Conservatives Against Being Against Racism
I think David Frum’s essay in The Week on the dual legacy of Jack Kemp is very good. But while Frum appreciates the merits of Kemp’s attempted outreach to the African-American community and the problematic nature of most conservatives’ failure to follow his lead, I think he winds up understating the extent of the problem. For yet another example of the nature of the problem, consider this clip of Glenn Beck angrily booting from his show an ACORN spokesman. Beck is full of righteous indignation at having been called a racist:
Robert Stacy McCain hails the clip as a great example of “how to deal with cheap liberal accusations of ‘racism.’”
And I should say, if someone called me a racist I’d get pretty indignant about it. Nobody likes that accusation. And I wouldn’t like to see someone I admire get that accusation leveled at them. But at the same time—and this is the crucial difference between progressives and conservatives on this front—I also get indignant about actual racism. Glenn Beck, by contrast, like most conservatives, think that the preeminent racial problem in the United States is that white people are too put upon by political correctness. Conservatives are very very very concerned about this alleged problem of anti-racism run amok. And they’re very concerned about the alleged problem of reverse discrimination. But they don’t seem concerned at all about racism or discrimination and certainly not nearly as concerned as they about helping out the poor, put-upon white man.
And it’s not just a quirk of Beck’s. This attitude goes deep in the DNA of the modern conservative movement. National Review’s position on Civil Rights was that segregation was bad, but the cure of the civil rights movement was worse than the disease of white supremacy. Barry Goldwater campaigned for president on the proposition that Jim Crow might be bad, but not nearly so bad as the Civil Rights Act. As the policy status quo shifted, the precise nature of the conservative position changed with it so that now affirmative action is worse than discrimination against minorities and “political correctness” is worse than racism, but the basic spirit is the same.
162 Responses to “Conservatives Against Being Against Racism”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
May 7th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
God what an ignorant psycho this Beck character is. He makes Don King look like a statesman.
May 7th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
The modern conservative movement is built on outrage about faux-persecution of conservatives. Nixon kicked it off and it’s been chugging along ever since.
May 7th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
I’m not sure I agree with this entirely if only because, for the most part, conservatives are not arguing from a position of
but from the position that racism against minorities, in any form, simply does not exist.
The only discrimination that does exist is liberal bias against conservatives and political correctness against white males.
May 7th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Please don’t post any videos of Glen Beck.
May 7th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
I should clarify that this is not my position by any means, but it’s the conservative position.
May 7th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Slights against you always count for more that slights against others, and since for Republicans minorities are always “others,” it’s logical that they consider antiracism a bigger problem than racism. And at the end of the day they have no interest in bringing in minority voters, because what they would gain (a minority of a minority) isn’t worth the ideological dislocation of dropping the anti-antiracism plank.
May 7th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
This one where I think Matt is failing to define his point in a sufficiently crisp fashion.
Strong thesis: Conservatives are wrong because they fail to be outraged by racism.
More dubious thesis: Conservatives are wrong because they claim that reverse discrimination is empirically a bigger problem than discrimination. (This is weak because it depends on proof that they’re empirically wrong. Which Matt hasn’t provided. I’m outraged by racism, and generally by Republicans, but I don’t it’s *self-evident* any longer that there’s more racism than reverse discrimination in America.)
In any case, I think it’s a mistake to conflate the strong version of Matt’s thesis with the weak version.
May 7th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
[conservatives argue] from the position that racism against minorities, in any form, simply does not exist.
Well, to be slightly fussy about it, I think for many of them, if you twisted their arms (figuratively!), they’d concede that it exists.
The point is, though, is that even if they concede it exists, it’s a problem they don’t care about. Or at least, they never show any outward sign of caring about it so what else are we supposed to think? Particularly since they show a great many outward signs of caring greatly about supposed reverse racism?
May 7th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Stronger position: Conservatives are almost always racist and try to fan any grievance of the white poor into racial terms. The conservatives who aren’t racist NEVER complain about this.
May 7th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Well that hasn’t been my experience but perhaps I’m not using the correct enhanced interrogation techniques.
May 7th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
My question is, when are African Americans going to realize that after listening and voting for dems for 60 years, they are no better off? As a nation, we need to stop giving people handouts and start providing them an opportunity to get ahead in this world. The problem is that with over 50 years of the “Great Society” that LBJ designed, that’s all many have come to expect from the government.
May 7th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
The more I think about this, the more I think Matt’s fuzziness on this point marks the site of a failure of nerve among progressives more generally.
I see three positions:
1) Racism doesn’t exist, or isn’t a real problem — only reverse discrimination matters. Glenn Beck, etc seem to believe this.
2) Racism exists, and is a proper topic of indignation. Reverse discrimination may also exist, and when it happens, it’s an appropriate topic of indignation.
3) Reverse discrimination doesn’t exist in significant amounts — only racism is a real problem.
Matt starts out criticizing (1) as inappropriately lopsided form of moral response. But he seems to be blind to the possibility that he’s occupying an equally lopsided position, (3). I would be much more impressed by his analysis if it were clearer that he started by taking (2) as a premise.
I think we would all get further if we started by agreeing on (2) — at least in principle. Then we could argue about empirical questions — how much of a problem is reverse discrimination, really? in how many cases, etc. But we would have established the basic premise that we’re willing to take each others’ grievances seriously.
May 7th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
My question is, when are African Americans going to realize that after listening and voting for dems for 60 years, they are no better off?
Blacks aren’t better off today than they were 60 years ago? Srsly?
May 7th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
I’ll take a crack at this, even though I don’t agree with this position myself.
I think the argument would be that yes, racism does exist, but it is now confined to private actors and social conditions. The government itself no longer actively supports racism. The government does, however, actively support anti-racism, to the point where if you are accused of being a racist, you are subject to a myriad of governmental and quasi-governmental rules and penalties. To someone who believes in small government and less government influence in society, the latter would seem to be the larger problem.
I think this would be a reasonable, although incorrect, position. I doubt that most Republicans think that way. Glenn Beck represents the more common view, which is idiocy.
May 7th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
@12, No, I’m going to reject premise (2) until I have seen the effects of reverse discrimination. As far as I know, reverse discrimination is merely a boogeyman for racist white people.
May 7th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Well that hasn’t been my experience but perhaps I’m not using the correct enhanced interrogation techniques.
Forcing them to watch Ellen Degeneres usually works. They’ll say anything to make it stop.
May 7th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Quite right, Matt.
Let’s not forget the people who think that the greatest racial problem facing America is…too many black people being admitted to college.
Now, I can respect that there are principled, non-racist argument against affirmative action, but if making sure that fewer black people are admitted to college, or hired for government jobs, is the only racial justice issue you can find to become excised about, don’t lecture me about who THE REAL RACISTS are.
May 7th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Nobama, you do realize that there are more WHITE people currently on welfare than anyone else? But, always, always, always without fail you conservative types frame your debate on the social safety net as welfare=black.
May 7th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
But he seems to be blind to the possibility that he’s occupying an equally lopsided position, (3).
Your (2) is equivocation, and your (3) is not lopsided, due to the inclusion of the phrase “in significant amounts.”
But we would have established the basic premise that we’re willing to take each others’ grievances seriously.
I don’t take Glen Beck’s grievances seriously. How could I?
May 7th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
But at the same time—and this is the crucial difference between progressives and conservatives on this front—I also get indignant about actual racism.
What utter cr*p. If you were so concerned about racism, you wouldn’t have voted for a racist as vice president.
Let’s face it, conservatives are far, FAR more concerned about actual racism than liberals are. Liberals are concerned about using false accusations of racism to score political points. Period.
May 7th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Blacks aren’t better off today than they were 60 years ago? Srsly?
Chris D, the troll’s rants usually wash over me but you’re right, now that you point it out, that was an utterly hilarious claim. Thank you.
May 7th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
At one point, roughly in the late 80s, early 90s, “political correctness” as an actual problem. I did witness this problem when I was an undergrad. It was never more of a problem than genuine racism. But it was a problem. At some point, too, conservatives became worked up about political correctness, and they had a point. But very quickly political correctness (or anti-anti-racism) became merely a talking point, like so much of the conservative movement. A mere gesture, or way to raise money.
May 7th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
That’s the typical conservative response to a lot of issues, though: echo the complaint with yourself as the victim and hope nobody notices how ridiculous it is. For instance, On any sort of social justice issue, their position is invariably that conservative white guys are the ones getting the short end of the stick. Their response to environmental issues is quite similar–you know, that the EPA is a bigger threat than pollution. Or, say, the housing crisis–obviously the fault of low-income minority homeowners and a meddling liberal government rather than, you know, short-sighted financial execs who made money hand over foot the whole time.
