[Conor Friedersdorf]
Matt Yglesias, my favorite liberal blogger, weighs in on liberal guilt:
Ron Rosenbaum sings the praises of so-called "liberal guilt." I largely agree. He says, though, that "What I don't understand is why there doesn't seem to be any conservative guilt over racism." I don't actually find this puzzling at all: There's little conservative guilt over racism because political exploitation of racial animosity has been an integral element of the conservative movement's political strategy ever since the day when the conservative movement stopped issuing straightforward defenses of white supremacy.
Under the circumstances, anyone who feels too upset about racism can't make it far in the conservative movement. You don't need to be a racist, as such, but in your public work you need to express much much much more concern about the alleged evils of "political correctness" or some such than you do about actual racism.
Note the way that Matt conflates feeling guilt over racism with caring about racism, or prioritizing its amelioration. These things are not the same. Plenty of conservatives (not to mention non-guilty liberals) conclude that personal guilt for the racism of others is nonsensical, but are horrified and moved to action when confronted by actual racism.
It's also worth noting that the presidential candidate who has done the most to exploit the racism of others this election season is liberal Democrat Hillary Clinton, whose campaign, though bullish on sexism, has spent a lot more time talking about how it is constrained by political correctness in its campaign against Barack Obama than being concerned with actual racism.
But oddest of all is Matt's assertion that you can't get upset about racism and make it very far in the conservative movement. The most obvious rejoinder is to point out that black Republicans like Clarence Thomas, Condaleeza Rice and Colin Powell, all people who've done pretty well within the conservative movement, have demonstrated repeatedly through their public pronouncements that they regard racism as a significant problem and abhor it.
The rejection of racism by mainstream conservatives hardly ends there, though. Let's recall, for example, the Trent Lott fiasco, as chronicled by the New York Times:
Early, widespread and harsh criticism by conservative commentators and publications has provided much of the tinder for the political fires surrounding Senator Trent Lott since his favorable comments about the segregationist presidential campaign of 1948.
Conservative columnists, including Andrew Sullivan, William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, and publications like National Review and The Wall Street Journal have castigated Mr. Lott for his remarks at Senator Strom Thurmond's 100th-birthday party, arguing that the conservative movement's credibility on racially tinged issues like affirmative action and school vouchers has been squandered.Mr. Sullivan, on his Web site, and Mr. Krauthammer, writing in The Washington Post, are among those who have called on Mr. Lott to resign. Others, like Sean Hannity of Fox News Channel and the radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, have said the remarks were indefensible but were not necessarily reason enough for Mr. Lott to step down. An editorial in The Wall Street Journal stopped short of a direct call for Mr. Lott's ouster, but named three Republicans it preferred in the post.
The responses by conservatives have provided a marked contrast to the contention -- put forth most recently by former President Bill Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore -- that the nation's conservative news media acts as a monolithic Republican support system.
Robert Bartley, the editor of The Wall Street Journal, said, ''I don't know that there's anything close,'' when asked if he could remember such a revolt against a conservative leader by those who are usually like-minded on the issues.
Richard Lowry, the editor of National Review, said that young conservatives particularly feel undermined by Mr. Lott's comment.
''The reaction to this on the right has been tinged with outrage,'' Mr. Lowry said. ''I think that's a product of decades of hard work that conservatives have done on racially charged issues out of idealism and principle. To have those positions tarred, even inadvertently, with this backwardness on race is extremely distressing.''
The Trent Lott example is useful because it happened way back in 2002. How is it that the conservatives who criticized him are still welcome in the movement if Yglesias is right?
But this wasn't a unique event. Much the same thing could be written, for example, about Sen. George Allen's "macacca moment." When blatant racism is in the news it isn't at all surprising nowadays to see mainstream conservative pundits denouncing it.
The notion that so-called conservative Republicans have repudiated Racism is somewhat senseless. They have rejected bigotry, and more power to them; it never should be forgotten that it was a Republican president who appointed the first tweo Secretaries of State. But the most pertinent question is: what does the GOP advocate to eradicate racial disparities? And, of course Hillary has run a racist campaign: like her husband, she is (former Goldwaterite) at heart a Republican.
Not sure how much conservatives were shocked by Lott's statements. I think his gaffe gave them the opportunity to cut Lott loose and have an excuse to do it.
As a Dem, I'd like to see Harry Reid make some dumb remark so the party can sell him out.
"The Trent Lott example is useful because it happened way back in 2002"
The 2002 date makes it useful as an example in an entirely different time line than you believe.
It only caught up to him in 2002. He'd been associating with known racists and engaging in racist-like behavior for decades prior. It was the comment along with his history that did him in, not just the comment.
This statement would be far more accurate:
"Plenty of conservatives (not to mention non-guilty liberals) conclude that personal guilt for the racism of others is nonsensical, but are horrified and moved to action when confronted by actual racism."
if you appended these words:
"However, they are happy to turn a blind eye to race baiting and racist behavior in the service of the conservative movement, especially when it helps get republicans or conservatives get elected."
Of the three black Republicans you mentioned, I think only Thomas could be effectively characterized as a conservative, and in his public actions has been much more upset by reverse sexism than any issues connected with racism. Neither Rice nor Powelll seem capable of being upset in public, so I think Matt's assertion still has some legs.
I don't find this puzzling at all. Accusing their conservative opponents of closet racism has been an integral element of the liberal movement's political strategy ever since the day when the liberal movement stopped drawing support from straightforward defenders of white supremacy.
Matt's fingers are much faster than his brain.
On the positive side, I hear he's on the verge of selling the 15th copy of his book. Atta boy, Matt!
