From the comments here at Big Sky Cairn comes this from Mark T:
Read slowly, my friend, s-l-o-w-l-y: Not all republicans are racists, but all racists are Republican.
Does the rest of Sinestra agree with Mark on this? How does Dextra feel about this claim? Is this dialog even worth having?
Anyone who thinks that all racists are Republican doesn’t get out much. And that is a problem that I’m afraid you can’t cure, although I appreciate your enthusiasm.
It just shows what an idiot Mark T. is. His defense has something to do with who has power and who doesn’t. “You can’t be a racist if you don’t have power over somebody” or some such tripe.
I don’t believe in absolutes… Doesn’t mean I don’t like a good rule of thumb.
This is why it is impossible to have a decent discussion:
Mark - You are a racist.
Me - No I am not.
Mark - See, your denial proves that you are a racist.
It makes zero sense, is bereft of logic and is insulting. The Trifecta!
But what about those Southern Democrats who became Republicans? Apparently, they weren’t racists until after they switched sides. But it still conflates a good quarter of the population’s issues, thoughts and agendas into a convenient package which again makes zero sense, is bereft of logic and is insulting.
Why doesn’t Mark mention the Hon. Sen. Byrd of West Virginia? Or any number of other senior and erstwhile respected Democratic luminaries? That is because it would betray the fatal flaw in his premise.
Although, the real question is not why anyone would ask such a silly question. Perhaps it should be, why would anyone respond to this nonsense?
And yes, I know that I just did.
Obviously Mark has never lived in major metropolitan area like, say, Chicago. That statement is just ignorant nonsense. I know more working class Democrat racists than I’ve ever known racist Republicans. But perhaps that’s because I spent 15 years in Chicago as opposed to the provincial viewpoint that Mark sees having spent most of his life in Montana..
The world is a big place, Mark. Go see it.
Dave is correct. Having lived in such big cities as Houston, Washington, DC, and now San Antonio, I can also say that by far most of the true racists I’ve met have been self-described Democrats - and that’s NOT including the Jeremiah Wright/La Raza minority-racist types, who are also numerous.
Don’t waste your time on this subject. Everybody left and right is racist. The only thing that distinguishes them is if they will admit it or deny it.
A couple days ago I was listening to the Berg show when some guy named Robert, a self-identified Democrat, was talking about Republicans being racists and then he mentioned Condi Rice and, for some reason, called her “Aunt Jemima.”
Can you imagine the grief a prominent Republican would get if they used that phrase to describe an African American such as Oprah or Maya Angelou or Congressman Eleanor Norton?
Da,
Well I suppose “Congressman” Eleanor Holmes Norton would be offended for multiple reasons. Although calling her a Congressman might be a step up from calling her Delegate.
I kid, there is a fairly well established double standard when it comes to racial speak between the parties. Just look at Joe Biden, the man said; “You cannot go to a 7/11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking.” Or if you prefer this line on Obama; “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy”
Of course the aforementioned Robert Byrd was a member of the KKK.
I think this dextra sinstra BS is racist.
The comment came out of a longer conversation, which you ought to read, in which I tried and tried to explain the southern strategy to Wiley, and the fact that the south converted from Democrat to Republican after passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Before that time, Democrats held the racist vote, a devils bargain, but they willingly gave it up. It’s one of the hard things to understand about politics - people doing something principled.
Are there racist Democrats? Of course. Hillary courted them. Does the Democratic Party market to them, subtly or otherwise? Beyond Hillary, No. By and large, the racist strain of politics can be found on the right wing, with Karl Rove and illegitimate black babies and Willie Horton.
Wiley ain’t so wiley. He don’t even get a point when a point sticks him in the eye.
Before I forget, as anyone who has ever taken a multiple choice test knows, any answer that contains the words “all” or “none” is the wrong answer. I did a syllogism on Wiley, as he was pretending to be a Greek scholar the day before. My bad.
