Right-wing criticism of Obama is not racial, but Obama’s kick in the pants to New York Governor David Paterson apparently is. Republican National Committee chair Michael Steele told CBS on Sunday:
I found that to be stunning, that the White House would send word to one of only two black governors in the country not to run for re-election.
Republicans denounce identity politics, except when they engage in it themselves. Steele is claiming either that Obama is going after Paterson because he is black or that Obama should not go after Paterson because he is black. The first proposition is ludicrous, the second, poisonous. Steele strikes me as intermittently unhinged, but his exploitation of identity discourse here is hardly sui generis. Sarah Palin parroted Hillary Clinton’s feminist blather in announcing her vice presidency: “It turns out that the women of America aren’t finished yet, and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all.” Her supporters regularly accused her critics of being anti-woman. I wouldn’t have been surprised, therefore, to have seen Limbaugh or some other Republican luminary, instead of Steele, play the race card against Obama for his anti-Paterson campaign.
Is it too much to hope that Republican criticism of Obama stay within a zone of rationality and dignity? Yes, the Democrats demonized Bush, but that doesn’t mean that Republicans have to respond in kind. Why not be icily factual and coldly respectful, rather than hysterical and hot-headed? Both parties seem to have forgotten the Clinton and the Bush eras. Democrats, in portraying right-wing hyperventilation over Obama as a manifestation of covert hostility to blacks, forget the insane Clinton conspiracy theories that grew like kudzu even in the highest reaches of Republican opinionizing. Only this year has the right-wing obsession with the Clintons appeared to have finally and thankfully petered out. But Republican pundits, in portraying Obama as an unprecedented danger to the country—on Wednesday, Mark Levin announced: “We’ve never been in this situation before at least in modern times . . . They intend to use the system against you”–forget their own dire warnings about the Clintons as the end of civilization.
Republicans were furious at the criticism of Bush, “a wartime president!” We’re still “at war,” but the respect that should be accorded a wartime president, per the Republicans, is nowhere in evidence. The Democrats who are now so offended by Obama-hatred either participated in Bush-bashing themselves or didn’t object to it.
As Mr. Hume has pointed out, the growing government involvement in the private sector is worrisome, possibly quite dangerous. I am not confident that things would have looked radically different under a Republican administration, however—health care overhaul excepted. Republican and Democratic administrations have undertaken too-big-to-fail bailouts, for understandable, if misguided, reasons. The bank bailouts obviously began under Bush, and Bush or his predecessor might well have extended government lifelines to Chrysler and GM as well. Obama’s health care proposals are a different matter, though let us not forget that John McCain bashed the drug companies for their evil profit-making with as much zeal as Democrats currently bash the insurance companies (hearing Romney rebuke McCain for his drug company demagoguery during a campaign debate swung me into Romney’s camp, loony Mormonism notwithstanding).
But however undesirable our current trajectory, I don’t see it as part of a deliberate conspiracy of some reified “Left” to take over the economy or the country. Obama strikes me as a standard-issue liberal, reacting in an ad hoc fashion, with standard liberal impulses, to circumstances as they arise. (Again, health care “reform” is an exception—that is not a reactive policy but a proactive one. Ditto global warming policies, though they mask as reactive.) Perhaps Clinton made Republicans forget what an unreconstructed, non-DLC Democrat looks like, in which case, maybe they were crying wolf over Clinton back then.
Right-wing media pundits are often unimpeachably accurate in their analyses of Obama’s misguided policies. Limbaugh today rightly railed against the Democrats’ refusal to deregulate the health insurance markets across state lines. Why, then, also indulge in loony-bin allegations, such as Limbaugh’s charge that a recent attack by black teens on a white kid at a St. Louis bus stop is an emblem of Obama’s America? Does anyone remember the Jena Six? Blacks have been disproportionately involved in violent crime, and in cross-racial attacks, for decades. The charge that somehow Obama has given a license to blacks to attack whites is not just ludicrous, it is deeply irresponsible.
