Move Over Climate Deniers, Here Come Racism Deniers

By Eric Boehlert
Wingnuts • Views: 17,666

So much for having a national conversation about race.

Conservative commentators claimed they’d welcome an honest discussion about the thorny issue in the wake of the George Zimmerman verdict. But within moments last week of President Obama offering up his personal reflection about the trial and how the killing of Trayvon Martin had been viewed within the African-American community, right-wing voices responded with almost feral anger and resentment.

Among those most incensed by Obama’s thoughtful reflections was Jennifer Rubin who writes for the Washington Post. She called Obama’s comments “disgusting.” Furious at America’s first black president for discussing the topic of race following a passionate trial verdict (he’s “not a good person,” Rubin stressed), the columnist lashed out at Obama for addressing a problem she claimed is no longer even relevant to the American experience.

More: Move Over Climate Deniers, Here Come Racism Deniers

Jump to bottom

76 comments
1 Eclectic Cyborg  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 5:06:13pm

I suspect a significant percentage of people fall into BOTH groups.

2 GeneJockey  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 5:11:06pm

re: #1 Eclectic Cyborg

I suspect a significant percentage of people fall into BOTH groups.

Yeah, funny about that.

3 EPR-radar  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 5:12:40pm

re: #1 Eclectic Cyborg

I suspect a significant percentage of people fall into BOTH groups.

By the time one can deny the reality of climate change, denying racism isn’t much crazier (and vice versa).

4 jaunte  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 5:17:46pm

Peter Ferrara, Forbes:

People who believe the Progressive storyline that America is a racist society believe it because they want to believe it, even though racist attitudes, now reserved to the lower classes and uneducated, no longer have any power or influence in American society. They want to believe it for the same reason that those who cling to illogical Keynesian economics do so, because want to believe it, not because it makes any sense or works at all in the real world. They want to believe it for the same reason that those who religiously cling to the theory of catastrophic, man caused, global warming want to believe in it, not because of the supposed science. In all these cases, they want to believe in it, because they believe that such beliefs expand government power and control, which they think is necessary to promote social good and progress.forbes.com

Unbelievable bullshit. What a dream world he lives in.

5 Vicious Babushka  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 5:20:04pm

This is how Inez introduced herself to my attention:

6 GeneJockey  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 5:20:16pm

re: #4 jaunte

Peter Ferrara, Forbes:

Unbelievable bullshit. What a dream world he lives in.

Projection is their strong suit.

7 Vicious Babushka  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 5:22:03pm

OK must stop rolling.

8 GeneJockey  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 5:23:25pm

re: #7 Vicious Babushka

OK must stop rolling.

Making piecrust? Preparing joints? Wearing casters on your feet? Inquiring minds want to know!

9 jaunte  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 5:24:52pm

re: #8 Mateo Scourge

allposters.com

10 engineer cat  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 5:28:45pm

re: #7 Vicious Babushka

OK must stop rolling.

shabbat shalom!

11 jaunte  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 5:28:58pm
May 21 - 23, 2012: Ferrara was a speaker at the Heartland Institute’s Seventh (and last) International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC7).

DeSmogBlog researched the co-sponsors behind Heartland’s ICCC7 and found that they had collectively received over $67 million from ExxonMobil, the Koch Brothers and the conservative Scaife family foundations.

2005: Ferrara Admitted that he took money from lobbyist Jack Abramoff to write Op-Ed pieces boosting the lobbyist’s clients.

“I do that all the time,” Ferrara says. “I’ve done that in the past, and I’ll do it in the future.”

Ferrara said “he doesn’t see a conflict of interest in taking undisclosed money to write Op-Ed pieces because his columns never violated his ideological principles.”

desmogblog.com

12 William Barnett-Lewis  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 5:29:51pm

re: #8 Mateo Scourge

Making piecrust? Preparing joints? Wearing casters on your feet? Inquiring minds want to know!

From The Big Lebowski - IIRC Walter Sobchak doesn’t bowl on Shabbos, hence her way of saying it’s time to go to shabbos with her family.

13 EPR-radar  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 5:29:56pm

re: #4 jaunte

This Ferrara creep is a real piece of work.

From Wikipedia: “Peter J. Ferrara (born 1955) is an American lawyer, policy analyst, and columnist who is the current general counsel for the American Civil Rights Union and analyst for The Heartland Institute. A libertarian scholar, he is most well known for supporting privatization of the Social Security program.”

The American Civil Rights Union is the twisted mirror world version of the ACLU, of course.

14 GeneJockey  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 5:30:26pm

re: #9 jaunte

allposters.com

Ah.

15 GeneJockey  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 5:32:17pm

So much for going home. Sigalert shows 101S as long, red string.

