End of the Race

We really have reached a new stage. Americans elected a black president. Interracial marriages are at an all-time high. It just is not 1960 anymore.

It was a big deal back in 1945 when my Polish Catholic father married my German Lutheran mother. Today it is almost impossible for anyone to understand why that would be a problem. Both religious-ethnic groups had what they believed was a proud tradition (although most ethnic traditions and "ancient" traditions are mostly recent and/or mythical). These nationalities (they were often referred to as races) had reasons to dislike each other. Polish Slavs could point to 1000 years of being conquered, colonized and enslaved by their Teutonic neighbors, the most recent episode only months before my parents' marriage. German attitudes toward Slavs were often contemptuous and sometimes deadly. Ostensible "race hatred" between these two groups was ingrained and of longer duration than our current race ideas among blacks and whites. Yet after 1000 years it suddenly didn't really matter.

It is hard to believe today that this ever mattered so much but back then it could be a matter of life or death. When my father arrived in France after the Normandy invasions, he spoke to and translated for Poles who had been enslaved by Germans. Yet none of this made a difference when he met and married my mother, nor should it have. She had nothing to do the atrocities. "Race" really doesn't matter. And it never mattered to me. I eventually learned to speak both German and Polish, but since have forgotten both. All those ethnicities were subsumed in my American identity.

As I learned more about my ancestors, I found that his was not the first time. Half of my "German" ancestors had been Polish or Kashub (a related nationality from along the Baltic Sea). They started to speak German when their homeland was taken over by the Kingdom of Prussia and forgot their roots. Some of my "Polish" ancestors turned out to be Russian Jews. My parents were unaware of these complications. The bottom line is that there is no pure ethnic group. This goes in America even more. Malcolm X's grandfather was white and when Alex Haley searched for his "Roots" he could have found as many relatives in Ireland or England as in West Africa.

The idea of mainstream American has been expanding since before the founding of our Republic. At first it include English. Irish were considered outsiders, but then they became mainstream. Our Nation's first "English only" laws were aimed at Germans, who in 1910 were more numerous as a % of the U.S. population than Hispanics are today. By the 1950s, "insiders" included most whites. Today for affirmative action purposes Asians are now classified with whites. It won't be long before the whole race and ethnicity thing just doesn't matter, as there won't be any out-groups.

Or more correctly, there will be nothing except out groups. One reason the U.S. overcame so many ethnic, religious and class barriers that had befuddled the old continent for hundreds of years is that there were just too many variations. Everybody was part of a too many groups until groups didn't matter.

I am not 100% optimistic, or maybe just realistic. People will always figure out ways to look down on others. But at least it won't be because of outdated ethnic categories.

Posted by Christine & John at February 16, 2012 6:24 PM
Comments
Comment #336703


C&J, a good post with much to agree with. Perhaps a little more emphasis on the cultures that new immigrants bring with them as part of the animosity. Like the languages, most of those cultural beliefs tend to be eliminated while a few may be incorporated into the American multi-culture after a generation or two.

I am rather optimistic for the future, in regards to this issue, as well. There are few ethnic groups, races, and religions left to immigrate here and be turned into Americans. Some day, American conservative Muslims may even be considered allies of American conservative Christians.

Posted by: jlw at February 17, 2012 1:16 AM
Comment #336707

As long as minorities in America are enslaved by the policies of liberalism, we will never se the end of racism. It is to the advantage of the left to always keep racism in the forefront. If there is one thing we can ALWAYS count on during every election cycle it is: Republicans are trying to kick old people off Medicare and SS, and Republicans are racists. One of these days, when the money dries up and the welfare checks stop, minorities will understand what the Democrats have done to enslave them. Remember LBJ’s comment when signing civil rights, with the help of Republicans, “we will have these ni***s voting Democrat for the next 200 years”. LBJ’s comments are the true feelings the left has for minorities.

Republican Congressman Allen West understands what the Democratic Party has done to the blacks:

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/211055-rep-west-democratic-handouts-an-insidious-form-of-slavery

Posted by: Billinflorida at February 17, 2012 7:37 AM
Comment #336708

CJ
I was also hopeful that BO election was a milestone. Even during the campaign Mc Cain was eloquent,” I can’t wish him luck but I wish him well”. But and a big BUT, after and even before the election the birther non-sense and baseless accusations that BO is a secret Muslum,God forbid, are clearly thinly veiled racism. Any other explanation for such blind , stupid,hatred? Maybe the people spreading that poison are just blind,stupid and hateful, but not racist? Hard sell, even for you. I guess it is a good sign that at least they try and hide it and go into fits of false outrage when anybody points it out. I got a big kick out out of the Bachmann rallys that always rented a nice safe Negro standing there all dressed up in suit and tie, for the photo ops. What crock. Most TP rallys reminded me of the townspeople in Blazing Saddles. The country has a ways to go yet.
Some of the ugliness around the immigration debate also belies your optimism. Alabama has brought back “Jim Crow’ with a Latin twist. Other states also. Its all very American. Whenever there is an economic downturn the favorite mis-direction of those that caused the downturn, the rich and their banks, convince people it is the fault of the chinks, nigggers, spics, polacks, guinies,greasers, gooks, paddies etc. American as apple pie. Its even easier when the skin color of the scapegoats is different. That is the historical basis for racism in America and the reason it still exist. Its a tool of whichever oligarchs are running the show and they are not going to give it up.

Posted by: bills at February 17, 2012 7:55 AM
Comment #336711

I am both more and less optimistic than I used to be. I’m more optimistic because the color barriers in question have been breached in many areas, one including the Presidency obviously.

On the other side of things, though, I never thought it would be this easy to revive the kind of blatant racism I’ve seen, and I’m not simply talking about Obama. I’ve seen and heard things out of folks the Republican Party is association itself with that I didn’t think would show up in any party after all these years.

I can only hope that in the effort to turn people against Barack Obama, the GOP hasn’t reawakened that kind of hatred in this country, and led it to be taught anew.

billinflorida-
That “enslavement” meant poverty was cut in half for them. The Republicans talk about class envy all the time, but how much of your effort, over the last few decades, has been keyed towards making people resent the desperately poor for getting benefits from the government?

As for LBJ’s comments? Well, you know, you guys talk about context all the time, and it does happen to be the case that passing the Civil Rights Act did earn Democrats the gratitude of generations of minorities. That it was a somewhat cynical move on LBJ’s part doesn’t negate the good it’s done. He did good, rather than bad, to achieve that effect. That he also recognized that it could lose them the South (which it did) should not go unnoticed, either.

LBJ was a Southerner of the Jim Crow Era. No two ways about it. But on account of what he did, a great deal of this country’s original sin has been expiated.

That’s a lot better than what Nixon did, which was divide the country for generations in order to increase it’s power.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 17, 2012 9:03 AM
Comment #336712

Bilinflorida

Would you care to authenticate LBJ’s “quote”. Until you do so I and others will regard it as an insulting fantasy by a less than honest person. Feel free to correct me if you can.
LBJ did remark that the signing of the civil rights acts would cost the Democratic Party the South for years to come and that has been substantially true.

Posted by: bills at February 17, 2012 9:07 AM
Comment #336714

Billinflorida

“I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” — Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One according Ronald Kessler’s Book, “Inside The White House”

Apologies. I stand corrected, maybe.The context does matter. When he talked about losing the South he said for 50 years.
I am curious. Do you believe the passing of the civil rights acts left Blacks worse off. Are they part of that “liberal slavery”? Was it trouble makers like MLK and that liberal Jesse Jackson that caused so much grief for them?

CJ
A discussion of racism in America would not be complete without a look at the penal system. Ron Paul, to his credit , even brought it up briefly in one of the debates. As we all know there are a highly disproportionate number of Blacks in jails and prisons. The average sentence for Blacks is greater than for Whites. How can one explain this away without fundemental widespread racism in America? Bad luck? Economic conditions? That would confirm systematic racism. Racial profiling? Same. What other reason than racism?

