I’ve sometimes joked that if I could make just one change to US laws, I’d bar white men from the vote. Which brings us to this LA Times article.
Bush’s strength among white men derives as much from his personal style as his policy choices, most analysts agree. Sparse yet blunt in his words, comfortable on his ranch, dismissive of ceremony, impatient with diplomacy, Bush fits “an old-fashioned male ideal, deeply embedded in our cultural mythology,” said Bill Galston, a former Clinton adviser now a professor of public affairs at the University of Maryland.
The ideal “is that a real man is a man of few words and determined, resolute action: like in [the movie] `High Noon.’ And Bush captures this almost perfectly and effortlessly.”
Good God, are men really that simplistic? If John Wayne could be dug up and stuck on political posters, would he take the vote?
I don’t think so – at least, he wouldn’t if Wayne was a democrat. It’s a fun story for a reporter to tell – “men like Bush because he’s the strong, silent type!” – but then why did the not-so-macho George Bush, Senior also benefit from a huge point spread among white men? And for that matter, why is it white men who favor Bush – are black and Latino men really much less concerned about manliness than us white guys?
I think the real story is much simpler: White men aren’t voting macho, they’re voting self-interest. Policies that help people of color and women – insofar as they’re effective at all – reduce the unfair advantage that comes with being white and male. From a self-interest point of view, it makes sense for white men to vote for candidates who want to turn the clock backwards on minority progress and feminist progress; candidates like Ross Perot and George W. Bush.
What’s warped about this, of course, is that once you add in the element of class, most white men would gain far more from having liberals in power. White men suffer from stagnant wages; white men suffer from unemployment (albeit not as much as blacks or American Indians do); white men benefit from unionization; white men’s children need decent classrooms; white men are better off with clean air to breath; white men, in short, are people just like everybody else.
But many white men don’t see it that way.
This is, of course, Nixon’s “southern strategy”; Republicans win by appealing to white male’s sense of frustrated entitlement. Too many white men beleive that they have a birthright of success. And if it doesn’t come true, some white men look to cast blame: who stole my god-given success? And ever since Nixon, the Republicans have won (some) white men’s hearts by saying “it’s the blacks! It’s the women! They stole your entitlement!”
Essentially, the Republican Party runs against civil rights – and wins.
So how can Democrats beat the Republicans, without Ross Perot helpfully stealing some of that White Male vote from the Republicans? Darned if I know. A poster at Economists for Dean thinks that bringing out the female vote is the key, and so suggests that so-called “women’s issues” need to become more central to Dean’s campaign.
Women also overwhelmingly identify with the Democratic Party. In fact, the 2000 election demonstrated one of the largest gender gaps in history: 54% of women overall voted for Al Gore versus 43% for Bush. And, most compelling of all for the Dean campaign, 58% of working women voted for Al Gore compared to just 39% for Bush. […]
It’s imperative to give women a reason to get out and vote to capitalize on the electoral edge they provide for the Democratic Party. How is this done? The message to women must be steady and consistent to get them engaged with the campaign early and to keep them energized and motivated to vote on election day. […] Centering policy debates on values such as care of family, quality education and healthcare, protecting the environment and responsibly planning for the future can be a powerful organizing principle for the campaign.
Maybe. I’d certainly like to see a greater emphasis on “women’s issues.”
But I’m not sure if that’s enough. It seems to me that Democrats have to peel off at least some of those white men from Bush’s column; which means convincing them to vote their class self-interest, instead of their race and gender self-interest.
The real question is, can white men – too many of whom have stuck their heads firmly up their butts – learn to see self-interest outside of the Republican party?
(Several links via And Then….).
If it makes you feel any more hopeful, my husband is a white republican from Texas who loathes Bush- and declared that he would vote for any democrat (except Lieberman for a whole host of reasons) before he would vote for Bush again. And actually, that seems to be a common consensus amoung the other white male republicans he works with.
Look at the Arnold phenomenon in California…what was that all about? I’m reading Living History by Hillary Rodham Clinton right now. That woman did more for the welfare of children before she was twenty five than George W….oops, sorry, my mistake, he never did anything for the welfare of children. Look at how so many vilify that brilliant woman. What is wrong with our country?
Actually, Hillary isn’t as vilified as I thought she was – I assumed that the entire middle of the country hated her, but she has a huge amount of support (at least compared to what I thought, anyway) – just read an article in the NYT about how she is a major draw for fundraising events, *outside* of the east and west coast.
But I disagree with the idea that white men vote for Bush in self-interest. It’s pretty clear that he hasn’t helped anyone – and a ton of white men are out of work, or were, because of his economic policies. My theory goes back to a survey I saw four years ago, “Which presidential candidate would you rather sit next to on the plane?” Bush won handily. People assumed that he would get enough good advice to make up for the fact that he just isn’t all that smart. Sure, people misunderestimated him, but I’m hoping it won’t happen again.
The problem with the advice he was getting was that some of it was contradictory and self serving, but he couldn’t tell the difference.
People want a ‘buddy’ for a president, not a leader.
It seems to me that I’ve heard a lot about women who vote for whomever their big smart hubbies vote for, and I don’t think it goes the other way too often (note correct use of “whomever” – apropos of nothing, except that this is my #1 grammatical pet peeve).
Tor,
The examples you pointed out, though, of why it was not in white men’s self-interest to vote for Bush were all economic-, or class-, based. The main thrust of Amp’s post was that white males seem to be ignoring this economic impetus when voting for Republican Presidents and instead vote for their social self-interest, or perceived self-interest, in the form of voting against civil rights.
Well, its kinda simplistic, even if its partially true. I live in the South now, and the cultural issues that aren’t involved with civil rights – States sponsorship of religion and gun rights – are real issues, and there is a large segment of the population who simply are convinced that only ther Republicans will vote the “correct” way on those issues. Then there is the whole “Democrats are weak on terrorims” notion, which, depsite all the evidence, is heartily believed. There is also the “A man would rather hold onto the dream of becoming rich than admit the reality of being poor” effect. People, and for whatever reason this seems to be a bit more prevalant among men, see progressive policies as attacxks on the rich instead of investments in the common society, and thus oppose them.
I am not saying Amp is wrong, but I don’t think that the issue is as simple as “White men hate everyone.”
There’s a really good interview with Arlie Hochschild concerning this phenomenon too, that I had posted earlier.
Oh, and I’m adding you to my blogroll. :)
I have never been able to understand this dream of one day becoming very rich as the reason why poor voters would wish to protect the entitlements of the rich. It seems to indicate a very biased use of expected utility and future planning. Besides, no democratic proposal would exactly make the rich extinct; rather, they’d be rich with ten billion instead of twenty billion dollars. Ten billion seems plenty to me for those who like to dream of money.
My own view is that most Americans don’t follow politics at all, and vote pretty much on soundbites. Given the republican media monopoly (now they’re even going after public radio and tv), the soundbites people digest are not going to help anybody but Bush. Though of course most Americans don’t vote at all…
Echidne
Privilege is the opiate of white working-class men.
What I was trying to say was that I don’t think economics, class *or* civil rights enters into a lot of voters head when thinking about who to vote for, especially white males. I think many white males decide who is more likable, who they’d rather sit next to on the plane, and figure that everything else will work out in the wash.
I think civil rights has suffered more because it isn’t even on many people radars, and for many of the rest, it gets washed out by patriotism and blind faith. I don’t agree that people are voting for Bush because they think civil rights has come too far, and needs to be cut back, although it may be a factor in their decision. But it is one factor among many, and the dominating factor is that Bush is likable, and the democratic candidates come off like the kid who tries too hard in class. Nothing has changed since high school, people would rather have a jock than a nerd for president. What the democrats need is a good sex scandal – it worked for Clinton!
I wasn’t saying, and I don’t think Amp was saying, just to be clear, that when people vote they consciously think about turning back the clock of civil rights. I think it’s a subconscious thing, an often unspoken fear, that Republicans play to with their behaviour. The devil’s in the details, really.
Consider this: George W. Bush appealed to a lot of men, partly because of his perception as being a blunt-talking, strapping, manly type (and let’s admit it: Bush’s party-boy past only makes him more appealing to some), but also for more subtle things. A growing number of men feel threatened by the increases in freedom that women have received. Men have lost their jobs and those that have them have seen their wages fall and they want to know why. We’ve all heard the canard about how women and minorities are using political correctness to steal men’s jobs and so have a lot of men. So when a Presidential canidate gets on-stage and sounds decidedly un-PC with his wife standing quietly behind him, it plays to men’s perceptions.
I’m not saying that huge swathes of men go to the voting booths and stand around thinking “hmm, how should I vote to keep those uppity coloured and women in their place” but that Bush seems to be proving their fears are true. Bush’s life was messed up but he grew out of his frat boy phrase and is now President of the United States… and look at that: his wife is submissive.