I guess some of us think you have to be kind of an asshole to have this whole "I only have to feel guilty about things I'm strictly, logically personally responsible for" thing going. I mean, I feel guilty for lots of things that aren't really my fault. Things in my relationships with other people, this and that. Now sure, if that feeling becomes overwhelming and crushing then it's a big problem. Even if it just prevents me from having a basically happy life, ok, it's a problem. But no, I don't think it's a big problem that I feel a certain amount of responsibility for things the people I most strongly identify with (privileged white people) did to other people before I was born. I actually don't think that's a problem at all.
Also, hmmm. I'm open to persuasion on this point but Thomas, Rice, and Powell seem to have made careers out of not really complaining about racism. Which, I mean, why should they? They did very well for themselves despite whatever racism exists. Not something I would criticize anyone for, but I wouldn't act as if they've made the elimination of racism a central part of their public careers or anything.
Well I'm a Republican because I'm against racism.
I'm against how liberals choose to throw Asians under the bus. I'm against programs where ten middle-class Asians are denied education or a job, and nine rich whites and their rich black buddy magically get the job because of "diversity"
I'm filled with rage when I see the entry-level jobs in many high-paying professions are full of guys named Nguyen and Patel and Chang and Kim - but when it comes time to make partner, all us long-serving darkies get fired, and the boss's daughter gets promoted in the name of "diversity"
You betcha racism makes me mad. Screaming mad.
That you would cite The National Review in a defense of conservatives regarding racism represents the height of irony. The rest of your post has been thoroughly debunked by previous commentators.
Are guilty people ordinarily this smug? It seems paradoxical somehow.
Consider how Powell and Rice have both seen their foreign policy authority undercut by Cheney and the neocons over and over, and it's hard not to see them as token blacks -- they have the title but none of the power.
Once Liberalism mattered because it offered pragmatic answers to then current problems. It no longer wants to be judged by that standard. Its adherents apply loyalty oaths framed as "caring" tests. How much? Began when? Ever constant?
All this could have been and was written in 1980. Thirty years later, we can write them about Conservatism, the answer to liberalism's excesses, misses, and unintended consequences.
Today's crisis is that nothing's next. Liberalism might, like old Labor, have spent the wilderness years retooling, but it hasn't. Much of its constituency believes that it was usurped not succeeded. So it has nothing useful to offer in the face of global challenges or domestic ones. Something it has in common with the husk of Conservatism we see today.
Barack Obama's Philadelphia speech, its first 2/3s, was the great preamble to a more pragmatic politics aimed at responding to contemporary issues less fettered by dogma. The last 1/3, a retreat to hoary ideas clothed in invidious rhetoric, suggests he's not sure he can get his party to break camp and follow a new direction.
Once a sense of responsibility for institutionalized oppression and empathy for its victims were important for mobilizing the social forces that could do much to curtail them. They were forces for progress and now they're code for an infinite loop.
Generally speaking I'd say conservatism of the last 20-30 years trends more toward underestimating or ignoring racism rather than "exploiting racial animosity." The modern conservatives I meet seem to think racism no longer exists and get upset if you suggest otherwise. I think they're naive, but I really don't think they're being exploitative. Obliviousness has its own problems, but I think they're different problems. The modern liberals seem to indicate racism has distorted life so much that whites should feel guilt regardless of what they've done and blacks should be pitied.
And although I don't think I agree with him on much "secret asian man" does lead to a different issue. That being racial discussions among liberals still tend to be black and white. This was never entirely valid, but with increased immigration it's become increasingly anachronistic. Why didn't liberal white guilt make people want to vote for Richardson? Until 1951 Oregon's laws specifically stated whites could not marry Chinese or full-blooded Indians. Marriage to Asians was restricted or prohibited in California until 1948. Racial segregation of Asians occurred in California at one point. Do liberal whites feel guilty towards Asians? How many American Indian politicians do the Democrats have?
But the most pertinent question is: what does the GOP advocate to eradicate racial disparities?
Translation: whites are responsible for all of the disparities between whites and blacks. Self-destructive social behavior by blacks cannot be blamed for any of this. The GOP cannot repudiate racism unless it advocates socialist methods of ironing out all of the disparities.
Also, hmmm. I'm open to persuasion on this point but Thomas, Rice, and Powell seem to have made careers out of not really complaining about racism. Which, I mean, why should they? They did very well for themselves despite whatever racism exists. Not something I would criticize anyone for, but I wouldn't act as if they've made the elimination of racism a central part of their public careers or anything.
The point is that the act of appointing them is a rejection of racism, because they are black. To say that the GOP's appointment of blacks is not a repudiation of racism because said blacks do not make complaining about racism a cornerstone of their politics is to say that what you really want is for Republicans not to repudiate racism, but to repudiate our culture as being racist.
"Plenty of conservatives (not to mention non-guilty liberals) conclude that personal guilt for the racism of others is nonsensical, but are horrified and moved to action when confronted by actual racism."
I completely missed this in the case of George "Macaca" Allen. He was defended almost universally by Repiglicans right up until it looked like he might lose an all-important Senate seat, and then there were a few belated wrist-slaps.
"The most obvious rejoinder is to point out that black Republicans like Clarence Thomas, Condaleeza Rice and Colin Powell, all people who've done pretty well within the conservative movement, have demonstrated repeatedly through their public pronouncements that they regard racism as a significant problem and abhor it."
Great - three appointees! Three appointees given thankless jobs - and in the cases of Powell and Rice, with less power than the positions normally entail.
The most obvious rejoinder is to point out that "some of the Bushes' best employees have been black." I suspect that Colin Powell wakes up every single day with the taste of vomit in his mouth when he thinks about how he sold his honor out to these miserable pricks.
What to do to eradicate racial disparities?
Eliminate Affirmative Action, thus eliminating any chance that someone can argue that you "only got your job because of your race," and then let people stand and fall more or less on their own.
