The Party of Race
John Judis writes:
I mention the Bradley effect because I think, too, that McCain and Sarah Palin’s attack against Obama for advocating “spreading the wealth” and for “socialism” and for pronouncing the civil rights revolution a “tragedy” because it didn’t deal with the distribution of wealth is aimed ultimately at white working class undecided voters who would construe “spreading the wealth” as giving their money to blacks. It’s the latest version of Reagan’s “welfare queen” argument from 1980. It if it works, it won’t be because most white Americans actually oppose a progressive income tax, but because they fear that Obama will inordinately favor blacks over them. I don’t doubt that this argument will have some effect, but I suspect it’s too late and that worries about McCain and Republican handling of the economy will overshadow these concerns.
Ross Douthat replies:
I’m sure I’m displaying my immense naivete about the sinister machinations of Steve Schmidt and company here, but if I had John McCain’s disposable income I’d happily put up tens of thousands of dollars betting that the “don’t let Obama spread your wealth to shiftless blacks” ploy that Judis is describing has not once been a topic of conversation in any McCain strategy session throughout the whole “Joe the Plumber” phase of the campaign. (Though maybe it’s such a subtle strategy that even the strategists themselves don’t realize they’re employing it!)
Moreover, under the standard Judis is using, it seems as though any attack a conservative could possibly launch on a black Democrat’s liberalism is racially-charged by definition. Seriously – is there any attack McCain could launch against Obama at this point, whether policy-driven or personal, that couldn‘t be read, in some tortured fashion, as a racist appeal?
Well, obviously you could read just about anything as a coded racist appeal. And I think a case could be made that you’d be right to. The simple fact of the matter is that the politics of economic conservatism in the United States have a lot to do with the politics of race. I always think it’s worth recalling the practical constituency for libertarian economic policies as seen in the 1964 elections:
Now that’s not to say that the politics of American conservatism are exclusively about race. Lots and lots of people in places like Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, New Hampshire, Maine, etc. where there were no racial tensions in 1964 (no black people in those states) voted for Barry Goldwater. It just wasn’t a majority. And next week lots of people are going to vote for John McCain because they believe his opponent favors the murder of innocent unborn children, whereas a President McCain could plausibly appoint Supreme Court justices who would dramatically curtail said slaughter. There are lots of things in play. But voting behavior is very tied up with race and with attitudes about race even when it’s two white candidates facing off against each other.
Meanwhile, we’ve got a black candidate. And the crucial phrase in Judis’ argument is “if it works.” If McCain’s strategy works, he’s saying, it’ll be not because Americans are opposed to progressive income taxation or because Americans think refundable tax credits are welfare. It’ll be — if it works! — because Americans fear that Obama will take their money and give it to black people. But most likely it won’t work.
104 Responses to “The Party of Race”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 29th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
So I take it your indirect reply to Ross’ question is: if Obama somehow loses the election, the only explanation is that voters are racist.
Am I reading you right?
October 29th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Having grown up in Idaho I can say that, while there’s not “racial tension” there in the way that there is where there are actually significant minorities, there is a significant fear of the darkie menace there, and a worry that they will come at any time. Making people in Idaho think you’ll give their money to the darkies is surely a good plan there even now and would have been in ‘64, too, I’m sure.
October 29th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
The states that voted for Goldwater in 1964 did not necessarily support him because of his libertarian views.
Alabama, for instance, had just given George Wallace a landslide victory, and Wallace was more of a populist on economic matters.
October 29th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
On a related note, I’m always startled to remember that in 1968, George Wallace won five states. Coincidentally, four of those five also were Goldwater states! I mean, what are the chances?
October 29th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Most of those people are probably racist, too:
Link
October 29th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
if Obama somehow loses the election, the only explanation is that voters are racist.
He’s saying that the audience for McCain’s latest set of campaign talking points is primarily an audience receptive to messages that pander to their racial anxieties.
However, I think MattY is mostly wrong. The reason Goldwater got support in the deep south had nothing to do with his message of economic libertarianism. It was based in his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Things like Social Security and New Deal-era policies that Johnson wanted to expand were precisely the things that appealed to whites in the south. It wasn’t until later that Republicans cooked up the idea that “economic regulation” and “social services” could be translated into “helping blacks” in order to stir up the resentments of white voters.
October 29th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Surely Douthat has read Edsell’s book on race/taxes/rights, an extensive treatment on how the GOP has combined and exploited these themes for electoral success. If not, he should. Goes directly to this discussion.
As for his bet: Take it. It is certain that the McCain strategists know the nature of the undecideds (disproportionatly white, make, working class), what messages move them (see Edsell) and have crafted a message accordingly. This is political campaigns 101.
October 29th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Perhaps the most telling choice that pushes back against Ross’s reasonable skepticism is McCain and Palin’s use of the term “welfare” to describe Obama’s tax plan. If that’s not dogwhistle politics, I don’t know what is. A handout to people who don’t pay federal income tax from a former community organizer?! Sometimes a smear is just a smear…but these seem awfully internally consistent.
October 29th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
And you just have to read what a lot of McCain voters are saying–that Obama will favor blacks in who gets jobs, etc. McCain’s team would have to be stupid not to be sending out dogwhistles to these people.
October 29th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
So I take it your indirect reply to Ross’ question is: if Obama somehow loses the election, the only explanation is that voters are racist.
That’s ridiculous. American voters will be racist regardless of whether Obama wins or loses.
And yeah, if there were a way to determine a winner I’d take Douthat’s bet in a heartbeat.
October 29th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Ross is right: he is naive or at least willfully blind. McCain’s advisers don’t even have to discuss the racial implications of the “spread the wealth” meme. Their party has spent the last 40 years making sure that’s firmly entrenched in a large part of the electorate’s subconscious.
October 29th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
“Well, obviously you could read just about anything as a coded racist appeal.”