Posted by: bills at February 17, 2012 9:46 AM
Comment #336717

Interesting timing for you to bring this topic up right now with the recent excitement regarding Jeremy Lin & the Knicks. I attend a university on Long Island and a large chunk of my friends are Americans of Asian descent and you wouldn’t believe how excited they are right now to see a guy transcend a lot of the stereotypes associated with Asian-Americans.

We certainly have come a far way with regards to race. Programs such as affirmative action that made a lot of sense over the past half century will almost certainly become obsolete during my lifetime. For instance, at the university I attend, white students make up only 42% of the student body.

Posted by: Warped Reality at February 17, 2012 12:17 PM
Comment #336719

Bills said:

“I got a big kick out out of the Bachmann rallys that always rented a nice safe Negro standing there all dressed up in suit and tie, for the photo ops.”

Then you must also get a kick out of Obama’s stage shows when he is surrounded by women, Asians, blacks, and students? Or perhaps your racist binders have prevented you from seeing this?

Here we are back to the Jim Crow comments: mentioned by bills and Stephen Daugherty.

SD said:

“On the other side of things, though, I never thought it would be this easy to revive the kind of blatant racism I’ve seen, and I’m not simply talking about Obama. I’ve seen and heard things out of folks the Republican Party is association itself with that I didn’t think would show up in any party after all these years.

I can only hope that in the effort to turn people against Barack Obama, the GOP hasn’t reawakened that kind of hatred in this country, and led it to be taught anew.”

Hearsay and not backed with facts.

“As for LBJ’s comments? Well, you know, you guys talk about context all the time, and it does happen to be the case that passing the Civil Rights Act did earn Democrats the gratitude of generations of minorities. That it was a somewhat cynical move on LBJ’s part doesn’t negate the good it’s done. He did good, rather than bad, to achieve that effect. That he also recognized that it could lose them the South (which it did) should not go unnoticed, either.”

LBJ increased the number of blacks on Welfare and he also destroyed the black family. As per Allen West, there was a time when the black family unit was very strong, but today it has been destroyed. When liberal policies reward black women for having children and no husband, it created a situation where generation after generation dropped out of school and began having children at 12 or 13 years old. There have been documented cases of as many as five generations of black women living under the same roof and all drawing Welfare and no father in sight. I’ll tell you what SD; the next time you go into a store and see a young black woman carrying a baby in her arms, check her ring finger for a wedding band. Only in the warped mind of a liberal could the destruction of the black family unit and the enslavement of a race of people be considered a “cynical move on LBJ’s part doesn’t negate the good it’s done. He did good, rather than bad, to achieve that effect.”

“LBJ was a Southerner of the Jim Crow Era. No two ways about it. But on account of what he did, a great deal of this country’s original sin has been expiated.”

SD I have seen you many times, try to identify the Jim Crow Democrats of the south as being conservatives: hence the old southern Democrats are today’s conservative Republicans. I thought your comments were BS then and I think they are BS today. But you did say that LBJ was a racist liberal and that is true.

“That’s a lot better than what Nixon did, which was divide the country for generations in order to increase it’s power.”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 17, 2012 9:03 AM

Again hearsay and unsubstantiated.

Bills asked:

“Do you believe the passing of the civil rights acts left Blacks worse off? Are they part of that “liberal slavery”? Was it trouble makers like MLK and that liberal Jesse Jackson that caused so much grief for them?”

As to your questions: No, and it was Republicans who got the Civil Rights Act passed, not Democrats. LBJ, a southern Jim Crow Democrat could not get the rest of the southern Democrats to support him. It was the next step of LBJ that made blacks worse; the increased of Welfare and the lack of holding people responsible. The work of MLK cannot be compared to what Jessie Jackson has done. Jessie Jackson is an adulterous thief who is only concerned about his own personal gain. If Jessie Jackson had been white and done some of the same things, he would be in prison.

Re/ blacks in prison; tell me bills, why is the ratio of blacks who commit crimes so much higher than whites? Every night in every city of America, blacks kill blacks. If white people killed whites in the same ratio as blacks kill blacks there would be a cry so loud in America.

Posted by: Billiflorida at February 17, 2012 1:28 PM
Comment #336723

Bills

We have the legacy of racism reflected in the prison population and the crimes that got them there. Racism of the past helped shape some segments of the black culture making crime endemic. An analogy would be a kid who is abused and then becomes violent in later life. The question in both cases is what you do about it? The history helps explain the behavior but doesn’t justify it or give an obvious solution.

Many aspects of the “Great Society” era exacerbated this pathology. Black families survived slavery and Jim Crow, but were decimated in the 1970s anon.

The best social action is to create a sense of order. We have seen that when crime rates go down in black neighborhoods go down, black businesses and prosperity rises. Good policing is the best of all social programs. And the best big reform in our lifetimes was welfare reform of the 1990s. We have to be careful not to backslide.

The “root cause” of violence is disorder. Liberal programs tend not to address this and sometimes make the problem worse by excusing the behaviors that lead to it or even inadvertently supporting them through the failed programs such as AFSC.

Warped

You are young enough not to see things in the racial mirror. My kids showed me this a while ago. They had a good friend who was black. One time I heard them making fun of his hair. I overreached in the racial puritan PC way I learned. All the kids were surprised. There was no race involved. It was just kids goofing around. They lived in a very diverse place and they were simply unaware of some of the old racist things. It just didn’t matter.

Posted by: C&J at February 17, 2012 3:28 PM
Comment #336727
it created a situation where generation after generation dropped out of school and began having children at 12 or 13 years old.

If only they had greater access to birth control…

There have been documented cases of as many as five generations of black women living under the same roof and all drawing Welfare and no father in sight.
Proof? Is this before or after the welfare reform of 1996?

In any case, your example is a simple anecdote that means nothing if we wish to examine the population at large. I recently read a study that says that about 90% of the recipients of government benefits are either working, disabled or elderly. I’m not going to deny that the safety net has its flaws; we probably spend too much money supporting a certain segment of the population, but we are better off than we were before.

Posted by: Warped Reality at February 17, 2012 3:56 PM
Comment #336730


The civil right legislation and welfare are two separate issues.

The welfare laws, although necessary, did do damage to families. I remember neighborhood watch dogs used by the welfare system to report on welfare recipients, welfare especially wanted to know if a woman receiving benefits had a male secretly living with them or even staying with them on occasion. It did not matter if there was a recession or high unemployment, welfare went after those women who violated the male restrictions.

The bipartisan welfare reform act went easier on familes and harder on women who were having one child after another to stay on the welfare rolls. The welfare reform bill did not hurt Clintons standing in the black community.

The demise of small black town economies as well as white ones was dealt a serious blow by the building of the interstate highway system which bypassed many of these small community economies.

Many people of all colors were ghettoized or isolated in rural pockets of poverty by political expedience and an economy that had no incentives to invest in those areas. Enterprise Zones initiated by Republicans and Democrats have been, for the most part failures.

Jim Crow was allowed to flourish primarily because whites had lost interest in the black population. We freed them and we gave them the right to vote, now let’s forget about them and go on with our lives.

Racism was primarily been labeled politically incorrect behavior, that didn’t eliminate the racists, but it did create a vast improvement for people of color and the evidence is obvious.

It is true that Republicans have in many ways encouraged racist sentiments since Obama’s election.

When the baby boomers are gone a large number of the racists will go with them. The young people of today aren’t going to tolerate it nearly as much. People of color are proving their capabilities and their value to the country, and not just in entertainment and sports.

Posted by: jlw at February 17, 2012 6:37 PM
Comment #336731

jlw

Most of what you wrote makes sense. I do not believe that “in many ways” Republicans encouraged racism, any more than Democrats. One of the most racist in actions has been Eric Holder, a Democrat.

Any criticism of Obama is labelled racist by some. Remember the pictures of GW Bush as a monkey? What if someone did that with Obama? Remember the fun made of Bush’s accent or the idea that he never read any books? What if someone did that with Obama?

Back when Obama was running for election, I wrote a post called “Obama’s long tail”. It was based on a book “The Long Tale” about how internet made small numbers powerful. Many people called it racist.

We had real racism in the recent past and there is still some today. But now it is getting ridiculous with what you might call “freudian racism” You don’t know you are doing it, you cannot change; and it has not real manifestations, but you are considered racist if you don’t embrace PC values.

I suppose that everybody likes people that they understand and can work with. This may or may not include race. I lived in Poland for 8 years. Poles are “my people”. But when I met black Americans, I realized that I often had more in common with them. Experiences trumps “race” in almost all cases.

I think it is interesting when liberals say that conservatives like only “non-threatening” blacks. Well … of course. Who likes anybody who they find threatening.

You can hate most aspects of black (or white) culture and still not be a racist. If you judge people by their behaviors or the content of their characters you are not racist, no matter what the outcomes or the “disproportional impacts.”

We have to get beyond that.

IMO the “cure” for racism, i.e. affirmative action, set-asides, black pride, helped in the short run but are perpetuating it in the longer run.

Nobody should feel “pride” in their race. Race is a random event. It gives nobody either credit or blame.

Posted by: C&J at February 17, 2012 7:21 PM
Comment #336735

WR said:

“Proof? Is this before or after the welfare reform of 1996?”

Warped, the damage was done in the late 70’s through reform. How many years does it take to destroy a generation of people.

I might also add that government low income housing herded all blacks into inner city ghettos. In fact, everything the Democrats have done to help blacks have actually hurt them.

Posted by: Billinflorida at February 17, 2012 8:41 PM
Comment #336736


C&J, a party that repudiates racism doesn’t invite white supremacist nationalists to speak at CPAC. They just don’t. Conservatives that say they aren’t racist don’t applaud white supremacist nationalists, or do they? A blast from the past, separate but equal, right!

I don’t buy the conservative argument that Holder is a racist.

Very few racists convert. The racists are still among us, but government has made it hard for them to operate in the open.

Your argument suggests to me that the Republican party is courting the racist vote politically correctly.

Non-threatening blacks? I haven’t used that argument, but I recognized that conservatives don’t have a big problem with blacks that share their conservative values and they often characterize blacks who don’t as being racist, or lazy, or spoiled by liberals.

Do you think those poor young white men would rather have a job than food stamps? Yes, black unemployment is high and participation in government assistance is high as a percentage of population, but there are more whites receiving government benefits that blacks.

Judging character? Like the common street walker attire worn by many of the young Republican women at CPAC? Some conservatives have judged that as a character flaw and an embarrassment. 55% of the attendees were below the age of 25 and some conservatives attack them for what they are wearing, and not just the young women, some young men were singled out as well.

Like Obama has character or Obama is a character?

Pride in one’s race?

If it wasn’t for the diversity of the earths ecosystems all of us could be black. We are all the same race. Racism is based on economic competition and, or color of skin.

Posted by: jlw at February 17, 2012 9:06 PM
Comment #336739

Billinflorida,

“…the damage was done in the late 70’s through reform.”

The damage was started by the “Housing Act of 1949” authored BTW by a Republican Senator, Robert Taft.

Unfortunately, due to the rule of unintended consequences, the law had the opposite effect of what it was supposed to do in that more low income housing was removed from urban centers than was created.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at February 17, 2012 9:55 PM
Comment #336746

C&J
The Black prison population, as you admit is a legacy of racism. Its not some statistical aberration. Its consistent, national and involves millions of lives.It is also logical proof that we are a deeply racist nation contrary to your rosey post.The elephant in the living room. I wish you were right but sweeping it under the rug is counter-productive. It may be politically expedient but its not reality based and will lead to poor public policy choices.

Posted by: bills at February 18, 2012 3:56 AM
Comment #336749

Bills:

“It is also logical proof that we are a deeply racist nation contrary to your rosey post.”

I’ll tell you what bills; if liberals and democrats didn’t constantly bring up racism, it would never be a subject. It is only when liberal Democrats bring it up, that a discussion begins. The left has certain subjects that come up at every election time: old people losing Medicare and SS, rich people not paying enough in taxes, and Republicans are racist. These are known as “hot button” issues. You should be ashamed of yourselves because it’s nothing but election time talking points. The first 2 years of Obama’s presidency, he enjoyed a Democrat majority in the House and Senate; why didn’t he do something for blacks then? Because the defense of blacks and minorities are simply election talking points.

“The damage was started by the “Housing Act of 1949” authored BTW by a Republican Senator, Robert Taft.
Unfortunately, due to the rule of unintended consequences, the law had the opposite effect of what it was supposed to do in that more low income housing was removed from urban centers than was created.”
Rocky
Posted by: Rocky Marks at February 17, 2012 9:55 PM

Rocky, are you sure you want to play this date game? Hell, let’s just back up to Margaret Stanger (may she burn in Hell forever); the founder of PP and hater of black people and a devout Democrat and liberal/progressive. Tell me you liberals and progressives on WB, do you support this daughter of a bitch?

“The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race
(Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)

On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
“…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ‘spawning… human beings who never should have been born.” Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people
On sterilization & racial purification:
Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial “purification,” couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.

On the right of married couples to bear children:
Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her “Plan for Peace.” Birth Control Review, April 1932

On the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was “to create a race of thoroughbreds,” she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:
“More children from the fit, less from the unfit — that is the chief aim of birth control.” Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage:
“This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in the solution of marriage problems… Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable - these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation.” Margaret Sanger, Happiness in Marriage (Bretano’s, New York, 1927)

On the extermination of blacks:
“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon

On respecting the rights of the mentally ill:
In her “Plan for Peace,” Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed “feebleminded.” Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107

On adultery:
A woman’s physical satisfaction was more important than any marriage vow, Sanger believed. Birth Control in America, p. 11

On marital sex:
“The marriage bed is the most degenerating influence in the social order,” Sanger said. (p. 23) [Quite the opposite of God’s view on the matter: “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” (Hebrews 13:4)

On abortion:
“Criminal’ abortions arise from a perverted sex relationship under the stress of economic necessity, and their greatest frequency is among married women.” The Woman Rebel - No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.

On the YMCA and YWCA:
“…brothels of the Spirit and morgues of Freedom!”), The Woman Rebel - No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.

On the Catholic Church’s view of contraception:
“…enforce SUBJUGATION by TURNING WOMAN INTO A MERE INCUBATOR.” The Woman Rebel - No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.

On motherhood:
“I cannot refrain from saying that women must come to recognize there is some function of womanhood other than being a child-bearing machine.” What Every Girl Should Know, by Margaret Sanger (Max Maisel, Publisher, 1915) [Jesus said: “Daughters of Jerusalem, weep… for your children. For, behold, the days are coming, in which they shall say, Blessed (happy) are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the breasts which never gave suck.” (Luke 23:24)]
“The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)

http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm

jlw said:

“C&J, a party that repudiates racism doesn’t invite white supremacist nationalists to speak at CPAC. They just don’t. Conservatives that say they aren’t racist don’t applaud white supremacist nationalists, or do they? A blast from the past, separate but equal, right!
I don’t buy the conservative argument that Holder is a racist.
Very few racists convert. The racists are still among us, but government has made it hard for them to operate in the open.”

So jlw, tell me, did you support LBJ or Robert Byrd; they were racists and according to you, never converted. Is holder a racist? Yes, he most certainly is a racist and everything he has done as AG shows just how racist he is. When an AG tells his staff that racism and discrimination cases will only be pursued if it is against a black and not if it is against whites, then I would call it racism:

http://www.wnd.com/2010/06/173117/

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/33-racism-holder-justice/

jlw, try to answer the charges instead of attacking the source; which is a typical liberal trick.

Posted by: billinflorida at February 18, 2012 2:30 PM
Comment #336753
Warped, the damage was done in the late 70’s through reform. How many years does it take to destroy a generation of people.

I might also add that government low income housing herded all blacks into inner city ghettos. In fact, everything the Democrats have done to help blacks have actually hurt them.

Maybe so; I don’t know. Nevertheless, I don’t believe there was anything nefarious behind those policies; it was just a case of over optimistic naivete about how government should exercise its power. This is why we need to be very careful when we instruct our political system to do something like this. Taking money from taxpayers and giving it to non-taxpayers is an extremely intrusive action and exists at the frontiers of what is Constitutional and what is not. I agree that the welfare regime that existed before 1996 was heavily flawed, however I was not a part of the decision to implement that system. All I can do is ask: what is the best policy going forward? If you want to bring up flaws in our current safety net programs, by all means do so, but don’t belabor yourself with the past.

Are the flaws of the pre-1996 system still prevalent? From what I’ve read, the 1996 reforms were pretty successful. Nowadays, a very small number of benefits go to working-age people who aren’t working.

Also, one of the big bits of naivete regarding the Great Society was the fact that policymakers did not take into account the changing cultural norms that happened along with the “sexual revolution”. If cultural norms regarding sexuality had not been changed in the ’60s and we retained our old moral standards from before, the welfare programs might have been more beneficial.

BTW, please don’t dump quotes that don’t bear much relevance to the topic we are discussing. Nobody denies that Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist and racist and no one regards her a hero. She is an important figure in the history of women’s rights because she advocated for greater access to contraception, albeit for less than holy reasons. Nevertheless, her efforts have enabled women to control their own lives much better through the use of birth control and through the knowledge of how the human body functions. Margaret Sanger was a deeply flawed woman, but I see no one rushing to laud her.

Yes, he most certainly is a racist and everything he has done as AG shows just how racist he is. When an AG tells his staff that racism and discrimination cases will only be pursued if it is against a black and not if it is against whites, then I would call it racism:

I’ll address the allegations presented by your two sources. However, in the future if you want to be credible you need to know a few things regarding historiography. I don’t know if you learned this in school, but there is a difference between primary, secondary and tertiary sources of information. Generally, it is best to provide a link to a primary source; if the primary source is cumbersome or unavailable (such as the actual legal documents used in the New Black Panther Case), then the next best alternative is to link to a secondary source with credibility. Some secondary sources have editorial biases (The WSJ & NYT for example), but they retain a reputation for (mostly) unbiased accuracy with the rest of their reporting. Sometimes, I resort to linking to a biased secondary source such as Mother Jones magazine, but when I do so it is often in the interest of time. If I link an article from a biased source, it always contains links to the primary sources that underlie the story. Occasionally, I link to a tertiary source for noncontroversial things such as the encyclopedic entries regarding well established phenomenon. Your link to World Net Daily is a tertiary source; it’s only use is the fact that it links to a few secondary sources as well as other tertiary sources as well as the fact as it gives me a few keywords to help me search for the real story as it is told in primary or secondary sources.

Now to the allegations: The Bush DOJ launched an investigation against the New Black Panther Party after conservative activists taped a video depicting two NBPP members guarding a door to a polling location; one of the NBPP members brandished a baton during the 2008 general election. J. Christian Adams was one of the attorneys at the DOJ and he alleges that political appointees dismissed the case because the defendants were African-American.

However, this analysis ignores the following:
The DOJ successfully achieved an injunction against the man wielding the baton for violating laws that prohibit that behavior.
No White voters have come forward to testify that they were intimidated.

In light of those two facts, it makes sense that the case was against the other defendants was dismissed. The man who wasn’t wielding a baton was a registered poll watcher which also complicates things a little.

Posted by: Warped Reality at February 18, 2012 5:38 PM
Comment #336754


billinflorida, did you support George Wallace?

Although I did not have the opportunity to vote for either man, I did support much of the legislation that they produced.

For all I know, both men may have remained racists all their lives, but actions speak louder than words. With Byrd, one could possibly say that what he did for the poor of his state and region was political expedience because of the support he had from the people.

You can’t say that political expedience is what drove LBJ. He knew the consequences of his actions. He knew that it would probably cost him his presidency and that his political party would pay a high price for it.

I guess LBJ was waiting for his payoff with Obama, but it gave the Republicans time to set this economy up in their efforts to destroy what he accomplished.

I read your Black Panther reports. The key words were reported, alleged, supposedly. A lot of charges labeled against Holder, but no real facts and no confirmation of the charges. They also only gave one side of the story, just a statement saying the charges were dismissed by a judge who said it was a clear case of self-defence, suggestions that the judge was part of a great and evil conspiracy perpetrated by the Obama Administration for consumption by those who want to believe.

Let’s stick to facts like conservatives cheering and encouraging white supremacists as part of their get out the vote efforts. Of course Democrats will use that and other similar bigoted issues in their get out the vote efforts.

This election should be a case study in how some conservatives running their mouths can muck things up for the rest.

If conservatives want to counter with, oh yea, well LBJ was a racist, be my guest, I encourage them to do so.


Posted by: jlw at February 18, 2012 5:39 PM
Comment #336757

jlw,

WORD! All four posts in this thread!

Posted by: Adrienne at February 18, 2012 6:08 PM
Comment #336760

Bills

It is the legacy of racism and a problem, but it is not the result of current racism.

As I explained, it is a matter of the culture created by both racism and also by the history of Africa. But what to do?

Some cultural traits are persistent. These may be good things or not. Culture is not destiny however. The larger society should indeed help those segments of the black community that has these traits that create violence. But we (most whites) are afraid to be called racist. Even prominent blacks, like Bill Cosby, cannot tell the truth w/o getting in trouble.

The prison population reflects the offending population. The best thing we have done to change this has been welfare reform. The worst thing we did was the Great Society programs that helped create the pernicious ghetto culture.

Years of racists did less to destroy black families than a couple decades of liberal policies.

jlw

“but I recognized that conservatives don’t have a big problem with blacks that share their conservative values” - you got that right. It is not racism, not at all.

Blacks have become too reliably Democratic. That is a big mistake on their part.

Rocky

I just don’t know enough about that, but whether authored by Taft of someone else, it shows the often perverse and contradictory results of government rules.

Posted by: C&J at February 18, 2012 7:00 PM
Comment #336761

LBJ was earthy, blunt spoken and could count votes. He understood fully both the positive and negative political consequences of aggressively pursuing the Civil Rights bill of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He understood that the civil rights bills would jeopardize the entire elector college of the South for Democrats for decades. He understood that this could not be offset by a black appreciation vote. The increase in black votes could never make up for the loss of the entire Southern block.

Yet, he did pursue the civil rights legislation. He completed the work begun by Harry Truman in 1948 and John Kennedy in 1963. He consciously sacrificed the “Dixiecrat” South for civil rights. It was a political decision that he knew would be exploited by Republicans. The Nixon “Southern Strategy” soon followed.

If the timeless expression that “actions speak louder than words” has any truth, LBJ could hardly be characterized as a racist.

Posted by: Rich at February 18, 2012 7:29 PM
Comment #336765

Warped, this is interesting; I give you the facts of what happened to black families over a period of 30+ years, of the condemning policies of liberal Democrats, and your answer is, “Maybe so; I don’t know. Nevertheless, I don’t believe there was anything nefarious behind those policies; it was just a case of over optimistic naivete about how government should exercise its power.”

Sorry Warped, but the politicians knew exactly what they were doing.
“This is why we need to be very careful when we instruct our political system to do something like this. Taking money from taxpayers and giving it to non-taxpayers is an extremely intrusive action and exists at the frontiers of what is Constitutional and what is not.”

Are we still talking about Welfare or are we talking about Obamacare and “we will know what is in it, after we pass it”?

“I agree that the welfare regime that existed before 1996 was heavily flawed, however I was not a part of the decision to implement that system. All I can do is ask: what is the best policy going forward? If you want to bring up flaws in our current safety net programs, by all means do so, but don’t belabor yourself with the past.”

What should be done? Well the first thing I could say is for government to get out of our lives; but it’s too late. The government has create a group of people who are dependent upon government handouts, who have lost the will to better themselves, and who have no idea what personal responsibility is. I realize there are exceptions to the rule. There are some blacks who have studied and worked hard to make something of their lives; but the ones who have done so become conservative and are then attacked as being Oreos or traitors to their race, as has happened to Cain and Allen West.

Re/ Margaret Stanger: “BTW, please don’t dump quotes that don’t bear much relevance to the topic we are discussing.”

It is most certainly relevant; the progressive/liberal Democrat agenda is based on the work of the likes of people like Stanger. You find her comments offensive? Welcome to the real world, they are about as offensive as the comments of liberals today. She is part of your liberal heritage, and you do not have the right t accept some of her teachings and not all.

Concerning your comments on “primary, secondary and tertiary sources of information”; I’m glad to see you got the point and I was sure you could find more sources if you needed them.

Re/Holder’s decision to not pursue armed Black Panther intimidators at the voting stations: you dance a good dance Warped, and you even managed to bring Bush into the subject, but you only answer to J. Christian Adams was that he alleged certain things. What you fail to understand is that he worked for Holder and resigned because of the corruption taking place in the DOJ; of which corruption is still taking place in a plethora of cases across the country.

In conclusion Warped; re-read your initial comments…you are guilty of sounding like a conservative.

Jlw, I did not vote for the racist Democrat George Wallace. How hard would it be to bring charges against the president’s current AG? The congress can’t get him to answer the simplest of questions regarding Fast and Furious.

Re/Byrd, yes he brought a lot of pork to WV. In fact he has many bridges and highways to nowhere, named after him. He was a racist liberal Democrat who was more concerned with leaving a legacy than he was about the people of his state. WV is a great example of a state controlled by Democrats. Next to the black community, there were more whites on Welfare in WV than in any other state.

Posted by: Billinflorida at February 18, 2012 10:15 PM
Comment #336766


C&J, did Bill Cosby happen to mention the the majority of black people in this country haven’t been enslaved by the liberal welfare system?

Did he happen to mention that those people along with millions of other Americans, including most conservatives, have benefited greatly from many progressive and liberal policies that helped transform much this countries work force from third world workers into middle class workers?

In case you have forgotten, this countries government is an experiment in democracy. By nature, it is going to make mistakes, it is going to formulate bad policies. Democracy is messy.

The big question for me, is how do we cut through the partisan B.S. so we can address problems with policy in a timely fashion? There are logical solutions to most problems so let’s make sure we don’t let logic get in the way of partisan solutions.

The other question is when will conservatives finally present sound, well thought out alternative policies instead of the same old same old that is the reason we have these policies and programs in the first place?

You can’t reach the future by marching backwards.

“Blacks have become to reliably Democratic. That is a big mistake on their part.” Even the working class family oriented ones.

Yes, we know why the Republican party attacks them.

Guess what? Women, the young, even hispanics are becoming to reliably Democratic as well.

If this keeps up, you white conservative males will have the Republican party all to yourselves. You act like that is what you all want.


Posted by: jlw at February 18, 2012 10:28 PM
Comment #336767

billinflorida,

“Rocky, are you sure you want to play this date game? Hell, let’s just back up to Margaret Stanger (may she burn in Hell forever); the founder of PP and hater of black people and a devout Democrat and liberal/progressive.”

Perhaps if Margaret Sanger had anything to do with government housing we could have a discussion on her instead, except, BTW, you’re the one that brought up the government housing thing, and now you want to change the subject.

So, lets talk about racist rants by one of your conservative darlings.
Oh, and there are sources with every one of these quotes.

http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/top-10-racist-limbaugh-quotes/

Rush Limbaugh;

“Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?”

“Right. So you go into Darfur and you go into South Africa, you get rid of the white government there. You put sanctions on them. You stand behind Nelson Mandela — who was bankrolled by communists for a time, had the support of certain communist leaders. You go to Ethiopia. You do the same thing.”

“Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.”

“The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.”

“They’re 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?”

“We need segregated buses… This is Obama’s America.”

“Obama’s entire economic program is reparations.”

This one is curious because of your statement above

“Obama is “more African in his roots than he is American” and is “behaving like an African colonial despot”

I don’t think I need to go on.

As for Sanger and LBJ; Frankly I haven’t seen anybody deifying either one of these people here on this site. They were both a product of their time. Sanger did raise awareness of women’s reproductive rights, and LBJ got the civil rights act passed.

“She is part of your liberal heritage, and you do not have the right t accept some of her teachings and not all.”

What a crock of manure.


Jack,

I did misspeak. The bill was cosponsored, not authored, by Taft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Taft#Second_term_issues

“From 1947 to 1949, when the Republicans controlled the Senate, Taft was his party’s leading voice in domestic policy. He was reluctant to support farm subsidies, a position that hurt the GOP in rural areas (especially in the Midwest) in the 1948 elections. Taft engineered the passage of the 1949 National Housing Act, which funded slum clearance and the construction of 810,000 units of low-income housing over a period of six years. It was one of the few Fair Deal proposals of President Truman he liked.”

http://conservapedia.com/Robert_Taft#Senator

“He cosponsored the Taft-Wagner-Ellender Housing Act to subsidize public housing in inner cities. Government, he argued in 1946, should “give to all a minimum standard of living,” including sufficient education to give “to all children a fair opportunity to get a start in life.”

The point about the controversy with the act was that during the early phases of urban renewal much of the housing in the inner-cities was decimated, and what replaced it was hardly affordable to low income families. Critics called “Urban renewal”, negro removal.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at February 19, 2012 12:08 AM
Comment #336866

C&J
‘It is the legacy of racism and a problem, but it is not the result of current racism”

You must be joking. The dis-proportion continues currently but is not current? Sentences for Backs are higher. Penalties for crack cocaine, used in Black communities are much greater than for powdered cocaine ,used on Wall Street.
Welfare reform, do not forget, took place in a boom. Attempting to further cut back the overloaded safety net in a a deep downturn would accomplish little besides base cruelity and a compounding of problems.

Posted by: bills at February 19, 2012 3:11 AM
Comment #336887

C&J
Another example of current racism, After the bank meltdown when people started looking to place the blame. Immediately from the right fingers where pointed at the Community Redevelopment Act.No evidence it had anything to do with the problem but it must have, forcing banks to lend money to nigras and all. Turns out that the payback ratio is better than average on those loans and the law did not even effect the mortgage companies that issued most of the bad paper. Its still taken as gospel on the right despite lack of rational basis.That’s racism. That’s current. Because the right has learned to hide their sheets doesn’t mean their hearts have changed.

Posted by: bills at February 19, 2012 5:46 AM
Comment #336888
Sorry Warped, but the politicians knew exactly what they were doing.

Another unsubstantiated claim; do you actually want me to take you seriously? If this was really such a nefarious thingthen why did the poverty rate drop by so much in the years after the Great Society?

Are we still talking about Welfare or are we talking about Obamacare and “we will know what is in it, after we pass it”?

Oh, so now you resort to those old talking points.

What should be done? Well the first thing I could say is for government to get out of our lives; but it’s too late

Now that’s a very nuanced idea packed with subtlety. How are we getting government out of our lives? We could disband the military, that would certainly get government out of our lives, but I don’t think you’d enjoy the other consequences of doing that…

The government has create a group of people who are dependent upon government handouts, who have lost the will to better themselves, and who have no idea what personal responsibility is.
Is this a problem from today or from before 1996? Can you cite statistics describing a large population of able-bodied people receiving government benefits? From my earlier comment, we know that about 90% of the recipients of entitlement spending are either working, disabled or elderly.
I realize there are exceptions to the rule. There are some blacks who have studied and worked hard to make something of their lives; but the ones who have done so become conservative

You mean like Barack Obama & Eric Holder?

It is most certainly relevant; the progressive/liberal Democrat agenda is based on the work of the likes of people like Stanger. You find her comments offensive? Welcome to the real world, they are about as offensive as the comments of liberals today. She is part of your liberal heritage, and you do not have the right t accept some of her teachings and not all.

First of all, it’s Sanger not Stanger. Secondly, Sanger is hardly a liberal apart from the fact that she advocated in favor of increasing a woman’s right to be educated about her own body as well as the right to access birth control (not abortions) if need be. Also, it is possible for a flawed person to still be right and influential in other areas. Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers owned slaves, but that doesn’t force us into a dichotomy of either endorsing slavery or repudiating most of our founding fathers.

Concerning your comments on “primary, secondary and tertiary sources of information”; I’m glad to see you got the point and I was sure you could find more sources if you needed them.

Good. Next time you link to WND, I’m not going to do your work for you. You will have to research and cite facts instead of some conservative’s editorial opinion. In the future, links to biased tertiary websites like WND will likely be dismissed.

you even managed to bring Bush into the subject
Is this a problem, am I not supposed to say the B-word? I’m not even blaming Bush for what happened with regards to the New Black Panthers; I’m just acknowledged that the investigation started before Bush’s term ended.
he worked for Holder and resigned because of the corruption taking place in the DOJ; of which corruption is still taking place in a plethora of cases across the country.
Adams worked for the Bush DOJ and was a Republican poll watcher in 2004. Most of his allegations are hearsay and I’m not surprised that he resigned given the change in administration and Adams’ party affiliation.
you are guilty of sounding like a conservative.
I Don’t know what you mean here. I’ve had plenty of fruitful discussions here on WB with conservatives. C&J in the past predicted that I will become a conservative when I get older, maybe this is what you are referring to? Do I really sound like a conservative? Posted by: Warped Reality at February 19, 2012 8:02 AM
Comment #336889

jlw

You probably need to define “progressive policies”. During the 20th Century there were many programs tried by government. Some worked; many did not and were abandoned. Most of the programs of the New Deal were gone by 1945, for example. All of the successful programs have been modified.

Most Americans benefit from many of the policies and are hurt by some others. Few people want to erase all the programs enacted since 1929, just as few would want to erase various technological and management advances made since that time. For example, nobody would want to go back to how industries were in the middle of the New Deal.

President Reagan was a New Deal Democrat. He explained that he had not left the party, but the party had left him. By the 1970s, “progressives” who were in the vanguard of their idea had become … what is the word … stupid. The types of program enacted as part of the wave of reforms in the late 1960s and early 1970s were destructive to society. In the years since, we have had to walk most of them back and we reformed welfare in the 1990s. It was one of the it was better for the poor - and for blacks to the extent they are poor - than anything done from 1966-1996.

Progressives like the late Senator Kennedy loudly cried and swore it would further immiserate the poor. In fact, it helped everybody. Their opposition showed the bankruptcy of progressive thought at that time. What have they learned since then?

I agree that “You can’t reach the future by marching backwards,” which is why I oppose the “progressive” retrogression to the ideas of the 1960s and 1970s that we know have brought greater misery to the poor and to minorities. Unfortunately, some of those policies have created dependency. Like a drug addict, the poor would be better off w/o these sorts of policies, but the withdrawal will be hard.

Rocky

Federal policies to interfere in the working of cities is almost always a mistake. The Feds should play a support role that helps create conditions whereby others can create prosperity. City management should remain predominantly a local matter with some state input and only a little from the Feds.

Bills

Your race baiting is unbecoming. I see community lending as a problem because it pushes money and responsibly to place and people unable to sustain it. This has nothing to do with race.

There are successful examples of “community lending”. There was a bank on Chicago’s South side that lent to poor people based on unconventional collateral. Shorebank was the model for the Polish/American enterprise fund, which lent to small businesses with little credit history. (It was one of the few foreign aid schemes that actually made money for the taxpayers) But this is not easily scaleable, and it absolutely does not work when it get politicized.

Re disproportionate sentencing - we should reform the crack penalties. That was not racism, however. It was fear of the spread of crack, which was much cheaper and more addictive.

Re sentencing in general - more than half the people in jail for murder are black as are more than half the offenders. This particular crime is not subject to as much interpretation. We clearly have a violence problem in one segment of the black community. This is not all blacks by any means. It would be more easily addressed if it was a segment of the white community because we would not need fear the spurious accusations of racism.

The spurious use of the race card hurts the black community more than any real racism does today.

I add my personal experience. As you may recall, my son what set upon by a group of black men, who were beating up random whites. They attracted him from behind, did not speak to him, did not rob him. They just kicked him in the head and called him a cracker while they did it. You didn’t read about this in the papers. Imagine a similar incident with a group of a dozen whites going into a black neighborhood to “hunt”.

This was definitely a hate crime and obviously based on race. Should we make it into a national cause? If we keep on doing that we perpetuate hate. My son took the high road and did not want to push this. We should punish crimes, but keep racism (black, white or any other) out as much as possible.

Posted by: C&J at February 19, 2012 9:58 AM
Comment #336890

Jack,

“Federal policies to interfere in the working of cities is almost always a mistake.”

The point is that this isn’t the providence of Democrats alone, and I would also point out that this wasn’t some malicious racist conspiracy, as “mr”billinflorida would suggest, to enslave urban blacks.

Perhaps mistakes were made by both parties, however, the mistakes were made in an honest attempt to help.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at February 19, 2012 10:56 AM
Comment #336891

Warped

I consider it a compliment to you that you are intelligent and understand nuances. When I was young, I thought that I was a “progressive” and I still support many of the goal, but experience has taught me that often the methods & programs proposed by progressives do not achieve those goals. Too often they actually hurt real progress, as happened in the 1970s when ostensibly compassionate policies produced social pathologies.

When you become a conservative, it does not mean that you give up your ideals. Rather it means that you work to achieve those ideals in ways that less experienced or less aware people do not understand. Often you have the choice between things that really work and things that seem to work or those that are working in the popular imagination. The ethical and courageous choice is to do the things that really work and suffer the slings and arrows of the “progressives.”

Since when you choose to become a conservative, you will find that you are dead to many of your former liberal friends, the epitaph applies for us - “As you are now so once was I; as I am now so you shall be.”

Posted by: C&J at February 19, 2012 10:58 AM
Comment #336892

Rocky

I never thought is was a conspiracy. In fact, I think most of those bone-head policies that destroyed families in the 1970s and 1980s were enacted by people trying to do good. Both Republicans and Democrats fall into this trap of believing that they can use the immense power of the Federal government to achieve highly nuanced improvements at the local level. It is kind of hubris.

Posted by: C&J at February 19, 2012 11:08 AM
Comment #336895


“bone-headed policies” Sometimes, in the richest nation on earth that runs an economic system based on maximizing profits for a limited number of people while paying workers the barest minimal wages possible, you have do what you have to do. It was the best solution possible without confronting the real problem.

C&J, most of those on the left have agreed that the welfare system wasn’t friendly to family development. What percentage of Republicans would you say don’t believe it was a conspiracy?

How would you explain the reason why so many conservatives believe that it was?

The right is trying to blame a government program that serves a limited number of Americans for a national trend away from marriage and towards cohabitation.

‘Seventy percent of young black women are having children out of wedlock.’

Seventy percent of young black women aren’t on welfare.

Seventy percent of professional black women are choosing to have children without marriage.

The fastest grow segment to do this are young white women with some college.

And not one word about how corporations have exploited the sexual revolution and many other cultural changes, including one of their own making, a trend away from frugality and towards mass consumption and indebtedness.

Economic conditions are a factor. Women’s liberation is a factor. Itsy bitsy tiny commercial advertising jingles and the pill were factors. These individual liberty right wingers can complain about young women receiving government assistance, but all the other women are exercising their individual liberty.

Are they being responsible? Many of them are being very responsible.

My boy friend is a nice guy and he is really good with my kids, but marry him, no way. He’s irresponsible like a child. I’m the bread winner in this family. He would spend the bread on big boy toys if I let him.

NY Times: Deal Book: Bonds Backed By Mortgages Regain Allure.

The housing market is barely showing signs of recovery and the same people are already investing in the next bubble. Of course that isn’t a cause of trouble for families and it’s nothing to be concerned about.


Posted by: jlw at February 19, 2012 7:11 PM
Comment #336896

Jlw


We have a free market system, which has produced widespread prosperity. It is an unfair caricature when you say, ““bone-headed policies” Sometimes, in the richest nation on earth that runs an economic system based on maximizing profits for a limited number of people while paying workers the barest minimal wages possible, you have do what you have to do. It was the best solution possible without confronting the real problem.”

I do not believe that most on the left would concede even today that those programs were pernicious to poor black families. Even you use the word “unfriendly”.

I think the conspiracy idea is not as much related to the actual policies as the follow up. I do believe that what I would call the “civil rights industry” perpetuates some of the old patterns. They play the race card to avoid reforms and protect their phony-baloney jobs.

Re the breakdown of families - this is a problem of black, white etc. It is more a problem of the poor than the rich. The well-off are much more likely to have intact families. It is hard to know if this is cause of effect. Intact families help make members more prosperous but prosperous people have greater ability to keep their families intact.


Posted by: C&J at February 19, 2012 7:42 PM
Comment #336898

C&J

Basically I say AMEN to your original post.

However, I take issue with you with you about whether Warped will become a conservative. I must say I rather hope not. I’ve voted in all the elections since LBJ, thus, I would probably be considered fairly old.

I am still far more liberal than conservative. Guess I am doomed to stay that way….

I find that as I get older it is harder and harder for me to see only the black and white of things. More likely I see the gray areas.

While I hesitatingly paint conservatives with the ‘black hat’ and liberals with the ‘white hat’ as far as their ideals laid, I guess I still believe in the ultimate goodness of mankind.

I therefore, can’t help but believe (and know) that fundamentally, life is better here in the ‘good ole US of A’ today than if was when I was growing up.

I remember using outhouses, buckets to draw up water from the outdoor well, and the ‘party-line’ telephone system. I remember seeing bread priced at 7 cents a loaf, and still being out of reach for many people, unfortunately predominately black. I remember ‘white only’ bathrooms, drinking fountains, restaurants. I lived in Greensboro, NC during the Walgreen’s Sit-ins.

While there is much to continue doing, life is substantially better now in the 21st century, because some people, (Usually the liberals) had the nerve to stand up, speak out, and vote for the necessary changes to make life better for all people. In some cases lives were even lost. Today, at least, we are headed in the right direction.

I can only pray that God will bless those who are and were willing to fight for the rights of all.

Posted by: Highlandangel1 at February 19, 2012 11:02 PM
Comment #336899

Highlandangel1

Most of those advances you talk about resulted from technological and organizational improvements developed by the free market. If you compare innovation in free markets to those in less or unfree ones, you see that if we had government management we would be as advanced as the old Soviet Union.

There is some need to speak up for changes. The free market is the most dynamic and changing system ever devised by humans.

Many of the liberal improvements in the 1960s and 1970s were retrograde.

There is not black and white decisions, as you say. We need to look at what happens as the result of policies. Both liberals and conservatives want a world where people are prosperous. Very few Americans on either side do not believe in democracy.

There is one big difference between liberals and conservatives in goals however. Liberals are much more into the idea of equality and conservatives like liberty.

I actually have come to dislike the idea of equality as it is often formulated by liberals. I do NOT want to be the equal of everybody else in everything. I want to be better in things I consider important and I assume I will be worse in some other things.

I also favor diversity more than equality. If we have a diverse population, making different choices, we cannot expect equality at the end.

Posted by: C&J at February 19, 2012 11:33 PM
Comment #336931

While I tend to agree with some of what you say, I’m afraid that many of the advancements that have been made have been a result of “thinking out-side-of-the box”, something I have found over the years that many conservatives don’t like to do or encourage.

If one were to stick to the fundamentalist ides of Conservatism, one is simply not capable of change. One generally prefers the status quo. I much prefer a more progressive movement.

“Many of the liberal improvements in the 1960s and 1970s were retrograde.

Surely you did not mean to write this…

I do not believe or accept the idea that the movements of the 1960’s and 70’s were “retrograde. That is simply not true. I remember all too well the sit-ins in Greensboro, the integration of schools, busing, burning crosses and the ‘Klan”. Have you ever seen a cross burning? I have….

It was after all the liberal who walked the road from Selma to Birmingham, it was the liberal who sought liberty for ALL, it was the liberal who has pushed through fair wages for all, it was the liberal who said “ladies, you should have the opportunity to work if you wish too. And it is the liberal who is still outraged that women are not paid equally…

It is the liberal who understands that there are many different types of people in our nation whose rights have yet been allowed - and will, I hope continue to fight for them…yes, I mean gays.

Dare I even write this? - YES, I WILL: It was the liberal who founded this country. People who were willing to stick their necks out. Willing to lose everything because of a belief. To die for what they believed it. People who wanted a CHANGE.

I, too want liberty,for ALL. Regardless of sex, gender, education, race, language, or religion.(although I must admit, I don’t speak Spanish, and seriously doubt I ever will - after all our country was founded in American-English…)

And I must add that frankly, as arrogant as it may sound, there is no one equal to me, but many who are as deserving as I, who are still not considered equal, or FREE to be whom they are. And to be as proud of whom they are as I am proud of myself and my family.

While I do totally believe in our government, I think many people forget that this is NOT a Democracy, rather it is a Democratic Republic.

Our representatives are suppose to REPRESENT the ideas of the VOTERSwho put them there. Not their own desires, agendas or plans, beliefs, nor those of the “party” they come from, but the beliefs and desires of the VOTERS who sent them there and pay their SALARIES.

Sorry for the rather strongly worded response, but you kinda got under my skin…

Posted by: Highlandangel1 at February 20, 2012 1:37 AM
Comment #337054

Highlandangel1

You are characterizing conservative simply as the things you do not like.

Conservatives support the free market. The free market has been the engine of the most comprehensive change in world history.

In fact, the civil rights things you refer to are in many ways vindications of the market v government. There were rules and laws that prevented blacks from achieving their rights. These rules were in place because given a free market, blacks would have more rights. Why make a law to have segregation? Because in a free market the most important color is the green of money and given not too much time - absent a law or other coercion - segregation ends.

The civil rights struggle was one against the entrenched single-party (Democratic BTW) establishment principally in the South. This was an establishment that resisted the changes that had come about by changes in technologies and methods. Politics needed to ratify changes in the market society.

The civil right movement of the early and middle 1960s and the liberal excess of the later 1960s and 1970s are not really the same things. MLK fought for equal rights and an end to segregation. Later movements fought for special rights and a resegreation. Those well-meaning programs that built government housing for the poor and created a dangerous underclass, those welfare programs that destroyed families and marginalized young men and those affirmative action programs that pushed the soft bigotry of low expectations deserve no place in the proud history of the civil rights movement.