It is easy to say that a dislike of civil rights subconsciously drives white men to vote to maintain their advantages, but it is also just as easy to say that they are simply voting for the candidate they think is most like them, the average guy. Amp is exactly right, white men are ignoring many of the decisions that Bush has made that have negatively affected them, but I don’t think the reasons are clear at all.
It may be a distrust/dislike of civil rights, the need to affirm Bush’s choice to go to war, to ‘stand by their man, the belief that no democrat is strong enough on Nat. Security, who knows?
What is interesting to me, would be to find those men, determined to stand by Bush, and figure out what *would* be enough for them to change thier vote. It is too late to educate many of these voters about civil rights, the election isn’t far away. Would emphasizing the lies he told to authorize the invasion of Iraq, and the ones he told to avoid the draft, work? The fact that the economy hasn’t noticably improved? The vicious and spiteful attacks on the environment? The connections between the administration and the energy industry? The fact that the enourmous increase in police powers has deteriorated their personal liberty while not managing to catch a single terrorist?
On a scale of 1 to 10, civil rights is an ‘x’ in importance to white males. What issues exist between x and 10?
And Laura Bush doesn’t seem very submissive to me- it seems likely to me that she kicks W’s ass every time he steps out of line.
Tor,
Four years ago, more people may have wanted to sit next to Bush on a plane, but fewer people wanted him to be president.
Creepy, isn’t it, how easy it is to forget this?
My viewpoint is similar to PDP’s. I think Republicans model white male privelege in their work and home lives. This makes them attractive to many white males because male privelege really seems to be the most important thing to some of these guys…even more important than their financial well being. Of course, a lot of women like this model too…a male who is dominant in the public sphere and a female who is dominant(?) at home.
Laura Bush comes off as submissive because her primary role seems to be supporting her husband. She seems to be happy with that, and a lot of males probably find that non-threatening. I guess more men find that non-threatening than find the notion of supporting a stay-at-home wife burdensome.
We’ve all had someone like Shrub sit next to us on a plane – they’re the one talking to us about the importance of the particular business book they’re reading or how interesting the insurance business is.
White males like George W. Bush? Then again, white males also think Coors Light is good beer.
What the Dems need to do is demonize Bush’s military record, particularly if Kerry or Clark make the ticket as the nominee for President or Vice-President. Contrast Purple Heart-winning swift boat commander Kerry’s or NATO commander Clark’s military record with Bush’s dereliction of duty in the Texas Air National Guard.
All you have to do is get a percentage of white men over to the Dems’ side, then shore up the base of suburban white women. Get city folk of all races out to the polls.
Attack Bush at every angle. Use clever ads, like some of the better MoveOn.org contest entries. Make Bush into a stuffed-shirt preppie who was a playboy flyboy when others suffered and died in Vietnam, but who’s more than willing to send your sons and daughters to war to benefit Halliburton.
Don’t be afraid of being thought of as mean. We need a Dem strategist with the balls of Lee Atwater, the ovaries of Janeane Garofalo, or the utter lack of conscience as Karl Rove.
Aaron wrote:
Attack Bush at every angle. Use clever ads, like some of the better MoveOn.org contest entries. Make Bush into a stuffed-shirt preppie who was a playboy flyboy when others suffered and died in Vietnam, but who’s more than willing to send your sons and daughters to war to benefit Halliburton.
Yes, it’s interesting that his military reputation doesn’t have to be real at all to work.
Someone who was in the military at about the same time told me that you’d really have to f*** up not to get promoted past the rank Bush held at exit. So even with all the family connections, he barely made it.
I’ve been thinking about some of the Bush attraction issues in the context of Rush Limbaugh,
and I think that just like with Rush, the truth or not of the image that’s being built around Bush is a lot less important than the image itself: one of us, an anti-intellectual Christian who doesn’t bother with all that PC crap; a straight guy etc..
It seems to me that Democrats have to peel off at least some of those white men from Bush’s column; which means convincing them to vote their class self-interest, instead of their race and gender self-interest.
Which is exactly what Dean meant by that thing about becoming the candidate of guys with the Confederate flag on their pickup trucks.
My views on this align with what Echidne posted.
When discussing politics and voting in my sociology classes, the majority of my classmates admitted that they do not vote. The reasons? Because they find it difficult to follow politics. They’re not interested. It doesn’t affect them.
We also had the chance to discuss white priviledge. Again, the majority of my classmates (who were white and female, I must point out) did not believe there is even such a thing as “white priviledge”. Disheartening to me, they even went so far as to proclaim that the feminist movement was no longer needed!
It’s been my experience that very few people actually follow news and politics. Few seek out all of the candidates in order to educate themselves on their platforms. Few really try to find one that aligns best with their own politics.
I think it’s really hard for white men to admit to themselves (and each other) that they do in fact hold such power and priviledge on the sole basis of their sex and skin colour. And fear of loosing that power can be overwhelming. Why on earth would you want to give that up?
Many don’t seek out the information regarding the fact that they would actually, truly, benefit by “giving up” some of their priviledges and power.
I believe it does boil down to soundbites.
If people aren’t contacting their representatives, possible candidates, and/or logging on to their websites to read about their platforms, the easiest way they are able to learn about candidates is from snipits on corporate tv and radio stations. And with the way things are currently set up, that means they’re only hearing from those that can pay to have their voices and faces streamed.
Excellent discussion, Amp.
I am sure many of you read those articles; they may be worth revisiting, as they touch this discussion deeply.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17431
This argues that the appeal of Bush to white men is that he reminds them (by his own example) that they are supposed to be privileged without any reason other than being white men, whether they otherwise deserve it or not. It is reassuring to people who otherwise feel that their every chance is being taken away by “others” (women, immigrants, etc.) The more white men feel cheated (Stiffed, in Susan Faludi’s terms), the more they need to be reassured that white men still can rule.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16828
This one goes into the family metaphors that underly the Republican discourse. Also a great read.
White men were key to the election of Democrats Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Jimmy Carter. To get the votes of white men, the Democrats have to concentrate on what white men have, generally speaking, in common: Jobs. The Democrats have to once again become the party of job creation, job retention, and job protections.
I find it creepy that so many people apparently consider Bush personally likeable. From what I’ve read about his personality, he seems pretty personally repellent to me. That’d be true even if he were just one guy on a plane, and not the man who’s screwing up the entire world. I would not be pleased to be subjected to a Bush nickname. What would he call me: Sy? I hate being called Sy.
On being a white male, I remember joking in 1984 that Walter Mondale and I had one thing in common: we were the only white males who supported his candidacy.
I’m with Simon. I find Bush to be incredibly creepy and have for years. The man opens his mouth and I get chills, not because I think he’s going to announce his intentions to blow up the world (I don’t think that poorly of him) but just because he strikes me as a bully. For those of you who have read The Green Mile I’m thinking specifically of the type of bully that is Percy Whitmore.
Let me put it crudely. After being greased up for years with racist and xenophobic horseshit, the white American male now enjoys being butt-raped.
Great post IMO. In the UK under Thatcher, they interviewed people leaving the polls, and asked them who they voted for and what they earned. When they told people that with their salary, they’d indisputably do better under Labour, people answered: “Yes, but I WANT to earn more than this.” Hard to get past that.
There’s enough in this thread to generate a couple of good academic papers.
Fear, or at least screaming insecurity is a factor in the preference of white males for a party that is demonstrably screwing them sideways.
These guys want to be in charge of their own lives, enjoy modest economic independence and have the comfort of knowing that when they are too old, feeble and stupid to continue working, they will have homes, medical care, a few bucks for their kids and the price of a bucket of fishing bait. This is what the current GOP regime hints at but will never deliver. The Repubs are in the end elitist and picky elitists at that. The suffering Ken Lay is being coddled generously but the the old guy mucking out the slaughterhouse gains no succor for all he has to offer is love of country, honesty, industry and one little vote that does not come with an attached cheque or a neat directorship. Republican is now just a codeword for the destructive corporate capitalism, a plague on democracy sadly favoured almost as much by the Democrats.
America defined itself in fierce opposition to “royalty” and “noblesse oblige”. It has now come full circle in the reign of King Dubya I.
The year 2004 will go into America’s history, writ large. Let it be the year in which you return to your (paleo) conservative roots and renew your vows with your Constitution.
If John Wayne could be dug up and stuck on political posters, would he take the vote?
Worked for Arnold.
As a white, ex-military, southern (originally) male I have to say that I have always been amazed at my “fellow” males’ inability to see their own and society’s interests really do intersect in so many places. It’s a blind spot I’ve been unable to successfully point out to anyone who has it.