May 7th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
I imagine that African-Americans, who probably are a bit more informed about racism in our society than Al, have had plenty of opportunity to observe the governance of the Democrats they’ve voted for by absurdly lopsided margins for four+ decades. They’re certainly in a position to judge for themselves whether the Democrats’ opposition to racism is merely rhetorical and manipulative, without being matched with a genuine opposition to racism and willingness to fight against it in meaningful ways.
And at the end of this 45-year observation period, we find that African-Americans not only remain loyal Democratic voters, but are in fact much more enthusiastic in their support for them than most other voters, with African-Americans turning out to vote at much higher rates than the general public at each level on the income scale.
Perhaps Al knows better, and African-Americans are just particularly unintelligent, or prone to manipulation, but I tend to think not.
May 7th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Perhaps Al knows better, and African-Americans are just particularly unintelligent, or prone to manipulation, but I tend to think not.
Maybe it’s just the Democrats are willing to give African-Americans lots of goodies to buy their votes.
May 7th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
As usual, every time MattY downplays issues like this I’ll provide the quote from the person who was later made chairman of the California Democratic Party:
Let’s face it: the Democratic Party would hardly exist if they couldn’t foment racial animus in one way or another.
May 7th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
I think most of this argument is very low brow.
Racism stems from prejudice. Prejudice stems from one’s own life experiences, interactions, and learnings.
I think that it is incredibly important to understand that if someone calls you ‘racist’ they are probably partially right. We all have racist inclinations because the grow from natural prejudices. Prejudices are not necessarily bad, but they sometimes manifest themselves in ugly ways. Sometimes it’s through racism.
Matt saying that if someone called him racist that he’d be “indignant” about it is actually very close to the position of a lot of conservatives. If someone calls you racist, I would hope that your first reaction is not to become Glenn Beck, but instead to be thoughtful and ask yourself if you were acting upon prejudices that you have developed.
Prejudice, and racial prejudice, is natural and understandable. But please don’t revert to stupid arguments that, “I’m not a racist so nothing i do can be racist.” Things you do can be racist, even if, in general, you do not think negatively upon another race.
May 7th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
tsk, tsk, tsk…
matt, you just don’t understand.
see, once the civil rights laws in the ’60’s were passed, all problems associated with race were solved. since that point, anyone of color who’s not been able to rise to be president of the united states or the ceo of a major corporation is just someone who has not been able to exploit the manifest advantages the laws have bestowed upon them.
the laws have been in place, they’ve often been expanded upon, what more do those ingrates want?
conservatives understand this reality and rightfully chafe when they are called racist for insisting that everyone recognize the truth.
May 7th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
BTW, did you know that Michelle Obama ranted about “Whitey” on tape?
That Barack Obama doesn’t love the white grandmother who raised him?
That he attended a church that teaches its members to hate white people?
May 7th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Augie,
I think you have to put an even finer spin on it. Conservatives do believe racism exists. The catch is that no specific thing is ever racist. If you can point to it, quote it, play a tape or clip of it, then it isn’t racist. The sole exception to this is that liberals can be racists.
May 7th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
@15: Okay. I appreciate that response because it clarifies that we really do have a disagreement in principle.
To put my cards on the table: I’m a 40-yr old white guy, Obama supporter, lifelong Democrat. I’m not opposed to affirmative action — at least, I don’t think it’s unconstitutional. But I do think there are cases where affirmative action slides into reverse discrimination; in fact, I think it happens a lot, and is in practice very hard to prevent.
E.g., my brothers grew up in a majority-black neighborhood, and had a lot of the same social disadvantages as their high school friends, who were black. But when they went to college, they didn’t have access to the same kind of programs to ease the transition, to keep them in school, etc. And in practice, they didn’t do a great job of staying in college.
I think we on the left have sold ourselves a bill of goods on this topic; we’ve taught ourselves to look the other way. That’s working okay for us right now — because America is getting over its backlash against the 60s. But in the long run, affirmative action could still be an issue that trips us up, if we persist in ignoring the whole possibility of reverse discrimination.
May 7th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Yeah, like the right to vote.
May 7th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Since we all know that black people have everything given to them, this must be it. In actuality, they don’t actually oppose racism and identify with politicians who fight it; rather, they just want to get some goodies given to them.
May 7th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
They have to keep everyone on the back foot by blustering about alleged anti-racism overreach. The Republican record on race since the mid-60s has been dismal, so they bluster against those who seek to hold them accountable.
As for MattY’s observation that R’s/conservatives are not concerned about discrimination, au contratire – the are fomenting it by the bucketful when it comes to gays and lesbians.
With that as a hallmark, whats a bit (or bunch) of racism to boot?
May 7th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
The Wacko doth protest too much.
May 7th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
“But at the same time—and this is the crucial difference between progressives and conservatives on this front—I also get indignant about actual racism.”
Hey Matt, can you or any “progressives” out there, help this colorblind conservative out by providing a single example of “actual racism” that taken place recently?
May 7th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
This post does not really address whether there was a specific reason for Beck to be called racist (this computer has no sound and I really do not feel like going through Glenn Beck transcripts), but that’s not really important. The main issue (which isn’t really demonstrated by the post either, which is fine) is the the right having a certain view of race in America.
May 7th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
And let’s face it: Lonewacko would have to find something else to do with his time if he couldn’t foment racial animus in one way or another.
May 7th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
interesting post. I agree with, well not many people here…
http://politicsdecoded.com/2009/05/08/swineflu/
May 7th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
E.g., my brothers grew up in a majority-black neighborhood, and had a lot of the same social disadvantages as their high school friends, who were black.
You honestly think that growing up in the same neighborhood as black people exposed your white brothers to anywhere near the same sort of discrimination that black people face?
May 7th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
No, but seriously, remember all the outrage from Glenn Beck when the McCain supporter invented a hoax about a scary black man carving a B on her face two days before the election?
Republicans HATE false accusations of racism. HATE them. It goes against everything they stand for, and that’s why Republicans were so diligent about calling out their own for leveling such charges against Obama, and against his black supporters.
May 7th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
I’ve also seen plenty of cases where unqualified candidates were hired or promoted for racial reasons.
I don’t mean equally-qualified candidates. I mean unqualified candidates.
Again, I’m not blind to the legacy of slavery — I’m not blind to persistent racial inequality. I would admit that those are *bigger* problems than reverse discrimination.
But it won’t help us, on the left, if we keep talking as if reverse discrimination doesn’t or can’t exist. We need to be candid. Yglesias is generally a candid observer, but I’m disappointed in this post.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
You honestly think that growing up in the same neighborhood as black people exposed your white brothers to anywhere near the same sort of discrimination that black people face?
No. But I said “social disadvantages.” That includes, but is not limited to, discrimination. Beyond that, I’m not going; I don’t want to get deeply biographical. In any case see my more recent post for a better example of reverse discrimination.
And what I’m looking for is not the idea that white grievances = black grievances in quantity or gravity. They don’t. I’m looking for an admission that there might, just possibly, be such a thing as reverse discrimination.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Hey Chico how about this from last year:
McCain supporter invented a hoax about a scary black man carving a B on her face two days before the election?
Or perhaps you think the fact that the lie included a black man because, you know, that’s who would have done it?
May 7th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
They are not racists, they are anti-anti-racists. Big difference!?
May 7th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
I don’t believe you, Ted. I think you may have seen people that YOU didn’t think were qualified, or as qualified. If you have a link to some specific cases, I will be interested to read them. To me, it is nothing but perception that people want to feel aggrieved.
Your brothers were not victims of reverse discrimination. They were unable to get the benefit of certain special programs. That is not discrimination. If a woman get a scholarship for women, it isn’t discrimination against men that men didn’t get it.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
@46. Okay, that’s fine — I accept that we differ. I’m not going to link to cases, for obvious reasons: I’m talking about people I know!
In any case, I don’t expect to convince you. I’m just testifying to my experience.
For what it’s worth, I would add that Obama, in my opinion, “gets it.” His big speech last spring led me to believe that he understands that there are valid grievances on both sides. I don’t expect him to end affirmative action. I’m not sure I want him to. But I think he does understand how the national conversation on this topic has to evolve: it has to start from the premise that racism and reverse discrimination are — maybe not equivalent in gravity — but both real, and both regrettable.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
To Al, Stewie, and the trolls:
Do you think political correctness is a bigger problem than racism?
