September 25, 2007

The Ugly Side of the G.O.P.

Bob Herbert has a column about the GOP and African Americans. He notes that Tavis Smiley worked for a year to put on separate debates for the Democrats and Republicans addressing African American issues. While the Democratic debate went off without a hitch, the big Republican candidates simply opted out. I guess the "big tent" idea is now officially BS. But he also recounts the death of Andrew Goodman in Philadelphia, Mississippi in 1964, and the subsequent "Southern Strategy" employed by the Republican party to reach out--not to African American voters, but to the pro-segregationists:
In one of the vilest moves in modern presidential politics, Ronald Reagan, the ultimate hero of this latter-day Republican Party, went out of his way to kick off his general election campaign in 1980 in that very same Philadelphia, Miss. He was not there to send the message that he stood solidly for the values of Andrew Goodman. He was there to assure the bigots that he was with them.

“I believe in states’ rights,” said Mr. Reagan. The crowd roared.

In 1981, during the first year of Mr. Reagan’s presidency, the late Lee Atwater gave an interview to a political science professor at Case Western Reserve University, explaining the evolution of the Southern strategy:

“You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger,’ ” said Atwater. “By 1968, you can’t say ‘nigger’ — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things, and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.”
But the GOP is the party of moral values....

Sigh.

41 comments:

steve s said...

"They won’t be there. They can’t be bothered debating issues that might be of interest to black Americans. After all, they’re Republicans."

I had never heard of Tavis Smiley, so I really can't comment on why there would be any opposition to appearing at one of his debates. If I had to guess, it would be the nature of debates, rather then out of a desire to ignore black Americans.

For the most part, debates are just a forum for sound-bites and candidates seem to find little value in them. Most advisers seem to be telling the candidates to go onto forums that will provide 'favorable' questions. Most of the Democratic candidates have refused to go on Fox for a debate. Is it possible that Mr. Smiley's debate would have been a favorable forum?

Don't black Americans care about at least some of the same issues as the rest of America? Having a separate debate doesn't seem all "big tent" to me. I am not trying to be a smart ass, I'd really like to know. Also, since lowering taxes is racial, according to Atwater, has the position of blacks improved significantly under democratic leadership?

Streak said...

Tavis Smiley is a well-known African American journalist and writer and usually quite respected across the lines. I would suggest that simply ignoring the black vote is different than democrats trying to avoid a stacked deck at Fox news. For one thing, Republicans have been trying to attract black voters for years--but seem to have simply conceded here. I would point out that other groups--Hispanics, the AARP, etc., have also hosted forums dedicated to their interests--none of that suggests that those groups are not also vulnerable to broader American issues.

I think the real issue here is that Republicans have been trying to say that racism is dead. Tony Snow as much said that--that racism was largely now only a relic of the Klan extremists. That underlay efforts by the Republicans to gut the Voting Rights Act. Jena, Louisiana has raised that specter of racism once again, and now the Republicans are essentially telling black voters that they really don't care to even try.

What have Democrats done for black voters? Besides civil rights? Perhaps that should be rephrased as what "liberals have done for black voters" since there were many liberal Republians (extinct now) who opposed conservatives of both parties to overturn 100 years of segregation.

But actually, the question is really not what have Democrats done--though that is legitimate and I would suspect that many black voters find the Democratic party as condescending and manipulative as the GOP. But the real issue is this "southern strategy" that Republicans have to live with. They have to seriously address the fact that what Herbert says about Reagan in Mississippi is undoubtedly true--that he fully intended to send code message to all the whites that he sided with them. That seems to me to be the big question here.

ubub said...

I think they won't be there not because they are Republicans but because they are afraid someone in Tavis Smiley's forum will shout, "M-Fer, I want some more iced tea!" or "M-F, I want some more substance to your responses!"

Or is it maccaca if you are in a Republican debate? I keep losing track of these things.

On the road again . . .

steve s said...

My question was have democratic policies improved the situation for blacks? I am aware of the civil-rights movement, but I am looking for something more current. I am not asking this because I know the answer, because I don't.

Racism is certainly not dead. The question is how best to deal with it. I remember looking at this pretty closely in school when we discussed affirmative action, busing, and some of the other court cases that dealt with similar issues. I think we need to take a serious look at what works. Unfortunately, this never seems to happen, or it gets sidetracked by other discussions.