Oh, and after reading your blog for so long, I noticed today that you are not on my blogroll… I’m off to rectify that, now.
i think George Bush shoudl be locked up in jail. Do you know what he did to me? He came round to my party, got drunk, stood on my piano with a thong on his head and sang I’m gonna take you to a gay bar. Then he littered his tissue on my lawn! DISGRACEFUL! Not only that, did you know he drove my dolly’s tricycle into my neighbour’s cupboard under the stairs, and I was the one who got sued for destroying her dandelions. I am sure that George, President Bush is nothing but a scandral and a scallywag. So there.
Go away
hey all, I reckon bob and martha are totally wrong, how about we get some respect in here huh? Is that possible? Wo, all you peeps really have to calm down, just release all that stress, i did that and now I’m HAPPY!! Wo get to the relaxation of aroma therapy
hey dudes. I hope I got the right site, erm, this is the site about the Mr Hat that I saw on South Park? Right? Hey why isn’t anyone talking? This is a computer? right? HELLO???????????
I love this President. He’s got my vote and support.
You got to be kidding me…
I think it must drive you people crazy that us “simple” people still love George W. in spite of all the effort and work you put in trying to derail one of the best presidents we ALL have had in years…
Go Bush! lol
Heck, even I like Bush.
I am pretty sure the black male vote is much more monolithic than the white male vote. That is curious considering they have the same complaints year after year after year.
I am pretty sure the black male vote is much more monolithic than the white male vote.
Well, yeah, when the Republican Party, one of only two major parties, is pretty openly and unapolageticly racist, they don’t really have many choices left, do they?
Of course black folks tend to vote Democratic. If you don’t like it, convince the Repubs to stop embracing Nixon’s “southern strategy.” Until then, that’s just the way it is.
—JRC
No, my brother, you misspoke. I never said the Republicans were racist, I said they were Racers. They drive a mean NASCAR circuit down there in the south.
Well, some right-wing blog has linked to us, clearly…. :-)
Yeah, I’m particularly fond of “Kwase Mfume”. I like to think that the poster had a sense of humour and was making a pun. You know “Quasi”. ‘Cuz if I’m not mistaken it’s Kwame. Plus the NASCAR bit was pretty good. While the “Rachel Corrie” sig lacked any sort of taste, the link behind it is also a great joke when matched to the comment.
“Well, yeah, when the Republican Party, one of only two major parties, is pretty openly and unapolageticly racist, they don’t really have many choices left, do they?
Of course black folks tend to vote Democratic. If you don’t like it, convince the Repubs to stop embracing Nixon’s “southern strategy.” Until then, that’s just the way it is.”
Southern strategy? Pray tell, how are the modern day republicans employing the southern strategy? Please be specific rather than the useless general garbage spewed from the author of this article above.
Remember the radio spot that said: “If George W Bush becomes president, more black churches will burn.” Or how about the commercial of the dragging death of that black guy in Texas and linking it to GWB. The racist propaganda from the democrats is shameful. Apparently many of you have been brainwashed buy this stuff so much that you have lost your ability to think critically.
“openly and unapologetically racist”? That’s amusing. I swear many of you are like the old mcarthyists, instead of thinking there is a commie behind every tree, with some of you there is a racist behind every tree.
“There’s enough in this thread to generate a couple of good academic papers.”
Yes, self delusion and paranoia would be a good subjects to write about.
“Well, yeah, when the Republican Party, one of only two major parties, is pretty openly and unapolageticly racist, they don’t really have many choices left, do they?
Of course black folks tend to vote Democratic. If you don’t like it, convince the Repubs to stop embracing Nixon’s “southern strategy.” Until then, that’s just the way it is.”
Southern strategy? Pray tell, how are the modern day republicans employing the southern strategy? Please be specific rather than the useless general garbage spewed from the author of this article above.
Remember the radio spot that said: “If George W Bush becomes president, more black churches will burn.” Or how about the commercial of the dragging death of that black guy in Texas and linking it to GWB. The racist propaganda from the democrats is shameful. Apparently many of you have been brainwashed buy this stuff so much that you have lost your ability to think critically.
“openly and unapologetically racist”? That’s amusing. I swear many of you are like the old mcarthyists, instead of thinking there is a commie behind every tree, with some of you there is a racist behind every tree.
“There’s enough in this thread to generate a couple of good academic papers.”
Yes, self delusion and paranoia would be good subjects to write about.
Sorry for the double post above.
Except in our case, there really is a racist behind every tree.
It’s Kweisi Mfume. Just sayin’.
Larry:
Just a couple of examples from the last year, detailing voter intimidation in predominantly minority districts in southern elections: a letter from the MS Secretary of State (pdf) and a little about Kentucky.
Good example, Ruth.
Also:
Last year, on Martin Luther King’s birthday, Bush took the opportunity to announce his opposition to affirmitive action, while this year, the day after, he appointed Charled Pickering, who has been opposed by civil rights groups, as a recess appointment to the federal bench of appeals. it’s hard to see either of these as anything less than a calculated insult to African Americans everywhere.
While we’re on the topic of Mr. Bush, he and other republican candidates have repeatedly visited Bob Jones University while campaigning. BJU did not admit black students until the late 70s, and which, when Bush visited, still prohibited interracial dating (explaining their policy as “We basically accept that there are three races — Caucasians, Negroes and Orientals. Caucasians can’t date Orientals. Orientals can’t date Caucasians, and neither of them can date Negroes.”).
Sticking with Bob Jones, it turns out that in 1981, (the then minority whip) Trent Lott filed an amicus brief on their behalf arguing that Bob Jones U, despite their openly recist policies, ought not to be stripped of their tax exempt status because “surely discrimination in the practices of religion is no violation.”
Sticking with Trent Lott, of course, we see that the former Majority leader has long been associated with the Council of Conservative Citizens, a white supremacist hate group. He’s also wished on more than one occasion that Strom Thurmond won his pro-segregationist Presidential run. When that scandal blew up, he was removed from his position of Majority leadership, but was given a nice high-power committee leadership instead.
Since we’re on the topic of Strom Thurmond, this was a man who fathered an illegitimate child on a 14-year-old black girl when he was in his 20s, never acknowledged the child as his own, and went on to campaign vigorously for segregation for much of his lifetime. He’s a virtual saint to the Republican party.
Now, that’s just some of what’s out there. . .there’s more, of course, like the cleaning of the voter rolls in Florida, Willie Horton, racial profiling, etc, god, I could just keep going, but even if we ignore all of that, it just plain seems like the only time the Republican party is interested in talking about race is when they’re discussing Affirmitive Action, and how bad it is. If the Repubs were to say “Look, there are problems, and we don’t think Affirmitive Action is the way to fix them, but we DO want to fix them, and here’s our plan,” it would be one thing, but they never do. To listen to them, there’s no racism in America, and people who think otherwise are crazy or ungrateful.
Well, Black people in America know that racism is real. They know that they’re not crazy, and they know that they’re not “just being ungrateful,” so when the Republican party insinuates these things, they know that they’re just lying.
And, of course, that’s the Southern Strategy.
—JRC
Excellent reply, lets see what I can to with it.
*Quote: “Last year, on Martin Luther King’s birthday, Bush took the opportunity to announce his opposition to affirmitive action, while this year, the day after, he appointed Charled Pickering, who has been opposed by civil rights groups, as a recess appointment to the federal bench of appeals. it’s hard to see either of these as anything less than a calculated insult to African Americans everywhere.”
MLK thought people should be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Affirmative action does the opposite. Therefore on MLK’s Bday, in many circles, would be an entirely appropriate time to announce opposition of a program that discriminates against people based on the color of their skin. Some people believe racial discrimination in all forms is wrong, regardless of the reasons used to justify it. Your position for affirmative action may be different, but wouldn’t call you a racist just because you support discrimination in this area. Wrong, but not a racist. People can disagree on the issue without impugning motives.
Charles Pickering publicly opposed the KKK at a time when the KKK was strong. He has the support of a lot of minorities from his home state, and they know him better then we do.
Just because someone labels themselves as a “civil rights group” doesn’t mean much these days. Are these the same civil rights groups that said GW Bush would be responsible for more black churches burning? Or are these the same “civil rights groups” that horrifically tried to link GW Bush to that dragging death in Texas? Many “civil rights groups” are nothing but a partisan arm of the democratic party. So by saying “who has been opposed by civil rights groups” doesn’t mean much.
*Quote: “While we’re on the topic of Mr. Bush, he and other republican candidates have repeatedly visited Bob Jones University while campaigning. ”
Guilt by association?