May 7th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Of course reverse discrimination can exist, if by “reverse discrimination” you mean that a black person can possibly get a job that he wouldn’t have gotten were he white.
But the real question is whether “reverse discrimination” is a real social problem, or if the real social problem is that affirmative action is being used as a scapegoat for an increasing lack of opportunity for everyone. I vote for the latter–you didn’t lose out on that job because of the unqualified black guy; you lost out on the job because conservative economic policies have run this country into the ground and its Republican proponents want you to “look over there.”
May 7th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
I’d like to know what specific cases are we talking about here in terms of reverse discrimination? If there is reverse discrimination, it’s a perfectly legitimate proposition that a university (or any other inisitutions)make policy change swith better oversight, and other controls implimented to mitigate cases of this happening, and to prevent them all together. There seems to be a lot of emotion and myths surrounding how many people actually qualify for traditional affirmative action programs in the first place. For example, the Hispanic rates of getting into college are miniscule, compared to that of White americans, and yet, I’ve heard white friends of mine (in an overwhelming Latino city) complainin that if “only” they were a minority or “mexican” they could qualify for some of those “incredible” educational opportunities. Please, the competition ain’t that great. It remeinds me a little bit of that Chris Rock joke: “white man, you gonna be all right!” It’s interesting how people sometimes want to get rid of affirmative action all together, no matter how much it has benefited eithers, because in one case or two, it was badly implimented or poorly crafted. Why not change affirmative action to something more palatable for everyone? Why not tweak it? I’ve read ideas for years that suggest crafting affirmative action policies to be based on economic disadvantage instead.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
I think everyone has grievances as well. I just don’t think reverse discrimination is one of them. It’s true that white people growing up in poor neighborhoods should be getting better opportunities. However, framing that in terms of reverse discrimination means that all the poor white, blacks, latinos are all fighting for the tiny share of the pie that poor people are allowed. It’s the wrong battle to fight, which is why I refuse to buy into this reverse discrimination nonsense. If someone black gets a job, it isn’t taking a job away from someone white. Everyone should be able to get a good job.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Augie, looks like Chicounsel is out to prove you right after all.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Lonewacko never links to the actual statement about Proposition 187, because it completely refutes his claim that it was racist. Instead, he closely crops a few words to make the anti-racist statement seem like an attack on white people.
In point of fact, the actual statement was that Proposition 187 was an effort to maintain a vision of America as being a white nation, against the tide of history that has been turning it into a multicultural nation where all races are equal. “the last gasp of white America” meant exactly that – the last gasp of the white supremacist vision of America as a nation of white people, for white people.
That’s what really bothers Wackjob about that statement – not that the speaker was supporting racism, but that he was denouncing it, because Lonewacko himself strongly believes in a white America.
Sorry, buddy. All gone. Hope you like Kenyans.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
joe from Lowell – a blow-in from Reason Magazine – seems to have a memory problem. Drudge started throwing cold water on the “B” story almost from the start, as did Malkin and others soon realized what was going on.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Matt, you are being fundamentally unserious, because every time you liken the governor of South Carolina to a “racist” because he opposes increased federal spending that he perceives will bloat his state budget, anyone who’s not biased can understand that the term “racist” has essentially become meaningless.
Here are things that I have said are routinely denounced as racist by liberals:
1. Noting that minorities often have lower objective academic credentials when appointed to political positions
2. Noting that the Federal imprisonment data supports of the notion of a fair policing and judicial system, even though blacks disproportionately outnumber whites within its ranks
3. Arguing for the principle of Federalism to be once again affirmed by constitutional Amendment
and of course lots of other innocuous ideas.
Now I won’t pretend some conservatives don’t “dog whistle”; for example, I read some pretty right-wing blogs and some of them have, IMO, an unhealthy obsession with black on white rape statistics. But since most of the time, there’s nothing factually incorrect about their statements, per my definition, they are not racist. When they do cross the line or opine too simplistically, I generally try to voice my displeasure, within reason.
But mostly conservatives are simply tired of being constantly slandered whenever they support policy that may create an incidental disparate impact. Many leftists love to crow about all sorts of fake incidents of racism where a reasonable person wouldn’t be able to divine it. You people have cheapened the opprobrium of the word, which is why in private company, most people don’t care about the accusation. I don’t self-flagellate and say penance because MY thinks I’m a bigot – he thinks anyone who doesn’t see the world his way is a bigot.
Meanwhile, leftists continue to pen sophistries on ideas like affirmative action, arguing that it is not racist behavior when it most certainly is. Here’s the hypocrisy – if conservative policies are racist by their impact and not their intention, how can we not conclude the same thing using the same reasoning when we see that liberals are willing to justify the rampant discrimination against Asians in the college admission system?
Moreover, I tend to see less of a slippery slope in conservative racism. A conservative judge is likely to favor a “bright-line test” in discriminating between racism and legal “consideration” or “empathy”. The leftist always loves to defer to “nuanced” arguments that will never fully come out and distinguish the kind of ugly affirmative action that’s continuing in South Africa from the somewhat legalistic “consideration” Kennedy ruled in favor of in Grutter.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Maybe it’s just the Democrats are willing to give African-Americans lots of goodies to buy their votes.
Yeah, like the right to vote.
Which party’s Members of Congress voted for the Voting Rights Act at a higher rate?
By party
The original House version:[9]
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:[9]
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)
Which party’s senior Senator single-handedly filibustered the Voting Rights Act for 14 hours and 13 minutes? The Democrats.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Lord knows, challenges to black people’s right to vote ended in 1964.
You got an ID, boy?
May 7th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Since we all know that black people have everything given to them, this must be it. In actuality, they don’t actually oppose racism and identify with politicians who fight it; rather, they just want to get some goodies given to them.
You say that “black people have everything given to them”.
That sounds mighty racist to me. You must be a typical Democrats.
In my opinion, everybody likes to have goodies given to them. That’s why politicians love pork-barrel spending – they are able to give out goodies to get people to vote for them. And it works.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Whereever there’s a non-racist racist, there’s a “liberal” to explain. And, so it is with “joe From Lowell”, pride of Reason Magazine.
He’s right about one thing: the “last gasp” part of the statement from the chairman of the California Democratic Party doesn’t do it justice. The quote is even worse in context.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Republicans love to draw pictures from the distant past to try to cover up their failures in the present.
Unfortunately, those pictures are all in black-and-white, and that fact sticks out like a sore thumb.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Look, Republicans used to be against racism!
Therefore, I’m not racist just because I think Obama’s an uppity negro who should be lynched!
May 7th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Lord knows, challenges to black people’s right to vote ended in 1964.
Thanks to Republicans, the largest portion of the challenges to black people’s right to vote ended in 1964.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
No, dipshit, YOU say that – you present it as the primary motivating factor for their actions.
I’m just mocking you for it.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
However, framing that in terms of reverse discrimination means that all the poor white, blacks, latinos are all fighting for the tiny share of the pie that poor people are allowed. It’s the wrong battle to fight, which is why I refuse to buy into this reverse discrimination nonsense. If someone black gets a job, it isn’t taking a job away from someone white. Everyone should be able to get a good job.
Well, I agree that it’s the wrong battle to fight. Which is why I’m a Democrat. But I also think it’s a mistake — politically — for us to ignore the resentments simmering in the white working class. It allows the right to divide the working-class vote.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Republicans love to draw pictures from the distant past to try to cover up their failures in the present.
Republicans do that? Really? Gee, I am reading this post, and it is discussing Barry Goldwater. I just read Matthew’s post about Jefferson freaking Davis, fercrissakes.
If any group loves to bring up the distant past, it is Democrats.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
If Republicans want Democrats to concede that they haven’t always been a party of racists, then I am more willing to concede that. That just makes it all the more sad about what has happened to it.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Wow. Just wow.
Read the quote; it’s about voting and electoral power. Lonewacko thinks that reading that quote makes it scary.
Lonewacko thinks that white people not having enough votes to dominate Latinos is something scary enough that linking to someone applauding that fact is, all by itself, a damning argument.
You’re a loony, Lonewacko.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
No, dipshit, YOU say that
I didn’t write that. You did.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Al,
What year is it?
May 7th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
And while we are discussing the not-distant-past, let’s remember that Democrats voted for an out-and-out racist for vice president in 2008.
It seems to me that current Democrats are the party that mostly condones racism.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Republicans like the Kennedys and LBJ, I guess. Why are we talking about something that happened 40 years ago, again?
Oh, right; because on the question of all things racial, you desperately want to change the subject from today’s Republican Party.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
What year is it?
The year after Democrats voted for a racist for vice president?