If a man succeeds or fails, it should be on his own terms. It shouldn't matter what color his skin is. We shouldn't make exceptions for him just because we favor his particular skin color. It was wrong when he favored whites, it's wrong when we favor blacks.
I can't speak to a lot of the conservative commentary mentioned, but I did listen to Sean Hannity while the Trent Lott thing went on, and he didn't straightforwardly denounce Lott for his comments. What I remember was more along the lines of "TRENT LOTT IS BEING ACCUSED OF RACISM AND HAULED IN FRONT OF THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA CIRCUS. (cough) ahem, maybe he said something he shouldn't have (cough) BECAUSE HE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA WOULD JUMP ON HIM FOR IT. SEE, LISTENERS, THEY'LL ACCUSE YOU OF RACISM NEXT!"
Incidentally it seems to me that I and my liberal buddies aren't racist; travelling in liberal circles I really don't think I've seen much racism at all. When I read conservatives accusing the left of being racist for "playing the race card" etc I just don't buy it, and I'm a little offended. When I read conservatives they write with that same offended tone when they feel like they're being accused of racism. This leads me to wonder if in fact there really is very little racism among either educated blogging/writing lefties or righties, and the charge of racism has just wound up being a piece of debating jujistsu which obscures whatever real issues there are
Not saying that there isn't racism out there, but it seems silly to debate whether National Review or the Nation is more racist because I suspect that neither is in any meaningful way, and it just distracts from addressing other things.
Conservatives believe in individual merit-based success, driven by one's own talents and ambition. Liberals believe in group-think and group-based victim status. That is the source of their current dilemma; 'women's rights' vs. 'minority rights'. THe group-based politics of liberalism finally puts them in open conflict with themselves.
Ask yourself, really, in what movement, conservative or liberal, is your skin color constantly talked about and incorporated into policy on every level? And in what movement do minorities rise WITHOUT such set-aside behavior? J. C. Watts, Colin Powell, Condi, Clarence T, and of course capable speakers like Sowell, Williams, Cain, Elder... and an up and comer down in Fla, Allen West. People of principle, not 'color'. NObody cares what color they are. Except liberals, to whom these people are sellout Toms, practically white.
Sickening.
I'm sort of travelling in liberal (but almost universally white, thanks to my neighborhood's and my church's woefully monoculture demographics) circles undercover, and what I hear is a good deal of lip service to diversity in theory and a good deal of double standard in practice. I mean "double standard" both positively and negatively: pitying children of color in our local public schools (who are the more disadvantaged, in my pretty decently-off area, generally but not across the board) such that there's talk about holding them to a different educational standard from the "white" kids, regardless of the harm done to them down the line thereby (and this is one reason I stick with the Republican party - because it recognizes that harm), and then wishing aloud that there were fewer of them because their presence messes up my neighbors' own children's education somehow. It's enlightening, but not enlightened.
Racism is the great meal ticket for the Sharptons, Obamas, and Reverend Wrights of the world. They are the flip side of the David Dukes and the race purists of Japan and Germany.
The problem is entirely as Vadept has put it.
When it comes to racism, we have, shall we say, different definitions. For a leftist, racism exists wherever priveleged (read: non-poor) white people exist (actually, you can get tagged with it even without the priveleged status), by virtue of America's original sin of racial slavery and subsequent racial segregation. These facts outweigh anything that is going on today. "Eliminating racism" in their parlance, means engaging in acts of political theater demonstrating Awareness™ that these sins happened, and offering donations for indulgences from those whose business it is to remind us of them. It also means condemning free-market economics and everything else in American society as racist at root, and arguing away failures of certain segments of certain ethnic groups in certain socioeconomic circumstances as lack of "access," whatever that might mean.
For a conservative, racism means laws and actions which treat people differently according to race. This holds true when the law discriminates in favor of the minority as when it discriminates against him. Inasmuch as an intellectually honest conservative usually doesn't want the government picking winners and losers, no conservative will honestly take part in the Grand Drama of Socialist Racism Cures, none of which do a blessed thing to stop either of the definitions of racism, because a) dislike of other races is endemic in a human society, and beyond legislation and b) socialism makes people poorer, not richer.
And never the twain shall meet.
"Great - three appointees!
If I was a nose-counting sort, I would wonder how many such nominees Clinton forward for those jobs. But since I don't measure racist sentiment by hiring quotas, I will not ask that.
"Three appointees given thankless jobs - and in the cases of Powell and Rice, with less power than the positions normally entail."
Sit in on those meetings with Rice and Powell a lot, did you, to form your opinion of how much sway they have?
Yeah, Rice, in particular must have zero influence, given how long she has been with Bush and this administration. Zero. Much like your credibility in making these claims.
As for Thomas, well, his job is pretty thankless: serving as a proud, stoic public servant who must listen to lesser yobs yell cat-calls and insults. But his service is appreciated by me, and I respect the hell out of his ability to keep a lid on the contempt and anger he must have towards people who belittle him without cause.
Undifferentiated guilt is part of the contemporary liberal mindset; guilt about other people's "racism" is only a small part of it. One poster captured it nicely with his statement that he often feels guilty about things other "privileged white people" have done. That's stuff for the psychiatrist's couch, or maybe this fellow should just pay someone to whip him.
But Robert alludes a to possible cause for the specific liberal guilt about "Race": modern American liberalism, from the New Deal through the Great Society, was built on the unholy alliance between northern liberals and southern segregationists. This by the party that had been the party of slavery and then Jim Crow. If one is twisted enough to feel derivative guilt, there's plenty of cause to draw on.
