RE: Reagan the Hero- Iran/Contra; defend it if you can, NeoCon appologist morons!

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Monday, August 31, 2026 18:11
VIEWED: 16766
PAGE 10 of 15

PREV PAGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT PAGE

CAUSAL

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 12:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Sounds good in theory. But how many times do liberals have to be burned before they stop sticking their hands in the fire? I can turn on Rush Limbaugh, or pick up a book by Ann Coulter, or listen in to Fox News Channel and find out that I, as a self-described liberal, am a traitor. There are significant voices on the right that want to harm and ultimately silence tens of millions of Americans simply because of what we believe. And they have a huge audience. I see nobody in positions of authority, with a wide ranging audience and access to broad distribution avenues, on the left advocating for what prominent conservatives daily argue for. There absolutely are people on the left who are every bit as intolerant as those on the right. The big difference is that they have zero power, zero credibility, and zero platform. Whereas, on the right, the intolerant ones are the ones who have been running the show for the past twelve years. Be careful that you don't fall into the mainstream media trap of setting up false equivalencies in an effort for balance.

Also, here's a question. When someone says "The Republicans may not all be racists, but on the whole, the Republican party is the party is discriminatory and bigoted" how is that any different than saying "Race X might not all be bad quality Y, but on the whole, Xs are Y"? Seriously, pick your racial stereotype--think of the worst one you can think of. Now I think that even the most racist person would say that not everyone in that group is that way--just that on the whole, they are. How is that any different from what you're doing when you paint a large group of people with as broad a brush as that? How is that any less stereotyped?

And I just also want to say (because it has to be) that it only seems like "false equivalence" because of your pre-existing beliefs.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

SOUPCATCHER

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 12:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Also, here's a question. When someone says "The Republicans may not all be racists, but on the whole, the Republican party is the party is discriminatory and bigoted" how is that any different than saying "Race X might not all be bad quality Y, but on the whole, Xs are Y"? Seriously, pick your racial stereotype--think of the worst one you can think of. Now I think that even the most racist person would say that not everyone in that group is that way--just that on the whole, they are. How is that any different from what you're doing when you paint a large group of people with as broad a brush as that? How is that any less stereotyped?

And I just also want to say (because it has to be) that it only seems like "false equivalence" because of your pre-existing beliefs.

The short answer is that you have to look at what the people at the top are doing. By top I mean those who are either party leaders or who have tremendous influence over party leaders or the talking points that the party disseminates to its members.

The Republican Party, since the time of Nixon, has been the party of the Southern Strategy - the embracing of bigotry in order to get votes. Where do you think all the Dixiecrats went when they left the Democratic Party in the sixties? They didn't just stop trying to preserve the institutionalized racism that had been built back into the system from 1890 onwards. They kept working at it.

So, yes, I do see the leadership of the Republican Party as engaging in a strategy designed to appeal to racists. There was a reason that Reagan made a speech by Philadelphia, Mississippi while stumping for President in 1980 and talked about states rights. And it had less to do with the fair that he was attending and more to do with who was killed in that region and why.

That's the short version.

CAUSAL

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 1:03 AM

So...you're saying that the mere desire to win the votes of southerners means that the Republicans are racists? Are you suggesting that southerners are racists who only respond to a racist ideology?

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

RUE

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 1:09 AM

I'd like to enter here. It WOULD be fair to say "all members of the KKK are bigoted" because it's a self-selected group based on bigotry. That's not an example of racism. Similarly, it would be fair to say 'many white southerners are bigoted' not because it's a racial characteristic of whites, but because it's a historical trend.

SOUPCATCHER

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 1:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
So...you're saying that the mere desire to win the votes of southerners means that the Republicans are racists? Are you suggesting that southerners are racists who only respond to a racist ideology?

I'm saying that you need to research what exactly the Southern strategy entailed and why Ken Mehlman felt the need to apologize for it when he spoke before the NAACP.

CAUSAL

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 1:14 AM

Point granted. But it is not fair to say "all southerners are racists"--but that's what Soup's thesis seems to be suggesting. The way he's reasoning it might also be suggested, "The southern states are the bible belt and the Republican push for southern states is an effort to bring religious voters into the party." Suggesting that the Republican party is going south because it's racist down there is, frankly, insulting both to the GOP and to the south in general.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

CAUSAL

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 1:25 AM

Mmm...double-posty goodness.

CAUSAL

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 1:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
I'm saying that you need to research what exactly the Southern strategy entailed and why Ken Mehlman felt the need to apologize for it when he spoke before the NAACP.

OK, sorry about the lack of time to research this as thoroughly as you have. But I'm curious: does a bad (out-dated) strategy which was subsequently abandoned and apologized for make them all evil?

By the by, I totally understand why the right-wingers among us don't last long on these boards. They're called racists, bigots, and morons and shouted down without any real discussion taking place.

Edited to add: the following is a general purpose rant, and not directed personally at you, Soup.

With all due respect, Soup, the point in all this is that both sides of this particular debate can muster exactly the same kind of argument against the other side. Interestingly, on these boards you won't see many arguments of this sort against Democrats. Not because they can't be made, but because no one here is interested. Frankly, neither am I, because I happen to believe that the two-party system is destroying our democracy, and that the two-party system is perpetuated by exactly this sort of blindly dogmatic argumenary style. I can't muster the same sorts of arguments against Democrats because I don't fucking care about the Democrats. I also (demonstrably) can't do so against the Republicans because I don't fucking care about them either. What I do fucking care about is the dogmatism that allows both sides of the so-called red/blue split to not have to seriously consider the possibility that the parties only differ on a slender selection of hot-button issues. I find it exceedingly disturbing when we allow ourselves to dismiss people and their arguments on the sole basis that they are from the "racist" republican party or the "immoral" democratic one. Our system is broke, our people are at each others throats, nothing is changing (other than the progressive slide of this country into oligarchy), but we call each morons vigorously enough not to be concerned that our so-called representatives only represent their own avarice and lust for power.

Edited to add: having made my point and having been (predictably) shouted down, I'll simply withdraw at this point. Just please don't see it as the concession of a Republican, because I'm not one.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

SOUPCATCHER

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 1:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Point granted. But it is not fair to say "all southerners are racists"--but that's what Soup's thesis seems to be suggesting. The way he's reasoning it might also be suggested, "The southern states are the bible belt and the Republican push for southern states is an effort to bring religious voters into the party." Suggesting that the Republican party is going south because it's racist down there is, frankly, insulting both to the GOP and to the south in general.

I'm saying that every single American is exposed to bigotry and racism on a daily basis from the moment they are born. This used to be much more tolerated. Today, at the very least, people seem to understand when they are making prejudicial statements. Do they stop and think about why they hold those viewpoints? Not really. They get irritated that their parents and grandparents were able to get away with saying a lot more than they could. They may sneak in a little aside, "I know this isn't politically correct BUT..." or they just hold off until they are in like-minded company.

From my point of view, we are a racist society. We have never dealt with the mindset that was necessary for one segment of the population to own another segment of the population. It's a stain on the soul of our country and will remain there because it is not in the best interests of the majority of the population to deal with it.

But it wouldn't be that big of a problem, in my point of view, if all it was was personal viewpoints. However, and this is a big however, when racism is institutionalized then you have the power of the state (or other organization) behind the discrimination. We have not completely purged the institutionalized racism that was been present in our system since the founding. Some progress was made after the Civil War but a lot of that was ripped up following the great retreat that begain around 1890. Some progress was made during the Civil Rights era but we are in the process of seeing the pushback against that.

When you have a political party taking advantage of the bigotry (which is what the Southern strategy - as articulated back in the late sixties - was) then yes, I consider that party a racist party. And supporters of that party, who are aware of this policy and knowingly support the party, are enabling racism.

SOUPCATCHER

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 2:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Point granted. But it is not fair to say "all southerners are racists"--but that's what Soup's thesis seems to be suggesting.

I want to come back to this sentence and come at it from a different way. The southern states had a different way of dealing with blacks than the rest of the country. A large number of control mechanisms had been put in place to make sure that the slaves couldn't easily rise up and take out those who they outnumbered. These control mechanisms really didn't go away after the end of the Civil War.

In parts of the North and all of the West, these control mechanisms were not in place. So the response to the dispersion of freed slaves was different. The creation of sundown towns and sundown suburbs led to enforced segregation in the North and West. In other words, the Southern strategy was not necessary in the West because African Americans had been forced into the inner cities - in those areas Republicans just weren't competitive and they didn't even try. Where, in the Southern strategy, the Republicans went after white voters who were disgruntled at seeing black voters voting Democratic, those communities were not really intermingled in the West.

Different kinds of racism. Look at where the Klan was most successful during the early twentieth century rebirth. It was in places like Indiana and Ohio, not the South. Oregon had a health Klan presence with statewide elected officials. (* eta: And, at this point in our country's history, the Klan was pretty much a subset of the Democratic Party *) Wyoming went from 30 percent population ethnic Chinese to damn near zero during the great retreat period. (* eta: Actually, it was Idaho. Not Wyoming. I misremembered

).

Institutionalized racism comes in different flavors in the North and West and South but the smell is the same.

* edited to add:
One of the most eye-opening experiences I had in my life was moving from Los Angeles (where I spent the first eighteen years of my life) to a small southeastern Washington town. I had grown up in a diverse neighborhood where the fact that my mother was white and my father brown didn't mean a damn thing. And then I moved to an area where it did. That really surprised me. But, as I thought back upon growing up, I hadn't lived in a racism free environment. It was just a lot more subtle because no one group was dominant. Where there was a clear racial majority the implications of bigotry became much more apparent. I'm not sure how that fits into all this, but it may shed some light on why I find the topic so important. I find any organization that cynically uses the lingering affects of our peculiar institution to grab and maintain power repugnant. And I don't see the Republican Party as having given up the Southern Strategy. They have just shifted who the "other" is in the equation. After all when something works you don't throw it away.

PREV PAGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT PAGE