May 7th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Why are we talking about something that happened 40 years ago, again?
Matthew felt like posting about Barry Goldwater?
May 7th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
No, Einstein, it’s discussing Glenn Beck, a prominent Republican who has a show on a Republican network RIGHT NOW. Pointing out that his issue has a long history in his party isn’t bringing up the distant past; it’s discussing something that is both ongoing and longstanding – precisely the opposite of your posturing over the Civil Rights Act.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
in practice they didn’t do a great job of staying in college.
Quick question– on average, do you think your brothers were more or less successful at staying in college than your African American peers you went to high school with?
May 7th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Black people use disproportionately more welfare than other ethnic groups.
Is this factual statement also a racist one? The leftist argues that it is, because it is obviously asked to conjure up questions of fairness, which for ideological reasons he does not want invoked for this particular situation.
On the other hand, this factual statement -
Black people are disproportionately underrepresented in the CEO positions of the top Fortune 500 companies.
is just fine and dandy to the leftist, because there the instinctive conjuration of “fairness” would further his political goals. Indeed, there’s nothing “anti-racist” or “anti-White” about that statement; no conservative would dare argue that. All that could be said is that it is misleading argument designed to appeal to blah, and one would go on to explain from there.
This is a chief hypocrisy of the liberal “anti-racist”, easily generalizable to other politicial questions.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Pointing out that his issue has a long history in his party isn’t bringing up the distant past
Great. Then pointing out that this issue has a long history in the Democratic Party isn’t “bringing up the distant past” either.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
I also think it’s a mistake — politically — for us to ignore the resentments simmering in the white working class. It allows the right to divide the working-class vote.
Very true. Which is why universal health care would be the smartest thing Democrats could possibly do at this point.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Oh really? Let’s go to the tape:
Your comment, Al. African-Americans sell their votes for goodies.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
I don’t want to ignore it. I am just not going to buy into the blame it on the black person meme. If that’s what is takes to get a higher chunk of white working class vote, then it is too steep of a price to pay. If white working class voters are not persuaded by a platform that shows a commitment to education, health care, the environment, goods jobs, then there is not much else we could (or better yet, should) do. The Dems have been winning without winning the white vote for a long time, and I expect the winning will only get easier as the country gets more diverse.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
In the previous post, I meant to write “anti-anti-racist”.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Why can’t Republicans keep a thought straight in their head for 24 consecutive hours?
Al. Buddy. You’ve been spending a weak moaning and wailing about liberals allegedly making unfair accusations of racism to score political points. Hell, you did so right on this very thread:
And now you’re going to come up with this weak shit – that Joe Biden is a racist?
There really is no intellectual ballast behind what Republicans say these days except a desire to make themselves feel better by pissing off liberals. Even this fierce opposition to “political correctness” and denunciation of racism is real.
What a vapid hypocrite.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
If white working class voters are not persuaded by a platform that shows a commitment to education, health care, the environment, goods jobs, then there is not much else we could (or better yet, should) do.
They are not persuaded by the platform, no. They are persuaded by actual policy that provides education and health care and good jobs. It’s not good enough to talk about it. You have to provide it. Like Social Security and Medicare and WPA jobs. Like that.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Matthew didn’t post about Barry Goldwater; he posted about Glenn Beck. You want to talk about Barry Goldwater and the Civil Rights Act.
Why are you so afraid to discuss the post, Al? Oh, right – because Matt has you dead to rights.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
What issue? You just raised the Civil Rights Act out of nowhere, to say something mean of Democrats, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the post.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Arguing about racism in 2009 misses the point. There are still out-and-out racists out there, but they are few in number and have essentially no power.
The problem is discriminatory outcomes, not racism, per se. If a policy results in a higher percentage of blacks going to prison for longer (for example, laws that increase sentences for selling drugs within X yards of a school, when in urban areas, it is far more likely that someone’s home will be close to a school than in a suburban area) whether the intent of the law was racist or not is irrelevant.
When the State of Florida, under Governor Jeb Bush, systematically sought to remove as many blacks from the voter roles as possible, it does not matter that their intent was not racists. I’m perfectly willing to believe that Republicans want to prevent blacks from voting not simply because they hate blacks, but because blacks vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. But the outcome of such actions (voter ID laws, preventing ex-cons from voting, making voter registration onerous) falls disproportionately on blacks. Democrats see this as a problem. Republicans see this as a positive result, again, not because they hate blacks, but because blacks vote Democratic.
Accusing people of racism is counter productive. Its nothing more than finger pointing and name calling, and those accused can always just essentially call “I’m rubber, you’re glue.” Focusing on discrimnatory results and not ascribing motives to people is a better approach.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
“joe from Lowell” used to be somewhat sane, but at some point he went round the bend. Here’s the full quote:
To a certain extent, I don’t mind “liberals” trying to explain that away since it will hurt them among more people than it will help them. And, the subtext of that quote is deeply woven into the fabric of the Dem Party; without an Other to demonize they wouldn’t have much of a platform.
See – and listen to – that quote and others here.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Joe from Lowell,
I bare my chest and say, Republicans were racists in the past, and their history has often been an ignoble one. There, I said it. I’m not a political operative, so it was something cheap for me to say, but does that satisfy you?
Of course not. You wouldn’t dare to deal with the chastened Republic Party’s arguments as they are argued today. You wouldn’t dare to refrain from profanity and ad hominem, and legitimately engage and address the points I have made. You prefer to dwell in the cloak of your perceived triumphs in the ’60s, forever living in a past where the Great Society still was a novel idea instead of a recognized dismal failure. Well, denizen of the reality-based community, we live in a different time that asks different questions and requires different solutions. Please, I beg of you, inform me on how, say, the conservative who comes to the conclusion that illegal immigration threatens our country’s future prosperity, automatically becomes a racist for holding that opinion.
I give you penance. Can you give me wisdom?
May 7th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
The year after Democrats voted for a racist for vice president?
Yes, he’s so racist he put himself as the secondary member on a ticket with a…black…man…
Wait what?
May 7th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
LOL, Al is such an embarrassing hack that he owned himself with his own link. The Wikipedia page he linked to has the votes for the Civil Rights Act broken down by party and region. Scoreboard:
House
Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
Senate
Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%)
Puts things in a whole new light, doesn’t it?
May 7th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Focusing on discrimnatory results and not ascribing motives to people is a better approach.
That is what a lot of policymakers have focused on. But focusing solely on discriminatory results given Republicans an “out” — they love claiming that the fact that such things “apply to everyone equally” proves it’s not discriminatory, and those darn libruls are just demanding “equality of outcomes.”
When you point out that the rules should be changed because they have bad effects, Republicans will claim that the rules are fair, and they just penalize the bad, who get what they deserve. Changing the rules relies on pointing out that the “rules” are made to ensure that one side “wins.” But the problem is that claiming that “Republicans are designing the rules to ensure that blacks ‘lose’” is to claim that the creators of the rules are being racist, which is, itself, supposed to be beyond the pale.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Al, sometimes you forget that you are only tolerated here as a court jester to provide us with the talking-points-of-the-day. Often, lately, you appear to be belaboring under the delusion that any of your talking points are to be taken seriously.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Tyro,
Shouldn’t there be a burden of proof to infer that kind of malice?
May 7th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
I feel no need to spin this quote. I’ll let is stand without commentary, except to say that THIS is what Lonewacko thinks you need to be terrified of.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Puts things in a whole new light, doesn’t it?
No.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Matthew didn’t post about Barry Goldwater
You should reread the post. Barry Goldwater is discussed right there in the final paragraph.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Al, sometimes you forget that you are only tolerated here as a court jester to provide us with the talking-points-of-the-day. Often, lately, you appear to be belaboring under the delusion that any of your talking points are to be taken seriously.</i
My talking points should be taken as seriously now as they ever were.
May 7th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Actually, strange person I’ve never spoken to before, I don’t really give a crap.
Chasened? They just elevated Jeff Sessions – a man who was denied a federal judgeship because of his racist comments just a few years ago, who has never expressed the slightest regret for any of them – to be their ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee?
Chastened? Chastened my ass.
When I see progress in the Republicans – for example, George Bush’s disavowal of the Southern Strategy – I recognize it, but when I see backsliding and denial, I’m going to call them out.
May 7th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Just to add when a liberal/lefty type calls someone or something racist/racism in my experience, and in the experience of most people, actual racists or racism is actually present somewhat less than 1% of the time. This is whay that outside a few credulous college freshman, the last time an accusation of racism actually led to critical introspection was sometime in the 1970’s.