We are not moving from pure capitalism to pure socialism, we are moving from an already highly regulated, corporate- and individual-welfare-saturated economy to an even more regulated and redistributed economy. (And we didn’t get to our welfare-saturated state without popular support for trying to minimize risk, however unwisely.) The difference is one of degree, not of kind, which is not to say that we couldn’t easily reach a tipping point where differences in degree become paradigm-shifting. Conservative commentators are right to warn about the consequences of our present course, I just wish they did so with a little less recourse to Manichean, conspiratorial, or absurd rhetoric.
The Right should never waste time on “proving” how “racist” the Left is. The Right should instead concentrate on totally delegitimizing the idea of “racism” in the first place. They need to tear down this last refuge of the weak minded, and free the American (Western) people from a concept that has no real meaning but as a smear.
Tearing down the weapon of “racism” would cripple the Left beyond repair. The heart of the Left is the idea that all people are equal and that any inequality is due to the boogey (white) man named Billy-Ray Cism.” By calling people “racist” the GOP gives the boogey (white) man power.
Steele is claiming either that Obama is going after Paterson because he is black or that Obama should not go after Paterson because he is black. The first proposition is ludicrous, the second, poisonous.
You leave out a third possibility, which is that Steele believes in neither proposition but is implementing the Johnson Gambit:
Obama is very race conscious, (e.g. Gates incident, boosting funding for EEOC prosecutions, etc) so this may be a way for Steele to get Obama into another uncomfortable dilemma centered on race.
My thoughts were along TangoMan’s lines. No Republican is going to change their vote for or against Obama or Cuomo because Obama is being disloyal to his race (or whatever). But there are likely lots of Democrats who think that some sort of racial solidarity is virtuous, and will be just a little more disappointed in Obama, and thus less likely to vote or volunteer or whatever. Depressing the opposition’s enthusiasm is as useful as firing up your base’s, and it’s sometimes much, much easier.
One could also parse Steele’s statement legalistically – Steele isn’t necessarily saying it’s a bad thing that Obama is trying to push Paterson under the bus, just that it’s surprising, given Obama’s, and the Democrats’ obsession with race.
Heather, I really think this should be expanded into an essay for one of the better remaining right-of-center magazines. In theory NewMajority.com would be the place, but, as the kids say, “meh.”
At any rate, this piece is a very welcome breath of fresh air… or more like the first oxygen delivered to a crippled submarine on the bottom of the sea. I hope you will consider writing more along these lines.
jesus, tangoman & anthony’s arguments remind me of the bush era when conservative apologists would always have all sorts of bank-shot explanations for every bizarre move bush made (and somewhat remind me of libertarian apologia for obama when his leftism gets the better of him in economic & trade policy; e.g., he needs to cave to unions in the short-term to screw them in the long-term). steele mooted the racial impact of his possible chairmanship of the RNC while he was running. he had an understanding with ken blackwell on rather racial grounds that one of them was going to become the RNC head as it become obvious that blackwell could throw his votes to steele and seal it. and he’s engaged in a crap-load of bizarre short-term antics like his hip-hop phase (perhaps he’s trying to show white americans how dumb hip-hop really is by acting like a buffoon!). and republicans always pull this sort of crap as a tactical measure. e.g., “it’s racist to think that iraqis aren’t capable of democracy.” “social security screws black people because they die earlier.” but no, steele isn’t being a short-sighted buffoon engaging in standard republican operative tricks, he’s got some deep strategy to smoke obama out. give me a break. though i assume everyone who offers up these sorts of explanations is sincere, i’ve seen thousands of them since i started reading blogs in 2002. one of the downsides of running a political weblog is i have to run into these sorts of arguments again 😉
in any case, i sympathize with heather’s sentiments, though i’m not holding my breath. i like to think i’m young, but i’m old enough to see how the modus operandi in washington is, and this sort of flip-flopping and short-term tactical behavior is just what gets the job done in terms of justifying room & board for political operatives. public choice + plus stupidity = this sort of behavior.