*Quote: “Sticking with Trent Lott, of course, we see that the former Majority leader has long been associated with the Council of Conservative Citizens, a white supremacist hate group. He’s also wished on more than one occasion that Strom Thurmond won his pro-segregationist Presidential run. When that scandal blew up, he was removed from his position of Majority leadership, but was given a nice high-power committee leadership instead.”
*Quote: “Since we’re on the topic of Strom Thurmond, this was a man who fathered an illegitimate child on a 14-year-old black girl when he was in his 20s, never acknowledged the child as his own, and went on to campaign vigorously for segregation for much of his lifetime. He’s a virtual saint to the Republican party.”
Democrat Sen. Byrd (The dean of the democratic party, and former leader in the Senate) was a grand wizard of the KKK. Democrat Sen. Hollings led the fight when he was Gov. of S. Carolina against integration. Pres. Clinton’s mentor Sen. Fulbright was a segregationist.
The point is both parties have racists and former racists. That does not mean however that the parties themselves are racist as a whole. If I am robbed by a philipino how fair would it be to label all philipinos as thieves. It is a logical fallacy to generalize in such a way. A leopard is a cat. All leopard have spots. Based on the information provided It would be dumb to believe all or even most cats have spots. It just doesn’t follow.
*Quote: “Now, that’s just some of what’s out there. . .there’s more, of course, like the cleaning of the voter rolls in Florida, Willie Horton, racial profiling, etc, god, I could just keep going, …”
OK, lets take those one at a time.
Florida voter rolls: I am not from FL so correct me if I am wrong, but I think you are talking about removing criminals from the voter rolls. What’s wrong with that? When you are convicted of a felony you loose certain rights. If the law says one of those rights is voting then so be it. Sounds like a reasonable position to me.
Willie Horton: Al Gore was the first candidate to bring up Willie H. in the democratic primary. I also think Al was right on this one. If you support a program that directly leads to the rape and murder of innocent Americans then it SHOULD be a campaign issue. It would not have mattered even if Willie was white, it should have been brought up just to expose the issue of releasing violent criminals out into the public. People paid for that program with their lives.
*Quote: “Well, Black people in America know that racism is real. They know that they’re not crazy, and they know that they’re not “just being ungrateful,” so when the Republican party insinuates these things, they know that they’re just lying.”
The issue isn’t whether racists exist or not. The issue is number of racists and the extent of their power over people. I know diamonds exist, but they are not under every rock, and behind every tree.
“And, of course, that’s the Southern Strategy.”
Ahh yes, the spooky, ever elusive Southern Strategy. I guess I am still not clear on just exactly what this is, and how the modern republican party uses it.
“MLK thought people should be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Affirmative action does the opposite.”
Yeah, iirc that’s what Bush said, too. MLK didn’t share his (or your) opinion of AA, however – he favored Affirmative Action type programs. (In fact, MLK favored preference programs that were far stronger than what we now call affirmative action.)
To use a false characterization of MLK’s views to argue for a policy MLK would have opposed, on MLK’s birthday, qualifies as “a calculated insult to African Americans.” More importantly, it sends a “I’m on your side” message to white racists looking for evidence of support.
“Charles Pickering publicly opposed the KKK at a time when the KKK was strong. He has the support of a lot of minorities from his home state”
Pickering, a county attorney and Mayor’s flunky at the time, was one of many who testified in the trial of a Klan leader who had been foolish enough to attack white-owned businesses, and thus earned a legal reprisal from the Mayor. Here’s Pickering’s entire testimony:
He had, at best, an incredibly minor role in the whole thing; he was a flunky.
He also took the time to sign on to a letter indicating his and other racists’ support for “continuing our Southern way of life” – a code phrase for racial segrigation – and deploring the interference of “outside agitators,” meaning folks like the freedom riders and Martin Luthor King Jr.
The fact is, Pickering was a racist then; the best thing he ever did in his life was to act as a minor flunky in a trial that represented a fight between poor white racists (the Klan) and rich white racists (the Mayor).
Meanwhile, in the 1960s, Pickering switched to the Republican party to protest Democratic opposition to segregation. And his intellectual work argued in support of laws forbidding blacks and whites to marry each other.
Unlike Byrd, he’s never once expressed regret for, apologized for or repudiated his past racism. And this is the man Republicans regard as a hero on race issues.
More importantly, for thie issue at hand, is the fact that Pickering (rightly or wrongly, I think rightly) has come to symbolize a white judge opposed by blacks (including many blacks in Mississipi, btw) because he’s seen as racist. As such, appointing him on MLK jr day does indeed send a message.
“Guilt by association?”
Yup. In this case, however, the guilt by association criticism is logical and valid. I don’t want to vote for a politician who’s on friendly terms with Bob Jones, any more than I want to vote for one who is on friendly terms with the American Nazi Party.
“When you are convicted of a felony you loose [sic] certain rights.”
Yes, but many of the folks Jeb scrubbed from the voter rolls had either never been convicted of a felony, or had been convicted of felonies in other states which had restored their voting rights. Florida had no constitutional right to prevent those voters from voting.
“If I am robbed by a philipino how fair would it be to label all philipinos as thieves.”
The Republican party’s leadership as a whole – not just a random individual Republican – chose to put (and keep) Lott in a current position of power and influence. Therefore, it makes sense to judge the current Republican party leadership based on that incident.
Also, there’s a big difference between being a member of a political party – which is an expression of ideology – and race, which is involuntary.
“Al Gore was the first candidate to bring up Willie H. in the democratic primary.”
Which he shouldn’t have. Nonetheless, Gore’s ad didn’t use a photo of Horton, so viewers had no way of knowing Horton’s race. The later ad, in contrast, emphasized a scary-looking closeup photo of Horton; the ad was designed to play off of racist fear of blacks.
As for the Southern Strategy – basically, a policy of appealing to bigotry in order to get poor white folks in the South to support Republicans – I think the clearest example of that today isn’t so much appeals to racism (although they continue) as the hubbub over the “homosexual agenda.”
Nonetheless, things like the Pickering placement aren’t random; it’s not a big coincidence that it happened on MLK’s birthday. To folks used to a decades-old tradition of speaking in code terms like “the southern way of life,” the message sent is clear: Bush will protect the (percieved) interests of whites and fight against things black people want. That’s the appeal to racism that Bush hopes will help him get elected. (I’d say “re-elected,” but… well, you know.)
Thanks for your polite and interesting post.
“To use a false characterization of MLK’s views to argue for a policy MLK would have opposed”
I read your link. It seems like its Tim Wise’s OPINION of what MLK would have liked. In fact after reading that OPINION piece and the lack of direct comprehensive MLK quotes to support his view, I think my version is as correct as ever. MLK either believed in what he said about not judging people by the color of their skin, or he didn’t. I happen to think he must have as I can’t imagine MLK being pro-racial discrimination for any reason. In any case, it seems we will never KNOW for sure. So the subject is entirely debatable, thus GW Bush’s view (and many others) is as valid as yours.
Regarding the Pickering thing. If your version is the complete version then I would be on your side on this one. But somehow I doubt it is since I haven’t seen most of this in anything other than OPINION pieces. Any reputable, non-editorial sources regarding this?
“Unlike Byrd, he’s never once expressed regret for, apologized for or repudiated his past racism.”
It seems he is usually apologizing for something regarding race issues. (Remember the “white n*gg*r” interview a couple of years ago?) The man was a LEADER of the democrats!
“Yup. In this case, however, the guilt by association criticism is logical and valid. I don’t want to vote for a politician who’s on friendly terms with Bob Jones, any more than I want to vote for one who is on friendly terms with the American Nazi Party.”
Bob J. is an idiot, and a racist, and a bigot. But I don’t think those things can “rub off” on someone for being in the presence of him. Those traits are not spread by casual contact. Does GW Bush have the same beliefs and Bob J? Did GW Bush know Bob J’s history before he went there, or was it just another stump speech to perform? Does talking to someone mean you agree with someone? Guilt by association is another logical fallacy. It seems some of you fall for quite a few of those. Using fallacies to support a belief is not rational thinking.
“Yes, but many of the folks Jeb scrubbed from the voter rolls had either never been convicted of a felony, or had been convicted of felonies in other states which had restored their voting rights. Florida had no constitutional right to prevent those voters from voting.”
Is there a law in Florida that says felons must be purged? Does the law distinguish between where they were convicted? Should it really matter? If Florida doesn’t want felons voting that’s fine by me. As far as I know felons of all races are to be purged, not just minorities. You wouldn’t be inferring another fallacy here would you?
“Which he shouldn’t have. Nonetheless, Gore’s ad didn’t use a photo of Horton, so viewers had no way of knowing Horton’s race. The later ad, in contrast, emphasized a scary-looking closeup photo of Horton; the ad was designed to play off of racist fear of blacks.”