The other 99+% of the time, in the course of an arguement, the word racist/racism comes out when a lefty/liberal type has lost an arguement with a conservative type. I haven’t watched the clip but I bet that what happened. I don’t know the extent of this ‘problem’ with the extent of other problems, but one might think that non-lefties might take ‘racist/racism’ more seriously if 99+% of the time one hears either word, it means ‘lefty has lost an arguement’, or that ‘lefty guy doesn’t like righty guy but can’t say he just hates him so he has to make something up’. I think that would be a good thing.
May 7th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
And now you’re going to come up with this weak shit – that Joe Biden is a racist?
Sure. “You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent.” Clearly worse than Jeff Sessions joke about marijuana.
Look, the Democratic Party has always condoned racism – they did back in 1964, and they do now. That’s because the majority of Democrats themselves condone racism – as demonstrated by their votes for a racist, Joe Biden, as vice president.
May 7th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
The epithet “Lonewacko” isn’t the appropriate ad hominem, Joe from Lowell, because that quote also terrifies me. It suggests a deepening ethnocentrism and demonstrates the lack of assimilation of our Mexican minorities. Once the crown jewel of the American territory, California – or it at least its political system – has firmly gone to hell.
Perhaps “wingnuts”, “Rethuglicans”, or “hegemonic power-brokers of the majority culture” would better suffice?
May 7th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Shouldn’t there be a burden of proof to infer that kind of malice?
At best, I can regard it as a lack of empathy– for these Republican legislators, it’s not their people or anyone they identify with who are bearing the brunt of the harm, so they fact that they may be disproportionately hurt doesn’t concern them. And the fact that their voters provide them with electoral rewards for pushing these policies reinforces them.
I suppose one could call it a result of being callous rather than a result of malice, but the act of not being personally outraged by unfair effects of laws simply because they fall upon a group you don’t identify with because of the color of their skin is, well, kind of racist. Though I suppose we could recast it in different terms as simply a lack of empathy on the part of conservatives.
May 7th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Actually, that’s the third paragraph. Your English teacher would explain to you that this indicates that Barry Goldwater is not actually the subject of the post, but rather, a detail used, among other details, to demonstrate what the post is about.
Which, once again, is the matter of conservatives treating opposition to racism as a bigger problem than racism. I repeat this point by way of calling attention to the fact that you won’t discuss this topic, and are devoting yourself to changing the subject.
May 7th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
The epithet “Lonewacko” isn’t the appropriate ad hominem
“24AheadDotCom” used to call himself the “LoneWacko” and hosted the “LoneWackoBlog.” Eventually he decided this made him look bad, and everyone started to ignore him, so he changed names. We like to remind him that we still remember what a loon he’s always been.
May 7th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Lonewacko used to be somewhat s–
Actually, no. He never was. He’s just a dead-ender, pining for the days of EthnicPower in California.
May 7th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Which party’s Members of Congress voted for the Voting Rights Act at a higher rate?
Al’s so dumb he thinks these numbers help his case, rather than highlighting its absurdity.
Bringing up 1964 in this regard is like pointing to 1908 to claim that the Cubs are the more successful of the two Chicago baseball franchises.
Yes, back then, the Democratic Party had lots of racists in it and the Republican Party relatively few. That’s how things used to be in this country. But the Democratic leadership pushed civil rights legislation through anyway.
That’s why (a) the party got credit from black voters for being on their side, and that’s why (b) starting in the mid-60s, those racist Southern Democrats started joining the Republican Party, a process which reinforced (a) and continues to do so to this day.
It’s not rocket science.
May 7th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Don’t worry; they are! You are being taken exactly as seriously as you always are, if that makes you feel any better.
Who, exactly, does Al think is going to believe this?
The answer is, Nobody. The purpose of Republican political expression these days, as I wrote before, is to make themselves feel better about themselves. The purpose of expressing ideas isn’t to convince, or even to make a plausible argument that one believes in; it’s merely supposed to feel good when you say it – and the only way they know to feel good right now is to say things that are supposed to piss off Democrats.
It’s kind of sad, but more than that, it’s really, really funny.
May 7th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
What you miss about Goldwater was this: he was firmly libertarian at the time (not really conservative), and was pretty much opposed to any federal intervention – whatever the intention of said intervention was.
You can call that naive, but I don’t think racist is the right way to describe it. Likewise, many (certainly not all) conservatives opposed race based govt programs on principle, not on racist grounds. You can disagree with that, but I don’t think racism is a fair charge.
Heck, you can call affirmative action programs effectively racist if we want to assume motives based on the program: it’s easy enough to call affirmative action bigotry based on a “of course they can’t make it on their own” attitude – sort of a liberal version of the “white man’s burden”. Do most progressives think that? I don’t think so, but I do think they would be highly offended to have their motives called into question on those grounds.
What conservatives and libertarians dislike is being called racists simply because we have a disagreement on proper approaches to solving the problem.
May 7th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
No.
Of course, you provide no rationale for this answer. Which is no surprise, since you have no interest in discussing the issues in good faith. But you can’t dispute the facts. Barry Goldwater, the godfather of modern conservatism, voted against the CRA. As did every single Southern Republican.
Look, the Democratic Party has always condoned racism – they did back in 1964, and they do now. That’s because the majority of Democrats themselves condone racism – as demonstrated by their votes for a racist, Joe Biden, as vice president.
62% of Asian-Americans voted for Obama/Biden. They must all be trapped on the liberal plantation.
May 7th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Billare,
You’re a little confused; “Lonewacko” is the 24Ahead guy’s self-made nickname. He used to post as “Lonewacko,” although he hates to be reminded of it.
I believe you!
I’m sorry you feel that way.
May 7th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Sure. “You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent.” Clearly worse than Jeff Sessions’ joke about his affection for a terrorist organization that is responsible for killing thousands of Americans.
Fixed yer post.
May 7th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
You can call that naive, but I don’t think racist is the right way to describe it.
James, I appreciate the sentiment, I really do. But such sentiments are wankery. Plenty of advocates for the Confederacy explained that things were getting better for slaves over time, and under the current structure, things would improve, and maybe some changes should have been made that weren’t made, like allowing slaves to go to school, and that, on principle, things like federal intervention and property rights were wrong.
I’m not saying “principles are stupid,” but people will willingly blind themselves to racism or other things on the basis of “principle,” and genuine racists will hide behind principle to excuse the situation. Either way, it’s to mask genuine evil or it’s an attempt to wash one’s hands to claim no responsibility for evil or even to claim the high ground against those opposed to evil.
So screw Barry Goldwater. He knew what he was doing, and looking at the states he won in 1964, the voters knew what he stood for, too.
It’s not that liberals think conservatives and libertarians are racist because they have a disagreement on approaches to solving the problem. It’s that conservatives and libertarians don’t believe there’s a problem.
May 7th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
James Robertson,
Nobody accused Barry Goldwater of racism, in the post or in these comments. That’s not the charge.
Rather, he is charged with having screwed up priorities. The quote: Barry Goldwater campaigned for president on the proposition that Jim Crow might be bad, but not nearly so bad as the Civil Rights Act.
I know Barry Goldwater wasn’t a racist. Governor Goldwater desegregated public employment in Arizona. That’s not our beef.
Rather, our beef is that Barry Goldwater considered the problem of segregation in the South – a problem most of us would agree was pretty damn important – to be less important that whether restaurant owners had to serve black people just like everybody else, or whether state legislatures would have the freedom to pass and enforce racist laws. This demonstrates a profound failure to appreciate the extent of the suffering Jim Crow produced.
May 7th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
That’s right James, you guys oppose spending money on anythign that doesn’t involve the mass slaughter of foreigners. How’s that going? How many Iraqis will die today because you simply can’t get enough of blood?
May 7th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Joe from Lowell, I don’t think you get Jim Crow. Jim Crow did not “allow” a racist restaurant owner to segregate his restaurant by making it black or white only or have two different sections, it required him to do so, whether he wanted to or not. In “Plessey v Ferguson”, Plessey was the manager for a railroad who was suing Ferguson, who was the attorney general for the state of Louisiana, because Louisiana made a law requiring railroad cars be segregated and the railroad didn’t want to.
What Goldwater disliked the most about the Civil Rights Act was that instead of just disallowing segregation, i.e. laws that required businesses to segregate, it put in a regime that told the restaurant owner that now he had to integrate, rather than do as he damn well pleased, it was his restaurant after all. Maybe this is still not good enough for you, but that’s what his beef was.