16 Dark_Falcon  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 5:32:25pm

Many on the right are not such fools. I’ve been waiting to post this, and now its time. I’m sitting down to dinner after posting this but I’ll be back soon to read any replies:

The Plantation Theory
It is time to retire a dumb idea and the rhetoric that goes with it.
By Kevin D. Williamson

Cornel West is a very smart man who has some very dumb opinions, but when he’s feeling froggy he can be a hoot. In a recent interview, Professor West mocked Al Sharpton for playing the odalisque in President Obama’s media seraglio, calling him the embodiment of the “rent-a-Negro phenomenon on MSNBC.” The Reverend Sharpton, he said, is constrained because “he’s still on the Obama plantation.”

The use of the word “plantation” to describe the relationship between black Americans and their political patrons is an unfortunate staple of contemporary rhetoric. Professor West’s remark is unusual in that “plantation” rhetoric usually comes from the Right, as in Star Parker’s Uncle Sam’s Plantation, Deneen Borelli’s Backlash: How Obama and the Left Are Driving Americans to the Government Plantation, remarks by Michelle Malkin (“a textbook example of plantation progressivism”) or Ann Coulter (“Democrats seem to have decided blacks are safely on the plantation”), Rush Limbaugh (“The libs run a plantation”) and the like. Joe Biden, because he is a despicable human being, drove straight past the plantation to the sanitarium when he told a largely black audience that Mitt Romney would “put y’all back in chains.”

The plantation rhetoric is distasteful for the same reason that facile Nazi tropes should be verboten: Some instances of evil are unique, and using them as a handy cudgel in every disagreement dilutes their emotional potency. Hitler was Hitler, and nobody else is. The Reverend Sharpton is slavish, but he is not a slave. When black critics use plantation rhetoric, it is repugnant; when white critics use plantation rhetoric, it is repugnant and condescending.

It is also a marker of sloppy thinking. The conservative plantation theory holds that African Americans support the Democratic party in exchange for welfare benefits and other handouts, that the Democratic party cultivates black welfare dependency in order to keep black voters firmly in their camp, and that the liberal establishment through either incompetence or cynical calculation frustrates the aspirations of black Americans in critical areas such as education, family life, crime, and economic mobility. That is a mostly accurate assessment of the Democratic party’s side of the relationship — Lyndon Johnson’s crudely expressed machinations have indeed come to pass — but not of black voters’ attitudes.

17 Decatur Deb  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 5:32:50pm

re: #11 jaunte

desmogblog.com

Ferrara said “he doesn’t see a conflict of interest in taking undisclosed money to write Op-Ed pieces because his columns never violated his ideological principles.”

“I’m not a hooker, I only take money from cute johns I like.”

18 EPR-radar  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 5:39:12pm

re: #16 Dark_Falcon

I saw this earlier today, and there is a lively debate on the merits of the plantation analogy in the comments at NRO.

Unfortunately, this bit of progress may not be representative of the GOP majority.

19 GeneJockey  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 5:39:38pm

re: #16 Dark_Falcon

My take is that the writer doesn’t like the word, but likes the idea behind it, and has bought into the idea that Democrats give away ‘Free Stuff’, but can’t bring himself to say that’s why black people vote for them.

Meanwhile, he can’t bring himself to face the idea that maybe black people overwhelmingly vote Democratic because of the GOP’s infinitely more condescending approach to them, as typified by Rand Paul whitesplaining the history of race relations to Howard University students. And if were just the condescension, that would be bad enough, but when it turns into voter ID laws and such that ‘coincidentally’ fall hardest on black voters, it’s pretty damned clear what the GOP thinks of them.

20 jaunte  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 5:44:43pm

re: #16 Dark_Falcon

From the comments there:

BetweenTwoWorlds Dan Kennedy
“Aware that it was the Federal government that stepped in and sought to protect the African-American community.”

This is one of the most significant causes of African-American loyalty to the left: they set up and enforced the laws that protect them from the predations of conservative whites. The left supports the CRA and VRA and FHA. The Republicans used to, but now they do not and seek to overturn the CRA and CRA, and I suspect if possible the FHA.

African-Americans especially of all Americans see the Federal government as the protector from the rapaciousness of states overreach and disenfranchisement and personal aggrandizement. There is a long, long history in America of states and whites working to suppress the civil rights of African-Americans, and a shorter history of the Federal government stepping in to ensure civil rights. African-Americans might not be getting their money’s worth from Democrats, but they have seen—and are still seeing—their civil assets being outright stolen by conservatives and conservative states.

I think Williamson (like the RNC) is concerning himself with language more than actions, and a lot of people can see that.

21 EPR-radar  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 5:45:29pm

re: #19 Mateo Scourge

My take is that the writer doesn’t like the word, but likes the idea behind it, and has bought into the idea that Democrats give away ‘Free Stuff’, but can’t bring himself to say that’s why black people vote for them.

Meanwhile, he can’t bring himself to face the idea that maybe black people overwhelmingly vote Democratic is because of the GOP’s infinitely more condescending approach to them, as typified by Rand Paul whitesplaining the history of race relations to Howard University students. And if were just the condescension, that would be bad enough, but when it turns into voter ID laws and such that ‘coincidentally’ fall hardest on black voters, it’s pretty damned clear what the GOP thinks of them.

