Democrats who believe that the GOP southern strategy is a defining moment that discredits the entire movement ∩ Democrats who think that the Clintons are very deliberately playing up Obama's race in order to drive white voters into Hillary's camp ∩ Democrats who will vote for Hillary Clinton in November once she secures the nomination.
« Marriage minded | Main | The saddest commentary on the Gaza breach »
Why isn't this a null set?
24 Jan 2008 06:41 am
Comments (55)
Lesser of two evil, etc., ...
There's the chance that most Democrats don't really believe that the southern strategy completely discredits the conservative movement. And of course many people of all political persuasions excuse their side's behavior when they'd be screaming bloody murder when the other side does it. Once Hillary is their candidate, all this will be remembered as a minor kerfuffle blown up by evil conservatives to make Hillary look bad.
Pure Pragmatism.
They may disagree with the southern strategy on principle.. and may also find Hilary distasteful.. and yet find her alternative in a general election to be even more distasteful.
Personally.. I'm rather pragmatic in life (I'm also a liberal.. who has generally voted democratic).. but I find Hilary's tactics so distasteful that I'm not going to vote for her in the general election if that comes to be...(and I'm in the swing state of Wisconsin..)
I'd rather see the democratic party purged of this kind of shit than to keep this horrid dynamic going...
As a final note.. you might also just ask why isn't it a null set that a)Libertarians who believe in small government and fiscal responsibility b)Libertarians who vote for Republicans for office... when it has become quite obvious in the budget numbers that they have only greatly swollen the federal debt and have done nothing about spending...
Many independents, minorities, higher-income and higher-educated Democrats, and Clinton haters within the Democratic Party won't vote or will vote for the GOP.
The last few elections were very close. The fall-out from this Lee Atwater-inspired Southern Strategy - tactically using race to cede the black vote to garner the white vote - will work to win HRC the nomination but will cost the Democrats in November. And remember, there will be repercussions in other races. The fragile Democratic edge in Congress would likely be lost with a GOP Presidential victory.
The Clintons are putting their personal ambition above the needs of the Democratic Party and their country.
Oddly, even their True Believers know this about them, and seem not to care, they seem to be Clintonites - whatever that means - rather than Democrats. It's really more like Argentina, as if Obama is running against a Peronist, a battle against a dynasty rather than against a political party.
Perhaps there are some people who (a) are rusted-on Democrat supporters; (b) are racist; and (c) don't think that race or race issues should play a part in national elections.
Hypocrisy.
this post:
It's not so much that the Republicans hate her as the reasons they do, and why that appeals to our left. 'Religion is the opiate of the people,' Lenin famously said about the fake maternal object of G-d or the Church. Better somebody that could get the milk pumps to run on time at the modern Animal Farm the leftist believe. Somebody that is cold and mechanical and has the right policy because they have to be the ideal clockwork to run everything. We have the later experiments of Harlowe in the twentieth century regarding false mothers. Baby chimps were raised with cloth monkeys for mothers or wire 'mothers.' The wire left the chimps most damaged. For some deep, dark Freudian reason the leftists prefer the wire monkeys like Stalin. Hillary is the wire mother.
Posted by michael | November 15, 2007 1:46 AM
struck me as deeply insightful. Relevant to this query, as well.
MM, btw, nice search engine~
I believe it is closer to a null set than Hillary is counting on. I am a southern, middleaged, working-class white guy who has voted for the Democrat in every election since I turned 18 and will not vote for Sen Clinton regardless of who her oponent is. She would hurt the Democratic party almost as much as Bush has hurt the GOP. I will not be a party to it.
I'm a Dem and will never vote for Hillary in the general after the last few weeks. What she's doing to cling to power is simply nauseating.
I will be abstaining, or I will take a good look at the republican candidate to see if his character is better then hers.
I also think she'll find that she poisoned her chance, as I and many others Dems would have voted for her if she wasn't trying to tear the party apart.