May 7th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
115. I think you’re missing the point here. Simply declaring state-required segregation/Jim Crow illegal is pointless unless you put into place rules to make sure that de facto discrimmination doesn’t take its place in the guise of “the business owner should as he pleases”.
May 7th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
bperk (#15) @12, No, I’m going to reject premise (2) until I have seen the effects of reverse discrimination. As far as I know, reverse discrimination is merely a boogeyman for racist white people.
How about the Ricci v Stefano case, where test results that were to be used for promotions were essentially thrown out because blacks were not able to score as high as whites?
bperk (#46) Your brothers were not victims of reverse discrimination. They were unable to get the benefit of certain special programs. That is not discrimination. If a woman get a scholarship for women, it isn’t discrimination against men that men didn’t get it.
You do know what the word “discrimination” means, don’t you? Hell yes that is discrimination. The question is whether or not it is justifiable discrimination.
The problem is discriminatory outcomes, not racism, per se. If a policy results in a higher percentage of blacks going to prison for longer (for example, laws that increase sentences for selling drugs within X yards of a school, when in urban areas, it is far more likely that someone’s home will be close to a school than in a suburban area) whether the intent of the law was racist or not is irrelevant.
Of course, in terms of outcomes, one also has to ask whether in some cases the “discriminatory outcomes” are due to black predilections rather than a discriminatory system. Some of the reasons why policies have a disparate impact is because blacks themselves have a higher incidence of certain anti-social behaviors (they commit murder at a much higher rate than whites, for example).
Nobama, you do realize that there are more WHITE people currently on welfare than anyone else? But, always, always, always without fail you conservative types frame your debate on the social safety net as welfare=black.
Yes, but there are six times as many whites as blacks in the U.S. Something would be severely wrong if there were not more whites on welfare.
May 7th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
117. But at the end of the day, there are more whites than blacks on welfare in this country, yet when’s the last time you heard any conservative point that out during one of their tired black=welfare rants.
May 7th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Matt dismissing “reverse discrimination” while not once mentioning Rici v. Stefano seems to me to be a tad disingenuous.
May 7th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
115. I think you’re missing the point here. Simply declaring state-required segregation/Jim Crow illegal is pointless unless you put into place rules to make sure that de facto discrimmination doesn’t take its place in the guise of “the business owner should as he pleases”.
So allowing those who wish to serve black people to do so is pointless unless those who do not wish to do so are forced to do so? Anything not prohibited is mandatory?
I guess that you would also argue that legalizing abortion is pointless unless abortion is made mandatory?
There are two ways to frame the issue here: freedom of association and non-discrimination. Both Jim Crow and the Civil Rights Act violate freedom of association. If you don’t cae about freedom of association, then I guess you don’t care because you see the issue as “does the government mandate or prohibit discrimination?” with no third option being meaningful (because the government not issuing an edict is unimaginble).
May 7th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
119. It’s kind of stupid to comment about a case that hasn’t been decided yet as an authoritative example of “reverse discrimmination”.
Hey, while we’re talking about the “best man for the job” metric, riddle me this. In Division I football, out of 119 programs, less than 3% of those teams are coached by African-Americans. How do you explain that hiring rate?
May 7th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
I’d appreciate it if you posted some examples of Glenn Beck being a racist because personally, if I was accused of being a racist on TV, I’d kick that person off my show too.
May 7th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
119. It’s kind of stupid to comment about a case that hasn’t been decided yet as an authoritative example of “reverse discrimmination”.
It is more stupid to dismiss “reverse discrimination” while not mentioning a current case on that very subject that is currently before the Supreme Court. Whatever you think of the merits of the case, not to even discuss it shows that Matt has no interest in honest analysis of reverse discrimination and simply dismisses it as a problem because it would be inconvenient for his worldview.
Moreover, the events that brought the case forward was clearly reverse discrimination, with whites being told that their test scores would be discounted because so many of the high-scoring firemen were white. Instead, people were given interim positions in a way that made sure that a desired racial balance was kept irrespective of test scores.
That is discrimination against the white firemen, as the only reason why they were not promoted was because of their race (if the test scores had been spread between the races in a politically correct way, the promotions would almost certainly have happened). The only thing that the court case will decide is whether or not such discrimination is legal.
Hey, while we’re talking about the “best man for the job” metric, riddle me this. In Division I football, out of 119 programs, less than 3% of those teams are coached by African-Americans. How do you explain that hiring rate?
Perhaps, Pete, on average whatever qualities that make for a good football coach are qualities that are disproportionately found in non-African-Americans? Just because African-Americans have, on average, a greater proprensity to be great football players does not mean that they have the qualities to make a good coach.
Or maybe they do have these qualities and some people are somehow preventing qualified black coaches from being hired. Not knowing a lot about football, I can’t really come to a conclusion one way or another.
May 7th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
I’d appreciate it if you posted some examples of Glenn Beck being a racist because personally, if I was accused of being a racist on TV, I’d kick that person off my show too.
You’re kidding, right?
Or maybe they do have these qualities and some people are somehow preventing qualified black coaches from being hired.
Say it with me now: institutionalized racism. There, doesn’t that feel better?
Man, these posts over the last few days are really bringing the racists out of the woodwork….to argue that racism isn’t a big problem in America because black people are just dumb.
May 7th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Perhaps, Pete, on average whatever qualities that make for a good football coach are qualities that are disproportionately found in non-African-Americans? Just because African-Americans have, on average, a greater proprensity to be great football players does not mean that they have the qualities to make a good coach.
Or maybe they do have these qualities and some people are somehow preventing qualified black coaches from being hired. Not knowing a lot about football, I can’t really come to a conclusion one way or another.
In all seriousness—do you live in America? Why would that be your first assumption??
May 7th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
There was a study a few years ago at a job fair in New York. The sent in a number of white, Hispanic and African American men with the same resume, with some variations on criminal history (felony conviction or clean record). The result, white felons were twice as successful as African Americans without records. Even when they had job offers, minority candidates were also given lower jobs than the white applicants with identical resumes (i.e bus boy vs. waiter). But hey racism doesn’t exist.
May 7th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
j mct,
I see no reason for you to assume that I’m unfamiliar with the history of Jim Crow, or the implications of the Civil Rights Act.
I really don’t need you to explain what Barry Goldwater’s objection was, since I explained it right here:
There’s no misunderstanding here. I know perfectly well what Goldwater’s complaint was, and so does Matt. He disliked segregation, but he disliked the horrible intrusion of requiring businessowners not to discriminate much more. This is rather enormous moral blind spot, a giant hole in the center of his claim to stand for human freedom.
May 7th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
You mean the case where neither black nor white firefighters were treated any differently?
Gee, I can’t imagine why.
May 7th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
The ACORN conspiracy to subvert American democracy is my favorite conspiracy of the teabaggers, even more so than the elite conspiracy to foist a global reserve currency upon unsuspecting Americans.
May 7th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Glaivester, mourning the persecution of racists operators of places of public accommodation under the Civil Rights Act, writes:
I guess the idea of balancing competing rights is too difficult for Glaivestor to contemplate, but that task makes up a rather significant part of law and government. In this case, the “third option” was to limit the government’s prohibition on discrimination to places of public accommodation – places that are open to the public for service, such as restaurants and motels – with private places, like homes and private clubs, exempted.
But that’s not good enough. To an anti-anti-racist like Glaivestor, the requirement to counteract discrimination – and not discrimination in theory, but the actual, existing system of segregation in the South – can justify absolutely zero infringement on the rights of such a business owner.
Interestingly, while he judges undoing the entrenched social-legal-cultural-economic-political system of Jim Crow segregation to be not worth any infringement on the rights of a racist to discriminate, he insists that this not be read as Matt reads it – as a statement that concern A (white people are being picked on by anti-racists) is more important than concern B (racism itself).
Well, I’m sorry, but it is; what you just wrote is a statement of priorities, and you made it perfectly clear where yours lie. While the quest for racial justice cannot infringe on the rights of people to discriminate, the right of people to discriminate is allowed to infringe to a huge degree on the quest for racial justice.
May 7th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
May 7th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Mr. Obama, when awarded by the Ntl. Black Journalists Assoc., kept out the “white media” from the award ceremony? WHOTF is racist? Let a white man do something like that, a Pres. no doubt, and all hellwouldabrokeloose.
P.S. The REPUBLICAN party, you know, the party of Lincoln, FREED THE SLAVES. WHITE PEOPLE DIED for the freedom of slaves. Enough already with the skewed versions of history.