Fist of all, whether Al Gore should or shouldn’t depends on what you think about the program. You obviously support it. Secondly, your telling me all the fuss about it being racist depends on whether a photo was included in the add? Do you think they wouldn’t have shown a mug shot if that murder and rapist was white? Any proof? Has there ever been a picture of a white person’s mug shot included in a political add? Bottom line, Willie H’s race was irrelevant in peoples eyes other than those already wearing racist glasses, or those people that see a racist behind every tree.
“As for the Southern Strategy – basically, a policy of appealing to bigotry in order to get poor white folks in the South to support Republicans – I think the clearest example of that today isn’t so much appeals to racism (although they continue) as the hubbub over the “homosexual agenda.””
First of all, please include some concrete examples and hopefully a memo outlining the strategy. Your definition is pretty vague and subjective. Secondly, I think rather than the existence of the spooky, ominous ” The Southern Strategy”, candidates usually campaign different methods of campaigning to different populations.
When Gov. Dean mentioned some goofy thing about wanting the vote of the confederate flag on the pickup truck males, was he using this spooky “The Southern Strategy”? If so, why isn’t all Gov. Dean supporter tainted with the same racist mark you would paint a republican? Didn’t Al Gore, endorse him by the way?
Clinton sounded like a different candidate when he was speaking in a black church than when he was speaking at a commencement event.
No, I think all politicians pander to different populations. I don’t know if Gov. Dean is a racist or not, but I will give him the benefit of a doubt and say he was just pandering like all politicians do.
You mention “code words” a lot. Tell me, where do I get my captain KooK decoder ring? Do I have to know the secret hand shake to get one? Since I can’t get my decoder ring, can you point me to a nice source that list all these secretive “code words”? Any other hidden messages, or secret radio signals you would like inform us about?
By the way Ampersand, I didn’t mean to be insulting in the last paragraph. I was trying to inject a little humorous jab. But rereading the piece as its posted, it looks a little harsh. If I had the ability to edit it I would.
Actually, Wise’s article is very good about stating his sources; you could just go look up what King said.
Here’s what King said interviewed in Playboy (January 1965):
I would really like to know how you can interpret King explicitly saying that he supports “a multi-billion-dollar program of preferential treatment for the Negro” as meaning he would oppose preferential treatment programs.
Here’s what King himself wrote about the “Operation Breadbasket” program, which he helped run. It’s from King’s book Where Do We Go From Here?
As racial preferences go, this is much more radical than any currently operating Affirmative Action program does.
King’s view of goverment supports didn’t begin and end with race, of course – he also wanted programs to help poor people of every race. But quotes like the above leave no doubt that he additionally favored racial preference programs.
And rightly so. The dream speech you refer to – and which, frankly, so far appears to be the only part of King’s writings you’re familiar with – said that he had a dream that someday children could be judged by the content of their character, no the color of their skin. He wasn’t under the illusion that immediate color-blindness would bring his dream about. From Why We Can’t Wait:
* * *
I’m not going to respond to every petty detail. If you refuse to beleive that phrases like “preserving our southern way of life” refered to race, you’re simply too ignorant of American History to have an opinion worth listening to. The use of those gentle phrases are a matter of historic fact; you might as well argue that the Nazi phrase “the final solution” had nothing to do with Jews (after all, the phrase doesn’t literally mention Jews, right?).
Regarding Pickering, I said nothing that couldn’t be easily confirmed if you were interested; you could go to a law library and read Pickering’s “Criminal Law – Miscegenation – Incest,” in volume XXX of the Mississippi Law Journal. (I think the year was 1959). The article, written in very neutral-sounding academic language, suggests a way that the legislature could alter the miscegenation law to get around a State Supreme Court decision that had rendered the law unenforcable. Within a year, the legislature followed Pickering’s suggestion.
I’m not going to go point-by-point through the rest; I don’t have infinite time to devote to this thread, and many of the issues you’re picking on strike me as trivial in the extreme. (Nor have you provided the slightest bit of evidence to support any of your views.) Your other points seem to be mostly of the “nothing is racist if I can interpret it another way” variety; by your standards, it would be impossible to establish that Birth of a Nation was a bigoted film.
I do want to address the Florida issue, though, because it seems to me that there are important constitutional reasons why Florida must not ban non-Florida felons from voting once they’ve moved to Florida.
Felons convicted in Florida cannot ever vote; that’s part of their punishment, along with going to prison (in some cases) and various other rights lost. I disagree with that, but it is Florida’s legal right to do that.
However, in most other states, the voting ban, while also part of a felon’s punishment, is imposed for a finite amount of time. Once a felon’s voting rights have been restored, Florida should have no right to take them away, because doing so is an instance of re-punishing people who have already served their time.
Imagine if a felon who served her time in the New York judicial system crossed the Florida border, and the Florida police grabbed her and stuck her back in prison, because in Florida the crime she committed carries a longer sentence. That would obviously be unconstitutional, for three reasons.
First of all, it’s double jepardy; she’s being punished a second time for the exact same crime.
Second of all, it’s punishing her without a trial (you can’t say the trial in New York counted, because the punishment she’s facing isn’t part of the sentence given her at her New York trial. Her lawyer never had an opportunity to argue against this new punishment Florida is imposing).
Third, it violates Florida’s constitutional obligation to give full faith and credit to New York’s laws.
But there’s no difference – legally or morally – between Florida throwing her in jail and Florida removing her right to vote. Florida has no right to sentence non-Florida felons to penalties beyond what was originally given them at trial, regardless of if the punishment is prison time or being taken off voter rolls.
That no one should be punished without an opportunity to argue against the punishment at trial isn’t just a technicality; it’s a cornerstone of any reasonable idea of justice, imo.
(What I’m not sure of is how this works in reverse. If someone loses their voting rights in Florida, are they still lost even if the person moves to another state? If not, why not?)
* * *
All of that interests me as a matter of theory, but it’s really beside the point, because most of the wrongful scrubbings in Florida were black people who had never been convicted of a crime in any state. Their only crime was being black and having a name similar to the name of a felon.
As for whether or not the scrubbing was targeted at blacks, from an interview with Greg Palast, a BBC reporter who researched the Florida election – and this issue in particular – extensively. The bolding of text was added by me.
I’d call that an action directed at keeping blacks off the voting rolls.
You people are REALLY reaching for straws here. Sucks to be on the losing team I guess.
Regarding MLK, if those quotes are accurate I stand corrected. If MLK thought racial discrimination is OK, then I disagree with him. And I have to say, it is rather disappointing to see such a glaring flaw in a great man. But I imagine his opinion was colored by the times in which he lived.
*Quote: “I’m not going to respond to every petty detail. If you refuse to beleive [SIC] that phrases like “preserving our southern way of life” refered [SIC] to race, you’re simply too ignorant of American History to have an opinion worth listening to.”
Huh? More secretive “code words”? As I said I can’t get the decoder ring without knowing the secret handshake. There is a distinct southern culture in America that has nothing to do with race. I don’t live in “The South”, but I have spent some time there when I was in the military. As a whole they are some of the friendliest people I have ever been around. Many of them are very religious. They take pride in being good neighbors. All in all, life seems to be lived at a slower pace, even in the larger cities. I can see why someone would want to preserve those characteristics without being racist.
*Quote: “I’m not going to go point-by-point through the rest; I don’t have infinite time to devote to this thread, and many of the issues you’re picking on strike me as trivial in the extreme. (Nor have you provided the slightest bit of evidence to support any of your views.) Your other points seem to be mostly of the “nothing is racist if I can interpret it another way” variety; by your standards, it would be impossible to establish that Birth of a Nation was a bigoted film.”
I am not going to try to prove a negative and I don’t have to. It is your proposition is that the republican party is a racist institution. All I have to do is defeat some of your arguments, and show the fallacies in your thinking. Trivial in the extreme? You say this and that republican is a racist, and I point out racists on the democrat side. You use vague concepts like “code words” and “the southern strategy”; I ask for specifics and give reasonable alternative views and motivations.
I have also pointed out your unfair inconsistencies in the application of your own standards. You have continued to ignore glaring inconsistencies in your position. Why do you not apply the same standards for Gov. Dean and his supporters and endorsers as you would for a republican? Why do you not judge Byrd as harshly as you do Lott?
The reason, I believe, you automatically believe the worst in people (but only if they are republican it seems) where there are other reasonable explanations. You have preconceived notions and you look for things that support your view. Simply, you see what you want to see.
Thanks for conceding the point on MLK. For me, the Affirmative Action question is “how big an unfair advantage do we want white men to have?” With AA, white men have a big advantage, but without it, it would be even bigger. We’d all prefer a world with no discrimination at all, but realistically that’s not one of our available options right now.
Regarding Dean, I said in a post earlier this week that I would prefer one of the other democrats to Dean, because I don’t like Dean’s stance on racial issues (in particular, the way he’s dealt with Native Americans in Vermont). I’m not sure why you think I’m a Dean fan, or that I don’t criticize him regarding race.
In my previous post, I gave a very concrete example of Republicans acting against black voters in Florida; you ignored it. If specifically seeking out black voters to scrub from voter rolls isn’t racist, in your view, what on earth do you consider racist?
Finally, the difference between Robert Byrd and Charles Pickering is that Byrd had admitted to his racist past and apologized. Pickering refuses to acknowlege the racism in his past, which makes me worry that he might not have moved beyond it.
Anyhow, you missed the main point about Pickering. “More importantly, for the issue at hand, is the fact that Pickering (rightly or wrongly, I think rightly) has come to symbolize a white judge opposed by blacks (including many blacks in Mississipi, btw) because he’s seen as racist. As such, appointing him on MLK jr day does indeed send a message.”
You apparently think it’s just a big coincidence that Bush chooses to fight Affirmative Action on MLK Jr day, and chooses to appoint a judge widely considered a racist on MLK Jr day. (What are the odds?) You think it’s a coincidence – or a mistake – that Bush campaigns at a school that’s famous (especially in political circles) country-wide for racism. (By the way, even if Bush didn’t know that about Bob Jones – and Bush is indeed ignorant enough not to know – his advisors certainly knew).
These things aren’t coincidence; they’re deliberate slaps in the face of the black community. As I said before, the message sent is that Bush will protect the (percieved) interests of whites against what black people want.
I don’t see much content in the end of your posts, just personal attacks. To which I say, pot, kettle.
Is your blog a joke?
I think it is more an issue that some people feel that Bush is the only candidate whom they would fell comfortable with sitting down drinking beer and watching the football game with.
That is no way to choose a President but I believe that is why he got many of his votes from predominantly white men.
Who could image watching football with Al Gore?
I think you guys have it all wrong.
Maybe I’m not typical, but here’s my feelings.
Race? not a big issue. Nobody alive owned slaves or fought in the civil war, most of us in our 40’s and 50’s now were too young to even remember the civil rights movement. It’s a non issue. I have no desire to “turn back the clock” or any other silly notion I’ve seen talked about here.
What we care about is all people equal, and merit based advancement, fundamental american principles. There are minorities advancing just fine on plain merit. I don’t care if someone’s great grandfather was a slave, Mine wasn’t much better when he came here, and neither has anything to do with me or you.
Same for “the rich”. I view “taxing the rich” as wrong. It’s singling out someone for their success, a type of plain discrimination, period. Be successful and get singled out, villified, and double taxed for your effort. I have no illusions or “mythical” dream of being rich, I just do not like unfairness. If I hear “tax break for the rich” buzzphrase one more time I’m going to be sick.
What white men believe is that you pull your own weight, you overcome adversity, and you treat all people equally. You retain all freedoms and accept responsibility for your actions.
I don’t want government protecting me from myself, passing laws on guns or other freedoms. I don’t want criminals to dodge taking rsponsibility for their actions by claiming to be a “victim” of society, or culture, or video games, or some rock stars backward playing subliminal messages.
I don’t like politics or politicians, they are a neccessary evil. Anyone who distances themselves from that stereotype looks good to me. I’m almost in the camp to ban lawyers from political office or at least legislative office. I think we just might have better government if we picked random individuals of the street and sent them to washington by lottery, at lest we might have some common sense and less self serving BS in washington.
Unions are a great concept, but unfortunately most of ours that I experienced growing up were rife with corruption and nepotism, extremely exclusive as in if your not family or connected your screwed, and pushed too far just because they had the power to do so. Even if we do have a period of wage stagnation that lasts my lifetime I cannot support them.
I like someone who says what he thinks, even if it’s sometimes stupid, rather that someone who says always and only what they think I want to hear.
My experience is a life of a middle aged white guy who grew up in the late 60’s and 70’s, dropped out of high school, worked for 20 blue collar style elbow to elbow with blacks and hispanics in Texas, has been almost the “live in a carboard box under te overpass” level. I have started several small business, and currently run a software company I founded and make a nice income. I’ve seen life from about every side I could possibly have.
Democrats just don’t seem to stand for the things I believe in. Republicans are closer but it’s still a choice of two evils in my opinion to elect any of the bozos runing for office from either party.
Take this as a hint, and why political outsiders get more attention (ei: arnold out in CA) all the time. They don’t have to like him, it’s enough that he’s an outsider to the system and just MIGHT shake things up a bit in the old slime pot that has entrenched itself. We are a cynical bunch.
Bush acts like an outsider, talks like an outsider, he gets vots just for that. Above all else White guys want anything that smacks of NOT business as usual in wshington, and see dem candidates as more of the same old descriminatory self serving BS dealers like Ted Kennedy etc..
Even Hillary could get my vote if she looked like she was going to give it to the system.
GW Bush an “outsider”?!?!? The man whose Daddy was President and who has some of the world’s largest corporate entities in his back pocket is an “outsider”? You’ve got to be joking.
Bush “acts like an outsider, talks like an outsider, he got votes just for that.” Could it be
we were being deceived?? Remember the main issue
of the presidential debates was prescription drug
coverage for seniors and the first thing on his things to do list was planning the invasion of Iraq.(documented Jan 20, 01 thank you Paul O”Neil)
No I’m not joking. I didn’t say he WAS an outsider, just that he acts like one enough to win votes. He’s not a typical Washington stereotype.
He’s not well spoken, he shoots from the hip, he makes gaffs, he doesn’t come off as a slick, polished, career politician. Much moreso than most who run. He comes off much like a guy on the street. I guess he hung around with enough oil rig workers when he was running is little oil venture for it to rub off.
He can’t even pronounce nuclear for crying out loud, and doesn’t CARE to correct himself (which he obviously could) because it makes him sound like one the millions of guys who also aren’t well spoken and don’t care because it doesn’t really matter. He sounds like one of them.
Another thing to steer clear of is obvious ignorance. Every president since Reagan has had plans to invade iraq, as well as many other countries. We pay a lot of people very well in Washington and elsewhere to do nothing but plan invasions of countries etc. Especially ones we may think we actually need to. There have been Iraqi invasion plans made many times the 80’s.
I would think any president incompetent as commander in chief of our military if he DIDN’T have plans for invading a country we are in a conditional cease fire with when he took office.
If dems are going to win stay away from iraq as an issue. Most americans think it was the right thing to do, and not because Bush said so and not because of WMD, nobody thought Iraq was an imminent threat to the U.S.
Most “white males” think it was a terrible mistake we didn’t finish the job in ’91, and that we signed a conditional cease fire that lasted for 12 years with our boys over there getting shot at for 12 years defending no fly zones.
They feel terrible we told them to revolt and stood back while untold thousands were ruthlessly butchered.
And then to have the folks here yelling for years about how many kids the sanctions that were part of the terms of cease fire were killing while Saddam played us for fools.
There were two ways out in th minds of the “white male”. Drop all sanctions, call th no fly defenders home and wash our hand of it, and let Saddam do as he will, or go take him out and finish what we started.
The war is the wrong issue to hang on to if you want to win. Look at the polls, most americans feel that way.
The exception would be to only use Iraq in the sense of having a better plan to get Iraq on it’s feet, Afghanistan too for that matter. Even the white males will listen to that.
Put up a plan to get our boys out, to clean it up and be done with it once and for all. That will get the white males attention.
And while were at it, a plan to help get better education in the entire middle east, get rid of the madrasas that are ingraining religious fundamentalism into tens of thousands of kids over there and ingraining hatred of all things western and modern and you’ll really get my attention.
Or a realistic policy for Isreal to play hardball with them and get that situation sorted out and I might just volunteer to go help on your campaign.
Wrong or right we are in Iraq now, how we got there is spilled milk for acedamia to ponder for 50 years.
What matters now is how we get out. Tell me about a good plan to get Iraq on it’s feet and move on and it may get my vote. Whine about how we got there and I’ll be tuning out and looking elsewhere thank you.
White males want leadership, a decisive person that says what he means and does it. One that can live without pleasing everyone and gets a job done. Right or wrong Bush represents that to them. You don’t have to be a genius, and you can make mistakes.
Watch Kerry, he’s the most like what i’m looking for in the dems camp so far. I’ll look at him more closely if it appears he may get on the ticket. I’m independent as far as politics goes, but I don’t think I would ever vote for any of the other dem cadidates. I would go for Bush over them.
Kerry has potential, he’s credible with his background in the miitary, not too entrenched in washington because he has had a life outside politics(can get the outsider angle), and has potential to take the stage as decisive leader if he’s got the gumption to do it.
Don’t hang me, I’m just laying out what “sheeple” or “white males” or whatever you want to call the people who aren’t rabid anti Bush or anti republican think, and how the thought process goes because you asked in several posts. I’m just the messenger, so hold your fire and ask more questions if you want more insight.
I’ll gladly tell you what I like and don’t like and what would get my vote. I have no interest in a flame war or cheap shots.
I’m afraid I lost interest around the time white male referred to our armed forces as “boys.”
(Yawn.) Y’know, the word “people” is more acurate and only costs you one precious extra syllable. Try it sometime.
Maybe I will take the time, thanks for correcting the oversight.
To be honest no other term ever crossed my mind, even though people would be a more accurate term.
It would have been more accurate in WWII as well, but “the boys” is what was used, and has been used, in propaganda, hollywood war movies etc. that have ingrained themselves into my meager brain for almost 50 years.
Remind me enough and an old dog may learn a new trick and eventually think about every single word or cliche phrase he uses. Personally I’m not that thin skinned that I would have reacted to such a thing as you have.
Maybe you should take a minute as well, to reflect on such a dismissive attitude over a slight oversight in terms. Give the person on the other end a benefit of doubt.
I read many questions here and tried to impart a point of view in a rational and civil manner. To provide infomation and an explanation of a perspective that seemed to be a paradox to the posters here.
All I ask is intelligent conversation, all I seem to recieve are mean spirited quips.
It’s fairly obvious I’m not trying to insult, demean or belittle or deliver any type of message other than respectful and positive.
Why not a slight benefit of a doubt instead of a total dismissal over one word taken in a way it was never meant?
I guess fantasy stereotype assumptions of the “white male” to generalize and ridicule on some forum are better than intelligent discusion which I always love to engage in.
One of my mantras in life, hard learned after many years is this……
Any person you ever meet can teach something you didn’t know. From a stinky homeless bum on the sidewalk, to the kid breaking glass, to the richest man in the world and everyone in between, you can learn something from each of them. If you only watch and listen.
Be careful who you are dismissive of in life. You can miss an awful lot of wisdom tha way.
Does anyone on this blog have anything original to say. Or has the democratic party truly devolved into the anti-Bush party? Your rhetoric is so tired, it borders on juvenile. Afraid of Bush…Bush destroying the world…Bush is Hitler…blah blah blah.
Can someone please tell me what democrats are about?
Is everything about the current administration evil?
Is there ANY good coming out of this white house?
From my “republican white guy” point of view, I see a prospect for a free Iraq (regardless of war justification).
I see an economy back on the rise after a devastating attack on innocent people on 9/11 (remember that anyone?).
I see an absence of any further domestic assaults from terrorist radicals.
I see an administration cracking down on corporate corruption.
I see “no child left behind” as a good policy to secure our national future (which we wouldn’t need, incidentally, if the baby-boom generation wasn’t the most pathetic and inept group of parents this country has ever seen).
I see a president who cares about protecting our country more than he cares about the political fallout which results from hard-line policy.
Are these bad or evil things? If so, why? And who among you can do a better job?
P.S. Note to “Amy” here is your post from Jan. 26
“I’m afraid I lost interest around the time white male referred to our armed forces as “boys.”
(Yawn.) Y’know, the word “people” is more acurate and only costs you one precious extra syllable. Try it sometime.”
Response:
It’s PC thumpers like you who are robbing us of our civil liberties, not George Bush.
“Boys” is, and always has been a term of endearment for the brave young men who died for your country.
Finally someone who has not been engulfed by the “Down with Bush” campaign. Everyone speaks of how the White House is corrupt. Well if i do recall Bush is not facing an impeachment and getting a “hummer” in the oval office committing adultery like our previous Democratic president. He has actually brought morality back to the White House and who out of the cluster of democratic “hopefuls” could do a better job. George W. has been dealt a heap of hardships and problems during his administration and confronted them all with the best interests of the country. For all of you who dont remember Sept. 11 shame on you. Bush is protecting me, protecting you, protecting your families, and protecting our great nation from a recurrence of such a tragedy.
How can you argue against a free nation?
Well thats what you have all done for the people of Iraq. George W. freed the Iraqi people from a ruthless dictator who over the tenure of his rule brutally murdered over 500,000 innocent iraqis. Oh but you must not of seen the pictures of the mass burial sites. or you must not care about any other human being but yourself. In that case, i am glad none of you are president.
For all of you who have been clouded by Howard Dean and his nonsense, open your eyes and you just might see that you have a great leader in a “white republican.”
Finally someone who has not been engulfed by the “Down with Bush” campaign. Everyone speaks of how the White House is corrupt. Well if i do recall Bush is not facing an impeachment and getting a “hummer” in the oval office committing adultery like our previous Democratic president. He has actually brought morality back to the White House and who out of the cluster of democratic “hopefuls” could do a better job. George W. has been dealt a heap of hardships and problems during his administration and confronted them all with the best interests of the country. For all of you who dont remember Sept. 11 shame on you. Bush is protecting me, protecting you, protecting your families, and protecting our great nation from a recurrence of such a tragedy.
How can you argue against a free nation?
Well thats what you have all done for the people of Iraq. George W. freed the Iraqi people from a ruthless dictator who over the tenure of his rule brutally murdered over 500,000 innocent iraqis. Oh but you must not of seen the pictures of the mass burial sites. or you must not care about any other human being but yourself. In that case, i am glad none of you are president.
For all of you who have been clouded by Howard Dean and his nonsense, open your eyes and you just might see that you have a great leader in a “white republican.”
Finally someone who has not been engulfed by the “Down with Bush” campaign. Everyone speaks of how the White House is corrupt. Well if i do recall Bush is not facing an impeachment and getting a “hummer” in the oval office committing adultery like our previous Democratic president. He has actually brought morality back to the White House and who out of the cluster of democratic “hopefuls” could do a better job. George W. has been dealt a heap of hardships and problems during his administration and confronted them all with the best interests of the country. For all of you who dont remember Sept. 11 shame on you. Bush is protecting me, protecting you, protecting your families, and protecting our great nation from a recurrence of such a tragedy.
How can you argue against a free nation?
Well thats what you have all done for the people of Iraq. George W. freed the Iraqi people from a ruthless dictator who over the tenure of his rule brutally murdered over 500,000 innocent iraqis. Oh but you must not of seen the pictures of the mass burial sites. or you must not care about any other human being but yourself. In that case, i am glad none of you are president.
For all of you who have been clouded by Howard Dean and his nonsense, open your eyes and you just might see that you have a great leader in a “white republican.”
Well, Unca Sam, I see the handing of sweetheart contracts (some would call it war profiteering) to the company of the VP as somewhat more corrupt & dangerous than POTUS getting an extramarital blowjob in the White House. In my view any of the cluster of candidates could do a better job. And most likely would. Things like keeping the seperation of Church & State (see “Faith Based Initiatives”) and actually funding the “No Child Left Behind” farce and not lying about potential threats (that don’t exist) from 3rd world countries and funding social services and not creating record deficits less than a year after record surpluses and promoting a free nation by not supporting USAPATRIOT (which disregards constitutional freedoms).
Oh yes, the morality of allowing Enron to design our national energy policy (deregulate, deregulate, deregulate). Well, that worked out well (for Enron execs who scammed billions from citizens & shareholders). Very moral. Even better than Bush I and his moral S&L scandal (from which his friends & family scammed billions). Remember those?
And, hey, yeah Saddam was bad, but neither Reagan nor Bush I complained too much while supplying him w/ WMD during the 80s. And what about the other brutal dictators that we support?
I see a spend & don’t tax cronyist administration intent on doing away with all social service programs. Which, IMHO, is immoral. But you’re correct, GWB has not been caught getting a blow job. And, after all, that’s what really matters.
That’s what it looks like from here anyway.
And Eric wrote: “I see an administration cracking down on corporate corruption.”
Can you give me some examples of that, because I’m not aware of this.
Eric: “I see an economy back on the rise…”
I see a stock market on the rise, but an economy going nowhere at the moment.
Replying to Ampersand
*Quote: “I’m not sure why you think I’m a Dean fan, or that I don’t criticize him regarding race.”
Its not that I think you are a Dean fan, but you don’t paint Dean’s supporters with the same racist brush that you do Republicans.
*Quote: “In my previous post, I gave a very concrete example of Republicans acting against black voters in Florida; you ignored it.”
I didn’t ignore it; I wanted to check other sources. So far my reading of it makes me think the whole situation was due more to incompetence and confusion than a grand conspiracy. There were a whole lot of white people incorrectly scrubbed also.