Aaaah. “Good whites” and their racism poo-pooing. It’s a wonderful sight to behold.
You should put up a youtube of you putting it in scare-quotes.
October 29th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Of course, that the Douthats of Virginia had over 100 slaves at one point has no bearing on whether Ross sees racism in things.
None at all.
October 29th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Douthat’s post really is terrible. “Heads, You’re a Racist. Tails, You’re a Racist!” Well, yes – that’s what happens when your party spends much of the last forty years being fucking racist.
October 29th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Barry Goldwater never had to worry about Arizona. McCain is in deep serious trouble.
October 29th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Florida had only 14 ev’s in 1964? Wow.
October 29th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Matt’s post is spot on — and Gabriel gets a point, too. I do understand the frustration of Republicans who feel like there’s nothing they can do to avoid being tagged as racist. I’m as white as the next white guy, and I know how that feels.
But Matt nails it. The problem is that the conservative movement has relied on racial resentment to achieve much of what it achieved over the last 40 years. Republicans can escape that legacy, but only if they actively DO something to avoid it. If they just go to default settings, they’re liable to end up relying on racial resentment whether or not they consciously intended to.
They need to clean house.
October 29th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
“I’m sure I’m displaying my immense naivete about the sinister machinations of Steve Schmidt and company here”
Steve Schmidt, who was in involved in the Bangladeshi/black daughter incident which derailed McCain in 2000.
No Ross, not naivete. Just plain fucking lying.
Piece of shit.
October 29th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Yes, the transformation of Florida is impressive and has been going on for a while. Back in 1850, shortly after Florida became a state in 1845, all of Florida had a population of 87,000 or only 0.37% of the US population of 23.2 million (and close to half of the Florida population were slaves), while today Florida has 18,200,000 inhabitants, or 6% of the US population. The US population (with territorial expansion) has risen 13 fold somce 1850, while Florida’s population has risen 210 fold, a factor of 16 more.
October 29th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Eh. If you look at a lot of the rhetoric of abortion opponents you’ll hear things like “those people just want to…” on the one hand while hearing excuses like “But she’s about to go to college and has her whole life in front of her…” for those they know who get abortions. In fact it’s a bit of a joke in provider circles that people will come in saying “I don’t like what you do but I’m different.” (The joke being that, at least here in Washington State if you say “I don’t approve” then they legally (not to mention ethically) *can’t give you an abortion!*
So based on a little bit of first-hand experience and quite a lot of second- and third-hand experience that there’s a large racial dimension to anti-abortion politics.
figleaf
October 29th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
i really think ross douthat genuinely believes what he is saying. ross douthat is not a racist or a racist enabler.
he is just a moron.
October 29th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Beliefs and opinions change over time. Why don’t we “recall[] the practical constituency for libertarian economic policies as seen in the” 1984 elections?
October 29th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Douthat resorts to one of the most tiresome tools in the wingnut toolbox – first a protestation of ignorance, and then a sarcastic put-down of anyone who disagrees with the opinion he’s just told us is based on that ignorance. It’s just amazing that immediately after admitting that he has no insider knowledge he tells us with emphasis that “not once” has race been discussed.
And what’s with that sarcastic “immense naivete”? Ross Douthat is 29 years old, has never had a job other than opinion journalism, has never been a political reporter. His first-hand knowledge of political campaigns is nil. Why should we accept that he’s not naive?
Why on earth is this tripe worth reading?
Now, what we do know is that the “spread the wealth” meme, itself an intentional misinterpretation of a single statement, is being attached to the “anti-constitution” meme, and that the “anti-constitution” meme is based on an extraordinarily far-fetched interpretation of remarks Obama made about the shortcomings of the Civil Rights movement in accomplishing “redistributive change.” see e.g. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/palin-suggests.html
So, Mr. Douthat, to my eyes there’s evidence that has indeed linked the spread-the-wealth attack on Obama to the suggestion that Obama wants to favor African-Americans.
Perhaps as a result of your admitted ignorance and naivete you don’t see it. But some of us do.
October 29th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
I like Douthat’s blog and find it, even as a committed progressive, to be a consistently compelling read.
Every so often, he gets a little tribal and fuzzy and can’t quite see clearly. The last time it happened was when Palin’s selection brought howls of derision across the blogosphere. Then, Douthat retrenched, defending Palin, and stating that he was “rooting for her.”
Now, of course, Douthat has admitted that Palin is ridiculous.
I don’t excuse his post, but it fits into a pattern of reflexive defensiveness on the most damning charges made regarding Republican choices. He hasn’t yet learned to properly distance himself from the rancid corpse that is the modern Republican Party.
But he’s young, y’know? He has potential.
October 29th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
I think the Judis fellow is right on.
October 29th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
In my mind, to Republicans, liberals are the new n*****s. There’s no difference.
It’s the politics of division, taken to the hatred extreme. A white liberal candidate can be hated as much as someone who’s black. If Obama was white, he’d be hated no less.
What do you expect from Professor Limbaugh’s students?
October 29th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
The only potential he has is to be an even bigger cunt than he is now.
So fuck him.
October 29th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Maine still has a tiny black population, and Obama won the primary over Sen. Clinton by double digits and will beat McCain by double digits here. I can believe McCain’s coded slam (Douthat is either willfully naive or just dumb) will work in some places but not here. The resentments in Maine are north vs. south/white rural vs. “Portland elites.”
October 29th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
The Republican Party has spend 40 years purging themselves of any moderates (ie Dirksen/civil rights Republicans). You can name the elected moderates in Congress and in the states on the fingers of two hands. Voters finally woke up and purged a few of the moderates themselves when they realized that people like Lincoln Chafee have zero say in the Republican Party is run.