Undifferentiated guilt is part of the contemporary liberal mindset; guilt about other people's "racism" is only a small part of it. One poster captured it nicely with his statement that he often feels guilty about things other "privileged white people" have done. That's stuff for the psychiatrist's couch, or maybe this fellow should just pay someone to whip him.
But Robert alludes a to possible cause for the specific liberal guilt about "Race": modern American liberalism, from the New Deal through the Great Society, was built on the unholy alliance between northern liberals and southern segregationists. This by the party that had been the party of slavery and then Jim Crow. If one is twisted enough to feel derivative guilt, there's plenty of cause to draw on.
Be sure to check out Thomas Sowell's latest, "Mascot Politics":
"For people on the left, however, blacks are trophies or mascots, and must therefore be put on display. Nowhere is that more true than in politics.
"The problem with being a mascot is that you are a symbol of someone else's significance or virtue. The actual well-being of a mascot is not the point."
With liberals, it's always all about them, about their feeling good about themselves. Others are mere props in their holier-than-thou fantasies.
"I mean, I feel guilty for lots of things that aren't really my fault."
You ought to look into therapy for that.
"Are guilty people ordinarily this smug? It seems paradoxical somehow."
Liberal guilt is an example of the non-self-inclusive "we", an odd construction closely related to "Let's you and him": It's a matter of feeling guilty on behalf of other people, which naturally does lead to a certain degree of smugness, since it involves an assumption of moral superiority over the people you're feeling guilty on behalf of.
I love how the brilliant Steve Balboni up there in the comments shouted "YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID! I WIN!" and ran off.
Heh. That is all.
Oh, also, why do so many right-bloggers say how much they like Matt Yglesias?
He seems like the sort of liberal who hates the fact that conservatives exist and that they must all fall into the "dumb or evil" category to disagree with him.
Listening to liberals complain about racism is like listening to the Klan complain about cross flammability. There's no racism like the patronizing racism of the left. They'd like to treat minorities like equals but then how could they condescend to them about how desparately they need to be 'helped'. You know help like the last 50 years of social policy that's led to 75% of black children being born to single moms and 50% drop out rates. With help like that just pray they don't try to help you.
Undifferentiated guilt is part of the contemporary liberal mindset; guilt about other people's "racism" is only a small part of it.
No what it is is projection of their own condescension towards people they feel superior towards.
You need to show some proof that the candidate who has exploited racism the most is Hillary and not Obama. The voting trends certainly don't suggest this. Blacks have voted for Obama 90-10. Given the tiny policy differences between the two, I challenge you to find a reason other than race for that differential. I haven't run the numbers, but with sample sizes in the hundreds of thousands, I would bet that Student's t-test would show that it's more likely to be hit by lightning and be bitten by a shark than it is to end us with a differential like that.
I suppose you could claim that Hillary has been talking in racist code words and using racist images, but that seems to be simply handing the entire debate over to the Obama camp. If you allow one side to define what is and isn't a code word or improper image then you might as well declare Hillary a racist before the discussion even begins.
I guess some of us think you have to be kind of an asshole to have this whole "I only have to feel guilty about things I'm strictly, logically personally responsible for" thing going.
Well, some of us think you have to be some kind of asshole to have this "I didn't do it but someone else thinks I'm part of some collective that did, so I'd better feel guilty" thing going.
Am I I the only one that remembers that the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, Jim Crow, and against racial integration of the South? The Democratic Party was founded on the principle of White Supremacy.
By contrast, the Republican Party was founded to eradicate slavery and, later, racial preferences by government.
Liberals simply do not know the history of their own party. How dumb.
I believe that what distinguishes Liberals (in the modern sense of the word) from Conservatives (likewise with the language thing) is the utopian faith of Liberals that with sufficient therapy humanity can be cured of itself, and the tragic view of Conservatives that human nature contains immutable flaws. It follows, then, that attitudes toward the seven deadly sins and such weakness as xenophobia and procrastination might be expressed in a different manner. Unfortunately, it does not follow with any inevitability. Could the problem be with my belief? "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." (Ralph Waldo Emerson)
"I guess some of us think you have to be kind of an asshole to have this whole "I only have to feel guilty about things I'm strictly, logically personally responsible for" thing going. I mean, I feel guilty for lots of things that aren't really my fault."
I suppose that's your right, if you choose to exercise it. I personally think that you have to be kind of an asshole to have this whole "I feel guilty, and therefore I AM guilty, and therefore all the people AROUND me are JUST as guilty of the thing that none of us have done" thing going on.
I do NOT feel guilty for ANYTHING that isn't my fault. It may help if you look up the term "guilty" in any reputable dictionary.
It is not that liberals are more opposed to racism--they are odiously race and ethnicity- conscious in many contexts. It is solely that liberals need to believe they are morally superior. Liberals need to believe that conservatives are racist otherwise there is no superiority buzz. The darker the heart and soul of the Right, the greater the buzz.
My father was a DOJ Civil Rights lawyer working northern Mississippi back when that was considered dangerous work. I marched in my youth, got smacked by police for protesting a George Wallace speech. By every measure available in 1965-1972 I would be classified as a liberal from a liberal family. However, I noticed the switch in substance from MLK to Jackson/Sharpton/Farrakhan. I noticed that political spoils based on race is not the same as equal opportunity. I also noticed that poorly-conceived welfare programs, self-esteem pseudo education, grievance chic and liberal condescension did great harm. I don't vote for people who are responsible for such harm and seek to perpetuate it. All of which presumably now makes me a racist.
Liberals no longer care if the narrative is true so long as it is personally satisfying because since 1972 narcissism has become an ideology. Old farts like me who don't think that ideological masturbation is the same as morality are no longer considered liberals.
