BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
What are you trying to say gold?
Barack Obama and Jason Heyward
- Thread starter The Tariff King
- Start date
What are you trying to say gold?
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
Do you hate yourself or something? Or do you like looking at the women?
Understands is pretty subjective to use in this instance.
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
I'm going to pull an Oklahomahawk; there's only one way to test this theory and it involves asking people the following questions:
- What is Obama's foreign policy?
- What is your opinion on gay marriage?
I think the proof will avail itself in short order.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
Pre-1.) You don't like/agree with my methodology?
1.) See Zeet's "Critic" meme
2.) Don't really care, used to care, don't anymore, decided everyone's going to have to answer for their own sins and whomever we love/are attracted to isn't going to be something another person is going be punished or rewarded for. My plate is going to be quite full enough, thank you.
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
jp.
OK, not sure where you're going with this one. I guess you'll have to get the crayons out again. I do admire the Ninja Turtle's planning ahead and getting his "munchie solution stockpile" together before he gets high, we don't want him driving or probably even phoning in an order after he gets toasted.
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
Oh OK. I just don't think the government should be in business on stuff like marriage do's and don'ts, unless it's something pretty extreme like polygamy or age related things. On the pot thing, I'm not really in favor of it, but I can't honestly say it's any worse than alcohol or tobacco. Do you? You know me, I'm a small government guy.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
For the sake of the discussion, I'm going to include the Atwater quote that I referenced:
'You start out in 1954 by saying, “n*****, n*****, n*****.” By 1968 you can’t say “n*****”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “n*****, n*****.” '
That abstraction has continued and is still in effect. It persists today. That kind of coded racist rhetoric lives on quite vividly. Traditional rural gripes about cities are fertile ground. Ditto welfare ("food stamp president," anyone?) & affirmative action. I can switch on local talk radio any day of the week and hear it until my ears bleed, along with a healthy side order of xenophobia. So, yeah, Lee Atwater and William F. Buckley are dead, but Buckley's spirit still underpins both the Republican party and the conservative movement, How many quotes do I need to pull about Buckley's influence on conservative thought? Here's Newt Gingrich, at Buckley's funeral in 2008:
"Bill Buckley became the indispensable intellectual advocate from whose energy, intelligence, wit, and enthusiasm the best of modern conservatism drew its inspiration and encouragement... Buckley began what led to Senator Barry Goldwater and his Conscience of a Conservative that led to the seizing of power by the conservatives from the moderate establishment within the Republican Party. From that emerged Ronald Reagan."
Many of Atwater's acolytes are running and winning campaigns for conservative candidates today—Karl Rove and Tucker Eskew are Bush 43 vets, among others. So, yeah, I'd say that their legacies are alive and well. Republicans have drifted away from the "realist" foreign policy camp, but other than that I'd say there hadn't been a sea change in conservative ideology. I mean, it's hard to find a more admired figure among conservatives than Ronald Reagan, who talked up state's rights in Philadelphia MS in his campaign and used the familiar "welfare queen" stereotype to great effect.
So, does that mean that conservatism = racism? That's not what I'm saying. I'd welcome your thoughts about the intellectual component of conservatism with regard to race. But as a lifelong southerner, I've consistently observed politicians who identify themselves as conservatives wooing voters—who also self-identify as conservatives—by using racially charged language and championing policies that are perceived to be less favorable to minorities and non-natives.
Your point is incredibly salient, but I'm of the belief that culture influences politics and not vice versa.
It seems like you are trying to take the belief systems that were born out of a complicated epoch of human history and make them latently applicable to the tenets of modern conservatism. I think that's a reach ... especially given the amount of time (two generations?) that has elapsed since those particularly racist underpinnings were utilized.
Buckley admitted that he was incorrect in respect to his positions on race relations -- he apologized for opposing civil rights legislation and, I think, went to great lengths to attempt to undo some of the damage that his outspokenness may have created (for example, supporting the establishment of MLK Day, attacking white supremacist elements, etc.) Of course, I don't believe those actions can be treated as a convenient excuse to overlook the overt racism that he prominently advocated for at one point, but we are talking, again, about an era of political history where racially tinged policy was rampant and equally distributed across party lines (take, for example, George Wallace -- a Democrat who was promulgating segregationist beliefs with considerable support up into the early mid-1970s).
You harp on conservatives using policies closely associated with race in an attempt to garner votes, but how is that so different than liberals using the same ploy to attract minority votes, or blatantly gerrymandering districts that are likely to side with said policies? Minorities are still being treated as pawns, by both sides.
I also grouse at the supposition that anybody who opposes unbridled welfare expansion is racist (not to say that was your implication, btw). That's a legitimate economic beef.
It seems like you are trying to take the belief systems that were born out of a complicated epoch of human history and make them latently applicable to the tenets of modern conservatism. I think that's a reach ... especially given the amount of time (two generations?) that has elapsed since those particularly racist underpinnings were utilized.
Buckley admitted that he was incorrect in respect to his positions on race relations -- he apologized for opposing civil rights legislation and, I think, went to great lengths to attempt to undo some of the damage that his outspokenness may have created (for example, supporting the establishment of MLK Day, attacking white supremacist elements, etc.) Of course, I don't believe those actions can be treated as a convenient excuse to overlook the overt racism that he prominently advocated for at one point, but we are talking, again, about an era of political history where racially tinged policy was rampant and equally distributed across party lines (take, for example, George Wallace -- a Democrat who was promulgating segregationist beliefs with considerable support up into the early mid-1970s).