Streak said...

Steve, I don't disagree. But there seem to be two questions here--1) are Democrats doing positive things to reduce racism or to positively effect the lives of African Americans. On that question, it seems that you are right. We should be able to talk about what works and what doesn't and move forward.

But the second question is what is the Republican party doing? If the entire Republican party either endorses or tacitly approves of the Southern strategy? Then say what you will about the Democrats--at least they are not actively endorsing racism.

steve s said...

I don't live in the South. Is the Republican party using the "Southern Strategy?" If so, then that is a bad thing.

Streak said...

Yes. It is a bad thing. It is appealing to Southern racism to solidify the southern vote and win National elections. Bush was the master of it--speaking the Southernese as he did, and allowing his minions to spread the rumor that McCain had a black illegitimate child. Yeah, that wasn't appealing to southern racism.

Yes, it is a bad thing.

steve s said...

I agree. I will readily admit that I am very ignorant when it comes to the South and Southern politics. I certainly wouldn't say that we don't have racism where I live, but we don't see very many politicians trying to appeal to it.

Deep Thought said...

As a Southerner, and a mixed-race one at that, I call shenanigans. First of all, the Atwater quote is horribly edited to make it appear to say the reverse of what Atwater *really* said. Second, if dissing Tavis Smiley makes you a racist, how about the fact that the Democrats all refused the debate hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus? Does that make all of the Democrats racists and - if not - *why* not? Smiley is a Left wing commentator, the CGC is a bi-partisan group of Black politicians!
And if the Southern Strategy is really all about the racists, riddle me this - How did Jimmy Carter and Clinton take the South? Why does the Democratic Party *STILL* dominate state level politics in the South? And how do you explain that the Dixiecrats and George Wallace were Democrats?

ubub said...

History suggests some of the answers to questions raised by Deep Thoughts.

Indeed, the Republican Party formed as a free soil party in Wisconsin in the 1840s and many of the Reconstruction governments were led by Republicans. Similarly, many of the Jim Crow-era state governments were led by Democrats, including folks like George Wallace and Strom Thurmond.

However, as party platforms changed, these words did not mean what they had in the 1840s, 1860s, 1870s, 1920s, or 1960s. It is a very different thing to be a Republican or Democrat in 2007 than it was when Democrat George Wallace was praising segregation or when Republican Rockefeller was fighting poverty from the safety of his limo. Strom Thurmond himself is evidence of the fact that the party's changed as the former the Dixiecrat presidential candidate became a die-hard Republican.

I suspect you know this well and are just being dingenuous, so will spare everyone the didactic lesson in American history.

As to Atwater, what do you suggest he was actually trying to say?

This line of reasoning is still present in conservative politics and media. Note the initial dust-up about the 2000 primaries and then the attempts to reassure voters that there is nothing wrong with John McCain's illegitimate Black bastard love child, because ultimately, people are people. This is why you will not actually find people in Black-owned restaurants shouting "M-F, I want more ice tea," because deep down people are people. Right?

I think Steve addressed the Congressional Black Caucus issue well by noting that it was to be handled by Fox News. It is quite likely that Tavis Smiley, who is hardly a left-wing shill, was perceived as such by campaign managers trying to protect their candidates from events designed to make them look foolish.

Deep Thought said...

Strom Thurman is the exception - as you are probably ignoring, ubub. The majority of Dixiecrats returned to the Democratic Party and kept their chairmanships and senirotiy with Dems. Indeed, open segregationists retained their chairmanships in the Dem party into the late 1980's. David Duke ran as a Dem while an active member of the KKK and only left the Dems after leaving the KKK.

So stop the ad hominems on me and back your bluster with more substance, please.

Tavis Smiley wrote the book "Hard Left" where he touted the Progressive line - guess that isn't enough to be a Liberal in your book, huh? The CBC was *still* blown off by Dems!

Streak said...

Not sure where ubub employed ad hominem argumentation.

I would also like some evidence that a) the southern strategy is not to appeal to southern racists, and b) that Dixiecrats went back to the Democratic party. No one here is suggesting that the Democratic party is clean here, and Robert Byrd is usually exhibit A. But that doesn't prove that Thurmond was the exception rather than the rule.