May 7th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
I brought up the football coach example as to how the “best man for the job” argument doesn’t hold water when you have a 97% white hiring rate. Follow me here;
1. The vast majority of college football coaches at one time played college football.
2. The majority of college football players are African-American
3. Yet, of the available pool of candidates for coaching (former college football players), 97% of the coaches hired are white?
Let’s be generous and say that the number of applicants for entry level coaching positions is 65% white, 35% black. What do you suppose the odds of ending up with a 97% white hiring rate at the head coaching level?
By the way, to the person who said that it’s Freedom of Association that allows restaurant owners not to serve black customers, I am exceptionally glad I don’t live in YOUR America.
May 7th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
I guess the idea of balancing competing rights is too difficult for Glaivestor to contemplate, but that task makes up a rather significant part of law and government.
No, I understand it. The point is that Pete wrote:
I think you’re missing the point here. Simply declaring state-required segregation/Jim Crow illegal is pointless unless you put into place rules to make sure that de facto discrimmination doesn’t take its place in the guise of “the business owner should as he pleases”.
Not just “Simply declaring state-required segregation/Jim Crow illegal is not enough,” but “Simply declaring state-required segregation/Jim Crow illegal is pointless.” I don’t object to him being for antidiscrimination laws, but for him to suggest that without mandating non-discrimination, ending mandatroy discrimination is worthless – that is stupid.
May 7th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
Matt dismissing “reverse discrimination” while not once mentioning Rici v. Stefano seems to me to be a tad disingenuous.
You mean the case where neither the black firefighters who didn’t do as well on the test nor white firefighters who got 13 of the 14 highest scores were treated any differently?
Gee, I can’t imagine why.
Fixed that for ya.
May 7th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
OK…so those who score high on a fireman’s exam, if white, should be forced to step aside for a black man? What black man would want to achieve success at such a cost to honor?
If you are about to have surgery, don’t you want the best doctor you can find? Or are you satisfied with someone who was selected to be a surgeon to fulfill some racial quota?
Do you really care what color your air traffic controller is? Or are you more interested in that they be excellent at their job?
You can’t have your cake and eat it too! Either this is the America where the best rise to the top — regardless of color –or it is a nation where mediocracy is held up as the goal.
May 8th, 2009 at 12:59 am
Either this is the America where the best rise to the top — regardless of color
Clearly, this explains the long-standing preponderance of Irish-Americans in police and fire departments.
May 8th, 2009 at 6:15 am
Wow, when did the whole GOP start reading and commenting on Matt’s blogs? Somehow Matt posting about racism being bad has gotten him a racist following. Nice.
May 8th, 2009 at 6:21 am
Until this line of questioning interrogates the huge chunk of American history prior to the 1950’s and 1960’s, no Black man or anyone else should ever dignify your question with an answer.
Besides, no one said anything about or advocated this “step aside” scenario you just concocted out of thin air.
May 8th, 2009 at 6:27 am
“Best” doctors are determined by written/oral tests?
I’m just asking… because I’m trying to see the relevance and similarities…
May 8th, 2009 at 6:31 am
Shhhhhhhh…. No one is supposed to notice that. We’re all supposed to treat the present as an isolated incident with no connection to any such long-standing histories.
May 8th, 2009 at 8:22 am
134, you are distorting what I said. Unless you put laws on the books making PRIVATE discrimination illegal, simply declaring state-sponsored discrimination illegal is pointless.
Seriously, what would be the point of making it illegal for the state to compel segregation if private entities continue to do so (ie restaurants, apartment complexes, public places). Without the teeth of the Civil Rights Law, just what do you think would have really changed in the South in that regard?
It’s a marvelously dishonest position some of you have about this. A position that basically says “of course the government shouldn’t discriminate against races as a matter of law, but private businesses should be able to continue to do so”.
May 8th, 2009 at 8:26 am
Janice, so are you prepared to say with a straight face that the 97% white hiring rate in college football coaching is simply “the best man for the job”?
May 8th, 2009 at 8:42 am
Seriously, what would be the point of making it illegal for the state to compel segregation if private entities continue to do so (ie restaurants, apartment complexes, public places).
The point is as I said above– it presents an opportunity for moral preening while at the same time tolerating and condoning grave injustice and exploitation of others…. all the while condemning those fighting against such immoral institutions.
May 8th, 2009 at 10:53 am
If ethnic diversity in particular public institutions, why not have objective merit assessments? Seems like as fair a determent of suitability as possible.
May 8th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Apologies. Let me try again.
If ethnic diversity in particular public institutions is a problem, why not have objective merit assessments? Seems like as fair a determent of suitability as possible.
May 8th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Pete, there was an article in Slate that guessed why there are so few black college coaches compared to the NFL. The conjecture was that it’s because of racial prejudice, but among boosters more than universities. Schools, unlike NFL teams, need coaches to schmooze donors. That’s often going to be harder for nonwhites, especially in the South. The NFL also has the Rooney rule, which is a pretty high-profile example of affirmative action working.
Glaivester, re your suggestion that maybe blacks just can’t coach football: you only watch the superbowl for those awesome careerbuilder ads, I take it? Or you’re a cricket fan? Perhaps you don’t own a TV? Help me out.
http://www.slate.com/id/2207375
May 8th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Of course, it must be pointed out that two out of the last three Super Bowl winning coaches were African-American, and Pittsburgh’s coach was granted an interview specifically under the Rooney Rule.
May 8th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
And of course, for all of Glenn’s bluster and indignation, he doesn’t have it recorded, so you have to take his word for it.
And as Glenn says: “If you take what I say as gospel, you’re an idiot. ”
May 8th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
WELL, as a white anglo-saxon protestant whose kids are minorities in Public School following forced integration and busing programs to destroy the education of ALL races, I can tell you that young people today, are mostly color blind to race issues. That despite the white kids getting called Cracker, Redneck, Hillbilly, Rebel, and Biggoted racist constantly by the older people who just are still tryiing to whack on each other.
Frankly, I never owned a black slave, never whipped a black person, never drug one behind a pickup truck or lynched on…although I hear that is what we are all still guilt of…and frankly, I don’t know anyone that did any of the above.
I am very aware of crime statistics, tho, and the percentages of what races are involved with illegal activities, violence, and abuse. It is not my race. So, why should I get called a racist? Mostly anyone calling someone a racist just has no argument for social justice other than ad hominem attacks. They are stupid, ignorant, race baiters.
Since I nor any of my white friends are actually racists, and are socially and commercially working with and socializing with all other races that happen to be doing similar things as we are….I am sick and tired of being placed into a sterotyped pool of people that I do not even know if they exist. If all white people are skinhead nazis, then all black people are willie sutton, all Mexicans are drug dealers and traffickers, and all asians are cheats, and all Jews are crooked. Sorry, charlie…Them are not the facts. Race baiting is promoted only by organizations and individuals that have something to gain from continuing the illusions of past situations today…LULAC, ACLU, Congressional Black Caucus, Southern Poverty Center, Black Panthers, ACORN, and a ton of others, including CAIR. Just notice how many of them get Federal Money, yet still keep RACIST stirred up and the various citizens AGAINST each other. Ask WHY do they still get FEDERAL money….have you noticed OBAMA demanding they stop their racial agenda….OR LOSE FEDERAL MONEY? No….WHY NOT? Who wins as long as citizens are bickering and hating each other…..the bureaucrats and grant recipients that are busy taking ALL of our money and preventing the true minorities from getting ahead through their own talents and efforts. If there were some racial name for polititian, bureaucrat, lobbiest, crook that included them all….I would be guilt of using THAT racial slur often
May 8th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
What an odious piece of crap is that ACORN spokesturd. Is there anyone at ACORN who isn’t a subhuman waste of skin? Why doesn’t that parasite quit appearing all over FOX and the other MSM outlets if he can’t stand the “racists” that interview him.
I think racism to the ACORN set is anyone who isn’t willing to buy into their constricted, constipated view of identity politics. Productive citizens are always “racist”, non-productive parasites are always victims of “racists”. Color of the skin doesn’t matter however.
I’d guess they don’t have that problem with you, Matt, or most of your “readers”, eh?
May 8th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Nick Danger Says:
May 8th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
What an odious piece of crap is that ACORN spokesturd.
It’s not his fault no one at Fox knows how to conduct an interview without turning into a ranting raving lunatic.
Is there anyone at ACORN who isn’t a subhuman waste of skin?
I have half a dozen conservatives in my neighborhood who- six months ago- were saying the same thing.
Today, their homes all have ACORN Foreclosure- Free Home signs in their yards and are using ACORN’s help to renegotiate their mortgages so they don’t end up on the street.