She's going to have a hard time come next Nov
Because we're talking about Democrats? The usual law of noncontradiction doesn't apply.
Since Bill Clinton keeps picking at the scab of last week's dust up, you have to figure it's an intentional strategy from the Clintons to win the nomination. I say the "Clintons" rather than Hillary because she herself has started to talk about what "we're going to do" in public, making the November election a referendum on a third term for Bill. They figure that when push comes to shove, they'll get just enough people to hold their noses and vote for them to get a change from the republicans. Then they'll spend the next four years playing one side off against the other, like they did after 1994.
Because the primaries and general are two different things. A lot of Obama supporters are very upset at the Clintons right now. But if Hillary is the nominee, and the other choice is McCain or Romney (or god forbid Giuliani), who do you think they will vote for? Democrats want to win and no matter how much they might resent Hillary, they (including "progressives") will show up to vote.
Not sure it is a null set, but the tactics by the Clintons are grimly familiar to many Democrats: short-term expediency, constant falsehood, exploitation of minorities, gross distortion of the record (both for their own sake and to destroy others). Equally familiar is the Clintonian inability to see the larger picture, and to realize exactly how much damage they have done to their party and to their own record by behaving this way. I really believe that their motto is "The means justify the end". Of course, Hillary has only ruined her chances at the Presidency by running this sort of campaign.
In the short-term, I think that Obama may well come back at her and win Super Tuesday, so there is still hope. The Clintons have fired off the heavy artillery a little too early, while Obama can still hammer them on a host of issues.
It's not a null set in part because first Nixon and then Reagan literally spent two decades running against the Civil Rights movement -- first quite openly, simply decrying the Voting Rights Act and school desegregation, and later in a coded manner, by referring to their earlier stances with terms such as "states' rights", "young buck on food stamps", "Cadillac-driving welfare queen" and so forth.
It was disgusting for Reagan to refer to "states' rights" in 1980 in part because Ronald Reagan wasn't Hillary Clinton before he made that statement; he was Ronald Reagan, with a 15-year history of demonizing black political power to get elected. If Jesse Jackson says "states have rights", it doesn't mean much. If David Duke says it, it means something quite clear.
The Clinton campaign has been trying to push and poke Obama for the last couple of weeks to get him to look defensive and say something that will alienate whites. But they aren't, themselves, saying things that reinforce racial solidarity against black people. It's just not a very big deal. The media would like it to be a big deal, obviously, because they've been desperately trying to find a way to tell a racial story about this election, without having to look like they are themselves the racists. Hillary is obliging them by providing the pretext for these stories. I find it objectionable, and wish she wouldn't, but she's not Lee Atwater, and Lee Atwater wasn't Hitler. There's a question of proportion here.
If all Dems were like me, it would be a null set. I continue to be astounded by friends who claim Hillary is the most electable. She and her husband didn't do anything for the gay community that most of these same friends belong to yet they prostrate themselves at the sight of either of them. The 'get 50.1% and screw the 49.9%' strategy will further polarize the electorate and push up her negatives. Can she win without my vote? If John McCain can reassure me of his environmental credentials, then she's going to have to try.
Get the troops out of Iraq? Give me a break; if anything she'll feel the pressure to keep a presence in Iraq else she'll be tarred as 'that weak woman'.
Think it's nasty now? Oh, just wait.....
So Brooksfoe, your saying that the Clintons have done such a swell job of stopping welfare reform in its tracks, ending the military's discrimination against gays, and halting the execution of the learning disabled.
If they didn't have this amazing list of progressive accomplishments behind them, you might consider calling them on their disgusting tactics?
(By the by, I think welfare reform was the greatest legislative accomplishment of the 90s, but I despise the other two pieces of the CLinton legacy I mentioned, and I'm pretty sure that liberals hated all three)
That should be "you're" in the first sentence, otherwise I stand by what I said.