Are you saying that when Reagan used that location to promote "states rights" that he was not speaking to southern whites who fear civil rights? Or those Republican members who do the same kind of dance around the Confederate flag issues?

The John McCain black baby story is still the one that gets me. Clearly someone in Bush's camp (cough--Rove--cough) thought appealing to southern racism would help Bush.

BTW, Jack Kemp has suggested the very same thing about the Republicans ignoring Tavis Smiley, and clearly fears that Republicans are losing ground among minorities over a variety of issues. Inroads into the black community have been harmed by Florida 2000, and this doesn't help. Anti-immigration rhetoric is pushing more and more Hispanics away from the Republicans and even some of the hardline Cuban vote in Florida is leaning Democratic.

Deep Thought said...

"I suspect you know this well and are just being dingenuous"

This (badly spelled) quote is an attempt to discredit the arguer, not the argument.

I like this; you are making an extreme claim ("the Southern Strategy is racist") and require I prove it wrong. Sweet. And backwards. I suggest you read "The Emerging Republican Majority" Kevin Phillips, 1969 that outlines the Southern Strategy by one of the men who crafted it - it is very clear in Phillip's work that the Southern Strategy is about economics. The same 'its the economy, stupid' attitude that helped Clinton into office.

Indeed, I have always wondered why people think the Southern Strategy is about race when the people who made it explained it 38 years ago - and stats support it. As the South has become better educated and wealthier, the South has voted more and more Republican.

Have you even looked up the Dixiecrats? Hey, I have a piece that discusses this here:

http://www.deepthoughtblog.com//?p=51

Lots of links, too.

States Rights can also mean, well, states rights - just as *Jefferson* used it. Why use 'code words' when open segregationists are serving in the Senate?

Streak said...

Oh, so convincing. So nice when people drop in an bash regular commenters, accuse them of ad hominem argumentation (which that was not, btw) and then call on us to come to your blog.

I will pass. Trolling efforts to increase your own blog stats are not convincing. But please, keep on thinking that the Southern strategy isn't about race. Oh, and please keep ignoring the McCain story. Or anything else that goes against your explanation.

OkieLawyer said...

deep thought:

The Emerging Republican Majority by Kevin Phillips was premised more on the fact that rural states -- which have a disproportionate share of the electoral votes and Senatorial seats based on their populations -- were trending Republican. However, this trend is unexpectedly reversing for the reasons related to What's the Matter With Kansas? by Thomas Frank.

For example: Montana elected a Democrat to the U.S. Senate last year. The Democrats are even competitive in states like Wyoming. Another problem for the Republicans besides the hypocrisy and corruption is the fundraising. The Democrats are phenomenally ahead of Republicans in all aspects of fundraising for next year's campaigns.

I would also like to mention that I am currently working in the South and have noticed a definite problem with attitudes towards minorities that you seem to deny exists.

On top of that, look at what kind of coalitions each political party depends on for its hoped-for majority.

ubub said...

That's me, full of bluster. Actually, I can spel kina ok, just not type for shit, so conclude wut u wil frum day.

My point about being disingenuous was intended to acknowledge that you are apparently a well-educated person employing a rhetorical strategy of cherry picking evidence.

Please allow me to restate, hopefully without any additional spelling errors or typos, that it is unsound to hold constant terms whose meanings shift over time. Each party name is simply a label attached to shifting coalitions. Check the platform, not the name, to find out what they stand for. This is called a false premise, and it invalidates arguments based on it.

But what was Lee Atwater really trying to say that has been misrepresented and misunderstood?

Deep Thought said...

Streak,
Puh-leeze: I have been blogging for 4 1/2 years; I have no need to flog for traffic! If I was, I doubt I would be enticing you and your legions, anyway - little for them to read there. I didn't want to put 6 pages of links and comments into your comment thread, that's all. Since you are disinclined, I suggest you go to Wikipedia, look up 'Dixiecrat' and do the math for yourself.

Further, 'ad hominem' does not mean 'insult' - it means 'to attempt to counter a statement by referring to the person making the statement, not the validity of the statement itself'.

In other words, yes - it was an ad hominem. Deal with it. Move on.