Matt Yglesias is indeed the New Man--snarky, smug and not just convinced of his intellectual superiority but that this lofty insight-laden existence confers moral superiority as well. That he enjoys issuing condemnations of the evil straw men he creates is as predictable as it is pathetic.
I figure that I am against racism because two of my five children are black. I don't need a plan to remedy disparities because my children will be given a boost to the extent I can, and after that, their natural talents will lift them as far as they will go.
Every single one of my children are different, with different talents, skills, and proclivities. That these differences should have no effect on their lives is ridiculous.
Of course Liberals feel guilt over racism. When you are the party of Copperheads, carpetbaggers from the Reconstruction and Bull Connors, you have a lot to be guilty over. All that stuff you read in the history books about Blacks being persecuted in the South was done by Democrats. There were no Republicans in the South before the 1970's. But in typical left-wing projection, you blame your opponent for all your sins and people like Matt play along.
I am glad we settled down into some substantive points as the comments went on. The top half is weighted strongly toward jaw-dropping stereotypes about conservatives that blithely reject actual facts to pursue tortured definitions of racism. I sit here shaking my head wondering "Do people actually believe this, or are they just trying to start arguments?" The evidence supporting the idea of conservative racism is pretty slender. It seems to boil down to "conservatives used to be racist," and "the worst possible interpretation of what a conservative says is always the true one." As to the real power of appointed AA's, last I knew Clarence Thomas's vote counted the same as everyone else's on the court.
I'd be willing to sign on to Thomas R's accusation of "obliviousness," though even that may owe something to perception. People who are obsessed with racial issues tend to believe that folks who care more about energy, taxes, national security, or a dozen other issues "don't care." I'm a social worker, and I see that kind of reasoning applied to half-a-dozen victimizations on a regular basis. "If you're not consumed, you don't care about (fill in the blank)"
Liberals don't feel the tiniest twinge of guilt about racism. What they feel is creamy self satisfaction about their supposed moral superiority to what they imagine is other people's racism.
Here's my new rule. Anyone who carries on about racists and racism has to name 10 racists that he knows personally. This shouldn't be hard. Everybody knows at least several hundred people. If, say, 2 out of 3 white people are racists then anyone should be able to name about 200. No need for 200, just give us 10. With addresses and phone numbers.
Then we can call them up and say "Hey, Matt says your a filthy stinkin' racist pig. What about it?"
If you claim racism is pervasive but you won't name 10 racists then you are either covering up for racism and a willing partner in racism and therefore a racist yourself or maybe, maybe you're just wrong. Maybe most people aren't racist and maybe you are not the moral paragon you think you are.
Is there a single liberal anywhere capable of an intelligent argument? Mindless slander is not an intelligent argument.
Within the past few months, we have seen countless liberals defend the virulent racism of Rev. Wright. Something conservatives will not do. Yes, once in a while, a conservative will make a remark that is not racially sensitive. Similar to the ugly "Hymietown" remark made by Jesse Jackson. When that happens, conservatives will all condemn the remark.
So why do liberals routinely slander conservatives as racist? (Other than because playing the race card helps them at the polls?) The only "evidence" they can point to is that conservatives don't support race preferences.
Race preferences make race relations worse. They result in discrimination against other minorities. They perpetuate the worst stereotypes, thereby doing serious damage to efforts to achieve genuine equality. And they do nothing to help the blacks who are most in need of help. Worst of all, race preferences in college admissions end up doing substantial damage to the people they are supposedly intended to help.
All rational people who haved reviewed the evidence and desire to achieve a society like that envisioned by MLK, Jr. should oppose race preferences with every fiber in their beings.
Democrat Robert Byrd was in the KKK. The Democrats consider him an upstanding member of Congress.
The Democrats have done nothing to advance the subject of race in this country. It's always promise, promise, promise to get into office, and then when the rubber hits the road, they blame something as to why it wasn't achieved. All this in an effort to maintain a voter base. It's modern day slavery.
"Matt's fingers are much faster than his brain"
LOL,
Sowell's Mascot article is a marvelous contrast to Matt's youthful intellectual dribble. Liberal acceptance of minorities does often have a large amount of "look at me" about it. Conservatives tend towards accepting or rejecting a man on his own merits. Rational observations are not liberal strong points.
Actually, I think Trent Lott was thrown under the bus by Republicans because he was a colossal dumb-ass and had been so for a very long and painful time. They merely chose the most convenient bullet; one which the good senator himself provided. Racism, or the rejection thereof had nothing to do with it.
Speaking of getting thrown under the bus...how does this bus keep going with so many political corpses gumming up the wheels? Larry Craig, Obama's grandma, Obama's preacher...you'd think it'd grind to a halt after a while. (Have I missed anyone?)
Sure it's so much better (of liberal Dems) to use the black voters every election by promising a bunch of freebee's and then turn around and spit in their face.
Isn't it kind of odd to portray all conservatives as one thing, or another? Isn't that imbibing in the same type of cognitive laziness that brings us racism in the first place?
"Three appointees given thankless jobs"
I don't know if you noticed, but Supreme Court justice, Secretary of State, and National Security Advisor are not "thankless" jobs. They are some of the most important, powerful and respected jobs in the American political system, lusted after by many in the political arena. Can you imagine George Marshall, Henry Kissinger, and others looking on their role as Secretary of State as a "thankless job"? And I think we'll all rue the day a Supreme Court justice position is considered a thankless job. It's a crucial part of American democracy and everyone recognizes it as such.
It seems to me saying something like this is simply a way for people who don't want to acknowledge the inaccuracy of their prejudices to belittle genuine accomplishment. Condoleezza Rice got where she did by the quality of her mind and her years of hard work. (I saw her on C-SPAN years before the Bush administration came into existence speaking about conditions in post-Soviet Central Asia and was impressed even then with her abilities. When she later was appointed National Security Advisor I was not surprised.) To think she would have been appointed to high government office in such a position in 1964 is a joke. To pretend she would be appointed today to such a powerful position merely as a token is a joke, as well as being an egregious insult against her personally.