"you might also just ask why isn't it a null set that a)Libertarians who believe in small government and fiscal responsibility b)Libertarians who vote for Republicans for office... when it has become quite obvious in the budget numbers that they have only greatly swollen the federal debt and have done nothing about spending..."
Excellent question. The "lesser of two evils" approach, which led me to vote for Bush twice, and to regret those votes, just leads to there being two virtually identical parties, which means we have no real choice. I'm going to vote for one of the third-party crackpots until we get someone like Reagan to vote for again.
Even if we grant the premise for the sake of argument, then yeah, less of two evils still applies.
"A is bad" does not equal "A is worse than B"
"It's not a null set in part because first Nixon and then Reagan literally spent two decades running against the Civil Rights movement..."-brooksfoe
That's a gross distortion. Neither Nixon nor Reagan did any such thing. I don't care much for Nixon, so I'll focus on Reagan.
President Reagan was in no sense a bigot. Nor did he condone bigotry. Democrats wanted to replace one form of racial discrimination (segregation) with another (racial quotas). Reagan, to his credit, took a principled stand against all forms of discrimination.
He also recognized, as for example Thomas Sowell does, that the modern liberal welfare state was not delivering the promised results--that socialism Democrats were peddling creates more poverty in the long run. The beauty of a free market is that it allows anyone a shot a wealth based upon merit. The enormous success of Jews, Irish, Koreans and other ethnic minorities shows that.
If brooksfoe is as upset about black poverty as he seems, he should be asking why Democrats have blocked every reform of the publich schools--merit pay, for instance. The poor quality of public schools is the main factor holding poor people (especially poor blacks) down. It wasn't Ronald Reagan who was so beholden to the teachers' unions as to be willing to let the public schools continue to rot for political gain.
I believe it is very nearly a null set, because there are nearly no elements described by the first term, and very few described by the second term.
Don't confuse what you hear with what people think. Some people are very loud.
Brooksfoe has cleared this up above. This comment recommends rereading that comment.
There simply isn't any valid comparison between the run of the mill negative campaigning Hillary's campaign is using and the decades long GOP southern strategy which is still being used by, for instance, Mike Huckabee in South Carolina. Anyway racist white Democratic primary voters don't need Hillary to play up Obama's race. It's not exactly a secret that Barack is black.
It's not "a null set" because it's the null set! There's provably only one.
The real question is why isn't Hillary playing up Obama's record as a deadbeat legislator?
Megan,
You sure know how to strike a match and let the fire burn, don’t you?
The answer is because, by definition and as pointed out above, Democrats are not racists. Therefore, whatever their means, they are only strategic ways to generate obviously superior ends.
/sarcasm
The real question is why isn't Hillary playing up Obama's record as a deadbeat legislator?
Posted by Dresda | January 24, 2008 11:26 AM
I think this pretty much captures Hillary's campaign right now: attack the candidate, ignore the issues. The art of attack might be interesting in the business world (an area neither of them have any experience with, I might add). I'm thinking that's where she ought to go and hone it. I've no interest in seeing it play out in a Clinton 3d term.
As someone who fits in that set, I don't understand why the answer isn't obvious:
Hillary, is, at best, only discredited as much as the GOP. And she's still better on a range of issues, both for minorities and other areas (the war, against any candidat besides Paul, for instance, and Judges against any single GOP candidate).
I really hope she doesn't win the nomination, of course, but if she does, I almost certainly will vote for her in the general election.
"Oh, how I wish I could beleive or understand that!" - Bender.
When Teddy Roosevelt took apart the Tammany empire, he did so to finish off the Democratic Party. The Tammany system was "corrupt" ( read: not meritocratic ) but it was responsive , there was some measure of accountability, and it was organic to community.
His cousin, Franklin, managed to rebuild the Democratic Party, but in the meritocratic image of Teddy - with a faux imitatiton of a Fabian style socialist bent ( if not an outright corporatist bent ) .
If I had a point, it would be that none of this should surprise anyone. And that if Obama's "cool" act - rising above the snarky mudslinging that characterizes his competition - does not work, then break out the bread and circuses - we've reached a political equilibrium that probably won't be broken.