To be a conservative in America means to conserve the “liberal tradition” of free markets, limited government and liberty of the individual against the power of the state. American “liberals” abandoned most of these things in the 1930-1970 and became the adherents of larger government that would manage the lives of citizens.

IMO, governments role is an important one. It must maintain rule of law and create conditions by which people prosper, but does not guide that prosperity in detail.

RE the Klan etc. - government rightfully maintains a monopoly on the legitimate use of coercion and has the duty to prevent violence by others. Government failed in that duty in the South in the pre-civil rights era and had to be brought to heel. But don’t make the mistake of thinking that benign government is the solution to problems not related to government failures.

Posted by: C&J at February 20, 2012 7:26 AM
Comment #337065
Because in a free market the most important color is the green of money and given not too much time - absent a law or other coercion - segregation ends.

Well - excuse me….I didn’t know that conservatives worshiped the all might dollar. Me, I worship God…each to his own I guess.

So the free market system will cure all our woes? Wonderful - when is it going to start? Or maybe it already has and I just missed it. Seems to me I saw lots anger in the north when segregation ended… not so much in the south. Wonder why?

Oh, I know all about Mississippi and Arkansas, and even Georgia, but those were tiffs compared to Detroit, Chicago, and L.A.

If the free market system will solve all our problems then why are women still lagging behind men in pay? Have either of you faced discrimination? I have. One example occurred in the late 1970’s. McDonalds wouldn’t hire me because”nice girls don’t clean MEN’S ROOMS! Who the heck do you suppose cleans his bathroom at home? A fairy?

this country was founded on the free market system. when are we going to see the results that you claim will happen?

Let me see, we’ve had two revolutions, one civil war, two world wars, and a depression in between, lots of other wars, and massive demonstrations. That’s just in the past 230+ years. If the free market system, has as you claim worked so well, then I must ask you why we’re still trying to gain freedom FOR ALL.

You see, in the ideal free market system there is one major fallacy - there will never be enough ‘green’ for everyone. Someone has to be on the bottom. It doesn’t matter who looses - Black, Latinos, women,children, Whites, etc. someone has to be on the bottom - if for no other reason than for human nature to be able to say, “I have more than so and so”. It is human nature to try to one-up someone.

Most people like feeling superior to someone. It is a sad truth, but a real one. so you can keep your green, and as long as it doesn’t hit me in the nose, I will support your right to have as much of it as you can earn.

Meanwhile, I will be happy in my own world, where money doesn’t buy happiness, but being a good person does, where I can treat all people with dignity, and fairness, and continue to try to make my part of the the world a little bit nicer for ALL those who live in it.

I hope you are happy as well. I’m not so sure. You don’t sound like it.

Posted by: Highlandangel1 at February 20, 2012 6:43 PM
Comment #337069

Highlandangel1

The market is not really a solution. It is a tool or a mechanism that tends to produce wealth and tolerance. It must be embedded in a political system the respects the rule of law and creates stability.

The race oppression was a failure of government. There were laws against racial inclusion. Government failed in its duty to prevent violence.

Re women not being paid as much as men - there are lots of good reasons for that. I wrote a post about it. Discrimination is perhaps a minor point. The major points are that women tend to leave the labor force more often, they often major in lower paid subjects and they tend to be concentrated in safer jobs.

The benefits of the free market system are so pervasive that you often don’t notice them. Consider what happened in one generation when we had a freer market West Germany and a non-free East Germany. Or even the more horrible comparison between North and South Korea.

If you look at the Index of Economic Freedom, you see that free market strongly correlates with prosperity, freedom, cleaner environment and almost everything else we consider good.

Re money = money doesn’t buy happiness, but lack of it tends to buy misery. More important is a feeling of accomplishment and self respect, but if you have those things you also tend to have some money. The characteristics that make you successful tend to make you not poor.

Re being happy - I am the happiest person I know. People who know me comment on it. In fact I am often criticized for being “too happy”. People assume I must be stupid, since obviously - according to them - an intelligent person cannot be so happy. Maybe they are right, but I doubt it.

Posted by: C&J at February 20, 2012 9:35 PM
Comment #337074

It is obvious that we are destined to disagree. So be it. I do know that money can’t and won’t buy happiness. I have been there.

I have also lived in my car, and worried about how to feed my three young daughters. Through perseverance, honesty, respect, and hard work, I not only managed to feed, cloth, and shelter all 5 of us (I had a useless husband who couldn’t manage to stay employed), I put all four (husband included)of them through college,law school, and three Master Degree programs. Believe me, your Free Market system was only good at holding me back.

Re women not being paid as much as men - there are lots of good reasons for that. I wrote a post about it. Discrimination is perhaps a minor point. The major points are that women tend to leave the labor force more often, they often major in lower paid subjects and they tend to be concentrated in safer jobs.


What century do you live in? Or religion do you practice - Or country to do you reside in? Definitely not the one I do!

Men didn’t want to hire me, for what every asinine reason they could come up with. Talk about glass ceilings. If a woman/Black can do the job she/he deserves to be paid the same as a white man. Period. I don’t care about what some idiot may think she/he will do in the future. No one knows for sure just what the future holds - for any of us.

I am now slightly above comfortable. I am, not because of the free market or the government. I was fortunate enough to invest fairly well (land), keep my expenses down, and didn’t step on others backs to get here. Worry free - no. but I know I can take care of myself. And that is what I find to be my
feeling of accomplishment and self respect.


Much of what I have has been given to me - no stings attached. And I have given much away, also with no stings attached. Frankly I have found my own personal happiness seems to increase when I give money, things, time away.

It must be embedded in a political system the(sic) (that) respects the rule of law and creates stability.


As for trusting the government to do any job or task correctly - forget it. (Hey - I sound like you!) I think it is a shame that we try to depend on government to enforce what is right and what is wrong. Which is what you imply it is suppose to do. Me, I prefer to do what is right, regardless of whether my government, (which frequently falters) agrees. As far as ‘respecting the rules of law and creating stability’, our government is the last place I expect to found any respect or stability.

If the so called free market system must be embedded into our political system, you might as well give up permanently. Because politics is the last place one will find people being honest, respectful, or sincere.

I can think of nothing else to write. We don’t seem to have much in common, other that enjoying spouting our heads off. I wish you good luck. Sincerely.

Posted by: Highlandangel1 at February 21, 2012 1:13 AM
Comment #337081

Sorry C&J, but liberalism is based on victimhood and the most effective way of creating victims is to divide people into nice little manageable groups.
You promise the groups special treatment and “freebies,” and convince them everybody not in lock-step with that thinking are racists.
This is why a dumb word like maccaca makes you a cross burning klan leader and being Thaddeus Matthews or Rev Wright makes you excusable and justified.

Outdated ethnic categories will be around as long as they continue to produce such great results at the pols.

Posted by: kctim at February 21, 2012 2:15 PM
Comment #337104


While conservatism only divides people into two groups, them and us, as in we good Americans and those bad Americans, true Christians and untrue Christians.

Posted by: jlw at February 22, 2012 9:06 AM
Comment #337108

“While conservatism only divides people into two groups, them and us, as in we good Americans and those bad Americans, true Christians and untrue Christians.”

Posted by: jlw at February 22, 2012 9:06 AM

Liberalism also divides people into groups of twos: white and black, have’s and have not’s, intellectal and idiots, male and female, rich and poor, corporate and noncorporate, etc. etc. etc…

Posted by: Frank at February 22, 2012 6:38 PM
Comment #337117

People divide into differing groups, guys. Philosophies only serve to explain the division. It is human nature to try to find like minded people. Just look at the high school clinches!

Posted by: Highlandangel1 at February 23, 2012 12:28 AM
Post a comment