I think racism to the ACORN set is anyone who isn’t willing to buy into their constricted, constipated view of identity politics. Productive citizens are always “racist”, non-productive parasites are always victims of “racists”. Color of the skin doesn’t matter however.
Do you have any proof of them calling anyone a racist? Glenn might’ve said it, but he certainly doesn’t have any proof of it, even though the interview happened in his studio full of cameras. It’s not as if Fox doesn’t have a reputation for trying to catch people saying controversial things on a hot mic.
And as I’ve pointed out already, Glenn believes you’d have to be an idiot to believe anything he says.
May 8th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Well, since no one has called all White people skinhead Nazis, we can dispense with the rest of the nonsense in your post.
PS:
It’s funny how you’ve personalized the issue. Funny and, perhaps, all so telling/revealing.
May 8th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Hey, Anthony and Healthy Markup,
They shut our thread down! lol
May 8th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Barry Goldwater campaigned for president on the proposition that Jim Crow might be bad, but not nearly so bad as the Civil Rights Act.
“You can’t legislate morality.” –Barry Goldwater
Barry Goldwater was desegregating before desegregation was cool. (Too bad Barry isn’t around today to kick the religious right in the ass over their opposition to gay marriage, huh, Matty?)
You self-righteous, hypocritical bigots are simply breathtaking.
I know this “downtrodden, oppressed, lowly Negro” appreciates the progs rushing to his defense, and your continual portrayal of black people as weak and stupid, and undermining their sense of self-worth by constantly telling them them they cannot make a fucking move without all you racist, elitists in the Democrat Party there to carry them.
And how about that raaaaacist DC school voucher program the Democrats can’t wait to kill? We do know there is at least one constituency that is more important to Democrats than the lowly Negro block — the “teachers” union.
This country is fucked, and it’s not because of conservative ideology. It’s because of the filthy collectivism on display here, and the self-deluded Socialist tools who are crawling all over Matty’s blog and the Democrat party.
May 8th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Glaivester, re your suggestion that maybe blacks just can’t coach football: you only watch the superbowl for those awesome careerbuilder ads, I take it? Or you’re a cricket fan? Perhaps you don’t own a TV?
I don’t watch the Super Bowl at all. I have no idea what the percentage of black coaches in professional football is. If it is significantly higher than in college football, then that would suggest that something is awry in college football. My thoughts about the possibility of differential abilities was based on throwing out generic possible reasons why there might be a difference in the general case, applied to this specific case. They were nnot based on any specific knowledge of football, as I am not really interested in sports and know next to nothing about football, professional or college level.
May 8th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
134, you are distorting what I said.
No, I am NOT distorting anything you said. I am portraying what you said exactly the way you said it. You are saying that unless you make discrimination illegal, there is no point in making it non-mandatory. Whatever isn’t required is prohibited. You are saying that there is no point in making something legal unless you make it mandatory, at least in this case.
Unless you put laws on the books making PRIVATE discrimination illegal, simply declaring state-sponsored discrimination illegal is pointless.
Yes, exactly as I understood you and exactly how I portrayed what you said. You are being dishonest in claiming that I distorted what you said.
Seriously, what would be the point of making it illegal for the state to compel segregation if private entities continue to do so (ie restaurants, apartment complexes, public places).
The point would be that people who wish to integrate their restaurants are now free to do so whereas they were not before. That may not be enough, but it is not nothing. If your concern is that people would not be free to do so because of vigilantes, well, the Feds could use Federal Enforcement against vigilantes who would attack desegregated businesses.
Without the teeth of the Civil Rights Law, just what do you think would have really changed in the South in that regard?
Are you honestly saying that absolutely no one would have desegregated voluntarily given the opportunity? The Federal government could have added teeth in protecting those who wish to desegregate and were threatened.
It’s a marvelously dishonest position some of you have about this. A position that basically says “of course the government shouldn’t discriminate against races as a matter of law, but private businesses should be able to continue to do so”.
It’s a marvelously dishonest position that you have that for government not to mandate something is to ban it. It is also marvelously dishonest to claim that there is no difference between publicly-owned agencies discriminating and between privately owned businesses deciding who to let onto their property.
The position that government cannot discriminate but that private entities should be able to is not a dishonest position at all. You may disagree with it, and think that it does not go far enough, and you can certianly suggest that it is dishonest to think that such a policy would be enough to advance racial equality, but there is nothing dishonest about separating private entities from government ones, unless of course in reality you believe that the government is the true owner of everything, and that any distinction betwen public and private ownership is a lie.
May 8th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
The country is indeed fucked, and it is PRECISELY because of conservative ideology. Or you now going to try to tell us that the license to steal known as “deregulation” was promoted by liberals???????????????????????
May 9th, 2009 at 7:06 am
Glaivester,
OK. There are 6 black NFL coaches, about 20% of the league. Used to be very few, but it’s gone up the last couple of years. Generally they’ve succeeded.
You’re right about the civil rights act infringing on freedom of association, but I think you’re idolizing the concept of freedom of association. Try to imagine what it was actually like to live in a segregated society. Imagine being a loyal citizen, and having to walk two hours across a town to get a haircut, because no barbershop will serve you. Freedom of association matters, but it’s not the only right that matters. In a free country, there should also be a right to walk out the door, go to a nearby barbershop during business hours, pay them money and have them give you a damn haircut. Americans aspire to ordered liberty, not absolute liberty. We don’t assign ideals like “freedom of association” a mystical importance that trumps reality. And we shouldn’t.
May 9th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Again, Aloysius, my irritation with Pete was not his belief that the ability to not be discriminated against on the basis of race trumped freedom of association.
My irritation was his statement that allowing private entities to desegregate was pointless unless you forced them to. Not that it did not go far enogu, not that would not accomplish enough, that it was completely worthless. In other words, allowing discrimination is not just bad, but equally as bad as mandating discrimination. That is what I vehemently disagreed with. And for pointing this fact out Pete falsely accuses me of distorting what he said.
May 9th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Yes, that is the point you were making. I think Pete overstates the case. Your suggestion that supporters of the civil rights act didn’t/don’t care about freedom of association led me to believe you think the act was unjustified.
May 9th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
That is a mighty big question, Catseye.
It’s not so much a matter of regulation vs. deregulation, but a combination of DUMB regulations including the bipartisan repeal of Glass-Steagall, the injection of steroids into CRA, and the Public-Private partnerships (also known as fascism) that are Fannie and Freddie and all the subprime mortgages they hold, as well as the Federal Reserve system. (FWIW, Bush never met a regulation he didn’t like. And the last 8 years have been one long series of stimuli, big spending, borrowing and printing, and loose credit in order to stave off the ‘01 recession. Obama = More of the Same).
You take exception to a “license to steal,” as do I. Too bad your progressives (rather than prosecute the rampant fraud and clear the bad debt) are continuing with Bailoutonomics, which is the biggest theft of the people’s wealth to benefit a few well-connected oligarchs (of and including the politicians themselves and most especially Government Sachs), and the biggest fraud and scandal that this republic has ever seen.
We are talking 10-12 trillion of our money that they’re throwing at politically-connected megabanks and megacorps, and back and forth between the Fed and the Treasury to buy the crap debt gov’t helped create, while they are lying to us about “green shoots” and “stress tests.” It’s all bullshit. This crash is just getting started — just wait until the commercial sector shit hits the fan, which will take millions of jobs with it. We are looking at 20% U3 by ‘10. Once again, DC has chosen to create a Great Depression by trying to avoid a Recession.
The sooner you progs wake up to the fact that Obama is in the pocket of Big Bank/MegaCorp and he doesn’t give a shit about you or Main Street (outside the votes he garners from you), the better off this country will be. Take Geithner (please!), who Obama claims is the only man for Treasury. Did you know his job since ‘03 as head of the NY Fed was to oversee the stability of the financial markets and Wall Street? Heck of a job, Timmy. He also engineered the AIG bailout. Obama has Goldman cronies and corporate lobbyists crawling all over his administration. Party of the “middle class” indeed.
Obama is not a Socialist. If he were, he would have sent every American household a check for 30 large and stimulated the economy that way. Instead, he’s giving our money to bankers/megacorps, which makes him an Economic Fascist. I would take Nader over the corrupt, corporatist Democrats in power any day of the week.
Americans need to wake up and throw all the corrupt corporatist bums on both sides of the aisle OUT, and back two Third Parties in ‘12. Let’s not continue rewarding the two major parties who, together, have brought America to this low low place.
It’s been a bipartisan fuck-up all the way, dontcha know. And that’s the short answer to your mighty big question.