Williamson’s take on why free market fundamentalism has little appeal to blacks rings true to me.

Why on earth would people who have experience with a ‘free market’ excluding them from society have the kind of horror at the thought of Federal intervention with markets that RW orthodoxy requires?

Although this is true, it is very, very incomplete, as you indicate above. E.g., the GOP Southern strategy.

22 wrenchwench  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 5:45:56pm

Boehlert has turned Heather MacDonald into Heath McDonald. I am pleased to report that there is not a male doppelganger of that racist woman at National Review.

23 William Barnett-Lewis  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 5:47:53pm

re: #20 jaunte

From the comments there:

I think Williamson (like the RNC) is concerning himself with language more than actions, and a lot of people can see that.

This. He want’s a way to say the exact same thing with out the malice behind it being obvious.

24 EPR-radar  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 5:50:25pm

re: #23 William Barnett-Lewis

This. He want’s a way to say the exact same thing with out the malice behind it being obvious.

Kind of difficult, since racism has alway been a significant part of the conservative movement, and has increased in political significance since the election of Obama.

25 Interesting Times  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 5:51:11pm

re: #16 Dark_Falcon

Many on the right are not such fools. I’ve been waiting to post this, and now its time. I’m sitting down to dinner after posting this but I’ll be back soon to read any replies:

The Plantation Theory
It is time to retire a dumb idea and the rhetoric that goes with it.
By Kevin D. Williamson

Sorry, but the author of that piece is not only a fool, but a disgustingly misogynist one at that:

National Review Goes Full Caveman: ‘Men Select Mates for Fertility, Women Select for Status’

Have a gander at that Romney family picture: five sons, zero daughters. Romney has 18 grandchildren, and they exceed a 2:1 ratio of grandsons to granddaughters (13:5). When they go to church at their summer-vacation home, the Romney clan makes up a third of the congregation. He is basically a tribal chieftain.

Professor Obama? Two daughters. May as well give the guy a cardigan. And fallopian tubes.

From an evolutionary point of view, Mitt Romney should get 100 percent of the female vote. All of it. He should get Michelle Obama’s vote. You can insert your own Mormon polygamy joke here, but the ladies do tend to flock to successful executives and entrepreneurs.

26 Lidane  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 5:52:15pm

Dear right wing,

Please proceed.

Sincerely,
Me

27 GeneJockey  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 5:53:42pm

re: #21 EPR-radar

Williamson’s take on why free market fundamentalism has little appeal to blacks rings true to me.

Why on earth would people who have experience with a ‘free market’ excluding them from society have the kind of horror at the thought of Federal intervention with markets that RW orthodoxy requires?

Although this is true, it is very, very incomplete, as you indicate above. E.g., the GOP Southern strategy.

I think the reason why blacks may be less sanguine about the wonders of the Free Market is because the Free Market is really not that wonderful.

It may reward hard work and innovation, but primarily it rewards having money, and having power and influence. Further, for many, belief in the Free Market as the dispenser of rewards commensurate with value justifies their better economic position over others, and justifies their feeling that those less fortunate are less deserving.

I think that this realization is difficult for many whites - it says that much of their success is due to accidents of birth, to luck, to things they had nothing to do with, and that is far less comforting than believing they are self-made. To reach the same economic position, a black person will likely have to have worked much harder than a white person, and then to be subjected to sneers about ‘affirmative action’? I think in their position, I’d probably be less favorably inclined towards the Free Market, too.

28 wrenchwench  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 5:53:50pm

re: #25 Interesting Times

Sorry, but the author of that piece is not only a fool, but a disgustingly misogynist one at that:

National Review Goes Full Caveman: ‘Men Select Mates for Fertility, Women Select for Status’

Have a gander at that Romney family picture: five sons, zero daughters. Romney has 18 grandchildren, and they exceed a 2:1 ratio of grandsons to granddaughters (13:5). When they go to church at their summer-vacation home, the Romney clan makes up a third of the congregation. He is basically a tribal chieftain.

Professor Obama? Two daughters. May as well give the guy a cardigan. And fallopian tubes.

From an evolutionary point of view, Mitt Romney should get 100 percent of the female vote. All of it. He should get Michelle Obama’s vote. You can insert your own Mormon polygamy joke here, but the ladies do tend to flock to successful executives and entrepreneurs.

He’s also a racist historical revisionist, or at least very biased interpreter.

29 Lidane  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 5:54:07pm

re: #20 jaunte

I think Williamson (like the RNC) is concerning himself with language more than actions, and a lot of people can see that.

Yeah, minorities tend to see through the GOP’s bullshit on race. It’s not that hard.

30 EPR-radar  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 5:55:04pm

re: #25 Interesting Times

Good catch. I remember seeing that on LGF, and having to restrain myself (in deference to election season) from speculating on how such improbable M/F ratios might have been achieved.

31 Dark_Falcon  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 5:58:31pm

re: #23 William Barnett-Lewis

This. He want’s a way to say the exact same thing with out the malice behind it being obvious.