I think if Mrs. Clinton's the Dem nominee, then very very very many liberals and others in the Democratic Party coalition-- the people who know about the Southern Strategy and feel that way-- will not vote for her. I won't. Many of my like-minded friends won't. Wait and see-- if she's on the ballot, there will be under-turnout on the Democratic side, and her base will be weaker. Of course, there are a lot of voters on the Democratic side who have never heard of the Southern Strategy.
BTW, some interesting posts on this thread, but michael and the wire monkey strikes me as ill-informed and illogical. Harlow used Rhesus monkeys, not chimpanzee's for his isolation/surrogacy experiments. Which Harlow publications showed that infant Rhesus preferred wire surrogates? Do you actually take Freudian theory seriously? The relevance of his experiments to human mental illness and social psychology is at best described as tenuous, and he has been widely criticized, even during his career, as sadistic. Reifying these crude deprivation studies to human political party affiliation is idiotic.
The art of attack might be interesting in the business world (an area neither of them have any experience with, I might add).
I dunno about that, I hear Hillary's pretty good with the cattle futures. She might even be able to leverage that experience into a workable solution for the impending Trust Fund crash.
Do all the people who say they will not vote for Hillary Clinton think this country will be better off or worse off if we invade Iran, make the Bush tax cuts permanent, and replace Stevens and Ginsburg with conservative justices?
Just curious. I know Hillary is doing what she can to lose this election for Democrats, but I hoped Democrats would learn the history of the last two elections, and realize that Presidential elections matter, far more than to just the personalities involved.
I think if Mrs. Clinton's the Dem nominee, then very very very many liberals and others in the Democratic Party coalition-- the people who know about the Southern Strategy and feel that way-- will not vote for her. I won't. Many of my like-minded friends won't.
So you'd rather hand the White House to a candidate who is very unlikely to wind down the Iraq fiasco, or enact national healthcare legislation, or address the economic inequality issue? With liberals like that who needs John Birchers? Fortunately for the country, the overrepresentation of dead-ender Obama partisans we see on the web doesn't seem very likely to correspond to the electorate, as there is plenty of polling evidence (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_01/012960.php) now demonstrating that Hillary Clinton is at least as likely as Obama to beat John McCain.
With respect to the race issue, it is patently obvious that it is the Obama campaign, not the Clinton campaign, that has been the driving force. Ask yourself one question: when did the racial dimension in the campaign really begin to explode into a major media story? Answer: after Obama lost New Hampshire. Hillary was doing perfectly fine up to that point with her strategy. The Obama campaign quite obviously wants to ratchet up their percentage of the black vote. I don't blame them -- and they're about to be rewarded in South Carolina. But it's a high risk strategy. Clinton is now surely headed to the nomination. I personally hope Obama will be her running mate.
The art of attack might be interesting in the business world (an area neither of them have any experience with, I might add).
Yes. They are both outdone my McCain's experience at Annapolis Inc, US Navy LLP, House of Representitives 'R Us, and SenateCo.
And why is this not a null set?
Libertarians who believe in the rule of law ∩ Libertarians who oppose telecom immunity for illegal wiretapping
With respect to the race issue, it is patently obvious that it is the Obama campaign, not the Clinton campaign, that has been the driving force.
It isn't necessarily either. The press and the so-called "surrogates" have thier own interests and motivation. The surrogates get their face in the national news for the first time in years if not ever, and the press gets a much bigger audience than they would for some MEGO stories about the differences between the Clinton & Obama health care plans.
Would anyone care to explain why, if Hillary is so experienced and competent, she can't point to any major achievements? If she is so good at this attack politics game, why can't she destroy Edwards and Obama? In essence, what does Hillary have except yards of self-aggrandizing talk and lies about other people?
