersdorf has written a nice piece about the left's use of race against the right (which has certainly done more than enough to makes itself vulnerable on the subject). The context is the argument over the ethnic composition of the Tea Party movement, sharpened to a point by Charles Blow's weekend op-ed in the New York Times. Friedersdorf quoting Blow, money graph at the end:
In any context except a Tea Party, the vast majority of liberal writers would praise the act of highlighting the voices of “people of color” even if they aren’t particularly representative of a crowd or corporation or university class. Let it happen at a rally of conservatives, however, and this winds up on the nation’s premier op-ed page:I found the imagery surreal and a bit sad: the minorities trying desperately to prove that they were “one of the good ones”; the organizers trying desperately to resolve any racial guilt among the crowd. The message was clear: How could we be intolerant if these multicolored faces feel the same way we do?
And later in the same piece:Thursday night I saw a political minstrel show devised for the entertainment of those on the rim of obliviousness and for those engaged in the subterfuge of intolerance. I was not amused.It’s this kind of piece that causes people on the right to think that on matters of race, they’re damned if they do, and they’re damned if they don’t — if they don’t make efforts to include non-whites they’re unenlightened propagators of privilege, and if they do make those efforts they’re the cynical managers of a minstrel show, but either way, race is used as a cudgel to discredit them in a way that would never be applied to a political movement on the left.
Commentary
Of course, this double standard is no accident. If the right ever did succeed in attracting a significant percentage of America's blacks and Hispanics, the Democrats would suffer enormously. Democrats who do not want to see that happen, including black and Hispanic Democrats, have a great incentive to make any black or Hispanic who does embrace conservative politics to pay as high a social price as possible for advertising as much, because the left simply must deter more defections. Ridicule, such as by calling such defectors "minstrels", is a very effective way of doing that. None of this is news to Charles Blow.
CWCID: Tom Maguire.
51 Comments:
By 
, at
Mon Apr 19, 07:02:00 AM:
"which has certainly done more than enough to makes itself vulnerable on the subject"
Nonsense, it has done no such thing.
This racial business is straight out of the Soviet COMINITEN agiprop and direct political action of the 1920's and the 1930's.
Americans have to reject it wholesale if we are to survive.
By 
TigerHawk, at
Mon Apr 19, 09:45:00 AM:
Anon, consider just two items: (1) the sad frequency with which southern Republicans find the need to say apologetic things about the Confederate States of America, and (2) the rhetoric that at least some conservatives use to frame their arguments over immigration issues. There are numerous instances of both that, like it or not, have offended black and Hispanic voters. You can argue whether they are too sensitive or intellectually dishonest as a group, but it seems to me impossible to deny that reality.
By MTF, at
Mon Apr 19, 09:46:00 AM:
Michelle Malkin joins Tom Maguire in turning the tables on just about every pale faced dude with a media job. Pretty funny actually.
I am so tired of the casual use and lazy overuse of the race issue. It's an ugly accusation, and it's been turned into a putrid political tactic by the left; vapid people that they are.
Get over it Blow- try to see past the color of skin, if you can, and appreciate the fine character of many with whose politics you obviously disagree.
You might just learn something, and you'll certainly improve the level of political discourse.
By Dymphna, at
Mon Apr 19, 10:07:00 AM:
Tigerhawk--
Lt. Col West would certainly agree with the first commenter. The left hammers race into the ground. West says give it a rest.
Obama is no post-race president, as his kneejerk reaction to the Professor Grievance incident in Cambridge proved. Heck, as his race-obsessed book proved. As his wife recently referring to his home as being Kenya proved.
Obama has given the left permission to bang this drum even louder. Black conservatives refuse to live by those rules. As West says, he resents the constant pressure to play the grievance card.
The anti-Obama black man
I'm a sucker for a man who reads Bastiat and thinks we need to get real about the debt, national defense, and energy.
on national defense
We must get away from occupation warfare and nation building and execute precision strike operations aimed at denying the terrorist enemy sanctuary. We must cut off their funding, manpower, and logistical support from their state sponsors. And that means finding their financial resources and freezing them. We must win the information war and defeat this enemy on the websites which proliferate hate against the US and western civilization.
We must stop with the PC non-sense and confront this enemy with courage, competence, conviction, and character. No longer can tolerance be a one way street in the US which will lead to our cultural suicide. No longer can we allow this enemy to infiltrate our financial, religious, cultural, educational, and political systems in America using our own Constitution to destroy us.
He was on track to become a general when he willingly adn with forethought threatened an Iraqi double agent in order to protect the 600 men under him. It worked, the Iraqi quit laughing and gave them the information they needed.
West knew it would end his military career but he was, as John Boyd would say, a man who was going to "do something" rather than a CYA "be somebody" who wants a cushion in the Pentagon. Obviously, his men loved him.
On energy
We must embark upon a plan to drill for our own oil and natural gas resources wherever they lie within our continental rights. We should create incentives for our coal industry, not punitive measures such as Cap and Trade legislation, which will inhibit the investment in proven
energy that we rely on. We have to restart our nuclear program as the technology has so greatly proved. We led the way in harnessing the power of nuclear energy, let us reclaim that title. The advancement
of these efforts will lead to our energy independence, decrease
funding to our enemies and provide affordable energy to all Americans.
In concert with these efforts let us strive to develop the renewable
sources, including biofuels, wind, and solar, and invest in their development. I find it sadly representative of the elitist left wing that Senators such as John Kerry promote wind energy, just not in their neighborhood!