Heather Mac Donald has discovered mass-democratic politics.
Michael Steele is a member of the party elite, which has been largely co-opted by the left. When Bush became the nominee my thought was that between him and Gore it was really a choice between one liberal and another. Such programs as the prescription drug plan confirmed my initial impression. But the Bush nomination was surpassed by the McCain nomination, who is guilty of such abominations as McCain-Feingold, and about whom Glenn Beck recently said, with some justification, that he would have been worse than Obama. More recently we had the spectacle of Steele attacking Limbaugh of all people. The Republican elite seems to be slipping deeper into the lap of the left as time goes by.
My point is, I cringe when someone attributes something that Steele does or says to “the right”. Let’s blame Steele for Steele, and not mix him up with (say) Palin or Limbaugh or Beck.
Limbaugh’s charge that a recent attack by black teens on a white kid at a St. Louis bus stop is an emblem of Obama’s America
Assuming you’re talking about the Belleville incident, it was parody. Limbaugh says so himself. If you are talking about something else then I apologize, but if you are talking about the Belleville incident, you don’t even remember it clearly. It was not at a bus stop but on a bus, a Belleville school bus. Again, if by some coincidence you’re talking about another incident my deepest apologies, but if not, then if you can’t even properly remember it, maybe you should not be trying to interpret it. I mean no disrespect, but this seems seriously careless to me, because you’re making a serious accusation, and you don’t even remember the details properly. Again, if there was a separate bus stop attack, I apologize and retract my statement.
Michael Steele is a member of the party elite, which has been largely co-opted by the left.
out of curiosity, how does ‘party elite’ get decided? i thought steele was a kind of obscure failed aspirant officeholder from maryland with some associations with the moderate wing of the party (this is necessary for anyone really wanting to win the senate seat from maryland as a republican). the party basically engaged in its typical “me too” affirmative action, and steele was happy to oblige.
David,
I mean the leadership of the Republican Party. Michael Steele is the chairman of the RNC.
I agree. The right should never, ever call anybody or anything racist. It’s at best useless, at worst self-defeating. Right-wingers think they’re turning the left’s own rhetorical weapon against the left, but they’re not. That’s because the meaning of the word “racism”, like that of all political words, is determined by power and not by logic. And in today’s public discourse the power is in the hands of the center-left.
Instead of the abstract word “racist”, we should use more concrete words such as “anti-white”, “anti-Arab”, etc. Besides being less hackneyed and more direct, it blocks the common retort that “only the dominant race can be racist”. E.g., don’t say that Rev. Wright is a racist; say he’s anti-white. Some white liberals will snicker at the word “anti-white” and say something like, “Sounds good to me!”. That’s good. Let everyone hear them say it. Folks on the right should never shy away from talking about race.
I think Heather got taken in by one of Limbaugh’s satirical extrapolations. Rod Dreher got himself suckered, as well. Limbaugh’s point wasn’t that Obama was kicking off mass black attacks. It was that you could justify the attack using the Obamaton’s logic and a Newsweek article claiming the racism was innate. Yes, I’m aware he was misusing the Newsweek article, but his intent was not as Heather has it.
Republicans denounce identity politics, except when they engage in it themselves.
Given the demographic trends, they’ll probably be engaging in it more and more.
Hume,
Steele may be a buffoon, but politically, this is a effective move, if highly cynical and self-serving. Highlighting Obama’s tossing Paterson under the bus can undercut black enthusiasm. Steele may have just blundered into it (or was pushed by a smarter underling), but even blind sows can find an acorn every now and again.
Why not be icily factual and coldly respectful, rather than hysterical and hot-headed?
Because “icily factual and coldly respectful” doesn’t bring the folks out on cold, wet, rainy days to knock on doors, protest or even vote. Both parties know this and thus both parties will use this rhetoric.