LXM, this is off topic, but a) I think you've got that backwards--it seems to me that libertarians who believe in the rule of law should oppose telecom immunity; and b) I'm not sure that the set libertarians who believe in rule of law ∩ libertarians who support telco immunity isn't the null set. I know lots of libertarians, like myself, who don't follow telecoms issues particularly and therefore don't write about it; but I'm not familiar with libertarians who are on the record as thinking that the telcos should be let off the hook. But perhaps I am mistaken?
I have nowhere seen it mentioned that Michelle Obama, in November, first played the "race card" with her implication that once blacks came to their senses, they would vote for Obama.
This from the interview:
"MIKA BRZEZINSKI: The polls are showing your husband is trailing Hillary by 46% to 37% in the African-American community. What's going on here?
MICHELLE OBAMA: First of all, I think that that's not going to hold. I'm completely confident: black America will wake up, and get [it]."
It really put me off--I'm a Kucinich supporter, but reality being what it is, was looking for my backup candidate. I don't like either of the front runners--both are too manipulative and stand for nothing but grabbing power. In the primary I'll stick with Dennis--he believes in everything I do, and means what he says.
"I'm not sure that the set libertarians who believe in rule of law ∩ libertarians who support telco immunity isn't the null set."-MM
Does the Wall Street Journal editorial page count as libertarian? I think they're somewhere in between libertarian and conservative, and they're for telecom immunity. And what about Judge Posner?
I myself think that some libertarians ought to grow up--many of Ron Paul's supporters, for example. "The constitution is not a suicide pact," as Presidents Jefferson and Lincoln recognized. Liberty is vital, but so is security. Indeed, without the latter, the former has little value.
There seems to be some confusion about what Megan means when she says "discredits." I took it to mean something like, outweighs things like where they stand on Supreme Court nominations, taxes, foreign policy, ... But I see now that other think that it's possible to think of Republican conservativism as "discredited" in some sense while still supporting it.
I don't think that's what Megan means.
It's not the null set because people's voting decision processes are not binary. Seems pretty simple to me.
I don't support Hillary in the primaries (I'm currently uncommitted, leaning towards Edwards), but if she gets the nomination I'll happily vote for her as opposed to supporting whichever Republican bozo gets that party's nom. Voting Nader or Bloomberg or staying home would be a tacit vote for the Republican. Na ga happen. I will instead vote for the flawed Democrat and continue working to elect Progressives wherever else I can.
I myself think that some libertarians ought to grow up--many of Ron Paul's supporters, for example. "The constitution is not a suicide pact," as Presidents Jefferson and Lincoln recognized. Liberty is vital, but so is security. Indeed, without the latter, the former has little value.
Posted by rwe | January 24, 2008 3:23 PM
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."--S.A.
"All might be free if they valued freedom, and defended it as they should."--Samuel Adams
rwe,
I hardly think that the FF's were counseling a meek posture toward threats, foreign or domestic, anywhere found.
Though, your tactic of fear mongering, and cherry-picking, leads to:
"A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy.... While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.... If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security."--S. Adams
"Liberty is vital, but so is security. Indeed, without the latter, the former has little value."--rwe
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benj. Franklin
"Though, your tactic of fear mongering, and cherry-picking..."-MEH
Mark, to borrow from Hillary, "that hurts my feelings." Anyway, I agree with you that defending our liberty is the paramount goal of the government and that we ought always to be wary of expanding government power in the name of security. Robespierre, after all, was the head of the Committee on Public Safety.
I also think that the Bush administration has erred too much on the side of safety. And yet, there are some libertarians who seem to want to ignore the very real threat from these Islamic totalitarians, and the fact that some things must unfortunately be a little different in a time of war.
Regardless, I think liberalrob and brooksfoe are better targets for your criticism. They are the socialists, after all.
rwe,
the difference, between you and 'librob'/'brooksfoe', is that you know better.
you even point to a great precursor: "Robespierre, after all, was the head of the Committee on Public Safety."