No, he doesn’t:

It is not surprising that blacks have less faith in the productive and transformative power of the free-market economy than do whites. Black Americans were for some centuries treated as an economic commodity themselves and were systematically excluded from full participation in the economy for generations after that. As horrific as slavery is, it may in fact be the latter experience that has undercut African Americans’ faith in capitalism. Slavery is an alien experience, but being passed over for a job or a contract, or being denied a loan, and suspecting that one’s race has something to do with the fact, is not ancient history. And while accounts of discrimination against black Americans in the marketplace may be exaggerated, they are not without basis in fact.

That African Americans’ attitudes toward economic issues are strongly influenced by their historical experience of economic exclusion is consistent with other aspects of black life beyond political-party affiliation. For example, blacks are notably risk-averse when it comes to personal financial decisions. Blacks are much less likely to invest in stocks than are similarly situated whites. They invest relatively less in risk-involved instruments such as stocks and bonds and more in risk-mitigating instruments such as life insurance. (That is one of the reasons that affluent black households often end up less wealthy than white households with identical incomes and education levels. Women exhibit similarly risk-averse investing behavior with the same result.) Risk aversion is the reason that many Americans — black, white, and other — are made anxious by proposed changes to the welfare system, even when they themselves are unlikely ever to need it. They view the welfare state as (that inevitable phrase) a safety net.

The link is the excerpt is found in the original article.

32 wrenchwench  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 5:58:38pm

re: #16 Dark_Falcon

Many on the right are not such fools. I’ve been waiting to post this, and now its time. I’m sitting down to dinner after posting this but I’ll be back soon to read any replies:

The Plantation Theory
It is time to retire a dumb idea and the rhetoric that goes with it.
By Kevin D. Williamson

Nugget of bullshit from there:

And that is what the plantation theory gets wrong. Democrats are not buying black votes with welfare benefits. Democrats appeal to blacks, to other minority groups, and — most significant — to women with rhetoric and policies that promise the mitigation of risk. (Never mind that these policies don’t work — voters never sort that out.)

He’s saying access to food doesn’t feed people, access to education does not provide knowledge… Of course those policies work. Not perfectly, and not for everyone, but no need to lie about it.

More bullshit:

Professor West gets a pass, of course, but blonde ladies and golf-tanned Caucasian gentlemen on Fox News probably should not be engaging in loose talk about plantations — if not as a matter of good taste, then because it leads to erroneous thinking.

He’s giving West a ‘pass’ because West used the term as a dig at Obama. Conservatives love West for doing that shit.

33 engineer cat  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 6:00:04pm

‘Men Select Mates for Fertility, Women Select for Status’

i think i’ll relax for the evening by oversimplifying complex primate ethology as much as physically possible

34 Lidane  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 6:01:10pm

re: #31 Dark_Falcon

You realize that entire screed of bullshit is nothing but a conservative nutjob whitesplaining the black experience in America, right?

35 GeneJockey  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 6:02:10pm

re: #34 Lidane

You realize that entire screed of bullshit is nothing but a conservative nutjob whitesplaining the black experience in America, right?

DINGDINGDING! Winner.

36 wrenchwench  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 6:02:15pm

From the article linked at the top:

By the way, the irony here is thick: The claim that racism in America no longer exist often comes from the same right-wing sites whose comment sections for years have functioned as cauldrons of openly racist commentary and insults. (See the duplicitous ugliness here, here and here.)

The first two ‘here’s link to LGF. Those posts of racist comments provide a valuable service to the internets!

37 Dark_Falcon  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 6:04:10pm

re: #32 wrenchwench

What is is saying is that is that policies intended to mitigate risk have serious problems with the Law of Unintended Consequences and with the stagnation they sometimes can engender.

Not that I’m much of a risk taker myself, because I’m not.

38 Gus  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 6:08:16pm

Manning court martial is finished. We now await the judge’s decision.

39 GeneJockey  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 6:08:26pm

re: #37 Dark_Falcon

What is is saying is that is that policies intended to mitigate risk have serious problems with the Law of Unintended Consequences and with the stagnation they sometimes can engender.

Not that I’m much of a risk taker myself, because I’m not.

That’s kinda funny, since the Law of Unintended Consequences biggest consequence was the financial crisis of 2008, engendered by excessive belief in the self-policing nature of the Free Market.

40 Mattand  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 6:10:08pm

re: #5 Vicious Babushka

This is how Inez introduced herself to my attention:

[Embedded content]

I’m still trying to wrap my head around the idea that people are convinced MLK, Jr. would align himself with today’s GOP, which is what this kind of horseshit is saying.

We watched the Republican party get their asses handed to them in November by a black man with strong minority support, and their reaction has essentially been to go KKK, just without the burning crosses.

You’ve got to be several levels of stupid to think King would endorse anything the GOP done regarding race over the last 40 years.

41 Dark_Falcon  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 6:11:03pm

re: #34 Lidane

No, it isn’t. Williamson is explaining to conservatives why use of “plantation” rhetoric is both unwise and wrong-headed. In service to this goal he tries to effectively state why a given ethnic group tends to feel the way it does, as a part of making his case.