The renewables are not the panacea that many on the left are
advocating, at most generating 10%of our requirements. However, the
promotion of renewable energy resources is a vital part of what should be our national energy plan. Technological growth and ingenuity will lead to greater development of newer, more efficient energy. We need to avoid the job killing agenda of the Democratic Congress which wants to give us Cap and Trade legislation that dictates behavior through excessive taxation and destroys blue collar industries.
Boy, I sure wish he were running in our district. Right now we have a robo-Dem freshman Congressman who votes a straight party line. He only won by 700+ votes (out of over 300,000). VA District Five has candidates lined up to take him out. I sure am looking forward to November.
By , at
Mon Apr 19, 10:33:00 AM:
Let's get to the real issues: what is wrong with being white? does an opinion held by persons with a variety of racial backgrounds automatically become a better opinion? why isn't it racist that 90% of blacks voted for Obama (a mighty dark voting block to paraphrase Blow-hard)? how much damage is the "racial pie and how big is my 'communities'' slice" way of thinking going to do to our nation?
By Viking Kaj, at
Mon Apr 19, 12:12:00 PM:
Just because you express a contrary opinion does not make you a racist.
Increasingly I think the present administration is Stalinist in nature. We are trying to quash free debate by attaching extremist labels to the opposition. Anyone who has the temerity to disagree with the agenda is to be steamrollered.
Unfortunately rather than help us to find common interest, this approach is like to rachet up the divisions in out country. The blow back is likely to be severe.
It is really sad when you see someone as smart as Bill Clinton using the Oklahoma bombings as an excuse to try to obtain advantage for the present democratic agenda.
I suspect that we a moving to a critical point in the history of our nation and that the result will please no one.
By Viking Kaj, at
Mon Apr 19, 12:16:00 PM:
By the way, I wouldn't agree with the Obama agenda if he was white and from Texas.
By Brian Schmidt, at
Mon Apr 19, 02:07:00 PM:
I'd say some ignorance is showing up in the comments. Nope, the Tea Party folks have never done anything to alienate people of color, instead any fault lies at the feet of the people of color.
Shift perspectives a little bit - I'm very active in the environmental movement, and we have a similar problem as the political right. What some of us understand is that we need to do more than tokenism, and shape our goals in a new way that attracts real minority participation.
Conservatives might try something similar, although as a non-conservative myself, I'm okay with your present course on the short and medium term (long-term is unhealthy for the political right to have only token minority participation).
By MTF, at
Mon Apr 19, 03:17:00 PM:
Brian shows once more that condescension is his SOP.
Let's take TH's point further (probably further than he would!): It's not that the racist left uses racism as an attack weapon. They also use out and out violence, unlike the Tea Party folks.
They also are "statist, racist, imperialist, eugenicist warmongers" (quoting Jonah Goldberg), if you take at face value the characterization made by the Center for American Progress in their recent embarrassment claiming ideological descendancy from early 20th century Progressives.
Of course, there is always the anti-free speech arm of the left to consider as well. No modern day conservative would suggesting that political opponents of the president should be jailed but it happens not infrequently from the left, though perhaps still only obliquely. President Obama himself attacks critics by name, parroting the ad hominem attack methods made so infamous by his supporters on poor Joe-the-plumber in the campaign.
And, just as we saw two weeks ago in the Waxman attacks on reporting companies post-Obamacare passage, we might well be seeing now what happens to banks who might not sign up for supporting increased government intrusion into their businesses in the prosecution of Goldman. Is the left worried? Not so you'd notice.
Is the left naturally totalitarian, or do they have to work hard to get there? Whatever, they are clearly racist as Blow demonstrates. Maybe they are totalitarians too or perhaps they aren't, but they certainly resemble the remark.
Lastly, I ask you: what about golf?! Bush took it in the neck for golfing 24 times in eight years (which is about 20 times more than me, because I run a business). Obama hit the links for his 32nd round the other day, rather than attend the funeral of one of our staunchest allies, the President of Poland. Supposedly, he didn't even swing by the embassy to sign the book of condolences. The lefties are not only racist totalitarians, they are also elitest golfers. No charge could be worse. Where are the "some village in Hawaii is missing it's idiot" posters?!
By , at
Mon Apr 19, 03:50:00 PM:
There's a political fault line between (1) those who get government checks and (2) those who pay for them. There's another similar fault line between (1) those who see an activist federal government as an "ally" - and (2) those who don't. Both parties straddle these fault lines, even the Republicans although to a lesser degree.
The Tea Party reflects these fault lines. It's not really a political party, and may never become one. Instead, it's the activist front for a potentially large voting block of disgruntled Independents, Republicans and even some Democrats who believe they're being ignored. If this voting block comes out in force in November, a large number of incumbents -- mostly Democrats -- will get thrown out of office. My over/under has been Republicans +55 in the House. It could be even higher.
What happens to the Tea Party after November will depend on how the remaining incumbents react -- especially Obama.
Nearly all blacks see an activist federal government as an ally, even when they're not getting government checks. That's why blacks are over 90% aligned with the Democratic party. That's their choice -- not mine.
MSM has misunderstood and misreported the Tea Party movement for over a year now. The more that "normal" Americans like me are told that we're ignorant or racist or even a danger ... only because we want to rein in a federal government that is literally out of control and politically unresponsive ... the more pissed off we get -- and thus the more likely to come out and vote in November.
I can't wait.
By , at
Mon Apr 19, 03:54:00 PM:
There's a political fault line between (1) those who get government checks and (2) those who pay for them. There's another similar fault line between (1) those who see an activist federal government as an "ally" - and (2) those who don't. Both parties straddle these fault lines, even the Republicans although to a lesser degree.