*Quote: “Finally, the difference between Robert Byrd and Charles Pickering is that Byrd had admitted to his racist past and apologized. Pickering refuses to acknowlege the racism in his past, which makes me worry that he might not have moved beyond it.”
I noticed how you turned the Byrd verses Lott comparison into a Byrd verses Pickering. Could it be that it is because Lott apologized about 80 times so it wouldn’t fit into your argument?
*Quote: “For me, the Affirmative Action question is “how big an unfair advantage do we want white men to have?” With AA, white men have a big advantage, but without it, it would be even bigger.”
Wow, and to think of all the years I wasted by working hard and trying to educate myself when I could have simply cashed in on my white male benefits. Do we get free housing with that also? You wouldn’t believe the money I have wasted on rent over the years. So where do I sign up to get my big advantage?
btw: personal attacks? Come on now, your skin can’t be that thin. I didn’t call you names or insult your mother. I just criticized your methods.
(Yawn.) You’re right, Eric. Why, just last week, I had fifty of your buddies jailed incommunicado at Guantanamo for their pathetic inability to acknowledge that women serve in the armed forces. Oh, and my worldwide media empire refuses to air any of your stupid “Shrub is God” commericals, either. You wouldn’t know what civil liberties were if they bit you in your ass, so scram.
And shut up, or my faceless minions will have YOU carted away as well.
(Evil laugh.)
Jake, here is the example you asked for:
Today, by executive order, I create a new Corporate Fraud Task Force, headed by the Deputy Attorney General, which will target major accounting fraud and other criminal activity in corporate finance. The task force will function
as a financial crimes SWAT team, overseeing the investigation of corporate abusers and bringing them to account.
I’m also proposing tough new criminal penalties for corporate fraud. This legislation would double the maximum prison terms for those convicted of financial fraud from five to 10 years. Defrauding investors is a serious
offense, and the punishment must be as serious as the crime. I ask Congress to strengthen the ability of SEC investigators to temporarily freeze improper payments to corporate executives, and to strengthen laws that prevent the destruction of corporate documents in order to hide crimes.
Second, we’re moving corporate accounting out of the shadows, so the investing public will have a true and fair and timely picture of assets and liabilities and income of publicly traded companies. Greater transparency will
expose bad companies and, just as importantly, protect the reputations of the good ones.
To expose corporate corruption, I asked Congress four months ago for funding to place 100 new enforcement personnel in the SEC. And I call on Congress to act quickly on this request. Today I announce my administration is
asking Congress for an additional $100 million in the coming year to give the SEC the officers and the technology it needs to enforce the law. If more scandals are hiding in corporate America, we must find and expose them now, so we can begin rebuilding the confidence of our people and the momentum of our markets.
I’ve also proposed a 10-point Accountability Plan for American Business, designed to provide better information to shareholders, set clear responsibility for corporate officers, and develop a stronger, more independent auditing
system. This plan is ensuring that the SEC takes aggressive and affirmative action.
Corporate officers who benefit from false accounting statements should forfeit all money gained by their fraud. An executive whose compensation is tied to his company’s performance makes more money when his company does well — that’s fine, and that’s fair when the accounting is above-board. Yet when a company uses deception — deception accounting to hide reality, executives should lose all their compensation — all their compensation — gained by the deceit.
Corporate leaders who violate the public trust should never be given that trust again. The SEC should be able to punish corporate leaders who are convicted of abusing their powers by banning them from ever serving again as
officers or directors of a publicly-held corporation. If an executive is guilty of outright fraud, resignation is not enough. Only a ban on serving at the top of another company will protect other shareholders and employees.
My accountability plan also requires CEOs to personally vouch for their firms’ annual financial statements. Currently, a CEO signs a nominal certificate, and does so merely on behalf of the company. In the future, the
signature of the CEO should also be his or her personal certification of the veracity and fairness of the financial disclosures. When you sign a statement, you’re pledging your word, and you should stand behind it.
Amy S.
Though you do not lend any intellectual merit to your hate-rhetoric, I must assume that you are a reasonable person. So why are you defending a group of people, locked up in Guantanamo, who rape, torture, and suppress women as a matter of national/religious tradition and pride? I don’t expect you to even think about this, but you should.
So who linked to this post, leading to all you lovely right-of-center visitors? (I’d hate to think y’all were too cowardly to tell me).
Larry, I never said Republicans in general are evil or racist, so I’m not sure what you’re responding to.
Regarding Affirmative Action, you’re attacking a straw man. To say that white men have an unfair advantage is not the same as saying that white men have everything handed to them on a platter and therefore don’t need to work. Of course white men need to work (and in many cases, work quite hard); nor is being a white male a guarantee of success. Nonethless, on average, being white and male is an advantage in the job market. If both a black and an equally-qualified white apply for a job, neither one of them is sure to get a job, but the odds are better for the white guy.
Eric, while you were out pulling the wings off flies, Michael Savage called. He wants his script back. ;)
Eric…..it’s fine that you cite that speech made by Dubya.
Now let’s see the SEC act aggressively to implement those proposals, and keep Al Dunlap, Ken Lay, Andrew Fastow, and their ilk out of corporate America.
Didn’t think it’d happen. That’s Dubya for you – he never means what he says.
I’m still wondering how the White House gets off saying that they never said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Then again, the United States is at war with Iraq. The United States has always been at war with Iraq. (Oops, where did that pic of Donald Rumsfeld greeting Saddam Hussein come from?)
That’s not Rumsfeld in that picture. It’s the guy who plays Barney the Dinosaur, only in a different costume.
Barney is still a better poet than Rumsfeld, though.
Who’s Michael Savage?
Aaron,
You proved my point for me.
What about the position that Al Dunlap, Ken Lay, Andrew Fastow, and their ilk are being investigated, scrutinized, and prosecuted as a result of promises made during that speech?
I haven’t yet seen anthing to indicate that a prosectution of Ken Lay is forthcoming. Not even any formal charges filed, IIRC. I’ll believe it when I see it.
And do you think that if Lay is prosecuted & either found guilty or he pleads guilty that the punishment will be any worse than that for grand theft auto or, say, marijuana possession?
I like Bush but not for the reasons that the writer said, i think that, more or less was nothing more than an attempt to belittle others for liking the President. I don’t like Bush because he is “old fashioned”, i like him because he at least is trying to protect our country, unlike Clinton, who encouraged mass illegal immigration and stripped away every shred of protection we had all in the name of multiculturalism. If you can point out a nation that encourages millions of people from around the world into a nation, and it also has security and peace, then i’d like to see it. So far it hasn’t happened and probably never will.
A bit of selective awareness going on with you Truth? Did you notice that Bush the Yunger is calling for an amnesty plan for current illegals? How is that different from “…Clinton, who encouraged mass illegal immigration”? The logic, as put forth by many Republicans, being that if you grant amnesty you get tons of new illegals who wait for the next amnesty.
And can you be a bit more specific about how Clinton “…stripped away every shred of protection we had…”? I don’t recall Clinton suspending our constitutional rights (like Bush the Yunger’s administration holding American citizens w/o charges, representation or public notification & w/o a trial). But maybe I slept through that part of the Clinton Administration.
You might also want to remember that the USA isn’t like any other nation in the world. If you can point out another country that prides itself on being a “melting pot”, then I’ll answer your question. I’d also like to point out that the US is more secure (fewer acts of terrorism) than nearly any other country you care to name. Or would you rather live in India (a country that does not encourage immigration)?
Um….anyone with half a brain realizes that conservatism is true freedom, i.e. freedom WITH reponsibility, rather than freedom FROM reponsibility, as the Liberal Left would prefer it. Have you TRULY taken the time to look at the ISSUES, rather than the candidates? Noone said that Bush was perfect, but he has MORALS and stands by them, which puts him in much higher standing in my book than most Democrats, especially JFKerry.
Yes, using family connections to get into the National Guard to avoid going to Vietnam, and then skipping out on even that service definitely shows MORALS. (Though not the good ones.)
Have you TRULY taken the time to look at the ISSUES, rather than the candidates?
Indeed. I am grieved that my party has embraced ‘individual responsibility’ as something only other people need follow; we personally are exempt, and certainly corporations are too.
Which morals do you believe Bush has and stands by? While I certainly don’t agree with John McCain’s views in all respects, I respect him because he sticks to them. Bush? Spare me.
couldn’t you at least troll RECENT threads? nevermind the glaring innacuracies, you COULD just throw the republican talking points in a thread that was still active..
didn’t the lst post being Feb 6 tip you off at all?
dude, you suck at trolling. seriously
Pingback: All Facts and Opinions