That wasn’t a syllogism Mark. It’s actually a rhetorical device called antithetical parallelism. You can tell it wasn’t an argument - syllogism or enthymeme because you didn’t deduce or induce anything from evidence, but asserted as self-evident fact. You described a Venn Diagram without supporting the accuracy of that diagram.
In any case, now you acknowledge that racism is a bipartisan problem. We’ve come a long way from “all Republicans are racist” haven’t we. Bollie for progress!
…the south converted from Democrat to Republican after passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Before that time, Democrats held the racist vote, a devils bargain, but they willingly gave it up. It’s one of the hard things to understand about politics - people doing something principled.
That is not true. The South remained a Democratic bastion for decades afterward. Jimmy Carter and the Democrats all but swept the South a dozen years later. Up until the early 90’s, most of the South’s congressional delegation consisted of Democrats. What ultimately drove most white southerners over to the Republicans was the unrepentant cultural leftism of the Democratic Party (best exemplified by a growing hostility to traditionalist Christianity) and the party’s growing addiction to identity politics for the purpose of currying minority votes.
It should be remembered that the Republican Party’s commitment to civil rights was alive and well during the twentieth century, for it was President Dwight D. Eisenhower who used federal troops to force the state of Arkansas to admit black students to Little Rock’s Central High School. Also, it was Sen. Everett Dirksen (R-IL) who was instrumental in pushing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through Congress. Percentage-wise, more Republicans than Democrats voted for the bill. On the matter of Sen. Barry Goldwater’s (R-AZ) stance against the act, Goldwater’s position was rooted in concerns over provisions in the bill that granted federal agencies excessive power in enforcing the legislation – a very valid worry in retrospect.
Mark’s response (if there is one) should be interesting, if perhaps predictable.
I confused you with an exchange I had with Mike at LBP where I did use a syllogism to infer that Mike was an extremist. Syllogisms are nothing mroe than rhetorical devices, of not much use since there are no all’s or none’s in real life. All you can do is shade - it is often fair to say more or most, and I did misspeak in a rhetorical flourish when I said all. Most racists choose the Republican party - it is the one that courts them openly.
Anyway, wow - you must have taken more than one survey course - one in logic, Wiley? What did you get your BS in anyway? Or are you yet to graduate? Do you annoy your teachers? Do you pick out the ones you think are too liberal and terrorize them? Do you wow them with your incredible conservative insight and intelligence? In other words, are you a royal pain in the ass?
I took courses in logic too, I have a handbook of logical fallacies beside my bed, but I rarely refer to it. Wulfgar does that a lot, but it’s amazing how little it matters in real life - if you look around you, in political discourse, you’ll find very little logical, whether it’s Republican economics or political campaigning, it’s all designed to appeal to the common man. The art of politics is to convince people that you are one of them - this is why C-students like Bush and McCain usually carry the day. People vote for people who are like them - A students, like Gore, engender resentment. In politics you gotta be smart and appear dumb. (In Bush’s case, it’s not an act.)
The southern strategy formally came about in 1968, via Nixon. It was deliberate - Nixon thought he could build a permanent majority if he could enlist white southern racists to economic conservatives. And it worked - he did carry the south in 1968 and 1972. And one does not have to look beyond 1964 to see the effects of the Civil Rights Act. Goldwater’s opposition, seemingly principled, could as easily be read as high-falutin’ racism, as opposed to the normal variety. It depends on if you take politicians at their word, which you obviously do.
Whether or not this guy or that Senator voted for or against it is dissembling - it’s irrelevant. (But I do note that you reference moderate Republicans, who are now extinct.) I’m talking about larger effects, as in the South turning red in 1964 and staying that way, with one exception, Jimmy Carter, a southerner, who won in the post-Watergate climate in 1976. He managed to marry evangelicalism to northern liberalism and capture 50.1% of the vote, narrowly defeating Ford. Carter played the Christian card, and it worked, and it was not lost on the people who gave us Reagan. They identified evangelicals as a useful voting bloc, and stole them from Democrats in 1980. They have never gone back.