He’s right IMO: The economic policies favored by Republicans require assumption of risk, and people who have almost exclusively seen the downside of risk are likely to be hostile to it.

42 Mattand  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 6:11:38pm

re: #39 Mateo Scourge

That’s kinda funny, since the Law of Unintended Consequences biggest consequence was the financial crisis of 2008, engendered by excessive belief in the self-policing nature of the Free Market.

The Invisible Hand of the Marketplace is just as much a fairy tale as the Garden of Eden. It always kills me to see libertarian atheists like Penn and Teller rail against religion, and then buy into that fucking crap.

43 Mattand  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 6:13:07pm

re: #41 Dark_Falcon

No, it isn’t. Williamson is explaining to conservatives why use of “plantation” rhetoric is both unwise and wrong-headed. In service to this goal he tries to effectively state why a given ethnic group tends to feel the way it does, as a part of making his case.

He’s right IMO: The economic policies favored by Republicans require assumption of risk, and people who have almost exclusively seen the downside of risk are likely to be hostile to it.

The economic polices of the GOP tend to royally fuck over minorities, so I get why they’d be adverse to them.

44 GeneJockey  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 6:13:19pm

re: #42 Mattand

The Invisible Hand of the Marketplace is just as much a fairy tale as the Garden of Eden. It always kill me to libertarian atheists like Penn and Teller rail against religion, and then buy into that fucking crap.

It’s a trap we atheists are prone to. Giving up one superstition for another.

45 GeneJockey  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 6:14:56pm

re: #43 Mattand

The economic polices of the GOP tend to royally fuck over minorities, so I get why they’d be adverse to them.

Not just minorities, but really anyone who isn’t well off, and since minorities tend not to be as well off on average, it especially hits them.

Then, the arrogance of the Free Market Fundamentalist tells them it’s their fault if they aren’t rich.

46 EPR-radar  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 6:18:59pm

re: #43 Mattand

The economic polices of the GOP tend to royally fuck over minorities, so I get why they’d be adverse to them.

GOP economic policies have the effect of screwing over anyone who is not already set for life economically. This is just about everyone, of course, but minorities are over-represented.

The whole premise of looking at the GOP race problem via analysis of economic factors is ass-backward, IMO.

The GOP’s main race problem is that stone-cold racists are an important part of the electoral coalition that has been assembled to vote for GOP economic policies against their own interests, because the GOP will make sure that the “others” are screwed worse.

47 OhNoZombies!  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 6:20:31pm

re: #16 Dark_Falcon

Many on the right are not such fools. I’ve been waiting to post this, and now its time. I’m sitting down to dinner after posting this but I’ll be back soon to read any replies:

The Plantation Theory
It is time to retire a dumb idea and the rhetoric that goes with it.
By Kevin D. Williamson

No.
Just no.

48 Lidane  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 6:21:13pm

re: #41 Dark_Falcon

He’s right IMO: The economic policies favored by Republicans require assumption of risk, and people who have almost exclusively seen the downside of risk are likely to be hostile to it.

No, the economic policies of the GOP favor screwing over everyone that isn’t white, rich, and Republican. That’s got nothing to do with risk.

49 EPR-radar  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 6:25:38pm

re: #41 Dark_Falcon

No, it isn’t. Williamson is explaining to conservatives why use of “plantation” rhetoric is both unwise and wrong-headed. In service to this goal he tries to effectively state why a given ethnic group tends to feel the way it does, as a part of making his case.

He’s right IMO: The economic policies favored by Republicans require assumption of risk, and people who have almost exclusively seen the downside of risk are likely to be hostile to it.

One doesn’t have to be an oppressed minority to have the view that this worship of ‘risk taking’ is often bullshit of the highest order.

The fat cats and masters of the universe often take on less risk for much greater rewards than honest people working hard to make ends meet. E.g., TBTF banks, where losses were socialized and profits were private.

Or the smarmy BS surrounding executive compensation, where some fool let language get into the tax code to make all executive compensation a cost of doing business if it was somehow ‘at risk’. So now all of the BigCorps do accounting voodoo such that their executive compensation is ‘at risk’ for tax purposes.

50 GeneJockey  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 6:25:56pm

re: #48 Lidane

No, the economic policies of the GOP favor screwing over everyone that isn’t white, rich, and Republican. That’s got nothing to do with risk.

BUT, that’s what they tell themselves, which is why white Republicans will LOVE this column. It tells them that the reason why blacks and women like the Dems better is because they’re not a adventurous and willing to gamble as white men, so it’s okay that those groups are not as successful. It has nothing to do with racism or sexism, it’s that the poor dears just are too easily spooked. It’s the same self-serving pablum the Right has been feeding itself for decades, but put in a less blatantly racist and sexist form.

51 Lidane  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 6:26:40pm

re: #46 EPR-radar

The GOP’s main race problem is that stone-cold racists are an important part of the electoral coalition that has been assembled to vote for GOP economic policies against their own interests, because the GOP will make sure that the “others” are screwed worse.