This is the old lie - racism is right-wing.
Studies have shown that people surveyed who express approval of redistribution of wealth are more likely to agree with racist sentiments in the same survey than those who disapprove of redistribution. Thus the left-wingers are more likely to be racist.
It is obvious if you look in any depth at political movements. The right tends to be libertarian and globalising, looking to reduce costs for business. The left tends to be authoritarian and protectionist, looking after workers' pay and conditions.
"What I don't understand is why there doesn't seem to be any conservative guilt over racism."
Because I'm not a racist, a lesson I learned long ago, and refuse unearned guilt.
My ancestors fought to free the slaves. They must've been Republicans.
Because Conservatives believe that affirmative action and quotas are a form of reverse racism they will always be branded as racists by those that think that the jolly feel-good intent of those policies justifies any negatives.
It's sad how debate ended in the US and was replaced by name calling and attacks on inferred intentions.
"it wasn’t the GOP that opposed the Emancipation Proclamation. Nor was it the GOP that opposed the Thirteenth Amendment prohibiting slavery, the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing equal protection, or the Fifteenth Amendment guaranteeing voting rights. (In fact, Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act in greater percentages than did Democrats.)
Moreover, it wasn’t the Republican party that opposed Teddy Roosevelt’s anti-lynching legislation or that filibustered or otherwise opposed more than a dozen other anti-lynching provisions during the 20th century.
Republicans didn’t institutionalize Jim Crow, implement school segregation, or establish poll taxes and literacy tests to keep non-whites from voting. Bull Connor, George Wallace, Lester Maddox, and Orval Faubus weren’t Republicans.
It wasn’t a Republican who ordered the internment of Japanese-American citizens (or Italians or Germans) during World War II. Nor were Republicans behind the Chinese exclusion acts or licensing requirements that discriminated against non-white businesses and tradesmen."
-Peter Kirsanow
So, why exactly do I have to feel guilty again?
Hillary Blogs
Obamas resume
Want to know the difference between Clinton and Obama supporters
And Find out What has been bothering me
This and more on…
http://sensico.wordpress.com/
Christopher,
It's not a problem for me, per se, if you yourself want to feel guilt over things done by people not yourself and before your time. I don't pretend to understand it; it does not square at all with my conventional understanding of the word; but your conscience is your own.
(However, it might be a problem for you, since that sort of excessively pious, meddlesome, expansive redefinition of guilt might be costing you invitations to all the most fun parties, without you even knowing it....)
It becomes a problem for me, however, when my stubborn refusal to redefine guilt in such a way as to apportion me moral responsibility for things done before I was born and possibly before my family was even in this country leads to accusations of me being a racist.
You white folks and your guilt make me laugh.
Liberals, especially liberal Democrats have a vested interest in both keeping racism alive and keeping it as an issue. To liberals, a society without racial tension would be a catastrophe in that their chosen vehicle, the Democratic Party, wouldn't get 90% of the Black vote. So, instead of trying to find any way to reduce the racial divide, liberals prefer to pick at the scab of American racial history that to let it heal.
Every society has racism, always have and always will. No society has ever managed to eliminate racists and none ever will. The best that can be done is to eliminate institutional racism and that has been done as well in the United States as anywhere. But liberals must ignore any progress because they really need those votes. Liberals don't really feel guilty, they want everyone else to feel guilty. If you fail their sackcloth and ashes test you can be dismissed as a racist no matter how little race enters your opinions.
Yglesias just wants to shore up his side's advantage. He couldn't care less about actual racism. Or actual guilt. He wants us to obsess with race because without that obsession the Democratic Party would be a footnote in American politics.
Collective guilt implies the propriety of collective punishment, yet the latter is universally condemned, both morally and in law. So how can anyone, even collectivists, stand by one and not the other?
Just out of curiousity, would you call it racism when a bunch of people see blacks at the top of various organizations, and reflexively discount them as tokens or diversity hires? (Colin Powell? Token black guy--after all, who'd ever heard of him before he was given the Secy of State job? Condi Rice? Diversity hire--what influence has *she* ever had on the president's thinking on foreign policy? Clarence Thomas? Figurehead--what influence does *he* have on the world?)
To a first approximation, charges of racism in a 2008 political race are equivalent to charges of being a "communist symphathizer" in the 50s. There really is an evil set of beliefs out there, and some fraction of accused people really hold them, but mostly, the accusation is about smearing people so you can win an election.
Yglesias shows a very two-dimensional and screwed up understanding of the "conservative movement", and I would not at all be surprised if he was largely ignorant of US political history.
I'm not a "conservative" by any means, but the whole "I'm right, and they obviously disagree with me because they're evil" attitude gets old.
And while we're at it, why not ask our northen neighbors about the "alleged" evils of political correctness run amok...
In my lifetime, the only people who can legally be discriminated against are whites and it's Democrats who support and promote the laws that allow that discrimination. Jim Webb got in trouble a few days back for pointing out that poor whites were resentful of the Democrat party, at least the Obama wing of the Democrat party (upper class whites, college students)because they're looked down on by those people. So we have a political party that looks down on a group of people and actively supports laws that discriminate against the people they look down on and yet they call others racist.Cognitive dissonance, a liberals best friend.
Because conservatives generally believe that each individual is responsible for their own actions, not the actions of others. If conservatives don’t feel guilty over racism, it’s probably because they realize that as they’re not racist, they have nothing to feel guilty about.
Yglesias shows a very two-dimensional and screwed up understanding of the "conservative movement", and I would not at all be surprised if he was largely ignorant of US political history.
Majoring in philosophy tends to sweep things like facts, history and hard sciences to the side & focus on things like feelings, introspection and telling yourself how much better you are than the other guy. Oh, and then proposing that they take care of your underachieving a$$ since you don't earn enough to handle the task.
Ahem, it should read: "political exploitation of racial animosity has been an integral element of the [Democratic Party]'s political strategy ever since the day when the [Democratic Party]stopped issuing straightforward defenses of white supremacy [and conceeded the failure of their Jim Crow reaction to the Civil War and Reconcstruction]" .
You ought to spell the Secretary of State's first name correctly.
This is a good illustration of the fundamental difference between the conservatives and liberals.
A conservative sees minorities as capable, requiring no further action.
Liberals see minorities as incapable, thus the need for affirmative action, social programs, etc...
So who is the racist?
Yeah. I can just remember all of those conservatives calling Colin Powell "Uncle Tom" or "a house ni**er" or likening Condaleeza Rice to Prissy from Gone with the Wind with a slice of watermellon. Oh....wait....
Miande,
But the most pertinent question is: what does the GOP advocate to eradicate racial disparities?
It might be immoral to do much of anything considering that there is greater variation within group than between group.
You know, reading this thread, y'all have convinced me; Republicans are the good guys.
The Southern Strategy? It was nothing to do with exploiting racial animosity, like Democrats are always doing. Rather Nixon was simply endeavoring to sort out the mascots.
Look, stop kidding yourselves, you madcap ideologues. Notwithstanding the sins of my fathers, I happen still to live in the real world, southern-fried. Rather often, I hear the word, "nigger," used, in the course of my small construction business, and among old, dear friends. Routinely, I get emails through my company account that are racially tinged, some funny, but most weak and embarrassing. I've had more than enough people tell me that they won't vote for a African-American to be president. And they're all Republicans.
Are they all racists? Well, no, I don't regard my oldest friends in that way, certainly, and there has been a generational improvement. The old men really don't mean nothing by most of what they say, and their sons are mostly keen to give any man a fair shake, especially if there's money to be made. Too, I regard "racist" as a pretty weighty term to just be throwing around--especially at complete strangers--in light of events like the Holocaust and ethnic cleansing. Still, the twin haughty notions that race/identity is somehow the exclusive obsession of Democrats, and that individualism is categorically incongruent with racism, are both absurd on their face.
It all sounded nice, though.
I'll explain a bit on obliviousness.
When my brother was assaulted everyone asked "was it black guys?" We live in a state that's under 6% black. The class President when I was in High School made the Nazi salute during his speech at Prom. (Granted he was drunk, but still) When a black girl my Mom helped, because she also had osteogenesis imperfecta, came to town people stared.
Despite all this my Mom tends to insist that there are no prejudiced whites anymore. That it just doesn't happen and that she's sad blacks still think there is. My Mom is a great person and I love her a bunch. However I think she wants to believe we progressed so much she just sort of denies any evidence of lingering problems.
These problems don't mean I support Affirmative Action or anything. In fact to some extent I think my Mom is right that focussing on race and racism too much really doesn't help. Still I do think we have to deal with it at times and not totally deny it happens.
If you really doubt that the right and the modern conservative movement has a strong streak of racism, please go to Orcinus and see what facts ol' Dave has mustered up over the years.
Consider how Powell and Rice have both seen their foreign policy authority undercut by Cheney and the neocons over and over,
So its not enough for them to be at the pinnacle of political power in the US, they must also win every internecine battle, otherwise all Republicans are BIGOTS. Sure, and we burn churches too.
Whack job!
All Republicans are racist! They invented toe fungus to eradicate black people! They run all the major cities and force black people into inner city schools run by Big Education Unions! They said Obamma wasn't black enough!
....And now they are backing a white woman over the true messiah! Pure unadulterated, pasty white racists~!~
Liberals require white guilt as the most important part of their program for keeping nonwhites in a permanent state of victimhood, and thus keep them beholding to the liberals.
Perform this little thought experiment: suppose there were, as of the next second, no racism in American society. What would become of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Reverend Wright? For them to keep their lucrative stations in society, they must scream "racism!" at the drop of a hat, and convince blacks that they are all victims. Rationally, if they wanted to end racism they would realize that blacks also have a constructive role to play by eschewing their own racism, a reality that escapes them.
If you give a man a fish, he eats for today. If you teach a man to fish, he eats for the rest of his life.. Conservatives are excoriated and called cruel and insensitive because they think it is better to teach men to fish. Liberals on the other hand, would rather give men fish (that they confiscated from conservatives). That way, the men owe them, and they can bloody well tell the men exactly how they should behave, what they must do with their fish, and how much gratitude they must show Central Planning in order to get their next fish.
@Dolf - where I am I hear overeducated white leftists dropping knowing, superior, negative generalizations about an entire class of people (whites) while assuming that "underrepresented minorities" are there for them to pity and help.
They're all Democrats and proud to wear those prejudices for all to admire.
If this isn't bigotry and racism I don't know what is. But they get a pass, at least for now, in polite society.
And as to sins of various fathers, there were sins by fathers on all sides. However one doesn't hear about the sins of certain fathers, all of that having been brushed under the rug of history. But that's another topic I guess...
Most of these comments make no sense...Especially as regards the history of this nation. It must be remembered that the Democratic Party established the system of slavery, and what came after - Jim Crow, et. al.
The party has always existed to discriminate against their fellow man on the basis of their skin color...They don't disappoint. If I remember correctly, they to this day have a policy of overt racial discrimination in their PARTY PLATFORM.
The Democratic Party still believes in keeping blacks in segragated schools...Metaphorically standing in the doorway as that famous Democrat of yore, George Wallace - all in an effort to deny part of our population a chance at a good education.
Most of these comments make no sense...Especially as regards the history of this nation. It must be remembered that the Democratic Party established the system of slavery, and what came after - Jim Crow, et. al.
The party has always existed to discriminate against their fellow man on the basis of their skin color...They don't disappoint. If I remember correctly, they to this day have a policy of overt racial discrimination in their PARTY PLATFORM.,
The Democratic Party still believes in keeping blacks in segragated schools...Metaphorically standing in the doorway as that famous Democrat of yore, George Wallace - all in an effort to deny part of our population a chance at a good education.
Actually, I think democrats in general don't wish to give anyone a "good" education. It almost seems like they'd rather use schools as an indoctrination camp, which the teachers unions and school boards dutifully comply by making curriculum full of nonsense and self-esteem garbage while ignoring basic skills like reading and arithmetics. Is there some reason why this country lags so far behind other countries for basic skills and why colleges just seem to be P.C. factories filled with these mindless dullards who think protesting or squashing the campus conservative voices are some resume filler?
Miande:
How are you defining "racism" as opposed to "bigotry," here?
At any rate, NCLB is an example of a policy put forward by conservatives with a major objective of decreasing the school performance gap between blacks and whites. I suspect it's not an especially good policy in this regard, but I'm not sure it's any less effective in terms of decreasing the gap between blacks and whites than affirmative action in education.
Obviously, racism is still a problem, but I believe if we must assign who it is that should carry the brunt of the guilt, my vote would go to the Democrats.
Which party has the only serving Senator that was a KKK member.
Which party decimated the nuclear African American Families through welfare programs that are inherently racist.
Which party believes that quota systems are not blatantly racist.
Which party advocates programs that abort African American babies.
Which party calls Consertive Black Americans "Uncle Toms".
I could go on and on, but I think I made my point.
My vote goes to the Democrat party for having the most racist approach. All the identity politics, PC, victimhood, class warfare. That being said, I don't think race relations should be part of the political realm at all. It's too easily demagogued and manipulated. The government certainly has no business sticking its nose in interpersonal relations. Conservatives need to stop being on the defensive on this issue. It needs to be removed from the political discourse. Race relations are not proper topics in political discussion. Do all the name calling you want.
So I guess this means Republicans will be taking back RNC Chairman Mehlman's apology to NAACP in 2005 about how the how sorry the Republicans were for creating and exploiting racial strife in order to gain white votes, especially in the South? Especially since Republicans have no history of racism compared to the Democrats liberalfascist backstabbing of minorities by enacting the Civil Rights Act. Lincoln would be so proud. Funny how all those blacks and other minorities still vote for Democrats despite the Republican racist-free conservative philosophy, must be the liberal brainwashing in our educational system.
Especially since Republicans have no history of racism compared to the Democrats liberalfascist backstabbing of minorities by enacting the Civil Rights Act. Lincoln would be so proud
*************************************************
Wow, what a fact-free assertion. Percentage wise, more Republicans than Democrats voted for the act. I imagine Lincoln would have been proud
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
By party
The original House version:[6]
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:[6]
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[6]
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)
Two word answer for anybody who challenges the premise that the GOP is racist: "Southern Strategy." It's how the GOP gave a home to "disenfranchised" southern racists, post-1966 midterm elections.
Three more: "Reagan in Philadelphia" (MS). Dog whistling (states rights in) Dixie
Two more: "Willie Horton." Scary blackamoors are coming for your women.
Sadly, aside from window dressing (Rice), the GOP has only gotten more cautious about getting CAUGHT when it gets its bigot on. Which is often.(http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/columnists/chi-oped0514parkermay14,0,2879352.column)
Racism is the zipper that the GOP keeps getting its d*ck stuck in. Damn right they resent being made to feel guilty. That's what guilty sociopaths do: Lash out at the accusing party, while ignoring the actual offense.
"Miande" gets it all wrong:
The notion that so-called conservative Republicans have repudiated Racism is somewhat senseless.
Allow me to rewrite this for you, so that it's actually in accord w/ reality:
The notion that so-called Liberals have repudiated Racism is somewhat senseless, since their political platform is solidly based on it. Calling it "Affirmative Action" doesn't change what it is. And judging people based on the color of their skin, rather than the content of their character, is racism.
But, as the complete absence of any significant Democratic condemnation of the Powell as "Uncle Tom", the Powell as "house ni**er" or the Rice as Prissy comments loudly attest, the Democratic Party has no problem whatsoever getting caught with its bigot on.
The key here is an almost complete misunderstanding of the real Republican logic concerning racism
Following the Civil War, racial reparations were available to blacks, both within the United States and without it and many took advantage of the opportunities. The idea of new reparations after almost a century and a half seems absurd or worse, simply because not everyone took advantage of the first opportunity, or failed to keep it.
Secondly, the Conservative view of every race is the one displayed in the Constitution: that Equality of Opportunity is at the core of the United States.
This is a core difference between Liberals and Conservatives- Liberals believe the Constitution refers to Equality of Results, and failing that, the government should step in and correct it since the failure could not have been the fault of the minority.
The key here is an almost complete misunderstanding of the real Republican logic concerning racism
Following the Civil War, racial reparations were available to blacks, both within the United States and without it and many took advantage of the opportunities. The idea of new reparations after almost a century and a half seems absurd or worse, simply because not everyone took advantage of the first opportunity, or failed to keep it.
Secondly, the Conservative view of every race is the one displayed in the Constitution: that Equality of Opportunity is at the core of the United States.
This is a core difference between Liberals and Conservatives- Liberals believe the Constitution refers to Equality of Results, and failing that, the government should step in and correct it since the failure could not have been the fault of the minority.