Pingback: Variants of interventionism
“Obama is very race conscious…”
That’s a nice understatement. Obama is obviously very racist: both he and his wife are beneficiaries of racism, and he fully supports continued and increased racism at every level of government and private enterprise. To be fair where no fairness is due, his type of racism is common among politicians nowadays, more so among socialists, which doesn’t make it right or harmless, it just makes it…common. This racism was in large part responsible for the recent ‘mortgage crisis’ and lending problems, so it’s not harmless, much less good. It has a cutesy name though, which seems to make it A-OK for a lot of people.
Sigh….it’s really quite ludicrous that people are talking about whether “you lie” had racist undertones when blatant, ubiquitous racism is practiced, endorsed and admired on a national level.
My definition of racism: treating individuals differently based on or because of their race.
I’m sure I’ll be the only one here to comment on this little phrase of Heather’s: “Yes, the Democrats demonized Bush, but that doesn’t mean that Republicans have to respond in kind.” Let us compare two Presidents. One was “demonized” because he launched a totally unnecessary war against Iraq, based on totally faulty and oversold intelligence, and resulting in one of the greatest foreign policy disasters in modern American history, with the death of thousands of Americans and tens of thousand Iraqi civilians; began a wholesale defiance of the Geneva Conventions, undermining America’s standing in the world and putting our own soldiers at increased risk; stood by while one of the great cities in America was devastated by a hurricane; presided over a decline in the economic well-being of America’s middle class; and left our economy in ruins. Poor George Bush – “demonized” by Democrats. (A really good question to ask is why, given his record, he wasn’t demonized by the patriotic Right.) The other President is being demonized because he wants to improve America’s dysfunctional health care system. This is false equivalency with a vengeance.
“Obama is obviously very racist: both he and his wife are beneficiaries of racism, and he fully supports continued and increased racism at every level of government and private enterprise. To be fair where no fairness is due, his type of racism is common among politicians nowadays, more so among socialists, which doesn’t make it right or harmless, it just makes it…common. This racism was in large part responsible for the recent ‘mortgage crisis’ and lending problems”
Note to conservatives: this is exactly the sort of nuttiness you should avoid.
How about this: recognize the history of racism in this country (failing to do this is massively tone deaf, IMO), but point out that: a) identity politics is divisive and potentially harmful to the nation as a whole (doing this effectively means eschewing identity politics, but from my view it looks like the GOP is hooked on its own brand of that); b) that programs such as Affirmative Action were created in direct response to institutionalized racism and are, clearly, imperfect and temporary in nature – meaning that, at some point, they should wind down; and c) the best way forward is to improve upon opportunities early in life rather than trying to redistribute resources after the fact (this is the old give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime).
Re: c) it’s important to approach the “opportunity” angle (which, to me, leads directly to public education and the staggering number of single-parent families in the inner cities of this country) with respect, rather than recrimination. That’s easier said than done.
Anyway, that’s my $.02.
jesus, tangoman & anthony’s arguments remind me of the bush era when conservative apologists would always have all sorts of bank-shot explanations for every bizarre move bush made
Just out of curiosity, what is the bank-shot explanation for President Johnson wanting to spread the rumor that some politico had sex with a barn animal?
but no, steele isn’t being a short-sighted buffoon engaging in standard republican operative tricks, he’s got some deep strategy to smoke obama out.
I’m certainly not saying that what we saw was the implementation of a deep strategy, it’s more likely that it was an easy shot that a.) makes the news, and b.) puts the “post-racial” president, once again, in a position of having to address race, which by know, is a topic many people are sick of seeing him engage on.
When you get down to the brass tacks, the internal workings of the Democratic Party really don’t matter to the Chair of the Republican Party, but it diminishes Obama to have to explain why Patterson, who is a sure loser, has to quit but Corzine, who also looks like a sure loser doesn’t have to quit at the urging of the President. Yes, Corzine’s approval rating is higher than Patterson’s, at about 35%, and he doesn’t have a contender with a higher name value waiting in the wings, but the President is taken down a notch if he has to come out and defend his standards on the Patterson-Corzine comparison.
i like to think i’m young, but i’m old enough to see how the modus operandi in washington is, and this sort of flip-flopping and short-term tactical behavior is just what gets the job done in terms of justifying room & board for political operatives. public choice + plus stupidity = this sort of behavior.
Yup. Change will develop only if the new behavior is more effective at bringing about desired results. Public stupidity being what it is I don’t think that Heather’s call for intelligent, judicious, principled and reasoned public dialog is going to bring home the bacon.
Just out of curiosity, what is the bank-shot explanation for President Johnson wanting to spread the rumor that some politico had sex with a barn animal?
tango, i didn’t dispute that, i disputed your characterization about steele. yeah, you use facts, and your logic is tight, but i think you have a tendency to play shell games when it comes to interpreting political actions. but perhaps we start from such radically different perspectives that i’ll never get it. that’s basically how the palin conversations went, you made assertions as to how she was a singular american political talent which might be sui generis is american history. i don’t see that you’re familiar enough with american history to make those sort of statements, but perhaps i don’t comprehend your grasp of the topic.
like i said, you’re comments are logical, have facts, and are plausibly persuasive. but honestly they resemble the kind of stuff i used to read all the time on political blogs; too clever by a half.
Sheldon,
One was “demonized” because he launched a totally unnecessary war against Iraq, . . . . . The other President is being demonized because he wants to improve America’s dysfunctional health care system. This is false equivalency with a vengeance.
The entire basis of your comparison is flawed in that you’re comparing the actual deeds of Bush against the intentions of Obama. Bush was demonized even when he was at the intention stage of his unpopular deeds, for instance, when he was making the case for the Iraq War (long before the faulty intelligence issue came to the public’s attention.)
You’re too charitable to Obama by crediting him with wanting to improve the health system and you’re too uncharitable to his critics when you don’t acknowledge that they’re acting to stop the destruction of a health system that many of them favor over Obama’s “improvements.” Secondly, the negative impact of Obama’s initiative on people’s everyday lives is far greater than the impact on their lives of a foreign war, even though in the abstract the horrific consequences of war should easily trump the managerial difference of how health care is administered, in reality most of the public wasn’t affected by the war at all but will feel the consequences of health reform. The immediate takes on importance at the expense of the distant.
As for the violation of the Geneva Conventions and international law, it’s not like Clinton or Obama’s hands are pure either so I’m not too sympathetic to a standard that only applies to Bush and exempts Democrats.
tango, i didn’t dispute that, i disputed your characterization about steele.
Here was my characterization – “this may be a way for Steele to get Obama into another uncomfortable dilemma centered on race.”
I’m not saying it’s some clever plan, some intricate scheme. I’m saying that it’s an easy shot – get Obama droning about race and put him on the defensive. In that situation can Obama make lemonade from lemons? I doubt it, because like the Johnson example, how is Obama enhanced by having to clarify and justify his position.
but i think you have a tendency to play shell games when it comes to interpreting political actions.
I don’t see a shell game here, I see school yard tactics. I’m saying that there is no deeper meaning other than a.) the recognition that Obama is very race conscious and b.) he is diminished when he flubs on the issue. I don’t for a moment believe that Steele had gamed Obama’s moves and played this out like it was a chess match, unlike say Breitbart, who released his ACORN videos probably expecting ACORN to declare that it was an isolated incident, to which he put up the next video, and so on. I don’t think Steele is that clever, frankly.
that’s basically how the palin conversations went, you made assertions as to how she was a singular american political talent which might be sui generis is american history.
Go back and reread that conversation. All I did was defend her based on her record of governance against criticisms that conflated style with substance. Style is wide open to interpretation but substantive accomplishments have narrower bands of interpretation.
All I did was defend her based on her record of governance against criticisms that conflated style with substance. Style is wide open to interpretation but substantive accomplishments have narrower bands of interpretation.
you did mostly that. you also said that she might be a political talent without precedent on the american political scene. in any case, let’s not argue. let’s just move like ships passing in the night in the comment threads, will save us time. i withdraw.
Health care reform is proactive, not reactive? Perhaps, Ms. McDonald, it can be both. Health care costs are indeed a problem in this country. We’re already experiencing the rationing of health care. People are being forced into bankruptcy over mounting medical bills. Millions cannot afford insurance. There’s a problem here and it seems you’re unwilling to acknowledge it.
Furthermore, leave the straw man argument along. No one is saying that all right-wing criticism of Obama is racist. But there are plenty of everyday citizens and lots of pundits who are spouting racist comments. And that’s a problem…another one you’re probably all too willing to ignore.
you also said that she might be a political talent without precedent on the american political scene.
I’ll own up to that when you provide evidence in support of your claim. I’m really curious as to which comment led you to hold that conclusion. I just went through my comments in the two Palin threads I participated in and these two comments come the closest, in my opinion, to providing some plausible grounds (with a big dose of misinterpretation thrown in) for your belief:
How about this: recognize the history of racism in this country…
Whenever some SWPL comes on talking about historical, the only thing he deserves is a middle finger. You want us to play the punk. No. That’s been done with both Bushes. Pandering to minorities sucks. It alienates your base and you garner zero long-term support from the minorities, who rightly see it for the vote-buying it is.
We’ve done enough “recognizing” of historical wrongs. One more pointless mea culpa won’t fix anything. What will help is recognizing our own interests and acting on them. It may take time for enough SWPL’s like yourself to have your nose rubbed in reality to get the point, but it’s the strategy that will work over the long term.
Tango, your response is not serious. Bush’s approval ratings after 9/11 were high across the board. (His ratings below that event weren’t high, but there was little demonization; he was to that point an ineffectual President.) Support for the war in Afghanistan was almost as high among Democrats as it was among Republicans. Even the war on Iraq had initial Democratic support, however reluctant. It was only when the false premise of the war and its initial failures became evident that so-called “demonization” began – and, over time, was exacerbated by the torture regime, economic failure, excessive politicization of policy, illegal wiretapping, Katrina, and all the rest. You are also incorrect when you suggest that falsity of the intelligence became apparent much later – there was considerable evidence from the outset, reinforced by the failure of our troops from day one to find weapons of mass destruction. As for the fact that other Presidents’ hands “aren’t clean either,” I’m afraid that you, too, have fallen into the false equivalency trap. No President is as guilty of violating American laws in this area as George Bush – and you know it. But the most astonishing part of your response is to suggest that nothing Bush did would affect Americans as much as Obama’s health plan. (I’m assuming you do not mean this as a positive comparison.) Squandering the Clinton-era surplus, near double-digit unemployment, and a wrecked financial system and economy affect Americans less than, say, employer mandates? Please.
No President is as guilty of violating American laws in this area as George Bush – and you know it.
FDR locked up an entire ethnicity. Woodrow Wilson threw opponents in prison, and wasted a lot more lives on an even more pointless war. Lincoln jailed political opponents as well as exiling a few. How about Andrew Jackson’s telling the Supreme Court to stuff it as he ethnically cleansed the Cherokee.
And while his intervention was shorter than Bush’s, Clinton’s mendacity over Kosovo was manifest, including telling tall tales of soccer stadiums full of corpses. Clinton had no problem with rendition, and his treatment of civil liberties drew numerous rebukes. If anything, Bush was at least more honest in his violations.
But the most astonishing part of your response is to suggest that nothing Bush did would affect Americans as much as Obama’s health plan. (I’m assuming you do not mean this as a positive comparison.) Squandering the Clinton-era surplus, near double-digit unemployment, and a wrecked financial system and economy affect Americans less than, say, employer mandates? Please.
As bad as Bush was, and I turned on him back in 2002, Obama’s ultimate health care system is still more far-reaching as it nationalizes our bodies, making everything we do potentially government business. The only thing Bush did that was potentially more far-reaching was his idiotic insistence on Amnesty, an area that Obama is hardly better in comparison.
Pulichinello, sometimes talking to conservatives really is like shooting fish in a barrel. The first Geneva Conventions were signed by the US in 1949. As for Obama “nationalizing our bodies,” the only appropriate response to that canard is this line by the German poet Schiller: “Against stupidity even the Gods contend in vain.”
Sheldon, the fact that you’re resorting to snark only means that you’ve lost the argument. PS: You’re a moral cretin.
In response to previous points: We all know that Obama isn’t being racist by trying to boot Patterson out, but I enjoy watching people like him being hoisted on his own petard. The more they are accused of it, the less effective their attempts to shut down debate by yelling “racism” are.
Hmm, could there be a reason this post was published here rather than at The Corner?
@Polichinello
SWPL? That’s an internet acronym I’ve not run across before.
As for a middle finger, ok, consider it mutual. I offered my two cents on the topic at hand, as someone not on the right but who has some rightward leanings and whose vote could possibly be had by a rational, secular rightwing platform that respected (not pandered to) minorities instead of demonizing them. That would also appear to be a reasonable prerequisite for getting more than a small percentage of minority votes. As those minorities grow, you may find (to, I suspect, your ever-increasing frustration) that a party that is serious about winning elections will have to be respectful and have some historical perspective about things like affirmative action. That you think that’s pandering says a lot to me.
Pulichinello, sometimes talking to conservatives really is like shooting fish in a barrel.
With your aim, I can only say, “Lucky fish.”
Rob,
The only thing you’ve convinced me of is that you’re worse than worthless. If AA is wrong, it’s wrong, and that’s the end of it. Whether you think it had it’s time is irrelevant. But you seem to care more about the framing than the substance. In your hands this argument is simply a means to a pose for you, a way to act smugly superior to us rightists. All that deserves is right royal “F*** off.”
At any rate, the argument really isn’t about “historical concerns” now. It’s about diversity. Thanks partly to the worthless Bush Administration (who tended to follow your line of thinking, BTW, FYI) “diversity” is now an end in itself which justifies AA. So, some illegal alien’s kid is given priority over mine no matter the fact that by definition his ancestors suffered no harm in this country. If you find my outrage over this hickish, loutish, declasse or–God Forbid!–racist, I really couldn’t give two shits. Try your little thumbsucking routine with someone else.
@Polichinello
Well fuck you too, then.
Glad we could come to an understanding, Rob.
sirs,
please comport yourselves! behave like gentlemen, lest this thread be shuttered!
whose vote could possibly be had by a rational, secular rightwing platform that respected (not pandered to) minorities instead of demonizing them. That would also appear to be a reasonable prerequisite for getting more than a small percentage of minority votes.
I’m quite curious about the unstated specifics of your vision, in particular the portion that I’ve bolded. From my perspective, and I assume Heather’s as well, I’m not sure how the circle can be squared. If conservatism is built on bringing together coalitions built on individualist initiatives, rather than forging coalitions based on ethnic or racial identity, then how can one work to dismantle programs and visions that are built on racial and ethnic identity and simultaneously direct respect at people who cling to racial and ethnic identity as part of their political identity?
That would also appear to be a reasonable prerequisite for getting more than a small percentage of minority votes. As those minorities grow, you may find (to, I suspect, your ever-increasing frustration) that a party that is serious about winning elections will have to be respectful and have some historical perspective about things like affirmative action.
It appears to me that you’re arguing a static, rather than a dynamic, model of voter reaction. All white liberals will stay liberals no matter how much the Democratic Party caters to racial and ethnic interests and that these policies will draw in more and more minority votes while holding steady on White votes, or Jewish votes, or Asian votes. Frankly, I don’t see a steady state in play. If there is indeed a reaction to the racial and ethnic pandering then the question, in my mind at least, is what is the net effect, are more minority votes gained for Democrats than White votes are lost? A secondary effect is whether the participation rate of the gained voters increases or decreases the participation rate of the lost voters?
The international arena provides plenty of evidence that racial and ethnic identity overlaps significantly with political party. What forces make the US immune to such dynamics?
Thanks partly to the worthless Bush Administration (who tended to follow your line of thinking, BTW, FYI) “diversity” is now an end in itself which justifies AA.
This has been the case since the Bakke decision.
Instead of the abstract word “racist”, we should use more concrete words such as “anti-white”, “anti-Arab”, etc. Besides being less hackneyed and more direct, it blocks the common retort that “only the dominant race can be racist”. E.g., don’t say that Rev. Wright is a racist; say he’s anti-white. Some white liberals will snicker at the word “anti-white” and say something like, “Sounds good to me!”. That’s good. Let everyone hear them say it. Folks on the right should never shy away from talking about race.
Aaron you’re 100% correct. For example; I would say Obama’s health care plan is anti-white becuase it takes resources from elderly white people and gives them to young non-whites.
Let me also add that “anti-racist” IS a codeword for anti-white.
@Aaron
Aaron you’re 100% correct. For example; I would say Obama’s health care plan is anti-white becuase it takes resources from elderly white people and gives them to young non-whites.
Let me also add that “anti-racist” IS code for anti-white.
NOTE to moderator: If possible please erase my post at 22:35. Thanks
Pingback: September 25 roundup
Where are these libertarians that think Obama is ever going to produce pleasing results fiscally? Pretty sure most of us think the only chance in hell we have of seeing results we like fiscally is if the legislative majority is of the opposite party of the president.
The first example is in fact stupid and obnoxious and people saying that are jerks. The second though is just true. Not for my generation since none of us are going to have a crack at social security unless we go on disability, but for older generations?
Agreed that Michael Steele is making a grave strategic mistake regarding charging “racism” over the distinction between Patterson and Corzine. Does he really think this is going to garner more minority votes for the GOP? Look, African-American political ideology is reducible to one word: gimme, gimme, gimme! And given that SWPLs like Rob invite this ideology, through insistence on focusing on so-called historical injustices, they are entire justified and rational in so doing. Blacks, and increasingly hispanics, vote solely based on which party promises to transfer the maximum possible amount of social resources from whites to their group. And that’s entirely rational.
@ Rob
It is increasingly becoming apparent that if the Right cannot get 70 percent or more of the white vote then it is finished in democratic politics. The GOP needs to figure out its collapsing numbers among youn, urban whites and address that flight. Your comment smack of blank-slatism with the whole “teach a man to fish meme”, when it is becoming increasingly obvious that what it means to “fish” is not accessible to large percentages of minority populations, due to genetic limitations.
What the right can do is delegitimize the very term “racism” by demonstrating that any described phenomena is reducible to more generic power dynamics between groups that also occur the same way in situations where race is not a factor. Take Southern segregation: were you aware that its sole goal was to keep black men from having sex with white women? In fact, the inter-racial sex rations, when you compare black male/white female with white male/black female, is vast. Inter-racial sexuality basically is black males poaching white females, which in an environment, like the South, which was very poor and working class, puts a serious dent in the ability of white males to procure sexual mates.
Which makes Southern segregation entirely rational, too, as rational as today’s blacks voting to transfer the maximum social resources from themselves to whites. No charges of “racism” needed, just good old-fashioned rational self-interest.
The objection to talking about historical grievances is that those grievances have nothing to do with current situations, which today simply reflect the differing baseline abilities and natural social structure of the ethnicities we’re comparing. Republicans don’t need to just ignore these so-called injustices, they need to actively argue that they are zero factorial impact on today’s outcomes, which is, in fact, the case.
The GOP had better figure out how to get 70 percent of the white vote. Otherwise, it is doomed.
Does he really think this is going to garner more minority votes for the GOP?
Probably, but from an Ed Rollins POV, the idea isn’t got get blacks to vote for whatever guy the GOP throws up as much as to get them to NOT turn out and vote for Cuomo and the rest of the downticket Democratic slate.