Image: voting_republican.jpg

52 Spocomptonite  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 6:28:17pm

re: #16 Dark_Falcon

Basically boils down to “Let’s rebrand words and not actions”.

That final paragraph is especially evident that the writer feels that it is rhetoric, rather than the actions the rhetoric is describing, that has caused there to be such a difference in black support between parties. Doing away with the words will do nothing for votes if the GOP is condescending at best and downright discriminatory at worst in its actions toward blacks and immigrants.

53 OhNoZombies!  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 6:28:18pm

Think:
Last to get hired, first to get fired. Work twice as hard to get half as far.
That is, if you can get your foot in the door. Not to mention the crap one has to put up if you get the damn job in the first place…

The dems. understand the need for job security and that it promotes financial stability.
Education
Unions
Pensions
Etc. All the things the repubs. are keen to cut.

54 Dark_Falcon  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 6:30:39pm

re: #49 EPR-radar

One doesn’t have to be an oppressed minority to have the view that this worship of ‘risk taking’ is often bullshit of the highest order.

The fat cats and masters of the universe often take on less risk for much greater rewards than honest people working hard to make ends meet. E.g., TBTF banks, where losses were socialized and profits were private.

Or the smarmy BS surrounding executive compensation, where some fool let language get into the tax code to make all executive compensation a cost of doing business if it was somehow ‘at risk’. So now all of the BigCorps do accounting voodoo such that their executive compensation is ‘at risk’ for tax purposes.

On the bolded part, Williamson actually agrees with you. He has openly argued for breaking up “too big to fail” banks, and for better regulation of derivatives.

55 Lidane  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 6:30:55pm

re: #52 Spocomptonite

Basically boils down to “Let’s rebrand words and not actions”.

Right. It’s just more of the same right-wing self-delusion they keep feeding themselves. Conservatives have convinced themselves that women, gays, minorities, and rational people have objections to the words of the GOP and the right wing, but they support the ideas.

No, not really. They can see through the bullshit. It’s the ideas that are objectionable. Trying to change the words to make your shitty ideas sound better just makes you look like a pathetic, morally bankrupt weasel. The GOP and the right wing haven’t figured that out yet.

56 OhNoZombies!  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 6:34:20pm

The other thing is the condescension.
Like we don’t understand politics…
Or pretty much anything else for that matter.

57 Dark_Falcon  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 6:35:39pm

re: #52 Spocomptonite

Basically boils down to “Let’s rebrand words and not actions”.

That final paragraph is especially evident that the writer feels that it is rhetoric, rather than the actions the rhetoric is describing, that has caused there to be such a difference in black support between parties. Doing away with the words will do nothing for votes if the GOP is condescending at best and downright discriminatory at worst in its actions toward blacks and immigrants.

No, Williamson feels that black people are unlikely to support Republicans whatever the GOP says or does, absent the GOP simply adopting Democratic economic policies.

Williamson saying to conservatives regarding black people “They’re just not that into you and that isn’t going to change. Understand their reasons, accept those reasons as decent and genuine (even if you don’t agree with them) and cut out the wrongheaded talk.”

58 Spocomptonite  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 6:36:12pm

re: #41 Dark_Falcon

He’s right IMO: The economic policies favored by Republicans require assumption of risk, and people who have almost exclusively seen the downside of risk are likely to be hostile to it.

Economic policies favored by Republicans require a lack of empathy and complete redefinition of the words “society” and “community”.

59 GeneJockey  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 6:36:37pm

To understand how the Right wing mind works WRT economics, let me tell you a story:

I was once debating economics with a wingnut on another forum. I said that the economy was not doing well, as indicated by median income not growing. He said the economy was doing great, as indicated by the number of millionaires created.

For him, it didn’t matter how the population AS A WHOLE was doing, as long as those at the top were doing well. This is the basis of the whole ‘transformative power of the free market economy’ idea, that you measure an economy by how rich the rich are, not how rich the population in general are. Thus, government policies which enrich the average person, but limit how rich the rich can become are seen as ‘destroying the economy’.

Similarly, rather than understanding that jobs are created by people being able to buy shit, they think jobs are crapped out by rich people as a byproduct of their wealth. Thus it makes no sense to them to enrich the middle and working classes, but making rich people richer means they’ll crap out more jobs.

60 EPR-radar  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 6:40:57pm

re: #57 Dark_Falcon

A GOP that dropped the overt racism but kept the same economic policies would probably be able to get 20% or so of the minority vote. There are lots of people out there who really do think they are temporarily embarrassed millionaires and will vote for GOP economics in view of their expected future wealth. These optimists aren’t all white.

61 klys  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 6:41:00pm

re: #57 Dark_Falcon

No, Williamson feels that black people are unlikely to support Republicans whatever the GOP says or does, absent the GOP simply adopting Democratic economic policies.