This 1981 Lee Atwater interview as reported by Bob Herbert of the NYT explains how the modern Republican Party appeals to voters in a nutshell:
If you define politics as free of racial content simply because your candidates don’t openly say ‘nigger’ anymore, as Lee Atwater does, than I guess the Republican Party is (mostly) the party of tolerance. Run a John Chafee or an Everett Dirksen or an Olympia Snowe for President and maybe you’ll win again Ross. I won’t hold my breath on the racists and sexists that make up your base ever doing such a thing but keep fighting the good fight. Sam’s Club is what you want. Sambo’s Club is what you’ve got.
October 29th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Well, obviously you could read just about anything as a coded racist appeal. And I think a case could be made that you’d be right to. The simple fact of the matter is that the politics of economic conservatism in the United States have a lot to do with the politics of race.
Translation:
In order not to be racist, you have to favor government transfers of wealth.
What is not considered by Matt is that the politics of race in America has a lot to do with the desires of liberals (including Gorge W. Bush) to pay off non-Asian minorities to get them to vote for them.
If McCain’s strategy works, he’s saying, it’ll be not because Americans are opposed to progressive income taxation or because Americans think refundable tax credits are welfare. It’ll be — if it works! — because Americans fear that Obama will take their money and give it to black people.
Which is, of course, a completely unfounded fear. And even if it isn’t unfounded, why should we object? Isn’t it racist for us to object to the government taking money out of our evil white pockets and giving it to the virtuous minorities anyway.
October 29th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
After hearing of the skinhead plot to kill Obama, I can’t help but think what an interesting experiment it would have been for Obama to have gone into hiding for a day or two and had it broadcast (falsely) on the news that he had been killed.
I would like to see how the various talking heads would have reacted to that news.
http://glaivester.blogspot.com/2008/10/interesting-experiment.html
October 29th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Finally, I am not a racist.
You can’t have as many black cocks as I’ve had and remain racist.
October 29th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Ross has become a lot lamer since he stopped having comments. He’s sounding more and more like the lame high school Young Republicans kid who just discovered the Twilight series and Ayn Rand who is always depressed that he is too young to remember Reagan. He’s become an embarrassment.
October 29th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Matt, I don’t think that was a terribly good response to Ross’s post. The Deep South’s support for Goldwater had very little to do with “economic libertarianism” and everything to do with a rejection of LBJ due to his support of Civil Rights. Goldwater happened to be the available protest vote, and it helped that he was a supporter of “State’s Rights.” I don’t think Goldwater’s desire to roll back the New Deal had much to do with it. The South didn’t exactly rise up as one and vote for Alf Landon when they had the chance.
Ross is half right. Democrats really do treat most attempts by Republicans to pitch economic conservatism to the white working class as a racist dog-whistle. And it’s probably true that most of the individual Republicans who push these arguments have no racist intent.
But Ross is also half-wrong. We aren’t crazy to assume there’s a racist intent behind these messages. There’s a damn good reason to assume this. And joejoejoe at #29 provided the money quote.
October 29th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
..at least the part about “spreading the wealth” having to do with giving people’s money to poor, black folks.
October 29th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
He can remember Reagan; but it was when Reagan couldn’t remember his own name.
Clive Crook seems to be the most cowardly now, pre-approving comments, and any which is remotely critical never make it.
You would think he might need the extra page views, frankly. The guy asking about his third testicle was usually more interesting and was more entertaining than CCs.
I used to enjoy the fights on Douthat’s blog.
BTW – just to add; Douthat’s mentor and idol was segregationist Buckley, and his friend is Sailer, whom he stole from in Grand New Party.
He’s a racist, just knows he needs to keep quiet about it.
October 29th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
During the Civil War, Florida had the lowest population of any of the Confederate states, about 140,000. Even Arkansas had more than 200K. At the time, most of the Floridian population lived up in the Panhandle or thereabouts, as the peninsula was sparsely-populated swampland. Now that we’ve invented air conditioning, of course, it’s densely-populated swampland.
October 29th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Moreover, under the standard Judis is using, it seems as though any attack a conservative could possibly launch on a black Democrat’s liberalism is racially-charged by definition.
What Douthat is missing here is that the only thing that makes Judis’s explanation seem plausible is that calling refundable tax credits “socialism” is a particularly desperate and stupid attack for an economic conservative to make against an economic liberal at any time, let alone on the eve of an imminent recession, after a $700 billion bailout for wall street. We’re all redistributors now. Looking for dog whistles is only something liberals do when a conservative’s utterances seem absurd otherwise. And in this campaign only natural–racial demographics have been on any political strategist’s mind lately.
That said, McCain’s campaign is pretty desperate right now, and if they were up against a candidate of a different race (say, a white woman), and losing like they are now, they’d probably be trying to label her a socialist as well right now. It’s easy to mistake flailing desperation as calculating evil, I guess. “If it works” is a funny phrase–it doesn’t seem to be working, so I guess we’re talking about a counterfactual world.
October 29th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Clearly Ross doesn’t listen to wingnut radio or the McCain radio ads that tip the hat to Limbaugh and the other Radio Hutu Power personalities. Or he does, and just doesn’t like to admit it.
October 29th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Someone else posted #31 under my name, but it is an accurate quote of what I have posted on my blog.
#32 is not something I posted here or anywhere else. The correct quote is, “I’m not a racist. But I am an anti-anti-racist.”
In any case, I think I should explain th “fake his own death” blogpost better – while I am no fan of Obama, I find the hysteria that Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, et al. display whenever confronted with the idea of an Obama win to be rather obnoxious. I’d just love to see how quick they would try to backpedal if they were told that Obama had been shot. It’s the conservative, not the liberal talking heads who I was thinking about, to be honest.
October 29th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Re: So based on a little bit of first-hand experience and quite a lot of second- and third-hand experience that there’s a large racial dimension to anti-abortion politics.
Right, Figleaf. That would be why NARAL, NOW and the rest of the despicable abortion lobby support a barbaric butchery that has disproportionately killed BLACK children. There would be a MUCH higher black population in the US today if it had not been for these white ‘doctors’ convincing Black mothers to let them butcher their children in the womb.
I will never understand why standing up for the right of Black children not to be the victims of prenatal genocide is racist. But then again, you pro-choicers make a profession out of defending the indefensible…so I’m sure you can think of something.
Speaking for myself, I would counsel any woman who was a friend or relative of mine- regardless of circumstance- to choose life. So my conscience is clear. Yours may not be, but that’s not my problem.
October 29th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
However, the fact that I did not say does not negate the fact that I believe it.
When it slips inside me, I can drop my pseudo-smartass bullshit and take pleasure in being taken.
That is all.
October 29th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Now that we’ve invented air conditioning, of course, it’s densely-populated swampland.
It’s all going to sink into the ocean, anyway. And, mark my words, Republicans will sniff indignantly at the idea of any aid to Florida boat people . . .
October 29th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
And it’s perfectly clear that abortions could be avoided if women had pleasurable sex only with horses, donkeys and monkeys.
The fact that they don’t shows you how decadent society has become.
October 29th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
I can’t help but think what an interesting experiment it would have been for Obama to have gone into hiding for a day or two and had it broadcast (falsely) on the news that he had been killed.
Really? That says an awful lot more about you than it does anyone else, mateycock.
October 29th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
My point is that the Obama candidacy has generated such strong feelings that I wonder what the reactions, official and unofficial, would be.
October 29th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
October 29th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
C’mon, Matt, you’re descending ever farther into the fever swamps of hackitude. The essential fact is that, just as I predicted in February, McCain hasn’t had the balls to mention Jeremiah Wright all year. He forbade other Republicans from mentioning Rev. Wright. He’s terrified of being labeled a racist by his base in the media, so he’s going to lose playing with one hand tied behind his back.
And the Republicans are still going to get called racists.
October 29th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Maybe if Republicans didn’t cast every Democratic economic position as some handouts to African-Americans over the years, they wouldn’t have to worry about it now. And I agree with the above: Ross is a moron.
October 29th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
October 29th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
John Stuart Mill is reported to have said: “I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.”
I think an analogous point can be made regarding economic libertarians and racists. It’s not that economic libertarianism is inherently racist, or that most economic libertarians are themselves racist, but rather that a lot of racists tend to find economic libertarianism attractive. This was why Ron Paul’s candidacy ran into some trouble when extreme racists starting endorsing him.
October 29th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Sailer — “And the Republicans are still going to get called racists.”
And spades are still going to be called spades, so to speak.
I have no love whatsoever for George W. Bush or John McCain. But deep in their hearts, I don’t believe either one of them is a racist. They’re willing to play ball with the base-rallying race-baiters in their party, but they don’t want their fingerprints on it any more than absolutely necessary.
But you? Steve Sailer? Where the hell do you get off acting like Democrats are crazy for assuming that Republicans are pandering to racists?
October 29th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
“just as I predicted in February, McCain hasn’t had the balls to mention Jeremiah Wright all year. He forbade other Republicans from mentioning Rev. Wright. He’s terrified of being labeled a racist by his base in the media”
And he’s absolutely correct. He holds no qualms whatsoever about bringing up Wright if he thought it would work. He knows it would massively backfire, because he would instantly lose huge amounts of the moderates and independents he needs to win.
See, your problem is that you think 51% of the country have anything in common with your views. You can’t understand why he doesn’t say what you want him to say. It’s the same reason Ron Paul or Kucinich stand no chance. You are on the extreme fringe of society, and any candidate who takes your advice would be lucky to win 30%.
October 29th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Goldwater’s “success” in the deep South was the result of massive voter disenfranchisement.
October 29th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Matt’s argument is really weak, but whatever. I have a question. Ted posted this:
The problem is that the conservative movement has relied on racial resentment to achieve much of what it achieved over the last 40 years. Republicans can escape that legacy, but only if they actively DO something to avoid it. If they just go to default settings, they’re liable to end up relying on racial resentment whether or not they consciously intended to.
They need to clean house.
For Ted or anyone else, what could the Republicans DO in your view to escape this legacy? Clearly has to go way beyond eschewing racial appeals, because anything, from talking about crime or welfare to calling your opponent a socialist, can be read as a coded racial appeal. And maybe rightly so, I’m not going to argue that. But that being the case, what could the Republicans do to escape their legacy? I can’t see what could satisfy some of you.
October 29th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
To whoever’s borrowing my name,
You know, the fact that you have to resort to feeble jokes about donkeys only suggests that you don’t have a good answer to my argument. Which is as I would suppose. If you think that you can justify abortion, then go ahead and try to make your case.
October 29th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
You aren’t really contradicting Douthat’s central point that the McCain campaign isn’t deliberately trying to appeal to racist sentiment.
October 29th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Also–if you think that “the politics of economic conservatism in the United States have a lot to do with the politics of race,” what do you think are the consequences of that? Is any conservative argument off-limits? Or does John Judis need to accept that this doesn’t necessarily reflect a conscious intention on the part of conservatives and thus is not something that can be used to discredit Republican proposals?
October 29th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Khaled said above:
“John Stuart Mill is reported to have said: “I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.”
There was a news story (or what passes for “news”) the other day that said that “conservatives were the happiest people, and were always the happiest people.”
In light of the Mill comment above, it seems to me that the reason most people who claim to be conservatives also claim to be happy isn’t because they aren’t necessarily stupid, but that they are incurious–they never wonder about anything significant. They accept the world as it exists, and never wonder about what could be.
There’s some evidence that this is a genetic thing–that some people are born conservative and some people are born not conservative (”liberal” is not the opposite of conservative), but are rather the “innovators”, who have always blazed a trail for even conservatives to follow.