I never claimed that there aren't racists in both parties, nor that there have been race-based maneuvers. I *am*, however, calling shenanigans on the idea that 'conservative = racist' and 'southerner = racist'. I will not claim that Republicans are pure as the driven snow, nor will I say that of Democrats (I am neither). Mr. Herbert made some extreme claims that are unsupportable and I am pointing that out.

As for me denying an argument - well, I suggest you try to make one before claiming I will deny any and all. So far, you have refused to go to a reference link and blamed me for it, asked a rather easily-answered question, and appealed to authority. Let's see some voting records from Southern states! Let's hear a few choice bits of economic analysis!

Deep Thought said...

ubub,
I was just being clear that I didn't mis-type, but cut-and-pasted - that's all.
That is a bit clearer, if not more helpful. While Democrats that ran on openly-segregationalist platforms were elected to the US Senate as recently as the 1980's, I have yet to hear a single Republican run on those same platforms. Again, I hear over and over again that Republicans win in the South (which is a very recent change and not very common) because Southerners are racist (not true; even a cursory glance at hate crime stats shows that, per capita, race-based hate crimes are far more common in the North) all while the commenter is ignoring the stranglehold Democrats have maintained at the local level for 125+ years.

And that makes *me* the cherry picker!

Listen, go look up the Dixiecrats - if you don't agree with my statement "The majority of Dixiecrats returned to the Democratic Party ..." you and I will have to agree to disagree about how math works! And some of those Dixiecrats were leaders of the Democrats into the 1980's - long after the supposedly all-racist GOP had really gotten the redneck vote under control (we are told). In the meantime, no Southern state had a non-Democrat legislature and governor until 1998!

Analysis of voting patterns shows us three trends over and over again; poor people vote for Democrats; high school drop outs vote for Democrats; everyone vote for presidents based upon economic interests. Clinton won some of the South on economics. So did Carter. So did Bush. Local politics is becoming more Republican as education and wealth improve.

The Southern strategy isn't about race - its about *money*; "its the economy, stupid" was spot-on.

Deep Thought said...

okielawyer,
To begin with, I am a minority (mixed race; Black, Asian, and Irish) I have lived in Minnesota, Detroit, Atlanta, and San Francisco, among other places.

I live in Atlanta on purpose. I live in the South because I don't worry about my kids growing up here. I know that the FBI statistics confirm my gut - per capita, race-based hate crimes are 50 times more likely in Minnesota than in Alabama.

FIFTY. TIMES.

Try to feel the tension in St. Paul; it'll kill ya'.

As for the emergence of Democratic challengers in opposition to predictions in TERM, I think the author of that book points it out very well in his later work - the GOP is abandoning its fiscal focus and the Democrats, following in Clinton's wake, are picking it up. Republicans are trying to shore up their influence with pork and Democrats are realizing that the GOP base wants fiscal stability, not graft.

steve s said...

"I doubt I would be enticing you and your legions, anyway - little for them to read there."

There is plenty to read on you blog, or are you suggesting that I (as a member of Streak's Legion) am incapable of understanding what you write? I tried to comment, but you have to register and they haven't sent me a password.

Interesting discussion. Like I said, I know very little about the south. That is great about Atlanta's hate crime rate (too bad their overall per capita violent crime rate is twice that of St. Paul). I checked the FBI stats and they were quite telling. I am not saying they are wrong, but I have some serious problems with them. The biggest is that they are based on voluntary reporting among agencies that decide to participate in the program. I'd like to know how complete they are and if there is any kind of auditing to make sure they are reporting everything. According to the survey, Alabama only had 5 hate crimes in 2004. I have never been to Alabama, so I can't say BS, but that just seems a little low. Even better, Mississippi only had 2 that same year. If I could stand the heat, I'd move.

ubub said...

OK, there's a lot on the table this morning -- some empirical claims, some matters of interpretation, and some matters of opinion. Let's see if we can find any commmon ground, or at least try to knock dowm some implicit strawmen.

Might we agree that most American voters (which is itself a subset of the overall population) are not locked in on a single issue that will determine their support for a candidate despite everything else that person stands for? For me, this explains a lot about shifting coalitions over time.

The other question is whether we might agree that words can carry meanings other than those on the surface, that there are connotations as well as denotations.

As a third point, might we agree that racism remains alive and well outside the South?

Streak said...

Deep Thought, let's try and tone things down just a bit. I understand the meaning of ad hominem and am starting to find your condescension more than a little annoying. (I think trying to dismiss ubub because of a type is a good example of ad hominem, btw.)

I also think that you have ignored a good part of what has been said here--including those of us who have acknowledged (and never argued otherwise) that racism is not merely a Southern issue. But that said, you have yet to respond to the Rove strategy in SC, or the constant need for Republicans to speak at Bob Jones U.

If you are happy in the South, that is fine with me, though most people suggest that Atlanta is a bit of a different animal than, say, Jena, Louisiana. And if you want to talk about racism in the north, you will find that we can echo chapter and verse. Like I say, we aren't idiots here, as much as you may think.

But mostly, you have come in here and acted badly. We are not unreasonable and are willing to engage in these issues. That is up to you.

Deep Thought said...

steve s,
Sorry about comments - spam has been hideous recently and I am cleaning the place up.

As for 'little to read on my blog', well - I am a very conservative Catholic theologian. While I hope you will find my writing engaging and interesting, the host and readers of a blog run my a man who has a profile that includes "I use this blog to... ... critique what I see as major failings in conservative Christianity" may find it a bit too polarizing.

Actually, the Atlanta race-based hate crimes is not as dramatically low vis a vis St. Paul as is Alabama vs. Minnesota. But Georgia overall is much lower (per capita) than Minnesota, too, and while Atlanta is more violent than St. Paul, the Twin Cities has more per capita hate crimes by about 10 times.

When I started writing about hate crimes I spoke with the Southern Poverty Law Center and a number of national and international groups. The SPLC wants to dismiss the numbers, but their entire rationale boils down to 'we don't like the numbers'. Reporting on everything from violent crime to embezzlement to traffic tickets is also voluntary - and no one complains about those numbers! The FBI also does pretty serious statistical analysis of their own and doesn't reject the numbers because they jibe closely with what independent federal research indicates they "should" be. This was verified by the Steven Roth Institute, an international think tank and anti-racism group - the Roth Center's studies support the voluntarily reported numbers as being 'very accurate'.

We haven't even begun talking about how groups like the SPLC, NAACP, and Southern Leadership Council all have groups and/or exist primarily to look for 'covered up' hate crimes in the South.

But let's assume the SPLC, NAACP, SLC, FBI, and Roth Center are all being fooled. Let's assume all of Alabama (including the police forces of Birmingham and Mobile, two major metro areas with majority-Black police forces) really under-report and the cops in the Twin Cities and Duluth, MN really over-report.

How the heck can you strain until the difference is fifty times without straining a muscle??

Deep Thought said...

ubub,
I would agree that there are few true 'single issue voters' in a strict sense. I would also caution that I think most people are 2-3 issue voters.
Sure.
Heck, racism is alive and well all over.

Streak said...

the host and readers of a blog run my a man who has a profile that includes "I use this blog to... ... critique what I see as major failings in conservative Christianity" may find it a bit too polarizing.

Nope, that isn't dismissive or ad hominem in anyway.

steve s said...

I would be comfortable with saying I was conservative and a Christian. That being said, I have some major problems with some aspects of Conservative Christianity, though I am always willing to listen to both sides of an issue.

I am always skeptical of statistics. I have have taken graduate level and undergraduate level research methods. I have participated in studies, both as a subject, and as a researcher. I have also been a student of firearm's policy for the past 10 years, which is heavily influenced by crime statistics. I know how they can be manipulated. I have no evidence that anyone is cooking the books, but I also see some huge flaws in using those statistics as a measure for the level racism or hate crimes. Murder is easy to define. Hate crimes, in most jurisdictions, are charged at the discretion of the prosecutor.

Deep Thought said...

streak,
I hate getting off on the wrong foot.
First, as I told ubub, my comment was just an attempt to point out that the mis-type was in the original and not my work. Trust me, I can mangle a word with the best of them.
Second, if you knew what ad hominem means, why did you miss the fact that ubub engaged in it? This isn't condescension, this is a reaction to two things; 1) most people think 'ad hominem' means 'insult, and; 2) you acted like 'ad hominem' means 'insult'.

OK, if you insist; the SC attacks on McCain were worse than Carter's discussions of 'ethnic purity', about equal to Clinton having a Black chain gang as the background image in an anti-crime ad in 2000. My question for you is - how does this buttress the argument that the Southern Strategy is about race? Incidents of racism in campaigns are, well, about even in the last few. This makes both parties obviously more interested in winning than fairness, but how does it validate the rather extreme claims of the original article? I know a Black man that does drugs - does that prove all Blacks are drug addicts? I know a blond girl that isn't the sharpest pencil in the case - does that prove all blonds are dim?

Of course not - the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.

Let me put it another way, streak: If I were to quote on a blog an article claiming that all Asians are shifty, money-grubbing little parasites and you would, rightly, dismiss me as a close-minded dolt to agree with such terrible stereotyping and race-baiting. If the article instead criticized the Democratic Party as being feckless and easily-bought with implications about Asian stereotypes, how would that be much different?

The Article you cite is very blithe about claiming that all Republicans are racists and implies that all Southerners are, too. Yet this did not strike you as a stereotype, or race-baiting (I assume that when you think of 'racist Southerners' you aren't picturing a Black man in your head), but a cogent, important point.

Doesn't that strike you as, well, odd? That you have no issue with the stereotyping of millions upon millions of people as virulent racists, or an entire very-roughly-defined ideology as diverse as conservatives as at least complicit racists?

Deep Thought said...

streak,
Wow. You are really reaching for the 'holier than thou' stick with which to club me, aren't you? Let me be more blunt - I assumed that a guy who has that quote in his profile would find the vast majority of my writing would bore you. Clear enough?

Once more, are you *sure* you know what 'ad hominem' means? Because you are now 0 for 2. You may find it condescending for me to point this out, but saying 'you might find my writing too polarizing' is not an attempt to refute a point by referring to the commenter rather than to the substance of a comment, it is an explanation for my own previous comment.

Streak said...

First of all, I still am not convinced that ubub's suggestion that you were disingenuous was ad hominem. Nor did I think it was an insult, but more of a critique of your own rhetorical style. If it were ad hominem, he would have used that to dismiss the rest of your comment, but instead he addressed your concerns in a historical sense.

Perhaps I misread your rather snide comment on his spelling error, but it sure appeared to be a way to dismiss him personally without addressing the substance of his argument. Just as you did when you suggested that people who, like me either criticize conservative Christianity, or like to read this blog--would not like your blog. Why? Weren't you disparaging us there? If not, then I misread you and apologize.

And finally, I never said, nor did any one here, that all Republicans or all Southerners were racist. You made that leap--not us. For one thing, we know better. I have argued on this blog for the last several years that the GOP leaders are pursuing values not shared by the bulk of their constituents--kind of the "What's wrong with Kansas" argument. So, please don't assume that we either think that racism is limited to the south, or that all white southerners are racist, or that all Republicans are racist. We never said that and you have wasted far too much time trying to refute something we never suggested.

And frankly, you did get off on the wrong foot and have done very little to actually demonstrate that you want to dialogue. Instead, you appear hell bent on telling us how much smarter you are and how dumb we are.

We get it.

Tony said...

Part of Streak's legion...that's pretty cool.

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

:)

Deep Thought said...

Streak,
Did you, in fact, write,

"But he also recounts the... ..."Southern Strategy" employed by the Republican party to reach out--not to African American voters, but to the pro-segregationists"?

Of course you did. So... you're a smart guy. What if we were to change that to "Solid South" and "Democrats" - does that make it sound like the Democratic Party was, in fact, racist in its policies and statements?

Of course it does. Just as your comment clearly states that Republican policies are, per you, racist. If you don't see how this is a direct implication that Republicans are racists and the concomitant implication that White Southerners are racists, I will be amazed.

Especially when you toss in comments like,

"the Republicans are essentially telling black voters that they really don't care to even try"

or,

"But the real issue is this "southern strategy" that Republicans have to live with. They have to seriously address the fact that what Herbert says about Reagan in Mississippi is undoubtedly true--that he fully intended to send code message to all the whites that he sided with them."
[Note your use of the term 'all the Whites' when discussing the Southern Strategy as overtly racist]

"It is appealing to Southern racism to solidify the southern vote and win National elections. Bush was the master of it--speaking the Southernese as he did"
["Southernese"? What is that, anyway? And where did you learn to speak it?]

Yeah - its a real puzzle where I got the idea that you are tarring Conservatives and the South with a rather broad brush.

Of course I upset you - I do, in fact, know a lot more about this than you do. I've been writing about this academically, commercially, and (anonymously) on blogs for 15+ years. This isn't about intelligence, its about research. You posted something that reinforced your prejudices and are upset that your prejudices have been revealed. Happens to everyone.

I know I am an arrogant jerk sometimes. Its true and a struggle to overcome. But that doesn't mean I am wrong.

Streak said...

Of course I upset you - I do, in fact, know a lot more about this than you do.

Perhaps you assume too much.

I know I am an arrogant jerk

Finally, we agree. And you are a conservative Catholic theologian too. Aren't there other people for you to harass? Gay people? Women seeking birth control?

I am done with you. I have neither the patience nor the time to do battle with someone who has your lack of humanity. So buzz off.

Streak said...

Oh, and by the way, I love how you assume that you upset me because you are right. It must be nice always being right.

But let me back up and see what annoyed me about you. You called me stupid and then a racist. Then you insulted me and those who read here. When we criticize you, we are employing ad hominem argumentation. When you call me dumb and racist, you are simply being truthful. Because, that is just the way you are.

This has been really, really fun. Talking with such an arrogant person is so enlightening. Especially one so adept at parsing what we say.

Ubub was right the first time.

ubub said...

"Ubub was right the first time."

I just liked how that looked, so I cut and pasted it again.

Tony said...

"Ubub was right the first time."

I like it too. (Sorry, couldn't resist.) I'm going now.

Deep Thought said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ubub said...

Tidings of comfort and joy, comfort and joy, ooh-ooooh tidings of comfort and joy!

Deep Thought said...

No easier way to win a debate than to silence your opponent.

I never called you a racist (no, go back and check; I didn't. I said you were wrong to paint all Conservatives and Southerners as racists). And I never called you stupid (I said you were wrong, even ignorant of the facts).

But I will call you intellectually fearful.

Streak said...

Why are you still here. You obviously have no respect for me or the other commentators. And you have made that abundantly clear. Yet you persist in coming back here and leaving snide comments.

What do you hope to gain?

Deep Thought said...

Clarity. I want to understand how you can write things like this,

"But the real issue is this "southern strategy" that Republicans have to live with. They have to seriously address the fact that what Herbert says about Reagan in Mississippi is undoubtedly true--that he fully intended to send code message to all the whites that he sided with them."

and,

"It is appealing to Southern racism to solidify the southern vote and win National elections. Bush was the master of it--speaking the Southernese as he did"

and then write,

"And finally, I never said, nor did any one here, that all Republicans or all Southerners were racist."

and not realize the dissonance.

I want to know how the heck you can read

"I never claimed that there aren't racists in both parties, nor that there have been race-based maneuvers. I *am*, however, calling shenanigans on the idea that 'conservative = racist' and 'southerner = racist'. I will not claim that Republicans are pure as the driven snow, nor will I say that of Democrats (I am neither)"

and hear in your head 'Streak is a dumb racist'. It amazes me that you have no issue not just tacitly endorsing the smear job of Herbert's article but writing the statements I quoted here and then getting upset that I state that I think you are wrong and give reasons why I think you are wrong.I need to know, for curiosity's sake, how you can type the passages I quoted above [which portray my father and his family as inherently racists, being Whites from the South and all) and then get so upset that I say 'not true, here's the proof'?

Probably a failing of mine.

Streak said...

Well, we are even. You can quote me: "It is appealing to Southern racism to solidify the southern vote and win National elections. Bush was the master of it--speaking the Southernese as he did"

and then write,

"And finally, I never said, nor did any one here, that all Republicans or all Southerners were racist."


And yet not see that my criticism was of Bush and some GOP leaders. Despite the fact that I repeatedly said that not all Republicans were racist, you honed in only on what you wanted to read.

Fine.

You have said your peace. Now leave. As I said, you don't respect us here. You certainly haven't treated anyone here with respect.

Leave. Go bug someone else.