The Tea Party reflects these fault lines. It's not really a political party, and may never become one. Instead, it's the activist front for a potentially large voting block of disgruntled Independents, Republicans and even some Democrats who believe they're being ignored. If this voting block comes out in force in November, a large number of incumbents -- mostly Democrats -- will get thrown out of office. My over/under has been Republicans +55 in the House. It could be even higher.
What happens to the Tea Party after November will depend on how the remaining incumbents react -- especially Obama.
Nearly all blacks see an activist federal government as an ally, even when they're not getting government checks. That's why blacks are over 90% aligned with the Democratic party. That's their choice -- not mine.
MSM has misunderstood and misreported the Tea Party movement for over a year now. The more that "normal" Americans like me are told that we're ignorant or racist or even a danger ... only because we want to rein in a federal government that is literally out of control and politically unresponsive ... the more pissed off we get -- and thus the more likely to come out and vote in November.
I can't wait.
By , at
Mon Apr 19, 04:14:00 PM:
"long-term it's unhealthy for the political right to have only token minority participation"
Now let's flip it:
"long-term it's unhealthy for the political left to alienate those who actually pay the bills"
My money is on the latter.
I also don't think "right" / "left" is accurate. It's more of an x/y axis that reflects how "big statist" you are.
I'd ask Brian to repond to the following:
1) even if you're for a Big State, can't you see that we're on a course that's fiscally unsustainable -- that it will blow up.
2) or is that what you want? Be careful, the result you get could just as likely be a reactionary rightist regime. Goodbye EPA!
3) I don't think the USA is ready to be more European. We don't have the ethnic identity, and we're too personally piggish, to run a big quasi-socialist state. It'll end badly.
By , at
Mon Apr 19, 04:56:00 PM:
The Gallup Poll concludes that Tea Partiers are Fairly Mainstream in Their Demographics. By no means are they as lily-white as the libs are trying to portray them.
Tea Party Supporters
Non-Hispanic White 79 %
Non-Hispanic Black 6%
Other 15%
All Americans
Non-Hispanic White 75%
Non-Hispanic Black 11%
Other 15%
For the 2008 election, it was estimated that blacks constituted 13% of the voters, with 96% of black voters voting for Obama. With 46% of the vote going to McCain, the math says that blacks represented 1.1% of the Republican vote in 2008. The math, in percentages : ((.04X.13)/.46) X100.
Blacks constitute six percent of Tea Party supporters while blacks constituted one percent of McCain voters in 2008! That is quite a difference. These numbers say that the Tea Party has had considerable success in attracting black support compared to what the Republicans did in 2008.
This also suggests that in spite of Obama having about 95% of black support today, a figure which is consistent with his black support in the 2008 election, that this support is not as deep as it appears. These numbers say that there are blacks who support Obama who are also Tea Party supporters.
This also suggests that the “too white” line from the libs is simply a cudgel to attack the Tea Parties. Which is no surprise. "You're racist and I'm not" has long been a lib talking point. Robert Byrd agrees.
By Brian Schmidt, at
Mon Apr 19, 05:33:00 PM:
Your math's off, Boludo - you should multiply by .46 instead of divide by .46.
And that's assuming that all the remaining 4% of blacks voted for McCain.
Mad as Hell - no, I'd cut the military to one-third its present budget, so unlike many people here, I'm for a smaller budget. We'd still have the world's largest military budget by far, even ignoring the military help of our allies.
The main thing though, is to not do deficit financing like the Bush flameout of a surplus he was given, except in a recession.
By , at
Mon Apr 19, 06:52:00 PM:
Your math's off, Boludo - you should multiply by .46 instead of divide by .46.
Let us break it down for some who has admitted he doesn’t know much about statistics, who here shows a bit more more chutzpah than math knowledge.
What does this figure mean: (.04X.13)/.46) X100 ? What percentage of the McCain vote came from black voters. Let us prove that statement.
.04 = Black McCain Voters/BlackVoters
.13= Black Voters/ Total Voters
Multiply .04X .13
What does that figure represent?
(Black McCain Voters/BlackVoters)X(Black Voters/ Total Voters)=
BlackMcCain Voters/Total Voters)
Calculate : (.04X.13)/.46 : What does that figure represent?
First: What does .46 represent? McCain Voters/Total Voters.
Therefore, (.04X.13)/.46 represents:
(BlackMcCain Voters/Total Voters)/(McCain Voters/Total Voters)=
BlackMcainVoters/McCainVoters: Which is what we want.
We can also represent this as (BlackMcCain Voters/Total Voters)X(Total Voters/McCain voters), if we recall that A/B= AX (1/B)
We multiply by 100 to change a fraction into a percentage.
By the way Brian, decimals and percentages, along with numerators and denominators, should have been covered by 7th and 8th grade math.
And that's assuming that all the remaining 4% of blacks voted for McCain.
You are correct that I am making that assumption. However, that is a worst case scenario for my argument. The fewer blacks who voted for McCain, the better the figures for the Tea Party are compared to McCain. Assuming that McCain got 4% of the black vote, the percentage of blacks among Tea Party supporters was about 5.5 times higher than the percentage of blacks among McCain supporters (6/1.1). If McCain got 3% of the black vote, which would mean that blacks constituted 0.85% of McCain supporters, our corresponding ration would be 6/.85 , which would mean that the percentage of blacks among Tea Party supporters would be 7 times higher than the percentage of blacks among McCain supporters.
By , at
Mon Apr 19, 07:08:00 PM:
"I'd cut the military to one-third its present budget"
I bet that Boludo could actually work up a plan to cut the military budget in half but still give us a more effective military.
But it won't happen because of politics. E.g., Obama has actually increased our foreign military commitments like Afghanistan because he doesn't want to be criticized as weak on defense.
Instead, we'll blow up the budget totally at some point and have a military collapse like the Soviets had.
I'd rather pay 2x what we need to on the military than risk the chaos that might otherwise ensue. Call it insurance. ps I was against the Iraq invasion. Walk softly and carry a really big stick.
So Brian you didn't really answer how to really rein in the budget?
By , at
Mon Apr 19, 07:12:00 PM:
"I'd cut the military to one-third its present budget"
I bet that Boludo could actually work up a plan to cut the military budget in half but still give us a more effective military.
But it won't happen because of politics. E.g., Obama has actually increased our foreign military commitments like Afghanistan because he doesn't want to be criticized as weak on defense.
Instead, we'll blow up the budget totally at some point and have a military collapse like the Soviets had.
I'd rather pay 2x what we need to on the military than risk the chaos that might otherwise ensue. Call it insurance. ps I was against the Iraq invasion. Walk softly and carry a really big stick.
So Brian you didn't really answer how to really rein in the budget?
By , at
Mon Apr 19, 07:58:00 PM:
Just who are the "GOP politicians" who are constant apologists for the CSA?
TH, I have new for you, the Democrats where the party of slavery, the Confederacy, the KKK and Jim Crow, not the GOP. Byrd was a Klansman, for heaven sake. George Wallace was a Democrat.
Blacks were once mostly GOP voters until they shamelessly allowed themselves to be bought out by the Democrats. It is their resort to state subsidy that requires explanation, and it is this that should "offend" all decent people.
It is the Democrats that should be fessing up to their long history of racial oppression toward the black and Hispanic races, and if the Blacks and Hispanics are either to stupid to see it, or too callow and immoral to reject the Democrats use of them to destroy this nation, then it is they who need to be held into account.
And BTW, the so called "southern strategy" is a complete Democrat fraud pushed by their GOP plant, Javits, to slander Goldwater. THERE WAS IN FACT NO SUCH THING.
As to your second point, to imagine that white Americans have some moral obligation to somehow make themselves a racial minority in the nation that they settled and created if fatuous nonsense. No other nation of the world tolerates this sort of nonsense. Try running for mayor of Tokyo some time. THe Left's emphasis on non-white immigration is an weapon against us--a blunt RACIAL WEAPON pointed most explicitly at Western civilization (that would be the the civilization that the white race created, BTW) and it is an outrage. To shout racist at those who will not countenance it and who will call things by their real names is to stand things on their head.
Pleasing the sensitivity of Black or Hispanic racists, who open speack of reparations or La Raza or reconquista, or Black and Hispanic opportunists who wish to pick the pocket of white Americans under the cover of "racial sensitivity" or "racial identity" is just the sort of nonsense that got us in this pickle in the first place. They should be called out for the parasites and race hustlers that they are. To do otherwise hardly being magnanimous, moral or civilized.
It is being a fool.
You somehow wish to postulate that the white race is the only racial group in the country that may not engage in racial identity or politics. Nonsense.
You spend too much time in NJ--and, incidentally, appear to have litter real knowledge of the south. It must be something in the air out Princeton way. Stop buying not the narrative. As said, we must reject the whole business. If anything, we need to hold those politicians into account who attack Whites.
Neither the GOP or Conservatives have anything to apologies about. Quite the contrary.
By Brian Schmidt, at
Mon Apr 19, 08:00:00 PM:
Boludo's right on the math. My apologies. Wrong on Strom Thurmond, though.
That there are black conservatives isn't surprising, nor is it surprising that few blacks support Republicans.
MAH - it wouldn't be hard to cut the military budget without affecting our ability to do most of what I need. Our nuclear forces and forces in Europe are mostly wasted, sitting there in case the USSR revives itself.
I'd also fix the Republican Party giveaways for Medicare Part D and Medicare Advantage, and (in my dreams anyway) the bipartisan agricultural subsidies.
This all would take care of a significant part of the Republican caused deficit, and the rest would need to be taken care of through eliminating corporate welfare tax subsidies, fixing our loophole-ridden corporate tax structure that TH ignores when he compares nominal rates with Europe, pull back some of the tax cuts for the rich to the 1990s levels, and eventually reining in Medicare.
By Brian Schmidt, at
Mon Apr 19, 08:06:00 PM:
"Blacks were once mostly GOP voters until they shamelessly allowed themselves to be bought out by the Democrats"
See what I mean? (I'm assuming Poe's Law doesn't apply, btw.)
You conservatives - have fun running with that attitude as you try to compete for minority votes.
By MTF, at
Mon Apr 19, 08:13:00 PM:
Amazing; still with the condescension, even after an arithmetic lesson.
By , at
Mon Apr 19, 08:30:00 PM:
Wrong on Strom Thurmond, though.
Document what I said, and prove that what I said was wrong. Just like you proved my math wrong.
By Brian, at
Tue Apr 20, 12:15:00 AM:
http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2010/01/reid-vs-lott.html
By , at
Tue Apr 20, 01:09:00 AM:
Wrong on Strom Thurmond, though.
Document what I said, and prove that what I said was wrong. Just like you proved my math wrong.
Hint: your saying something is wrong isn't sufficient. You need to document it.
By Gary Rosen, at
Tue Apr 20, 01:43:00 AM:
Hey, Brian, you're really big on making bets. I'll bet you that despite overwhelming Jewish support for Democrats, Democrats are considerably more antisemitic than Republicans. You wanna put your money where your mouth is?
By TigerHawk, at
Tue Apr 20, 09:05:00 AM:
Anon 7:58:
Just who are the "GOP politicians" who are constant apologists for the CSA?
Well, how about the government of South Carolina, controlled by Republicans from top to bottom, which insists on continuing to fly the Confederate battle flag notwithstanding national opposition ? There are other examples.
TH, I have new for you, the Democrats where the party of slavery, the Confederacy, the KKK and Jim Crow, not the GOP. Byrd was a Klansman, for heaven sake. George Wallace was a Democrat.
Irrelevant as a political matter. The most recent of such conditions (Wallace) is now 50 years in the past and outside the memory of the vast majority of living voters. The only thing that matters, rightly or wrongly, is the last thirty years or so.
Blacks were once mostly GOP voters until they shamelessly allowed themselves to be bought out by the Democrats. It is their resort to state subsidy that requires explanation, and it is this that should "offend" all decent people.
There are plenty of middle class blacks who are not on the dole any more than any other group. There is no "corrupt" reason why they should vote consistently Democratic. The question is why blacks seem to vote monolithically compared to other ethnic groups, even more so than Jews and Hispanics. It is in the GOP's best interest to answer that question and see if it cannot break the monolith.
The more likely explanation for black loyalty to "big government" is that, sadly, federal military, regulatory, financial and judicial intervention was required to kill off de jure segregation in the South when the states essentially disobeyed the Supreme Court and the Congress. In other words, massive federal intervention worked very effectively for blacks, so naturally many of them think the federal government is, well, effective. Apart from the working class whites in the "greatest generation," they are the only people in American history to think this way in large majorities.
It is the Democrats that should be fessing up to their long history of racial oppression toward the black and Hispanic races, and if the Blacks and Hispanics are either to stupid to see it, or too callow and immoral to reject the Democrats use of them to destroy this nation, then it is they who need to be held into account.
For at least 40 years, the Democrats have been doing everything they can to "fess up" and make amends. Look at all the legislation they have passed and executive orders issued to help blacks and Hispanics in particular. These tactics have been successful.
And BTW, the so called "southern strategy" is a complete Democrat fraud pushed by their GOP plant, Javits, to slander Goldwater. THERE WAS IN FACT NO SUCH THING.
I've never heard of Barry Goldwater having been associated with a "southern strategy." The usual suspect is Richard Nixon and his strategist Kevin Phillips. Check out Wikipedia.
By TigerHawk, at
Tue Apr 20, 09:05:00 AM:
(cont'd)
As to your second point, to imagine that white Americans have some moral obligation to somehow make themselves a racial minority in the nation that they settled and created if fatuous nonsense. No other nation of the world tolerates this sort of nonsense. Try running for mayor of Tokyo some time. THe Left's emphasis on non-white immigration is an weapon against us--a blunt RACIAL WEAPON pointed most explicitly at Western civilization (that would be the the civilization that the white race created, BTW) and it is an outrage. To shout racist at those who will not countenance it and who will call things by their real names is to stand things on their head.
Strange. I've always thought of Mexicans as white (when they are not native American), and the difference primarily one of language and, to some degree, religion. I think the Democrats do try to portray the immigration issue as about race to lock down support of the blacks (who have lots of economic reasons to resent Mexican immigration), but why do conservatives fall for that trap?
You spend too much time in NJ--and, incidentally, appear to have litter real knowledge of the south. It must be something in the air out Princeton way. Stop buying not the narrative. As said, we must reject the whole business. If anything, we need to hold those politicians into account who attack Whites.
Trust me, I know plenty about the South. I've been to white parties and church socials in South Carolina and heard racial "humor" that made me sad. I've seen the police clear the the blacks out of the park in Charleston, but not the whites. In 1980. So while I am a conservative and have a long record on this blog of objecting to racial politics and race-based public policy, I am not blind to the history. Let's try for a little intellectual honesty here.
By MTF, at
Tue Apr 20, 10:00:00 AM:
I still maintain that this whole racism play is tiresome in modern America. Overused too, and viciously generalized. Lefties freely indict whole groups under that charge, but only if those groups disagree politically with them. The center right doesn't use the charge against the left, but should because that's where racism is really most deeply embeded.
Having grown up in a small town in western Virginia, and then moved north for adolescence it seemed to me then that racism was more invidious in the north. In my youthful experience, comfortable suburbanites made (and maybe still make!) little or no effort to get outside of their patio cocktail group anyway, and it was unlikely then (and maybe still so, even in Princeton) that those suburbanites have any experience with people unlike themselves, people of color or of obvious ethnicity, or any larger sort of society. But those selfsame surburbanites were in my experience, and sometimes still are, awfully free with generalized nastiness and moral superiority.
I think your indictment of the GOP is way overstated, and perhaps just plain undeserved. Southerners sometimes do have a romanticized view of their history, but I don't think it has a political basis in either party. My father spent years registering black voters in rural Virginia, as Republicans, because the Democrats wouldn't have them.
In my small Virginia town, we at least were aware of differences and recognized that an effort had to be made on all sides to set aside cultural division, and that we had a civic duty of sorts to get together in some manner. I think it was a valuable lesson, and while I'm no anthropologist I'd guess the south is a better place today (culturally and socially more diverse) for the effort. I myself would feel a lot better if politicians in southern states would educate people on the complete nature of the antebellum south, rather than make empty gestures to the romanticized, one-sided notions of history, but I also don't think that doing so makes those politicians individually or the GOP at large, racist. It makes them seem politically stupid, though.
In modern terms, the Democrat party is doing nothing for black Americans except enslave them to a identity-politics based "group conception" that allows party politicians to crank up racist criticism if the voters don't vote Democrat. That's the present day, ugly truth. And media handmaidens like Charles Blow don't even see the sad mirror quality of participating in such nefarious, ugly activities. You talk about staying in the modern period, and want to ignore the history of civil rights (politically, a Republican effort right up until the Great Society). Fine. Then you should criticize Democrats for todays moral crimes, because that's where it really gets down and dirty.
By Brian Schmidt, at
Tue Apr 20, 11:35:00 AM:
I grew up in upstate New York in the 80s, and there was plenty of racism there. This doesn't make the South look any better, though, it just makes the North look worse.
Gary R - I don't have a strong feeling, but I'd bet that a larger percentage of Rs than Ds would say things like "Jews are too influential in America". So if you want to bet on whether Ds or Rs are more antisemitic to Jewish Americans, I'm willing to do a token bet. Loser gives $50 to a non-political charity, say the Red Cross. I nominate TigerHawk to judge who wins.
By My Attorney Bernie, at
Tue Apr 20, 01:44:00 PM:
Brian : I don't have a strong feeling, but I'd bet that a larger percentage of Rs than Ds would say things like "Jews are too influential in America". So if you want to bet on whether Ds or Rs are more antisemitic to Jewish Americans, I'm willing to do a token bet. Loser gives $50 to a non-political charity, say the Red Cross. I nominate TigerHawk to judge who wins.
Blame it on the Joos:
A survey conducted by the Boston Review in its May/June issue shows that nearly 25% of American non-Jews blame “the Jews” a moderate amount or more for the financial crisis.
Furthermore, a total of 38.4% of the non-Jews in the U.S. attribute at least some level of blame to the groups.
Possibly most significant of all were the subconscious anti-Semitic tendencies revealed based on the way the questions were phrased to different groups.
Neil Malhotra, Assistant Professor of Political Economy in the Graduate School of Business at Stanford University, and Dr. Yotam Margalit of Stanford University, conducted the study. It was part of a survey of 2,768 American adults exploring responses and anti-Semitic sentiments vis-à-vis the economic collapse.
They found that Democrats were significantly more prone to blaming Jews than Republicans: while 32% of Democrats accorded at least moderate blame, compared to only 18.4% of Republicans.
Who was it that blamed it more on the Joos? Say what?
By , at
Tue Apr 20, 02:22:00 PM:
Ironically, blacks are often quite ant-semetic. Go figure.
By Brian Schmidt, at
Tue Apr 20, 03:50:00 PM:
MAB - that's just one issue, and the one most likely to lead feed into Democratic paranoiacs as opposed to Republican paranoiacs.
By MTF, at
Tue Apr 20, 04:07:00 PM:
Why the left needs racism is well worth reading.
By Gary Rosen, at
Wed Apr 21, 12:32:00 AM:
Brian, you owe the Red Cross $50:
blame_da_Joooos
Certainly there is residual "paleocon" antisemitism on the right from the likes of Pat Buchanan. But I have been noticing since at least the days of Jesse Jackson the willingness of the left to tolerate bigotry when it suits their purposes. Not to mention the racist and sexist vitriol dished out to conservative blacks and women. Or the homophobic "teabagger" slur. Or ... well, you get the picture.
By Gary Rosen, at
Wed Apr 21, 12:35:00 AM:
Ooops, I just noticed that MAB beat me to the punch! And on cue, Brian made excuses for it ...
By , at
Wed Apr 21, 10:02:00 AM:
Brian:
Wrong on Strom Thurmond, though.
Document what I said, and prove that what I said was wrong. Just like you proved my math wrong.
Hint: your saying something is wrong isn't sufficient. You need to document it. You need to prove it, Mr. Authority on Seventh Grade Math.
I'm waiting, I'm waiting.
By MTF, at
Wed Apr 21, 04:09:00 PM:
This article touches on racism in professional football, not politics, but is tangentially worth reading. The person in question is a college acquaintance of my daughter's at Stanford, I am happy to say, and she speaks very highly of him indeed. Some lucky team will snag themselves a good player, and I hope he quickly proves the naysayers wrong.
By My Attorney Bernie, at
Thu Apr 22, 08:04:00 AM:
One.
Israel Project
Thinking about the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians in the Middle East, please tell me whether, in general, you think the United States should be a strong supporter of Israel, a supporter of Israel, a supporter of the
Palestinians or a strong supporter of the Palestinians.
Israel
Republicans 72
Independents 57
Democrats 45
Palestine
Republicans 3
Independents 10
Democrats 9
Gallup Poll
Sympathies for Israelis vs. Palestinians in Mideast situation
Percentages who sympathize more with Israelis
Republicans 85
Independents 60
Democrats 48
By My Attorney Bernie, at
Thu Apr 22, 08:08:00 AM:
Two.
Christian fundamentalist anti-semitism:
In early August 2000, when Al Gore selected Joe Lieberman as his running mate, the Times and other major newspapers and magazines published a flurry of stories about fears expressed by Democrats (typified by then Democratic National Chairman Ed Rendell) that the Lieberman nomination might stir up latent anti-Semitism and lead to negative voting against the party's presidential candidate by retrograde southern evangelicals.
As it turned out, these apprehensions were unwarranted. Lieberman's Jewish identity was a nonissue. ANES thermometer data offer strong empirical evidence about why Lieberman's religious affiliation didn't hurt Gore in the election, particularly among evangelical and fundamentalist Christians. The average rating white Christian fundamentalists gave to Jews was a warm 66 degrees, a finding consistent with ANES surveys reaching back over a decade. It was no different from the mean ratings that Catholics and mainline Protestants gave to Jews. Among respondents who could correctly identify both Lieberman's and Gore's religious affiliation, Christian fundamentalists felt significantly warmer toward Lieberman (56 degrees) than toward Gore, a Southern Baptist (42 degrees).
Disapproval of Lieberman came not from Christian fundamentalists but from secularists, who complained that his public professions of faith and piety blurred the line between religion and politics, and from cultural conservatives who suspected that Lieberman's post-convention stances on issues like partial-birth abortion and school vouchers were more in tune with the secularist tilt of the Democratic party than with his pre-convention positions, thought to be anchored in his religious orthodoxy.
By My Attorney Bernie, at
Thu Apr 22, 08:13:00 AM:
Three.
Pay Up Brian.The Red Cross is waiting. Why can't you find any evidence to support your point of view? (Michael Medved, Townhall.com)
While respondents to the Gallup Poll might react to Baptists and Catholics, say, based on their well known, official, conservative positions on marriage, abortion and other moral issues, the Jewish community features prominent rabbis from every point on the political and cultural spectrum.This helps to explain the stunningly favorable view of Jews by self-identified Republicans—despite the fact that more than 75% of the Jewish community regularly votes for the other party. Republicans show an overwhelming 70% positive rating for Jews (compared to only 51% by Democrats, who are less favorable to all religious groups except Atheists).
One can only assume that members of the GOP demonstrate such positive attitudes to a notoriously liberal group in part because when they think of us they don’t focus on the likes of Barbra Streisand or Barbara Boxer or Al Franken, but instead remember politicians like Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota or RNC chair Ken Mehlman, religious leaders like Rabbi Daniel Lapin, or radio commentators like, well, Michael Medved and Dennis Prager. A religious group with no unified point of view can achieve popularity by appearing to offer all things to all people.
By My Attorney Bernie, at
Thu Apr 22, 08:31:00 AM:
Four.
Pay up, Brian. The Red Cross is waiting.Why can’t you find evidence to support your point of view?
ADL Survey 2005:
The survey revealed that 35 % of foreign-born Hispanics hold hardcore anti-Semitic beliefs, (down from 44%) while 19 % of Hispanics born in the U.S. fall into the same category (down from 20%). The anti-Semitic propensities of Hispanics were significantly above the national average -- 29% for Hispanics; 14% for all Americans.
The 2005 survey found that 36% of African-Americans hold strong anti-Semitic beliefs, four times more than the 9% for whites.
Which party do Hispanics and Blacks favor? There is some vicious slander going around that they favor the Democratic Party, the party of Slavery, Secession, and Jim Crow. Brian can repudiate that smear, I am sure.
By Brian Schmidt, at
Thu Apr 22, 09:37:00 AM:
For Boludo:
Jesse Nichols, Senate Clerk and Librarian, appointed 1937:
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Nichols_preface.pdf
Yep, he did some clerical work too, but he was also their librarian.
Gary: do you accept the bet I described? You seem to want me to pay without stating you agree to do the same if you lose. That includes having TH choose the winner.
By , at
Thu Apr 22, 12:06:00 PM:
Brian: Good research. Yes, he was a professional. However, he worked for the entire Senate, not for the specific Senator from Mississippi. Nonetheless, kudos to the Senator from Mississippi.Moreover, it is my understanding that while a specific Senator may recommend someone to work for the entire Senate, the Senate as a whole is who does the hiring. Example: according to one source, in 1963 "Thurmond was the first Senator to recommended a black officer for the Capitol Police Force” (p 363).A recommend is not a hire.Thurmond hired someone for his own staff. The American Spectator statement in dispute was: “In 1970, he became the first Southern senator to hire a black staffer and he was the first to recommend a black man to be a federal judge. He then sent his daughter to a heavily integrated public school.”
From the March 18,1971 issue of Jet Magazine, not exactly a wingnut source:
Sen. Thurmond, the architect of the GOP’s Southern strategy, found his influence in the state was lessened because he could not appeal to blacks. So he added Thomas Moss, 43, of Orangeburg, S.C., to his staff. Moss, a voter-registration expert, will work in the state after receiving several months training in Washington D.C.
The hiring of Moss kicked off the biggest controversy on Capitol Hill.Not more than ten Senators from the North, many of whom were elected because of the Black vote, hire Blacks in policy making staff posts. A few will hire a secretary or stenographer as an equal opportunity token….
Neither of the Illinois Senators, Charles H. Percy nor Adlai E. Stevenson III, has a Black policy maker. Neither does Indiana’s Vance Hartke, who boasted that Blacks in Gary gave him the margin of victory…..
Senators who hire black staffers include Edward M. Kennedy ( D, Mass), Birch Bayh (D., Ind.), Alan Cranston (D., Calif.), Henry Bellmon (R., Okla), George McGovern ( D, SD), Edward R. Brooke ( R, Mass), Fred Harris ( D., Okla), Lloyd Bentson D., Tex.), Philip Hart (D., Mich), Hugh Scott (R. , Pa.) and John V. Tunney ( D., Calif.)
This article from Jet Magazine supports the following statement, which is not a lot different from the American Spectator statement: “Strom Thurmond was the first white Senator from the Deep South to hire a black staffer . Moreover, he did so at a time when only ten white Senators had hired black staffers.” (Brooke was Black, and also Republican.) We are not talking secretaries or stenographers, but professional staffers who help make and implement policy. Senator Symington of Missouri had a black secretary for years. Bentsen assumed office in January 1971, so Thurmond wasn’t far behind.
(I did not change the statement to “first .. to hire a black staffer to work directly for him” because Jet Magazine did not consider such a fine distinction necessary.)
By Brian Schmidt, at
Thu Apr 22, 02:12:00 PM:
Thanks Anon, that's a good pickup too. The one thing I'd say though is that the difference between a Committee hire and Senator's staffing hire is pretty small, especially in the 1930s when Senators had very few personal staff.
My impression is that approval of the rest of the Senate was a formality, although I'm less certain of that.
I think your rewording is okay, although I think a reader might be surprised to learn that a senator from the Deep South was responsible for hiring an African-American who worked for the Senate, 36 years before Thurmond.
Other news of the day: a different anon said this above, "And BTW, the so called "southern strategy" is a complete Democrat fraud pushed by their GOP plant, Javits, to slander Goldwater. THERE WAS IN FACT NO SUCH THING."
Michael Steele disagrees with this anon:
“For the last 40-plus years we had a ‘Southern Strategy’ that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South.”
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/republican-national-committee/michael-steele-acknowledges-gop-had-southern-strategy-for-decades/
By Gary Rosen, at
Fri Apr 23, 03:12:00 AM:
"So if you want to bet on whether Ds or Rs are more antisemitic to Jewish Americans, I'm willing to do a token bet."
Then:
"You seem to want me to pay without stating you agree to do the same if you lose. That includes having TH choose the winner."
Of course I agree, but it's pretty clear you lost. I'm not surprised your trying to welsh on the bet - oops, is that racist?
By Brian Schmidt, at
Fri Apr 23, 12:04:00 PM:
Alrighty then, Gary. Will get back to you.
By , at
Fri Apr 23, 03:12:00 PM:
Brian:
I think your rewording is okay, although I think a reader might be surprised to learn that a senator from the Deep South was responsible for hiring an African-American who worked for the Senate, 36 years before Thurmond.
BTW, I was “Anonymous.” Yes indeed, that is an astounding find. It doesn’t fit a lot of narratives. One narrative it might fit is that in the North, blacks are liked as a race but shunned as individuals but in the South, blacks as a race are shunned but accepted as individuals.[This has been expressed in many forms. The truth of this narrative is open for debate.I have no interest in such a debate.] One example which might also fit this narrative is the 97% white county in Alabama that elected a black state representative with 59% of the vote. As I am a North-South hybrid, both by birth and by residence, I have no desire to get into region-bashing, one way or another. Just to point out things are more complex than they seem.
American Spectator stated: “...he became the first Southern senator …to recommend a black man to be a federal judge.”
Matthew Perry was "the first black lawyer from the deep south ever appointed to the federal bench" when Gerald Ford appointed him to the United States Court of Military Appeals in Washington D.C. Strom nominated him.[NYT wording: as if someone who is NOT a lawyer could become a federal judge!]
Strom: the Complicated Personal and Political Life of Strom Thurmond, by Jack Bass and Marilyn Thompson, has Matthew Perry’s reaction to the nomination: “I was astounded… Some people on the national scene had doubts about whether I should do this — the court was not that well known. But many felt it could be a breakthrough. It had never been done before.” [page242-43] I recommend you scroll down and read more pages.
Were Strom's motives political and not entirely pristine? That is quite possible, especially since Strom was a political animal. Mixed motives can also lead to good acts. The acts are what count.
American Spectator: check.
By Gary Rosen, at
Sat Apr 24, 06:11:00 AM:
"One narrative it might fit is that in the North, blacks are liked as a race but shunned as individuals but in the South, blacks as a race are shunned but accepted as individuals."
Black comedian Dick Gregory used to say, "In the South they don't care how close you get as long as you don't get too big. In the North they don't care how big you get as long as you don't get too close."
By , at
Sat Apr 24, 01:00:00 PM:
Gary, no surprise that Dick Gregory said it better than I did.
By Brian, at
Tue Apr 27, 02:08:00 AM:
Best data I could find on antisemitism towards Jewish-Americans:
http://secularright.org/wordpress/?p=1780
Note that this is from a conservative blog. Like the blogger, I don't see much of a trend across the political spectrum.
By , at
Fri Jul 30, 03:44:00 PM:
McMahon Campaign Hits Grimm For Taking 'Jewish Money'
Mike Grimm, a G.O.P challenger to Democrat Mike McMahon's Congressional seat, took in over $200,000 in his last filing.
But in an effort to show that Grimm lacks support among voters in the district, which covers Staten Island and parts of Brooklyn, the McMahon campaign compiled a list of Jewish donors to Grimm and provided it to The Politicker.
The file, labeled "Grimm Jewish Money Q2," for the second quarter fundraising period, shows a list of over 80 names, a half-dozen of which in fact do hail from Staten Island, and a handful of others that list Brooklyn as home.
"Where is Grimm's money coming from," said Jennifer Nelson, McMahon's campaign spokeman. "There is a lot of Jewish money, a lot of money from people in Florida and Manhattan, retirees.
…..Reached by phone, Grimm, who is part-Italian, part-German, said he was proud of his Jewish support and said he was disturbed to hear that the McMahon campaign compiled a separate list of his Jewish donors.
"The fact that a U.S. Congressman would separate out any group by religion or even by ethnicity is nothing short of outrageous," he said. "This goes beyond politics."
What party is that? Eh?