Williamson saying to conservatives regarding black people “

and that isn’t going to change. Understand their reasons, accept those reasons as decent and genuine (even if you don’t agree with them) and cut out the wrongheaded talk.”

If you follow that line of belief, then white voters who vote Republican are only voting in their best financial interest.

…which is true for ~1% of voters, possibly. Because I know not every person in that magic 1% votes Republican.

62 GeneJockey  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 6:43:30pm

re: #57 Dark_Falcon

No, Williamson feels that black people are unlikely to support Republicans whatever the GOP says or does, absent the GOP simply adopting Democratic economic policies.

Williamson saying to conservatives regarding black people “

and that isn’t going to change. Understand their reasons, accept those reasons as decent and genuine (even if you don’t agree with them) and cut out the wrongheaded talk.”

As Yoda said, “This is why you fail.” The problem is, Conservative economic policies don’t actually work. This is objectively verifiable. They especially don’t work to enrich the bulk of the population that is not wealthy.

The problem isn’t that blacks don’t LIKE GOP economic policy. It’s that GOP economic policy is stupid. Adopt an economic policy based on something other than faith, and you might win more folks over.

63 Dark_Falcon  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 6:46:35pm

re: #60 EPR-radar

What I was saying with #57 is that Williamson wasn’t advocating a false ‘rebranding’. He accepts that black people vote for Democrats based policies, not rhetoric, and that they do so out of policy preference, not because they were “bribed”.

BBL

64 ericblair  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 6:47:38pm

re: #59 Mateo Scourge

Similarly, rather than understanding that jobs are created by people being able to buy shit. they thing jobs are crapped out by rich people as a byproduct of their wealth. Thus it makes no sense to them to enrich the middle and working classes, but making rich people richer means they’ll crap out more jobs.

There’s this bizarre forelock-tugging idea that rich people, when they are happy and properly fed, hand out jobs as a favor to us untermenschen as a token of their great virtue. When I’ve been hired and when I’ve hired people, it’s been done by middle class people as agents of a corporation, who are hiring because they need that person to fulfill a job function and make money.

The idea of hiring somebody just because we have money to spend is pretty much incomprehensible: that’s a write-up and profit! People are hired because it’s a necessity, not as a fucking charity. Oh yeah, and when we make hiring decisions we have no clue about our corporate tax rate. Since taxes are based on net profit, it’s irrelevant: we need these people or we don’t.

65 palomino  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 6:50:44pm

re: #5 Vicious Babushka

Republicans conveniently ignore the last 50 years in making their “we’re really the civil rights party” argument. Those “first 22 black congressmen” were from the days of Reconstruction. Lincoln and Douglass died over 100 years ago. MLK died 50 years ago. Like the student at Howard said to ignorant Rand Paul, “Are you talking about the GOP of the late 1800’s or the GOP of today? Because they are clearly not the same thing.”

66 GeneJockey  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 6:52:59pm

re: #64 ericblair

There’s this bizarre forelock-tugging idea that rich people, when they are happy and properly fed, hand out jobs as a favor to us untermenschen as a token of their great virtue. When I’ve been hired and when I’ve hired people, it’s been done by middle class people as agents of a corporation, who are hiring because they need that person to fulfill a job function and make money.

The idea of hiring somebody just because we have money to spend is pretty much incomprehensible: that’s a write-up and profit! People are hired because it’s a necessity, not as a fucking charity. Oh yeah, and when we make hiring decisions we have no clue about our corporate tax rate. Since taxes are based on net profit, it’s irrelevant: we need these people or we don’t.

EXACTLY!!

I can’t count how many times I’ve seen or heard, “No poor man ever gave me a job.” My response is that NOBODY, EVER, gave me a job. EVERY employer needed what I could do for them. Employment isn’t a gift, it’s a business arrangement where I trade work for money, and they trade money for work.

The idea that it’s some kind of gift drives the thinking that, while employers only owe their employees enough compensation to keep them from walking off the job, employees owe their absolute best effort at all times. I can’t think of a more servile attitude.

67 EPR-radar  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 6:56:14pm

re: #66 Mateo Scourge

EXACTLY!!

I can’t count how many times I’ve seen or heard, “No poor man ever gave me a job.” My response is that NOBODY, EVER, gave me a job. EVERY employer needed what I could do for them. Employment isn’t a gift, it’s a business arrangement where I trade work for money, and they trade money for work.

The idea that it’s some kind of gift drives the thinking that, while employers only owe their employees enough compensation to keep them from walking off the job, employees owe their absolute best effort at all times. I can’t think of a more servile attitude.

It seems clear to me that the main reason for the ongoing shitty economy is that the powers that be have engineered a chronic over-supply of labor. Wages have not kept pace with productivity or profits because of this.

68 palomino  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 6:59:17pm

re: #16 Dark_Falcon

Many on the right are not such fools. I’ve been waiting to post this, and now its time. I’m sitting down to dinner after posting this but I’ll be back soon to read any replies:

The Plantation Theory
It is time to retire a dumb idea and the rhetoric that goes with it.
By Kevin D. Williamson

Are you seriously going back to the National Review well of racism to support some of your contentions regarding race? While Williamson criticizes some conservative rhetoric in his piece, he ends by saying the conservative plantation argument is basically “accurate.”