Is race part of politics? Of course. If I am a racist, which party will most appeal to me - the one that does a rumor campaign about a guy having a illegitimate black baby, or that uses a black criminal to scare people? We are all racist to a degree, and politicians, to succeed, have to appeal to base instincts. Republicans are very open about that. Democrats are more laid back - Hillary made her appeal to Pennsylvania racists with her Geraldine Ferarro flap. If Obama wins the nomination, Republicans will do the same, but it will be subtle - open racism, ala Buckley in the 1950’s, is frowned upon, but the sublime variety works quite well. It’s alive and well, in your party, with Hillary, and the coming months will be ugly.
Oops - I did it again. I said moderate Republicans are now extinct. There are one or two still alive. I should have said “almost” all.
“Most racists choose the Republican party - it is the one that courts them openly.”
Where is the racists sign up here sign?
Oh, yeah, in Mark’s head.
Again, why are we bothering with this twaddle?
Mark will never be persuaded that he is wrong, and you can’t prove a negative.
I disagree Steve. He’s come a long way from his initial comment.
We started originally with “All Republicans are racist.” After I demonstrated how silly that was he fell back to “Not all Republicans are Racist but all Racists are Republicans” (see above).
So when it became clear that was crap, he acknowledged that, well, some Dems are racist too, but only tiny group that support Hillary Clinton.
I think the last step is to explain how many people actually support Hillary and how that explains why she is still a serious contender for the Democrat’s Presidential Nomination.
What’s the end-game? I am under no illusion that Mark will ever admit he was wrong. He’s playing the Bill Clinton game of “what I meant when I said this is actually that.” But if we can examine racism without the need to throw partisanship around, maybe we can begin to have a meaningful conversation about what racism is and how to rid our country of it.
Or maybe I ought to take the advice of so many people who have back-channeled me and just ignore Mark. I have to admit, that’s a very tempting suggestion. Mark demonstrates the same social traits that make racism bad - judging individuals based on negative stereotypes of groups that they belong to.
You still haven’t dealt with the southern strategy. What was it, Wiley? Why did it work? How did the Civil Rights Act of 1964 play into it? Why did racist Southern Senators like Strom Thurmond switch parties? How did Barry Goldwater, who voted against the Civil Rights Act, manage to carry the south and Arizona in a Democratic landslide.
What I’ve seen of you so far is not impressive - you focus on one aspect of a debate and ignore all else. I’ve backed off fromt eh rhetorical flourish, you’ve acted as if that were all that was at stake, and very keenly ignored the larger debate. Not at all impressive.
And I ask again: Were you a pain in the ass to perceived liberal teachers, what did you get your bs in, or failing in that, have you graduated yet?
Mark, you’re hilarious. Since the “southern strategy” is a construct of your imagination, I don’t really feel the need to deal with it - unless you have some proof. But as far as I’m concerned, you’re credibility on the subject of race and party is pretty much nil, so I’m going to waste my time elsewhere.
Most of my professors think that I’m a pain in the ass - although they enjoy hanging out with me outside of class. Not quite sure what to make of that.
[…] 28, 2008 I had quite a roughing up over at Wiley’s place over a mistake I made in overreaching - I made the comment that all […]
I think that you take this ‘Sinestra’ vs ‘Dextra’ crap a bit too seriously. What are the boundaries and who assigns the labels? Do I get to choose which side of the line I fall on, or is there a panel that assigns me to one team or the other? Does generally voting for Democrats make me a Sinestra? Oh, I get it, my blog feed goes on ‘Lefty Blogs’ , while yours goes on the Dextra feed. Gotcha.
It’s Latin Shane. I didn’t invent it. But do you object to being grouped with left-leaning bloggers?