October 29th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
For Ted or anyone else, what could the Republicans DO in your view to escape this legacy? Clearly has to go way beyond eschewing racial appeals, because anything, from talking about crime or welfare to calling your opponent a socialist, can be read as a coded racial appeal.
I’m never going to vote for these people, but this isn’t that cryptic. I’ve never in my life heard dialing around a couple points on the EITC and tax code referred to as “welfare”. That’s not normal.
October 29th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Ross Douthat reacts to any suggestion that Saint Reagan used racist rhetoric in this fashion. Of course Douthat is a bosom buddy of white supremacist Steve Sailer, and Douthat himself once smeared a poor black woman from Louisiana as a “welfare duchess” because she had a TV too large for his approval. Her sin was living in a subsidized apartment and not being sufficiently grateful or deprived according to the extremely Christian Mr. Douthat.
Douthat claims to want to update the Repiglican Party but he’s still a big fan of the Southern Strategy. There’s nothing new about his “base” instincts.
October 30th, 2008 at 12:05 am
I’m never going to vote for these people, but this isn’t that cryptic. I’ve never in my life heard dialing around a couple points on the EITC and tax code referred to as “welfare”. That’s not normal.
Fine. Then you stop referring to a refundable tax credit as a “tax cut.” That’s not true.
October 30th, 2008 at 12:09 am
I’m never going to vote for these people, but this isn’t that cryptic. I’ve never in my life heard dialing around a couple points on the EITC and tax code referred to as “welfare”. That’s not normal.
I mean, it’s a package of tax credits available to non-income-taxpayers. Welfare’s a stretch, since no one’s going to be living off of their college tuition tax credit, but ‘handout’ seems like a fair description.
October 30th, 2008 at 12:22 am
Well, remember there were plenty of people saying the ad that basically said Harold Ford would be the Senator yelling “where all da white women at?!” wasn’t racist.
Judis has basically laid out the Republican Southern Strategy. That is, since you can’t call black people bad names anymore, you have to stir people up by using code. That used to be “busing.” Then it was “welfare queens.” Now it’s redistribution of income.
How do we know this is racial? Because, as noted pretty much everywhere, everything the government does is redistributive in some way. So it’s not the redistribution itself that is the problem. It’s who you are distributing to. And that’s where race comes in.
October 30th, 2008 at 12:23 am
The “socialist” tag is only indirectly about race. It’s primarily an attempt to associate Obama with a scary foreign menace which ties in with the idea that Obama is “not a real American” because his father was foreign.
October 30th, 2008 at 12:30 am
He forbade other Republicans from mentioning Rev. Wright.
Does anybody know who this Rev. Wright is that Steve Sailer is talking about? Does he have something to do with Barack Obama, and why has nobody in the media paid any attention to what I assume is a very damaging relationship?
October 30th, 2008 at 1:00 am
Judis has basically laid out the Republican Southern Strategy. That is, since you can’t call black people bad names anymore, you have to stir people up by using code. That used to be “busing.” Then it was “welfare queens.” Now it’s redistribution of income.
How do we know this is racial? Because, as noted pretty much everywhere, everything the government does is redistributive in some way. So it’s not the redistribution itself that is the problem. It’s who you are distributing to. And that’s where race comes in.
Ouch, this is a crappy argument. You’re assuming that we hardcore Republicans are aware of the redistributive nature of government. Haven’t you heard on the teevee about how stupid we all are? No, seriously, haven’t you? Don’t assume the voters McCain’s trying to persuade get these things. I mean, my own stance would be that Obama’s tinkerings with the tax code are perfectly proper. I think if you raise the top rate to, I don’t know, 50%, that’s getting too aggressively redistributive for my tastes. It has nothing to do with where the money’s going, and I don’t think the McCain people are trying to suggest it’s going to blacks. I just think McCain’s playing this way too abstractly to see a coded racial appeal here.
October 30th, 2008 at 3:50 am
Redistribute the wealth is a bit more subtle than welfare queens. Current Republican scare tactics are not about race per se – they are about separating the “deserving” from the “un-derserving.” (part of the whole real Americans vs interlopers) Rich people deserve to be rich and poor people deserve to be poor in their world view. Poor minorities are even more suspect since in addition to the obvious defect of being poor they are also not white.
While there is a certain segment of the GOP that are complete racists there are also a large number of Republicans who are race neutral as long said minorities are rich and also vote
Republican.
October 30th, 2008 at 5:35 am
It’s a fact that African-American penises are larger, in inverse correlation to IQ.
I have measured (and tasted) hundreds myself, and feel that this election is bringing up a serious question.
If we have an African American president, then clearly white women are going to start having interracial sex. And we have no idea where this will lead.
But, we will have a lot of blond women surprised, and sore.
Nobody wants to hear this, but it is fact.
October 30th, 2008 at 6:00 am
From the ass stretching he gave me, I can tell you Sailer will not have any problem competing with Obama for blond whores.
Why either of them would want to be involved with women is beyond me.
October 30th, 2008 at 6:50 am
Sailer ass stretched you?
I will have strong words at the fondue party.
I bet this is because I came in Steve’s beard. He got so angry.
October 30th, 2008 at 9:27 am
I’m almost touched by how pained Steve Sailer is that after having been screamed about twice gigantically in the primary and after watching the Bill Ayers theme fail, McCain didn’t make this election about scary angry negro preacher Jeremiah Wright.
Clearly, what this election should have been about was how Obama is close to scary angry negro preachers and how the Hispanics stole our economy by getting free houses.
I almost wish that McCain had had “the balls” to go there, just so the racists would have one more piece of muck to fling, to have it fail, and to sully McCain’s few remaining shreds of decades-old dignity.
Almost.
October 30th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Check out Douthat’s latest post, on McCain’s latest ad. He’s fairminded enough to admit that when you start calling a tax cut “welfare” there’s a decent prima facie reason to suspect that race is getting involved.
In response to Asher and other folks who ask what Republicans can *do* — the answer is that we need to be a little smarter about distinguishing two things:
a) intentional, self-conscious racism and
b) sales pitches that, effectively, depend on racial resentment.
I’m not claiming (a), and I think this whole discussion would be more productive if we realized once and for all that the intentions of the ad men are irrelevant.
What matters is the way the audience responds, and can be expected to respond. That’s what Judis wrote about, and McCain’s latest ad completely validates his prediction. If that ad works at all, it’ll work by evoking racial resentment.
So look, what do you do if you’re a Republican who doesn’t want to rely on racism? The answer is simple enough in theory — don’t *make* pitches that depend on viewers’ tacit racial prejudices. The reason why this is difficult — and I admit it’s difficult — is that redistributive policies are naturally pretty popular. That’s why we’ve got a graduated income tax, and it’s why most European countries do even more redistribution than we do. The argument against redistribution has some validity, but it’s a hard argument to make — without the bit of extra oomph you get from racial resentment. Republicans have done as well as they have in the US primarily because of that extra oomph. So I think, in practice, it’s going to be very, very difficult for Republicans to stop using these tactics. They’re hooked. They’ll stop using tactics of racial division only when the electorate no longer responds to them.
October 30th, 2008 at 10:22 am
“because Americans fear that Obama will take their money and give it to black people.”
They do. They even openly admit it. I wouldn’t have thought there were many people who believed such drivel, but now that I live in Georgia, I come across them all the time. Where my wife works (vet at a semi-rural animal clinic), the majority of her coworkers believe Barack is going to give their money to lazy black people. They say this without shame.
October 30th, 2008 at 10:26 am
In other words, Republicans confront some hard choices. If you’re a Republican who really doesn’t want to rely on racial resentment at all, you probably need to resign yourself to a slightly greater degree of economic equality / aka redistribution than we have today.
But if you’re really, really committed to fighting (for instance) EITC, you are probably (in practice) going to end up appealing to race, because there aren’t a whole lot of other ways to win that argument. And you may lose the argument anyway, because people don’t care about race as much as they used to.
October 30th, 2008 at 10:35 am
People–doughat particularly–seem to be confused. The racist and universal association of the phrase “spread the wealth”–or any communalist appeal to social welfare–with the image of shiftless blacks predates the McCain campaign. Obviously.
So asserting that the McCain campaign has eschewed racist tactics doesn’t really refute the idea that racism figures in peoples understanding of phrases like “spread the wealth”.
October 30th, 2008 at 10:41 am
I don’t know if McCain is making coded appeals consciously or subconsciously and I have no doubt that there are people out there to whom such arguments would appeal.
But Judis is going to far when using the term most here:
People can have legitimate concerns about tax policy and redistribution without it being racially charged. Blacks are overrepresented at the poverty level, but there are still more whites than blacks overall. I myself have concerns about taxes being to give money to people who don’t look for jobs. That is what welfare reform was about. Hell, you can be in favor of progressive tax brackets but be concerned that the progression goes too far.
October 30th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Judis is right, although he was much too pessimistic about race relations during the primary. The Republicans are still banging on that drum, although it’s less effective and it’s interesting there’s been nothing on immigration this fall, maybe at McCain’s behest. Maybe the Republican strategists see the demographics with Latinoes. Hillary sure played up the Latinos vs. Blacks racial tribalism during the primary, which was charming and heartwarming.
Douthat is either naive or dishonest, but I don’t care enough to read enough to figure it out.
October 30th, 2008 at 11:31 am
I myself have concerns about taxes being to give money to people who don’t look for jobs. That is what welfare reform was about.
Welfare reform was about scapegoating the least powerful, most vulerable in our society. It really was lowpoint in the 90s. A couple of people in Clinton’s administraion quit over it.
You can dress it up however you want, but you’re fooling yourself if you think it was anything other than a shredding of the social safety net.
October 30th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Given the, ah, interesting direction that the thread’s taken, I feel much better about lurching off topic with the third installment in my series “Using Hector’s Comments To Illustrate the Bizarre and Untenable Mentality of the Antichoice Movement, How Wildly Far From The Mainstream It Is, And How It Can Warp Even Decent-Seeming People” (I know, I know – it sounds a little too , well, facile and catchy – I’m working on it.)
“There would be a MUCH higher black population in the US today if it had not been for these white ‘doctors’ convincing Black mothers to let them butcher their children in the womb.”
This has increasingly become a major theme in antichoice rhetoric; that women are foolish, silly, childlike, easily confused and frankly rather stupid creatures who need to be taken in hand and firmly guided lest they be misguided. If only they knew what it was that they were really doing – which they surely would never have agreed to if Bad Men hadn’t fooled them. Once they realize the horror of what they’ve done, they will surely suffer [mythical] Post-Abortion Syndrome!* This is pretty much the centerpiece of Justice Kennedy’s creepily paternalistic opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart.
“I will never understand why standing up for the right of Black children not to be the victims of prenatal genocide is racist.”
Part II of this antichoice talking point, and quite a rhetorical bombshell. And there is an all-too-real American history here – see Dorthy Roberts’ book “Killing the Black Body” – of forced sterilization and unconsented surgeries and eugenic planning, directed at seemingly any group deemed undersirable and defective (including white people with alleged mental deficiencies or ‘bad morals’), but especially African American and Native American women. And there are people and schools of thought – some not a stranger even to this comment section – who would pave a path back to those bad old days.
But that’s not what we’re talking about here, unless you believe that countless black women are childlike fools easily misled about such a decision, and Planned Parenthood staff all slavering eugenicists. (Greedy slavering eugenicists, probably, since another of the antichoice delusions is that the nonprofit Planned Parenthood is a vast moneymaking operation). And that claim of diminished capacity is very important, because there’s a tricky little two-step here. The antichoice movement yells about racism and “the victims of prenatal genocide“, but a moment’s thought reveals that the perpetrators of this genocide would have to be . . . black women. (If abortion is murder, than abortion providers are the equivalent of contract killers, and last I checked, just because you hired a hitman rather than take the DIY route, you’re still on the hook. (Although hey, if not . . . hmm.) It wouldn’t be a prenatal genocide so much as a parental genocide.
Now, the claim that women in general are mental children incapable of making important decisions wasn’t hauled out just for this ‘Black Baby Genocide!’ talking point. For at least some parts of the antichoice movement, it is of course a fundamental belief; either way it helps remove actual born women – their choices and agency – from the picture, and is vital to their current “But abortion hurts women!” campaign. (Also to resolve seemingly inexplicable contradictions between their ideological worldview and reality.**) But that’s the call the antichoice movement is insisting that you make, on their terms – either black women (like, to be fair, their white sisters) are essentially pretty, oversized children, probably generally capable only of decoration, sex, reproduction and simple household tasks, or they are the twisted perpetrators of a shocking mass auto-genocide driven by incomprehensible self-hatred. Hector – his certain conscious protestations aside – is implicitly supporting the former, and it must be cold comfort indeed that there are certain individuals (looks around the comment section meaningfully) who hold such beliefs without being forced to them by ideological pretzel-twisting, and aren’t compelled by simple decency to keep them from even themselves (let alone the rest of us).
In the real world, of course, the truth involves neither infantilized child-women nor Medean genocidal self-hatred, and some of it surely has to do with the fact that black women are more likely to be in tough social and economic straits, thanks in large part to racism and the legacies of racism. Of course, when you look at what movements and political party actually tries to effectively help with these issues, well . . . (see footnote b below). Another very major factor is an unusually high rate of unintended pregnancies (which is a complex issue, but see footnote b below). There’s also the fact that even for lower-income folks in general, marriage is increasingly becoming a dream, and rarely a workable goal. Which is unfortunate, but (see footnote b below).
——–
* a) Which isn’t to say, of course, that there aren’t real women who genuinely suffer regret or even depression over the choice to terminate a pregnancy, and deserve help and support. (Of course, many don’t, and people being people, there are surely many who have mixed and complicated feelings – reality is messy). Likewise, there are real women who suffer regret and depression and worse after giving birth – indeed, there’s even a non-mythical and quite serious real condition, postpartum depression. And in cases where they were forced – de jure or de facto – carry a pregnancy to term that they would have chosen to terminate if possible . . . well, I don’t know of any studies. According to the Americal Psychological Association, “The best scientific evidence published indicates that among adult women who have an unplanned pregnancy the relative risk of mental health problems is no greater if they have a single elective first-trimester abortion than if they deliver that pregnancy.”
I’m sure being outright coerced by a partner or family members to abort would be psychologically harmful, not to say horrible and disgusting. However and thankfully, it just doesn’t seem like this is particularly common. On the other hand,
b) – data suggests that a fair number of women are indeed “forced” to choose abortion by hard economic and social realities, doing the best they can to support both themselves and often their families. Liberal and left-wing policies seek to help with (that much-maligned) wealth-spreading and a strong social safety net, ensuring access to accurate information and contraception, and pro-family policies that ease the burden on mothers, children and families in general. While there are individual pro-life people and organizations that seek practical solutions – and some genuine alliances across the divide – the antichoice movement itself . . . well, not so much Often kinda the opposite, really.
** c) As I understand it – such wordviews hold that women are, in their essence, nurturing, submissive wives and especially mothers – that is what they are, that is all that they are. If you hold such a view, to realize that between a third and a half of women in this country are rejecting an unquestioning devotion to this role (whatever the cost to themselves, to their families, anything) – as they claim to see it, killing their babies [sic] – well, it’s literally unthinkable, impossible, inconceivable. One way out of this is to insist that they’re not real women, but unnatural feminist monsters, etc. – see Pat Robertson’s infamous comment about how feminism is a “socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.” But given the numbers, that’s not a very effective way to gain supporters, and I’m sure lots of antichoicers honestly don’t (or don’t like to think they) believe this. Hence, it must be that the women are too foolish and confused to really understand what they’re doing – it’s just that they’ve been misled – and we must take the reins of such difficult decisionmaking from their delicate little hands where it so inappropriately has been placed. Honestly, it’s a kindness. We can’t have them worrying their pretty little heads about it.
October 30th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Given the, ah, interesting direction that the thread’s taken, I feel much better about lurching off topic with the third installment in my series “Using Hector’s Comments To Illustrate the Bizarre and Untenable Mentality of the Antichoice Movement, How Wildly Far From The Mainstream It Is, And How It Can Warp Even Decent-Seeming People” (I know, I know – it sounds a little too , well, facile and catchy – I’m working on it.)
“There would be a MUCH higher black population in the US today if it had not been for these white ‘doctors’ convincing Black mothers to let them butcher their children in the womb.”
This has increasingly become a major theme in antichoice rhetoric; that women are foolish, silly, childlike, easily confused and frankly rather stupid creatures who need to be taken in hand and firmly guided lest they be misguided. If only they knew what it was that they were really doing – which they surely would never have agreed to if Bad Men hadn’t fooled them. Once they realize the horror of what they’ve done, they will surely suffer [mythical] Post-Abortion Syndrome!* This is pretty much the centerpiece of Justice Kennedy’s creepily paternalistic opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart.
[continued]
October 30th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Please ignore comment #81. And also me trying to hide under my desk. Thank you. That will be all. Except to comment on #32, that surely in this big country there must be a least one chicken breeder specializing in Silkies – a breed of chicken with black flesh and bones, and therefore sometimes called just “black chickens” – who doesn’t understand why talking about how many, er, male chickens of that breed he has elicits such a . . . strange reaction.
October 30th, 2008 at 11:59 am
I’m late to this, and somebody has probably already said it, but is Douthat really unaware that Atwater said exactly what he says strategists don’t say?
October 30th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Well, if you nail your colors to the mast of “No government redistribution of wealth starting… Now!”, people are likely to wonder why you’re ignoring the history of *how* certain races got wealthier than others (hint: government played a very large role).
I don’t see Ross offering to donate his personal (or family?) fortune to level the playing field between his kids and ghetto-born kids so that they can each get the amount of wealth they deserve by earning it in Libertarian Fantasy Free Market Land. Most affluent people won’t.
That’s why government is stepping in to take up the task through programs like TANF, Head Start, etc. – you can’t even begin to argue that the outcome of economic competition between individuals (let alone races) is fair unless you’ve removed some of the massive handicaps that allow people like George W. Bush to fail upwards into the presidency. If someone with the exact same personal talents had been born black in an inner city he’d very probably be dead or in prison.
October 30th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Dan S.,
Thanks for at least taking the trouble to read my response. I think the real reason you have trouble interpreting the pro-life position is because you don’t share my fundamental premises, and I don’t share yours. Yes, I am a paternalist at least in part- not just for women, but for men as well. I think that we ALL operate under false consciousness a large part of the time, due to our fallen natures and the fallen nature of the societies that we have set up.
Anyone who has an abortion, performs an abortion, or encourages someone to get an abortion, save in certain exceptional cases such as a severe threat to the mother’s health, is committing an intrinsically evil act. Sometimes ( I hope, most of the time) this is done out of “invincible ignorance” rather than malice. This is especially true because most men and women in our society lack a good knowledge either of the facts about embryology, the definition of personhood, or Christian truth regarding the protection of human life. Since I can’t know the state of mind of most women who seek abortions, I will do them the credit of assuming they are actuated by invincible ignorance, just as I assume the same of many atheists and agnostics.
October 30th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Ah, but Atwater’s dead. We’re all enlightened now, didn’t you get the memo?
October 30th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
You’re welcome, Hector – I though it was quite useful in illustrating another bizarre bit of antichoice rhetoric, though I understand you’ll disagree. Unfortunately I don’t have time right now to really converse with you on antichoice issues – I didn’t really have time for the other one either, and now I’m running around to make up for it. But one quick thing:
“ I will do them the credit of assuming they are actuated by invincible ignorance, just as I assume the same of many atheists and agnostics.”
Not being a woman, I’m never going to be in the position of having to choose whether I’m going to terminate or try to carry to term a pregnancy. I am however, an atheist, and in some formal sense an agnostic (that is to say, “God” occupies mostly the same belief-space in my head (and yours) as Ba’al, Ra, Zeus, Odin, etc., but in terms of knowledge I have to make a pro forma concession that no, we can’t have absolute certainty on this matter (or any other – hey, what am I doing floating in this vat? where’s my body!?’), just great common-sense assurance) and let me tell you, that comment is rather condescending. I imagine your claim that women don’t understand embryology (unless they think it’s actually a peanut or crackerjack prize in there, they understand just fine), or are “invincibly ignorant” because they most don’t accept your particularistic (and wildly problematic) claims of “personhood” and “truth” probably is similarly offensive. Of course, the worst that happens to me in this case is I get to feel mild righteous offendedness – wah. Women have to deal with infinitely more.
Although . . . for 1/3 to 1/2 of American women, you offer “invincible ignorance” as the only alternative to cold and malicious – almost unthinkable – evil. I’m sure the implicit parallel to nontheism – ‘they only ‘deny God’ because they’re ignorant, not evil . . .probably” – is unintended, though of course it does get made from time to time.
Of course, the way things are, every antichoicer who chooses to believe that millions of American women are ignorant rather than evil is a plus, as I imagine the ranks of antichoice terrorists get filled from the latter group (although surely oversimplifying).
Ok, really have to be doing other stuff now.
October 30th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Oh crud,
“ “God” occupies mostly the same belief-space in my head (and yours) as Ba’al, Ra, Zeus, Odin, etc., ”
Ok, clearly I’m trying to say . . the same space in my head as [assorted obsolete deities] do (in my head and yours) – the ol’ ‘one god less!’ ha!’ thingie, not trying to imply that your claims of belief are insincere. Sometimes I think there’s just space in my head . . .
*dashes off*
November 18th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Hi there!
My first post at this great blog!
I wanna show u my dayly updated blog:Black Amateur Fuck Video
Have a nice day!
BB!
P.S. if you don’t want to see this message please write me to no.ads08@gmail.com with subject “NO ADS” and URL of your forum
Thank you for cooperation!
December 30th, 2008 at 9:50 am
free fist fucking porn ,famous porn star list gay movie hard core free porn
January 13th, 2009 at 9:08 am
laptop battery
laptop batteries
March 1st, 2009 at 5:03 am
viagra
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 1st, 2009 at 5:43 pm
cialis
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:32 am
levitraIf you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 12th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:01 am
Incredible site!
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 2:21 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:54 am
tramadol
Great site. Good info
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:19 am
buy viagra online
Great site. Good info
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:23 am
viagra
Incredible site!
April 9th, 2009 at 4:48 am
It is the coolest site,keep so! viagra
April 12th, 2009 at 5:16 am
Hello very nice site! sitemap
April 16th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
The information found by me on this site appeared very useful! Thanks to the owner!.
I am from Central and learning to write in English, please tell me right I wrote the following sentence: “Kayak requires javascript to be enabled.”
Thanks
. Hayfa.
April 19th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
tZASRi pnipwjcrnzyn, [url=http://jnntmjnqyzov.com/]jnntmjnqyzov[/url], [link=http://sufrbuuaaori.com/]sufrbuuaaori[/link], http://jfigwpyhyptp.com/