Maybe you can shovel some more bullshit, like the Republicans are the party blacks should support today because of Lincoln and things that happened over 100 years ago, all the while ignoring the last 50 years of southern strategy and Republican southern revanchism.

69 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 7:04:26pm

re: #16 Dark_Falcon

Dumbass article patronizing black people is pretty lame, yeah.

70 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 7:06:13pm

re: #63 Dark_Falcon

What I was saying with #57 is that Williamson wasn’t advocating a false ‘rebranding’. He accepts that black people vote for Democrats based policies, not rhetoric, and that they do so out of policy preference, not because they were “bribed”.

BBL

But while doing so, he says they’re all a bunch of idiots:

Democrats appeal to blacks, to other minority groups, and — most significant — to women with rhetoric and policies that promise the mitigation of risk. (Never mind that these policies don’t work — voters never sort that out.)

In one swoop of his hand, the author dismisses all ‘mitigation of risk’ strategies employed by the government as not working. It’s a breathtakingly stupid thing to say, and an enormously patronizing one. He’s basically saying that only white men actually figure this stuff out right.

71 palomino  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 7:32:00pm

re: #70 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

But while doing so, he says they’re all a bunch of idiots:

In one swoop of his hand, the author dismisses all ‘mitigation of risk’ strategies employed by the government as not working. It’s a breathtakingly stupid thing to say, and an enormously patronizing one. He’s basically saying that only white men actually figure this stuff out right.

Exactly. Only women and minorities appreciate Medicare and Social Security and FDIC protection, etc.

Real men want to be on their own to die penniless and without health care in their “golden” years. Williamson is a caveman sexist (as shown by his article on Romney and Obama) as well as another right wing apologist for the race baiters in his own party. He hasn’t gone full on retard VDH/Derbyshire yet. But there’s still plenty of time. People read his work for the same reason they listen to Rush Limbaugh—he makes them feel OK (even proud) about their sexism and racism. The fact that Williamson is a supposed intellectual just means his readers are probably a bit more upscale than Limbaugh’s listeners. But they’re still swimming in the same filthy swamp.

72 GeneJockey  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 8:19:42pm

re: #67 EPR-radar

It seems clear to me that the main reason for the ongoing shitty economy is that the powers that be have engineered a chronic over-supply of labor. Wages have not kept pace with productivity or profits because of this.

I tend to be less conspiracy minded, but it all ends up the same - business, existing to make money, invariably finds ways to make more, which involve raising revenues or cutting costs.

73 Jocko's Rocket Ship  Fri, Jul 26, 2013 8:35:38pm

So at NRO, racial bias is rational. FACTS. But the “thoughtful” guy there says blacks voting D (or for their policies) is also rational based on the past where white policies help create a black pathology. That’s mostly in the past, but blacks are damaged as a group to the point that they will now understandably-but-wrongly distrust conservatives and vote against their better interest. And nothing in the conservative toolbox of polices can change that view. If it weren’t for the past, they would see it differently, correctly today. But, so, there’s nothing to be done until they see the light.

Compassionate racialism.

74 EPR-radar  Sat, Jul 27, 2013 10:09:06am

re: #72 Mateo Scourge

I tend to be less conspiracy minded, but it all ends up the same - business, existing to make money, invariably finds ways to make more, which involve raising revenues or cutting costs.

I don’t see any conspiracy here either, because it’s out in the open (even if not explicitly announced), and does not require any covert collusion. E.g., the Republicans are dealing with immigration mainly because of pressure from business interests to bring in more and cheaper workers.

Another good example is the perpetual tales of woe the high tech companies tell Congress about their inability to find workers in order to justify expansions of the H1B visa program.

75 GeneJockey  Sat, Jul 27, 2013 10:39:35am

re: #74 EPR-radar

I don’t see any conspiracy here either, because it’s out in the open (even if not explicitly announced), and does not require any covert collusion. E.g., the Republicans are dealing with immigration mainly because of pressure from business interests to bring in more and cheaper workers.

Another good example is the perpetual tales of woe the high tech companies tell Congress about their inability to find workers in order to justify expansions of the H1B visa program.

Or, relatedly, the claims they can’t find qualified workers, meaning they can’t find anyone with the credentials and experience they want who will work for $10/hr.

76 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jul 27, 2013 4:40:23pm

re: #41 Dark_Falcon

No, it isn’t. Williamson is explaining to conservatives why use of “plantation” rhetoric is both unwise and wrong-headed. In service to this goal he tries to effectively state why a given ethnic group tends to feel the way it does, as a part of making his case.

He’s right IMO: The economic policies favored by Republicans require assumption of risk, and people who have almost exclusively seen the downside of risk are likely to be hostile to it.

Then why do you support GOP economic policy when back in 37 you said you were not much of a risk taker?


Can’t have it both ways DF.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh