Redstate

Thanks for addressing one of my biggest sore spots.  Interestingly, Ward Connerly had a piece in NRO yesterday advising the GOP as to what NOT to do:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/connerly200509300813.asp

But I agree, taking the debate to the foe is the way to go.

it seems to me, tend to be the extreem liberals, who are willing to say anything to advance their political causes. They are also willing to make up accusations, and inflame the racial problem, for the sake of bringing down a political opponent.

Right there with them are the so-called leadership of the black community, who promote a victim mentality in order to maintain the status quo, increase dependency on big-government, and gain camera time/stroke their own egos.

You are right--it's time people stood up this racism, and called it like it is.

Amen to this post. What I want to see is the GOP make the dem's extreme statements such a big issue, that the msm is forced to actually ask other dems to denounce the extremists. Of course many elected dems asked to denounce would also fequently be making extreme statements as well...

We also need to highlight the failed results of the dems 40 years of the great society when they tout their party's "standing up" and "fighting" for Blacks and the poor.

Fox needs to put more conservative blacks on and quit giving airtime to the pimps

except ocasionally to remind us and the public how pathetic is PC liberalism

It seems to me that every racist liberal has a conservative counterpart.  I'm not sure taking "some liberals are racist, too" attitude will be helpful.

That said, I am not prepared to ascribe racism to Bennett.  Many liberals have pointed out that Bennett's statistical summary wasn't really inaccurate, and there might be some room for interpretation of those statistics, especially crime  is considered all crime, or limited to violent crime.  Furthermore, he was trying to choose an obviously ridiculous analogy to argue what might be a conservative idea.

In fact, I have heard conservatives say that the people killed by abortion would have saved Social Security.  This was the analogy Bennett was actually arguing against.  But of course it's more fun to make political hay. Though conservatives may not like the political posturing at Bennetts expense today, tomorrow it might be a liberal who misspeaks, and then conservatives will be all over him.

I just wish politics were more civil and respectful all the way around.

  Whil I agree that Sharpton, Rangel & co. go off the deep end, I think the GOP would have a better chance of challenging them if the GOP leadership weren't so clueless, so clumsy it their approach to African-Americans.

When Ward Connerly said the following, he was speaking to me, and I'm sure many others:

Blacks should understand the damage that they do to themselves and to the cause of equality by crying "wolf" all the time. Accordingly, they should exercise restraint whenever there is doubt that racism is afoot. Certainly, any rational being would have to doubt that George W. Bush would withhold support or delay assistance to New Orleans because a majority of its residents are black. They should recognize the impatience of the American people, including a growing number of blacks, with the incessant claims of "racism" that drip from the lips of some.

I'm one of those "American people."  I remember when 2000 Presidential candidate George W. Bush went into the lion's den by visiting the NAACP convention.  How did the NAACP repay him?  With the James Byrd ad.  (Which they later claimed, in a true display of standing by what one says, that it wasn't actually the NAACP that funded the ad, but an associated political group.  Courage!)

As President Bush left for New Orleans during the first week of the Hurricane Katrina crisis, as he was on his way to the airport , the Congressional Black Caucus held a press conference to lecture him on his insensitivity.

And, the NAACP complained during the 2004 Presidential campaign that President Bush didn't visit their convention, AFTER the James Byrd ad went unreputed AND after Julian Bond annually called President Bush and the Republicans every name in the book.

I do disagree with one comment Connerly made:

How can a nation expect continued success when a significant segment of its population suffers from such racial paranoia and a false sense of exclusion? How can any nation run at maximum speed in a global race with a broken leg that comes in the form of an emotionally hobbled portion of its population?

By finding another leg.  

Notice how the Latino population is growing in this country? Remember, it only takes an enduring majority of 52-53% of voters each election to make and sustain lasting political change.  We may all be bigots in the minds of the NAACP and the writers of "West Wing" and "Commander in Chief."  But, we can count to 52. Once we're confident we've assembled a team that can routinely take us to 52, everything else is "neat to have," not "need to have."

IMO, if the African-American community comes to be viewed as too much of a pain in the butt, Republicans will move on. And, if Republicans maintain power, the African-American community will continue to find itself marginalized.  And, if the African-American community's leaders continue to insult the GOP--many of whose members are less and less willing to put up with Charlie Rangel's crap, or the crap of his followers--they'll stay marginalized.

You live with the consequences of your choices.  If the African American community continues to follow Charlie Rangel & Company off a cliff, I'll regret it, but I won't lose sleep.  You can only scream "bigot" so many times, before people stop caring what you have to say.  About anything.

Although, if you look upthread, I think you'll see that Ward Connerly agrees with you.

Before that day ever comes to America again, at least in the arena of national politics.  I agree with you -- I think it's totally counterproductive that various identity groups are essentially forced to chose one party affiliation over another because of their race.  Blacks shouldn't feel like traitors for being Republicans, and they shouldn't feel like go-along-get-alongs for being Democrats, as though it were their only choice.  

If I were Black, I would want to have Bennett's Book of Virtues on the bookshelf for my child to read as much as I would want to have, for example, the collected works of Martin Luther King, Jr.  In fact, I'm white, and I had a lot of other books to select from and read as a child,  from all directions of the political compass, including The Autobiography of Malcolm X.

It was the caller's mistaken belief that the children who were aborted could "save" Social Security, and I think it was such an absurd statement that it led Bennett into making another equally absurd statement, which he qualified by calling it thus.  I've listened to the tape of the interview several times now, trying to put myself inside the gears of Bennett's mind, and that's the best explanation I can come up with.  Bennett is a passionate advocate against abortion, and in that statement he responded to an absurd statement with an equally absurd counterpoint.  The Commentariat at Media Matters were all-too-poised to jump on him for that, and they did, but it's really bloodthirsty.

  Rudy Giuliani. He took this head on in New York City for years and gave it right back, calling it for the trumped-up, slicked-back race baiting it really is. One thing that will be different in 08, and I'm hoping Rudy runs, is that we will have a long debate season as well, filled with dynamic Repubs who can kick this out to the public in their televised debates, and have it transmitted through blogs. Tide is turning; 20% switch of the black vote is the death knell for the Dems nationally. That's in one in five people, not so much.  

This is a racist post. I think that in the name of open minded tolerance and acceptance it be banned immediately.

fears an open and honest debate about race in the US.  IMHO, this debate is long overdue.

Liberalism, its socialist policies and consistent race-baiting have effectively destroyed the Black/African-American family, trapping many, if not most, in an infinite cycle of illiteracy, poverty and dependency.

Don't believe this?  Look no further than New Orleans.

Still don't believe?  Then one should read this:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743204468/qid=1128224994/sr=
8-4/ref=pd_bbs_4/104-3431098-9314345?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

If you're referring to the diary itself...well, tzmisce, I think you owe me some more specifics.

Exactly WHAT do you consider racist?  Spell it out. Don't just yell "racism" and split.  

You might miss their subtle meaning. As I apparently did here.

Bush is just getting tired.

This happens in Admins, in basically every Admin.

But I think his best shot at greatness will be if he catches his breath, pushes through the ankle-biting scandals, and reinvigorates his last years in office. Holding the Congress Republican in both houses is very doable.

The scandals are about a year too early, and the R's, unlike the D's in 1993-94, are cooperating and making strong public statments of innocence. And frankly the scandals, Plame and Delay, look to fizzle pretty badly. And just in time for a comprehensive reveiew of DNC lying and cheating and more of Dr. Dean mouthing off.

Iraq, the other great hope, is progressing much better than the MSM/DNC complex can admit, and one can only fool people for so long on something so large.

The economy issue has crashed and burned with Krugman's credibility on same.

People will connect the dots on Katrina: If the MSM lied blatantly about the storm and its aftermath, did they not also lie about the Federal response?

The evidence indicates they did.

The race issue, the great Greek tragedy of American life, may be in line for a resolution in favor of civility and unity. It would be a pleasant change I think most Americans are ready for, but certainly not those who are blinded by their self interest and own bigotry. What would Jesse and Al and Louis etc. do if they had no racism to manipulate?

and omission and low exectations sets taht scale firmly tilted left.

Go back and read some of the stuff that American politicians used to say about each other in the past. What people wrote and published every day about Lincoln and Truman would put Daily Kos to shame.

I think there are two big differences today:

1. The stakes are immeasurably higher because political success lets you spend far more of the people's money than in the past;
   
   
2. People (meaning you and me) have largely accepted that the government will spend our money, and we no longer make a big fuss about waste and malfeasance.

I think that civility and respect are just not a part of American politics and never have been. But if we could just manage to make the government smaller, it wouldn't matter so much.

On my Sunday morning talkshow treadmill, I heard Juan Williams express outrage at Bill Bennett's comments.  I also heard signs that Ken Mehlman should take note of.  A portion--perhaps a majority--of black America is probably impervious to the GOP's message, no matter how politely and sensitively framed.  In the interest of efficiency, we are, sadly, most likely best off if we write off that segment of American society, and find other parts of American society with which to build a lasting coalition.

Repeatedly, as Brit Hume and others on the panel empahsized that Bill Bennett is not a racist and his comments were not intended to be racist, Williams responded (and I'm paraphrasing here), "Well, that's how they sounded to me.  That's how I took them."  Williams readily agreed that Bennett was not a racist, obviously didn't MEAN to be/sound racist, and that his comments were taken out of context.  But, no matter: Williams still found them offensive, and thus worthy of condemnation.

Okay, Juan:  Here's what I heard as you spoke:

There is a segment of African-American society that is unable or unwilling to look at provocative comments about race objectively.  Their emotion will drive them.  And, those emotions are on a hair-trigger.  Moreover, they are more than willing to stop listening and start condemning once you trigger those emotions.

Now, ask yourself:  Would YOU want to work with people like the ones above?  Or, would you try to avoid people like that?  Regardless of your color, you'd avoid them if you could.  Who wants to be hectored morning, noon and night?  Even if those doing the hectoring do indeed have a history of being one of, and arguably the, most discriminated-against groups in American society.  White America feels a great deal of regret about what blacks have endured in American history, but that only goes so far.  One can only take so much grief, before looking to turn away from the grief-givers.

I hope Ken Mehlman saw FNS today.  Juan Williams is a talented, well-spoken liberal commentator.  And, he is clearly not a Racism Pimp.  But I fear that any time Ken Mehlman spends trying to win over any of the many Juan Williamses is time wasted.  Juan's not going to be receptive to our arguments.  Maybe it's because he can't be, maybe it's because he won't.  No matter.  What matters is, he's not going to listen.

Recommend that Ken Mehlman, and all of us, accept this, and move on.  There are Condi Rices and Ken Blackwells out there who will listen.  Craft a message to them.  As for the rest of African-America, it's probably best for us to wish them well, and then move on.

Of course, the Latino population is the future of minority focus for both parties, though the GOP appears to be winning it (Hispanics appear more interested in getting ahead than blaming others).

That said, if the GOP spends just a LITTLE time throughout each year whittling away at the monolithic black vote, it would reinvent the GOP in the eyes of the country (more Lincoln than Southern Strategy) and force the DNC to continue upping rhetoric, which eventually undercuts their last chance at majority status for the next 50 years.

The Dems are damned if they do.  Damned if they don't.  Brilliant!  Just don't spend too much time on it too early.

A place to start is for the RNC to begin running African-American politicians in traditionally Republican, majority white districts.  It could be an interesting experiment.  For example, recruit a local black Conservative from Delay's district to run against Lampson in 2006.

My topic was NOT "We need more black GOP candidates." It was "Many blacks will not listen, no matter what the GOP says."

But, I'll play with you a bit.

If Maxine Waters can say that she's ashamed to call Ken Blackwell an African-American (as she did, the day the Democrats objected to counting the 2004 Electoral College votes), and if America's African-American leadership continues to remain mostly mute as Pat Oliphant and Garry Trudeau (who referred to SecState Rice as "brown sugar" in a Doonesbury strip)insult black Republicans based on their race, I'm not sure how running more black GOP candidates will make a difference in the eyes of those who follow Waters and Rangel.

How about this?  Let's appeal for black Democrats to support Michael Steele for MD Senate!

IMO, Mehlman should set his sights accordingly.  From the standpoint of a partisan Machiavelli, if Mehlman can peel off up to 5% of the black vote, that's a victory if you think broad picture.

I'd hope that Political Consultant Machiavelli would suggest that Mehlman target ONLY that 5%.  Honestly, the smart and rational thing seems to be to write off the Juan Williamses, as lost to the GOP.  Don't build an African-American outreach message that panders to the Juans of America.  Instead, plan to build your 52% elsewhere from American society.  Consider black America as a source of supplementary support, at best.

If you disagree, tell me:  How are YOU going to convince Juan Williams?

Liberalism, as it exists in America today, is inhernetly racist.

You don't see Democrats denying and speaking out against that outmoded theory of 'race.'  You only see Democrats insisting that government follow the old 'racial' formulas that were the basis of Jim Crow.

There might be racist Republicans, but it is only the Democrats who are explicitly, overtly racist to the core in their rhetoric and policies.

So cut the both sides nonsense.

Are you saying that "African-Americans" must be treated differently from the rest of the Americna people?

Why is that?

What is "that outmoded theory of race?"

What "old racial formulas" exactly?

"...it is only the Democrats who are explicitly, overtly racist to the core in their rhetoric and policies." Huh, I hear leftists consistently being explicitly and overtly anti-racism all time.

I guess I need some particulars.

Few quick shots showing the pervasive racism of the American left, and the Democrats in particular:

NAACP - organization founded on the concept of race, favorite of liberals.

La Raza - same

Affirmative action - concept applied frequently with specific mentions of 'race', frequently  championed by liberals

'Race'-based admissions policies - practice favored by liberals in universities

US Commission on Civil Rights - Founded by President Clinton, packed with liberals who honestly, truly believe that not all Americans are the same.  Instead, they talk as though different Americans are members of different 'races.'

Howard Dean speaking to the NAACP:

People of all races, nationalities and faiths have united in the NAACP on a fundamental premise - that all men and women are created equal.

Sounds nice, until you realize that he's honestly suggesting here that we aren't all equally human, that we're members of different races.  That kind of outmoded racial thinking should have gone away long ago, but it lives on today in the Democratic Party and the American left.

Efforts to help victims of institutionalized racism is racism?  

Of course, liberals believe that "all men are created equal"  but the reality is that our society does not put that belief into consistent, predictable practice.  It's not a level playing field, and certain people have been born on lower levels of the field.  Are you serious construing efforts to level the field or raise the particpants to the higher level so they may compete fairly on the basis of their own merit racist?

Racism is a belief, not a practice.

The person who tries to give special protections to 'blacks' is as racist as the person who tries to throw up special hindrances to 'blacks.'

It is the concept that there are distict groups of people called 'black,' 'white,' etc. that is the racism.  And the Democrats of today seek to institutionalize that discredited theory, as much as the Democrats of 50 or 150 years ago sought it.

The soft bigotry of low expectations for 'minorities' is just as damaging to American egalitarianism and harmony as anything else done in the name of racism.

If you want to fight institutionalized racism, don't create more of it.  Were there ANY prominent Democrats who denounced the Michigan affirmative action cases?  I really doubt it, because as I already said, racism is too entrenched in the Democratic party at this time, but if you can point to one then I'd be intrested to know.

Were there any prominent Democrats who supported Proposition 209 in California, the California Civil Rights Initiative that barred racism in many state activities?  Are any prominent Democrats supporting  similar initiatives in other states, such as Michigan?

I'm open to the idea that there's a non-racist minority in the Democratic party, but if there is  one, I haven't noticed it.

into helping kids with fewer resources merely because of the circumstances of their birth in a school because of its lack of tax base has dramatically fewer resources than a school with a bigger tax base so they can have a chance to make it on their merits. I'm rascist?

Increase taxes, so you can increase spending, so you can increase entitlement programs, so you can increase the number of dependents............so you can increase taxes,(you get the idea. I just love circular logic, dont you?)

In regards to affirmative action, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS RACISM!  Showing either disdain or preference to someone based on the color of their skin would be one loose definition of racism, wouldn't it?  

If educational opportunity is in question, how about dropping the race/ethnicity box from the application?  I have heard several ACADEMIC criteria and plans that would allow for a diverse classroom, none of which use race as a determining factor. But that's not really why I responded........

"All men are created equal" refers to the inalienable rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  To use the word "equal" to refer to racial or economical issues would require the word and phrase to be taken entirely out of context.  

The preamble cannot be used as justification for affirmative action or any other liberal/socialist/communist belief.  That is one thing that is beautiful about the constitution, ITS ABILITY TO LIMIT THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT, which is the reason it was created in the first place.  How else are you going to "level the playing field" than by legislation or court ruling?

Much more could be said in regards to the preamble, however, if the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are to be experienced, less is definitely more in the way of government.

Do you want to know a fun game to play?  Every time new legislation is passed or a ruling from the courts is made ask yourself this question: Does this change threaten one of the three inalienable rights?  The definition of these rights may be the subject of much debate...........but that's another game.

either disdain or preference based on skin color is racism.  I can also accept that dropping race/ethnicity from the (college?) applications.  Personally that box gives my family fits as none of the choices applies to us. (No, we're not from another planet  :)

But what do we do about those years between birth and the filling out of that application to make sure that all people have the chance to compete on their merits.

Maybe one thing we could do is change the financing of public schools so that the school's neighborhood is not a determining factor of quality.  This would mean collecting all the property taxes, then redistributing them such that every school would be able to meet a minimal high standard.  

This is how they do it in Japan.  The smallest rural school has a science lab just as fine as any in the city.  Teachers may spend no more than 3 years assigned to any one school.  In this way all schools have access to excellent teachers.  No school is allowed to become undesireable so that it cannot attract quality teachers.

Sociologists say that societies have a stake in maintaining a problematic status quo.  It seems we should be trying to find out how the current educational status quo in the US serves society.  It's like when a child continually misbehaves, and we wonder why s/he continues to do so with all the negative consequences.  When we figure out what need the misbehavior serves and meet that need, often the misbehavior vanishes.  We need to find out what societal function have an educational underclass fulfills and deal with that root issue.  If it were true that American society unanimously favors a quality education system, we would have it.

that you chose my comment for your first response, and I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome you to Redstate.

If you happened to follow the link provided above, you will notice that it's target holds the key to breaking the cycle of poverty and dependence that has plagued the African-American community.  That key is education.

One of the co-authors of "No Excuses: Closing the Racial Gap in Learning" is Abigail Thernstrom.  She is currently the Vice-Chair of the US Commission on Civil Rights and an educator of the highest order.

Under the leadership of the former chairperson, Mary Frances Berry, the Commission was systematically used as a 'tool' to further divide our country along racial and political lines.

US Commission on Civil Rights

http://www.usccr.gov/index.html

As currently constituted and under the leadership of Chairman Gerald Reynolds, the Commission is on the right track to fulfill its original mandate and follow its mission statement.  Hopefully, this will lead to an open and honest debate on race and substantial progress can now be made.  The African-American community deserves no less.

My post was not meant to be a dissertation on the U.S. education system, simply something to think about.  If you want my ideas on issues ranging from welfare to state's rights I will probably not be posting many today, at least not at great length.  

I agree for the most part as to what you have said about school funding.  Although I would mention that I live in Texas and the type of funding you spoke of is called "Robin Hood" and has been declared unconstitutional by our state supreme court.  Our state legislature has been in quite a battle to redesign the funding system for Texas schools.  No bill has passed after many tries and be decided on by the courts.  Needless to say that if property taxes were not going to the primary source of all state school funding (leaving property taxes locally) then proposals were made to, you guessed it, raise about 743 other taxes to make up for the difference (slight exaggeration on the figure).  

But I digress; the theme of my previous post was to basically get government out of individual's lives.  Without the government handout, people below the poverty line might take some initiative to achieve for themselves.  I have heard Bill O'Reilly state that four things are needed to be successful in this country:

1.    Be honest

2.    Get an education

3.    Learn a skill

4.    Work hard

Which I believe is a great way to say what others have written books to say.

The underlying problem that you alluded to is boiled down to one word: attitude.  ANYONE who considers themselves a "victim" and is "owed" anything needs to refer themselves to the preamble of our lovely constitution.  The freedom to achieve your goals is the theme of this country and is why people from around the world have been coming here for a century.  

Major differences began to appear between the classes after the civil rights act of 1964, much greater differences than before, which is contrary to popular belief.  I would refer you to works by Thomas Sowell as he has brilliant material on the subject.

Once again my point to ponder, sometimes it is not what we should be doing but what we should stop doing that will make the difference.  (I.e. dismantling the department of education and putting education back in the hands of the states)  

Stopping the advancement of the entitlement mentality and our socialistic tendencies would solve a majority of the problem.  Isn't it funny how liberals propose to solve the problems that they created in the first place with more of the same?  Not funny really, just plain sad.

If your concern is with the disadvantaged, then why does race have a role? Are light-skinned poor people less deserving for some reason?

No question, the Great Society programs did not solve the problems of black people, and in fact created some new ones.

Also no question, an insistence on pursuing an identity-based political strategy is, perhaps, counterproductive for blacks at this point in some ways.

Now allow me to state the obvious.

Black people have a unique history in this country, and one which has not been to their advantage.  If you're not with me so far, we have no possible basis for discussion.

Black people continue to suffer from social ills at a rate generally higher than other groups in this country.

It's no more prejudicial to distinguish the statistical and demographic profile of blacks as compared to others than it is to do so for men vs. women, city vs rural folks, or red state vs blue state folks.

And, to undertake to address the statistically greater prevalence of social dysfunction among blacks through public policy is not racism.

If you think you have a better plan than the liberal efforts of the last 40 years, have at it.  You're in the driver's seat, good luck, we'll look forward the blooming of the 100 flowers.

If you find strident identity politics noxious, you're not alone.

If you think the liberal programs of the last 40 years were paternalistic and destructively counterproductive, ditto.

But the claim that any attempt to address the differentially greater difficulty of one racially or ethnically identified group through public policy is racism is, to my mind, willfully and almost belligerently ignorant and foolish.

If you want to take on the "race pimps", perhaps you should aspire to do so because they are wrong, and do not serve the constituencies they claim to represent very well.

"It'll pay off" strikes a somewhat insincere note.

"Black people continue to suffer from social ills at a rate generally higher than other groups in this country."

Black people born here continue etc...

Black immigrants actually do much, much better than blacks born here.

That's something to focus on when looking for solutions.

You are correct, and as you say, it's a point worth noting.

Every time the little boy cried "Wolf!" less people believed him.

The phrase "all men are created equal" is part of the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.  This is a pet peeve of mine, that we as Americans in our debates incorrectly reference documents that should be as familiar to us as the song lyrics of Happy Birthday.  

Second sentence of the Declaration:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

and Preamble to the Constitution:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

That said...those words enshrining equality were largely just words until the civil rights movement of fifty years ago.  Neither by intention nor practice did they mean true equality before the law for every human being in America at the time.  The Fathers unfortunately had in mind folks like themselves, white males with property.  I think this is a good example where our values in America changed, we've reinterpreted the words of the Fathers, and expanded them beyond the original intent.  Anyone with illusions that they meant otherwise need only proceed to Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution, which states:

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

There we have that nasty phrase not only legitimizing slavery, but counting such people as less than full citizens.  Now I don't mean to savage the Fathers, for they were brilliant and forward-thinking for their time and we remain perpetually in their debt.  But it's taken centuries of struggle to turn their words into the interpretation we use today, and it's only fair and accurate to give liberals some credit for being in the fore of that struggle.

"It'll pay off" strikes a somewhat insincere note.

And your qualifications to judge my sincerity are...?

amos, are you one of the Juan Williamses to which I refer above?

Cheers!

and it was a couple of years ago, to be sure, but I don't remember anything in there about liberalism's "socialist policies and consistent race-baiting."

How does No Excuses tie into the assertions in your post?

But the claim that any attempt to address the differentially greater difficulty of one racially or ethnically identified group through public policy is racism is, to my mind, willfully and almost belligerently ignorant and foolish.

If so, how do you see me making such a claim?  Where, in my posts above, did I say that affirmative action per se was bad?  

I think you're trying to morph my diary so that it's thesis is "The Great Society Was BAD!", a thesis I think you're more comfortable discussing. If this is the strawman you want to argue, you're free to, but not with me, here in THIS diary.  (Maybe someone else will pick up that thesis).

No, my thesis was more along these lines: The most prominent voices in the African-American community seem willing to deliberately demagogue and distort public debate.  In so doing, they make any GOP outreach to them, and those in their community who follow them, essentially pointless.

The racism charges must be confronted directly and forcefully.  If ever a rapid response is necessary, this would be it.

smagar -

My post was more addressed to several of the other posts here on the thread, and less to your original post.  I failed to make that clear, my apologies.

Thanks -

In fact the basis of public education is that everyone is entitled to an education.  Millions of children are trapped in situations where they do not have a chance to get that education.  On the tax base issue I have heard people that they didn't earn their big incomes just to pay to educate other people's children.

As for the 4 steps to success, if one of the steps is unavailable, then what?  furthermore, those 4 steps guarantee nothing.  Ask, for example, any of the exceptionally high qualified DODDS teachers who have returned from years of teaching overseas only to find themselves routinely passed over for jobs in favor of recent graduates.  After a lifetime of working hard, getting not just a good, but an excellent education, being honest, and acquiring high level skills, they find themselves working at WalMart or selling used cars or somesuch.  One of them was told that she is only qualified to be a receptionist.  There are people who played by the rules and are still losing the game.

Sorry, it was a fit of self-righteousness.  It happens sometimes, I'll try to knock it off.

did you see a racially-based description of the children?  How on earth did you jump to the conclusions in your questions?  Where did you get the idea I was picking and choosing which children I help?  I help them all in my little corner of the world.

If I teach in an area the demographically has a majority of poor blacks, it sounds as if you are suggesting that makes me racist.  If you honestly see a racist person in the scenario I described, I'm afraid we'll will never reach an understanding, but frankly, it seems you read a lot more into the scenarion than was warranted.  

see comment #34.

How can the GOP take on the racism pimps when George W just became one of them, by taking Bill Bennett's comments completely out of context.  It's his Sister Souljah moment.

wouldn't be victims of "institutionalized racism" now would they?  They would merely be victims of poverty.

I think that's where he jumped to the conclusions; from your original objection.

-TS

How is this:

And, to undertake to address the statistically greater prevalence of social dysfunction among blacks through public policy is not racism.

different from racial profiling by the police?  After all, racial profiling addresses the statistically greater prevalence of social dysfunction (i.e., crime) among blacks through public policy.

I assume that you would consider racial profiling to be non-racist then?

-TS

why is poverty not color-blind?  The demographics say it is not.  Would you deny that tactics such as redlining, poll tax, literacy tests, etc were not practiced by the dominant group against a minority group on the basis of race and with the approval of the powers that be? Does it really work to say,"Forget the past, starting today there won't be differential treatment on the basis of race, and if past treatment has left you at a serious disadvantage, oh well, those are the cards you been dealt.  Play them as best you can."

I help all, but interestingly, the children who need the help tend to share common characteristics at a much higher percentage that the total population which put them "at risk."  Identifying those at-risk children and creating programs to help them is not racism.

I submit however, that the following is racism.  I once taught in a program that sought to put more native-American teachers in schools attended by mostly native-American children (role models and all that).  The policy was to pass every native-American teaching candidate regardless of their academic performance in class.    This I refused to do, so the department chair overrode any failing grade earned by these students.  some of the teaching candidates worked hard and came to my office for help in overcoming academic issues that honestly may not have been their fault.  But too many saw themselves as "entitled" to the passing grade for doing nothing.

I would say that their are different kinds of entitlement:  all of them are entitled to the chance to become qualified teachers, none of them are entitled to become teachers without developing the qualifications.

see how the book ties in with your assertions.  Education is the key--we agree there.  But you said:

Liberalism, its socialist policies and consistent race-baiting have effectively destroyed the Black/African-American family, trapping many, if not most, in an infinite cycle of illiteracy, poverty and dependency.

and followed it with essentially "Don't believe it?  Then look at this book."

What I am asking you is where in No Excuses do the authors connect the black/white achievement gap (the topic of the book) with liberalism, socialist policies, and/or race-baiting?

I'd say the difference between correctly and reasonably focusing police activities on members of some particular group, and hassling members of that group without reasonable cause, depends on context.  The same action can either be justified, or not, depending on the context in which it occurs.

That makes the determination of whether a particular action is reasonable or not a matter of judgement.  That's unfortunate, because a clean and crisp line would be preferable.  Unfortunately, that clean and crisp line doesn't exist.

Regarding the contexts in which accusations of "profiling" often occur -- cops hassling young men of color in areas where most or all of the young men have brown skins -- I'd say the young men of color may have cause to complain.

Other situations, less so.

Actually, it's two stories, but both of them are true; you can believe that or not but I think you should because in actual fact they are, and I wouldn't lie about things like this.

I grew up in a town where the separation between white and black residents wasn't just a matter of archaic zoning, it had become a matter of self-enforced separation because of mutual prejudice between races who didn't want to live on each other's side of town.  

I had a very, very good friend in high school whose family didn't have a lot of money but he wanted a car, like everyone else in the town did -- he was Black.  I encouraged him to buy a used car, a beat-up Dodge Dart that was not very much mechanically but quite stylish, in its own way.  Well, he got stopped in that stupid car 5 times during my senior year, not for driving the Dodge Dart, but because he was Black.

Now I'll tell you the other half of the story:

At the same time, my father owned a Chevy Chevette Diesel that he used to ferry parts and pieces and paper and other things back and forth from our home to our small business.  We didn't wash that car very often -- it was a deep-burgundy color and served us primarily as a ferry vehicle.  One day, I got a phone call at home from my dad at work after he had been stopped and ticked in [Very rich town in New Jersey].  The reason:  he had dirty windows and, according to the police officer, "didn't look like he knew where he was going."  Of course, the pretext for stopping him was that he was really driving an almost complete jalopy of a car.  He knew exactly where he was going.

Race and class are an important part of the discussion in America, and people who are poor (or look poor, as my father did that day) can be unfairly targeted.  

But -- the police have a job to do.  They are responsible to their commanders and ultimately try to uphold the standards of the community they serve.  The answer, as best I can tell, is to help people raise their standard of living so they won't be unfairly targeted.  That requires a certain level of trust among everyone in society.

I told my friend with the Dodge Dart to junk the car and buy himself a Bonneville, and I told my father to wash the damn thing once in a while.  It seems like a simplistic answer, but it worked in both cases.  

Haitians and Dominicans tend to do pretty poorly, Jamaicans somewhat less so, Nigerians and other Africans much better, keeping in mind that said Africans tend to come from the élite of African societies.  

failed liberal policy: trapping African-Americans in failed government schools, and expecting different results just because more money is thrown at the problem.

listen to the GOP?  Do you really expect them to trust a party that wins 65-80% of the southern white vote?  I think GOP overtures toward blacks have a great deal more to do with convincing guilty-feeling white moderates that they're not racists for voting for the GOP.

Seeing as how both racial profiling and public policies undertaken to address the statistically greater prevalence of social dysfunction among blacks are pretty much the same thing, I have to wonder how you are able to make the blanket statement that the latter is NOT racism no matter the context, while the former is racism, depending on context.

It seems to me that you mean to suggest that the INTENTION behind the public policy dictates whether the action is or is not racist.  If cops are hassling young black men, that's cause for complaint -- despite statistically greater prevalence of crime among young black men in that area, despite the cops' own experience suggesting to them that something might be up, etc.  In other words, even with the BEST of intentions, racial profiling can (and perhaps should) occur.  And yet, most liberals oppose racial profiling, almost instinctively, unless they make a wrong turn on the NJ Turnpike on their way back from the Jersey shore to their loft in Manhattan and find themselves in downtown Newark... in which case they suddenly acquire a great deal of "street knowledge"... but that's another anecdote.

May I suggest that if we're going to apply contextual analysis to a public policy, that it be applied without regard to guessing about intent, and be looked at as objectively as possible?  And from that standpoint, I'm not sure that you would say that affirmative action in college admissions (to take just one example) is not racism.  It very well may be, not only to the whites and Asian-Americans such policies discriminate against, but to the blacks that these policies are intended to help.

-TS

28% of black voters voted for President Bush in Oklahoma.

Oklahoma blacks are generally religious, many are in the military, and the state has less of a racial past than many Southern states.

I think the combination of military/religious and the tenure of Congressman J.C. Watts helped open the doors of outreach.

The President won more blacks in the states where there was targetted outreach (OH specifically).  That I believe is what led to the RNC push to do a national outreach.  They saw it worked on a smaller scale and that there were people who are willing to give us a chance if we extend the hand.

And I expect at least 20% of the black vote to go to a Republican candidate by 2012 (two Presidential cycles).

I was answering your question:  "Where in the scenario I described did you see a racially-based description of the children?  How on earth did you jump to the conclusions in your questions?"

You mentioned victims of institutionalized racism; now you are asking why poverty is not color-blind.  That's fine, and you are entitled to your opinions.  But it seems to me that you can't claim color-blindness at the same time you claim to be helping victims of institutionalized racism (e.g., redlining, poll tax, etc.).

I do agree with you on the native story.

As to your current question: Why is poverty not color-blind... might I suggest starting here for the answer?  Because, well, you know what group is really not all that sympathetic to charges of institutionalized racism?  Immigrants.

-TS

are racist?  Why can't blacks trust a majority-white organization or movement?  It sounds as if you're saying the GOP isn't to be trusted simply because it's majority white.  Is that it?  Can you defend that?

Actually, when you said this:

I think GOP overtures toward blacks have a great deal more to do with convincing guilty-feeling white moderates that they're not racists for voting for the GOP.

you did answer my title question, in the affirmative.  

Therefore, enough with you.  If you have meaningful things to say, welcome back.  If you wish to demagogue, please step aside as the GOP and the majority of America moves on, to leave you to wallow in your anger.

My apologies, my wife made decaf that night instead of regular.  You are correct in saying that the DOI/Constitution was an unfortunate mistake on my part.  It's fairly easy to get 200 year old documents written by dead white guys mixed up (you know how the U.S. education system is).

I had several thoughts after reading your post, correct me if I'm wrong (expecting nothing less):

Article 1 Section 2 of the Constitution does not "legitimize" slavery.  It simply deals with the tax code of the day.  I don't believe that this section proves moral shortcomings but simply uses institutions already in place to determine basis for taxation.  Needless to say I do not agree with slavery or the need for assigning a 3/5 value to a person (although I would pay less taxes that way).   All law and terminology within are going to be based on current social and economic situations.  How many of our laws, racial or not, have changed in language and scope over the last 100 years?  I would venture to say almost all of them.  

As to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the statement stands by itself.  Regardless of our interpretation of constitutional or any other law, these things are "endowed by their Creator" not the law of the land. (I would point out that many liberals would drastically change that statement if given the chance)

Also, conservatives have made massive contributions to the civil rights movement, i.e. the majority of votes for the civil rights act of 1964 were republican.  I do not dismiss the notion that liberal thinkers have helped to open the door to freedom in many areas, I just generally question their motives.

I suspect that American whites are probably a great deal less racist than American blacks.  White intentions and black interpretations of those intentions are not necessarily the same thing, though.

I think we're a long way from breaking the Dem stranglehold, though, and I think the vast majority of Republicans are clueless.  I'm pretty sure I am.

Sophist -

These are good questions.  My intuition is that there is a meaningful distinction to be drawn here, but I haven't quite teased it out.  Lemme think about this a bit.

Thanks -

Probably a better choice of word than "legitimize" would be "accommodate".  My point wasn't to imply moral shortcoming on the part of the Fathers, but as you say, show how context has changed over time.

Likely some fraction of liberals wold omit the word Creator out of deference to "sensitivity", but I think you'd really have to root around to find Americans who don't think those rights are inherent in our being.  After all, the list of "rights" to which we apparently consider ourselves entitled seems to grow and grow. ;)

but you don't want to listen, because you've incorrectly interpreted my previous statements as an accusation of bigotry on your part or that of the GOP, and now you're in attack mode.  I had a good laugh at being accused of being a black demogogue, though.  I'll just stipulate the following:

• Segregation didn't end that long ago.  There were still segregated schools into the 1970s, to give an example.
  
• Blacks come by their mistrust of whites, especially Southern whites, honestly, which is to say, not without a great deal of historical justification.
  
• Particularly in light of continued gaps in economic achievement between blacks and whites, and the incredible numbers of young black men in prison or in cemeteries, calls for equality of opportunity and race-neutrality sound like masks for white privilege.  That may not be what is meant, but it's what gets heard.  That Republicans have historically led the charge for "law and order" policies that, rightly or wrongly, disproportionately affect blacks, doesn't help either.  
  
• White Republican frustration with blacks, as shown in this thread, sounds like blaming the victim.  I'd prefer not to single anyone out, though.  I don't want to open myself up to false charges of waving the bloody shirt of racism around, as to do so is not my intention.  I don't think the majority of whites are racist in any meaningful sense, and think the support for anti-discrimination laws that, after all, were written and passed by white people, is good evidence of that.  Juan Williams would probably disagree.