You harp on conservatives using policies closely associated with race in an attempt to garner votes, but how is that so different than liberals using the same ploy to attract minority votes, or blatantly gerrymandering districts that are likely to side with said policies? Minorities are still being treated as pawns, by both sides.
I also grouse at the supposition that anybody who opposes unbridled welfare expansion is racist (not to say that was your implication, btw). That's a legitimate economic beef.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
Again, are you trying to say something more than I already have?
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Good post. Food for thought. I agree that politics, religion, and ideology are all muddled up in this. I concede that I'm discussing politics more than ideology now. As far as I'm concerned, the modern conservative movement is more interested in plutocracy than white supremacy. But hey, at least it'll be a colorblind plutocracy.
I think that's a reach ... especially given the amount of time (two generations?) that has elapsed since those particularly racist underpinnings were utilized.
Yeah, two generations since "******, ******." That's Atwater's whole point. You can argue about whether or not the abstractions are truly racist, but they're certainly marketed to racists, in arguably racist fashion.
You're kinda talking past the point with George Wallace. Yes, he was a racist demagogue Democrat . . . and the Republican Party poached his base, and securely owns it today. That was not an accident of history. Those Southern Democrats self-identified as conservatives. They joined a voting bloc with conservative Republicans in order to prevent Roosevelt from effecting change antithetical to them (i.e. involving civil rights and labor) and that coalition continued to influence, if not dominate, congressional politics until it ceased to be a coalition and just became, well, the Republican congressional delegation.
You've mentioned the "modern conservative movement." How do you date that? Does Reagan not rate? What's the timeframe on this movement, and who are its leading lights? If there's a writer or thinker who has significantly shifted conservative thought (in your opinion) in the last 15-20 years, I'd be interested to learn more. Any suggestions?
Good for Bill Buckley for supporting MLK Day. Know who opposed it, initially? Reagan. Reagan did it in true weasel-y Atwater fashion, by objecting to the expense.
While we're on the subject, it's worth mentioning that my home state of SC—yours, too, no?—was the last to adopt an official MLK day holiday, in 2000. My county didn't formally recognize it until years after THAT, and only did while putting Confederate Memorial Day on the calendar as a "compromise." This is a place where people identify as conservatives first (well, actually as Christians first) and Republicans second. Are the people who sandbagged the MLK holiday insufficiently versed in modern conservatism?
You harp on conservatives using policies closely associated with race in an attempt to garner votes
Um, no. I harp on conservatives using naked appeals to racist, nativist, and xenophobic thought.
I'm not going to disagree that minorities can be treated as pawns at times. I'm going to posit a difference between the parties here, which may or may not be significant to you. Democrats mandate diversity within the party structure at a number of levels. So at least if minorities are exploited, it's not exploitation without representation, so to speak.
On that subject, the Republican national convention delegates have been 90something percent white for the last couple of election cycles. Democrats are closer to halfsies. Is the monochrome nature of the party significant at all?
I do find that difference somewhat illuminating, but I'm not excusing Democrats from sin here, and certainly not from racism or bigotry. I once sat in a Democratic precinct meeting with a lady who talked dismissively of everything the local government was doing "for the Julios." My eyes just about popped, and not just because her choice of derogatory names secretly tickled me a bit.
So, finally, welfare. Yes, there is an economic beef with it. As there is with every other government expenditure. Your formulation is a little extreme ("unbridled" expansion is hard to argue for) but opposing public assistance spending doesn't make you a racist.
When I hear the issue discussed, though, it's usually rife with racial code words and (usually) misunderstanding or misinformation. Is this your experience? There's the assumption, of course, that the majority on welfare are black. From the 2012 campaign...
Rick Santorum said: “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.”
Do you find that a tad ****ty and condescending?
And Newt, who'd been using his "Food Stamp President" line for a while, when called on it during a debate:
"And so I’m prepared, if the NAACP invites me, I’ll go to their convention and talk about why the African-American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps. And I’ll go to them and explain a brand new Social Security opportunity for young people, which should be particularly good for African-American males — because they’re the group that gets the smallest return on Social Security because they have the shortest life span."
So just how ****ing insulting is that? How chock-full of distortion, prejudice, paternalism, and assumption? By the way, "Food Stamp President" wasn't a one-off or a mistake. It was an applause line in his stump speech. Now, I think that either man could explain himself and his policies in a more diplomatic and empathetic way. However, they were speaking during a Republican primary, and the message that they needed to transmit to the base was that they would not take your tax dollars and give it to indolent blacks. What's changed, exactly, except the language?
This is a presidential election. These are guys who WON PRIMARIES. If these are the best candidates on the biggest stage, talking to the heart of of the Republican electorate, and this is what they choose to say when given an opportunity to talk about race, you're going to have a tough time convincing people that there is not some fire at the place where they see all that smoke.
Even then, the liberal in me can be objective about that.
I mean as many crazy figureheads as the right has on the stump the last 6 years and counting, the base ended up nominating two relatively moderate guys (McCain and Romney who were considered as RINOs for the most part. McCain the "maverick" and Romney the Massachusetts Moderate).
There are variables to this. Maybe the base just felt Mccain and Romney were the most electable. Maybe it were the independents that helped (although I may need to double check this because I believe the RNC changed their rules so only registered republicans could vote in primaries, not independents). I do think if someone like Santorum or Palin were nominated, you'd see a Reagan-Mondalesque blowout.
Jeb who can be considered to be a moderate in this field, isn't doing to well in early polls but he could end up being the nominee because of his name.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
Whatever gold. My statement included "me" in it. That is admission of my own sin. Then you come swooping in with your quip. Just weird and self-righteous to boot.