"But, to found and consolidate democracy, to achieve the peaceable reign of the constitutional laws, we must end the war of liberty against tyranny and pass safely across the storms of the revolution: such is the aim of the revolutionary system that you have enacted. Your conduct, then, ought also to be regulated by the stormy circumstances in which the republic is placed; and the plan of your administration must result from the spirit of the revolutionary government combined with the general principles of democracy.
Now, what is the fundamental principle of the democratic or popular government-that is, the essential spring which makes it move? It is virtue; I am speaking of the public virtue which effected so many prodigies in Greece and Rome and which ought to produce much more surprising ones in republican France; of that virtue which is nothing other than the love of country and of its laws.
But as the essence of the republic or of democracy is equality, it follows that the love of country necessarily includes the love of equality.
It is also true that this sublime sentiment assumes a preference for the public interest over every particular interest; hence the love of country presupposes or produces all the virtues: for what are they other than that spiritual strength which renders one capable of those sacrifices? And how could the slave of avarice or ambition, for example, sacrifice his idol to his country?
Not only is virtue the soul of democracy; it can exist only in that government ...."
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/robespierre-terror.html
you want to think that 'Islamofascists' are a threat, enough, to unleash a DHS, and the rest of the Exec. branch, on the American people, contra to our founding principles(?), feel free.
I'll tell you, I disagree, and ask you: "If the threat is so severe, why are we being instructed, by those, full of pretense, appointed as our 'protectors', to do little more than: "Go Shopping & Don't forget the plastic sheeting & duct tape..Oh, and, remember to root for the Home Team!~" (?)
rwe,
Like I said, you know beter..
"With respect to the race issue, it is patently obvious that it is the Obama campaign, not the Clinton campaign, that has been the driving force. Ask yourself one question: when did the racial dimension in the campaign really begin to explode into a major media story?"
When Bill Shaheen wondered aloud that maybe Obama was a drug dealer.
"Answer: after Obama lost New Hampshire"
No sorry, that's just not true.
Regardless, I think liberalrob and brooksfoe are better targets for your criticism. They are the socialists, after all.
Define "socialist", rwe, you anarchist.
And why is this not a null set? Libertarians who believe in the rule of law ∩ Libertarians who oppose telecom immunity for illegal wiretapping
Hm, let's give this a try. "The telecom companies provide you with a service which you deem worth the cost; the decision of how they use their infrastructure further is up to them. Legislation prohibiting telecom companies from accessing their own equipment is an infringement on property rights. If you don't want people listening in to your conversations, you have every right not to use the telephone."
Something like that?
I'm a "Northeastern liberal", living in New York, and I've supported the Democrats for a long time. Although my state will in all likelihood go to Clinton, I cannot in good conscience support a race baiter in any election
Regardless, I think liberalrob and brooksfoe are better targets for your criticism. They are the socialists, after all.
And here I thought I was a Communist Fascist in the grand tradition of Stalin and Mao.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
McMeghan, have you LOOKED at your candidates lately?
Because, once they get there i.e. if they get there, there is a good chnace that they will actually try and help the community in whatever way they can. look at Bill Clinton's record. If any other Republican except McCain makes it there my vote (a regsitered independent) will go to Hillary.
For the same reason Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton can use and abuse women with impunity and be feminist heroes— power.
One reason it isn't a null set is because it would make people like you very happy if it was.
| 
I suspect that many Democrats feel that, whatever their misgivings about Hillary, she will try to address the problems of rising inequality and to get American troops out of Iraq--whereas her opponent will largely ignore inequality and will continue the war. So they hold their noses and vote for her (which is why the set is not empty).
Why they would vote for her in the primaries is a greater mystery. I wouldn't vote for Obama, but he seems so clearly a better person than Mrs. Clinton that it's hard to see why anyone would prefer her.
It's hard to believe that an Obama administration would have all the scandals--financial and otherwise-that the Clinton administration had. That was the true Hillary in that debate--cold, spiteful, and willing to to anything for power.
Posted by rwe | January 24, 2008 7:22 AM