I am not sure what we are arguing about.  I think I am disputing the idea that helping people of a particular race is racism.  We could reformulate that premise as "helping people with x characteristic is x-ism and bad.  The premise falls apart because helping people with a particular characteristic does not mean the helper has a wrong attitude towards those people.  Why should race be any exception.  

I'm not sure what you mean by "both ways."  A thought experiment: Pretend I'm a blind teacher within a population demographically proportional to the whole country.  There are a group of children who need special help.  I can't see them so as far as I know, the only thing they have in common is needing that special help. One day I have an operation that restores my sight, and lo and behold I now see that the students who need that special help share a characteristic far out proportion to the population as a whole.  The first hypothesis would be that somehow the characteristic and the need for special help are corelated.  Not necessarily causal but corelated.  Further study shows that the characteristic is often a predictor of the need. So I design a program of intervention to break that predictive link. Why is that "bad" when the predictor is race, but "good" when the predictor is some other characteristic?

In fact, I did "blind" myself as a DODDS teacher.  When I got my class roster, and before I met any of the students, I painted out the military rank of the parents.  I did not want knowing the rank to have any possible influence on my relationship with the student.  Some parents did not like it, such as the mother who came to the parent-teacher conference saying, "You can't fail my son. His father is a colonel."  Or the parents that say, "You have to admit my daughter to the talented and gifted program because I am an officer."

I expected every child to perform on his own merit. I would help children enhance their abilities, but their achievements were theirs to own.

There is a segment of the African-American population that has chosen not to listen to the GOP.  While we disagree with that choice, we have to acknowledge it's been made.  IMO, appealing to those who've already decided that we are racists no matter what, and simply won't listen, is time and effort wasted.

I'm a white southerner. I was a big lib dem from birth till june 2001, even was a SCarolina county party chair. Mainly because I hated racism, and I found the dem party rhetoric and policies, for a while, were helpful in the fight. I can tell you, that the moral argument of MLK was the key> I used to argue at church and home about the n word and racist jokes etc.

It is a whole new world now. Let me tell you. Racist jokes are not told. Those old crusty white repubs and dems will hire whoever can make them a dime.

What I found, truly, is that more and more I saw racistattitudes in the dem party. A condescending attitude that blacks are helpless and can't make it in America and so need their permanent plantation.

I was persuaded over time that liberalism had run its course and was persuaded that the conservative policies are best thru results.

The dem party is still promising to solve the same problems the same way as 40 years ago. Can you trust them?

I make no racial argument as to why blacks should be in the gop. I make a human argument.

By the way have you ever read columns by Thomas Sowell. Check him out on www.townhall.com

One more thing. One of the things I love about black people, especially when I travel, is that, being from the south, I feel like I'm at home when I talk to back folks. Its a southern, but also a cultural and spiritual bnd that I can't count on with a lot of yankees crackers! haha

more later

Racism has a couple of common definitions.

One defines racism as the belief that race is a determining factor in human behavior, and that certain races are superior to others.

Another defines racism as any distinction -- aka discrimination -- in the treatment of people based on their race.

The belief described in the first definition is clearly wrong and pernicious.

The behavior described in the second definition is often wrong and pernicious, but not always.  To understand whether it is, or is not, wrong, we have to take account of context and intent.

Two examples:

A Palestinian man owns a local gas station, has lived in the US for 20 years, is a naturalized US citizen, has a wife and 5 kids, owns his own home, and coaches the baseball team.  Targeting him for investigation as a potential terrorist because he is an Arab Muslim and no other reason is, IMO, wrong.  I'd question that it was racism, but it's foolish, counterproductive, and bad policy.

Targeting the four 30 year old Yemeni guys who arrived here 3 months ago on student visas and who all just paid cash for one way tickets on the same flight to Washington DC is about as sane as you can get.

Both are Arab Muslims.  The difference in who to target is context.

A policeman sees a tricked out SUV with blacked out windows driven by a young black man wearing gang colors drive slowly around and around the same block in a neighborhood that is known for drug traffic and gang activity.  He pulls the guy over and asks for license and registration.  Makes sense to me.

A policeman sees a 5 year old Toyota Corolla driven by a young black man wearing a polo shirt and chinos drive through a middle class neighborhood in suburban New Jersey.  He pulls the guy over and asks for license and registration.  Doesn't make sense to me, and IMO the young man would be justified in thinking he was being harrassed because of his skin color.

Both guys are young black men.  The difference is context.  In the latter case, I would also have a question about the cop's intent, and would be open to the charge that he was motivated by an animus toward blacks.  At that point, we are considering intent, and IMO legitimately so.  I'd want to know how many people of other races the officer had pulled over in that neighborhood over the last year.

It's worth noting that the idea of context as I present it here allows for the consideration of race as a factor in decision making, but also includes and accounts for other factors.  The racial or ethnic identity of someone is one factor among many, including age, gender, employment status, length of time in one residence, etc., that IMO may legitimately be considered in making decisions about that person.  

Where race is not considered as a determining factor, but rather as a non-deterministic, descriptive, statistical demographic datum, I am less inclined to see racism.  That distinction is, however, open to abuse, which is why I say intent is significant.

Reasoning about all of the above calls for judgement, common sense, and an awareness of and sensitivity to the social cues of the situation in question.  That makes it very, very hard to capture in a crisp and unambiguous legal definition.  I don't have a good solution for that particular problem.

Regarding racial profiling specifically, as you may infer from the above, I'm not among those who says that race may never be a consideration in policy decisions.  I look to the context and intent.