"Race," by Thomas and Mary Edsall

"The result was that liberal Democrats often barred from consideration what are in fact legitimate issues for political discourse, issues of fundamental social and moral concern which must be forthrightly addressed by any national candidate or party. This stigmatization as 'racist' or as 'in bad faith' of open discussion of values-charged-matters--ranging from crime to sexual responsibility to welfare dependency to drug abuse to standards of social obligation--has for more than two decades created a VALUES BARRIER between Democratic liberals and much of the electorate. Insofar as many voters feel that their cherished policies and practices have been routed, the values barrier has been a major factor in fracturing a once deeply felt loyalty to a liberal economic agenda."

- Thomas and Mary Edsall, from "Race," The Atlantic Monthly, May 1991
*not_secure_link*www.theatlantic.com/politics/race/edsall.htm

 

While studiously ignoring/condoning/encouraging deidre's own crude insults.

I can't imagine what arrangement of neurons would prompt you to try to impress her.

 

crude insults, and neurons

deidre79's insults are only occasionally directed against me. That makes it easier for me to ignore them, although I do not encourage them, at least not intentionally.

They are the neurons in my fronta lobes:

"The frontal lobes are considered our emotional control center and home to our personality. There is no other part of the brain where lesions can cause such a wide variety of symptoms (Kolb & Wishaw, 1990). The frontal lobes are involved in motor function, problem solving, spontaneity, memory, language, initiation, judgement, impulse control, and social and sexual behavior."
*not_secure_link*www.neuroskills.com/tbi/bfrontal.shtml

 

Edsall was writing about a time when the Democratic Party was at a very low ebb, having been out of the White House for 12 years. A year or so later, Bill Clinton was elected president. And I wonder what he would say about the current low ebb of the Republican Party, now that they've lost control of both the White House and Congress, and party identification is near historical lows.

But the important thing to note is that Edsall was writing about political strategy and perception. He was not demonizing black people in that essay, as you seem to want to do. He was, in essence, congratulating the Republican Party for capitalizing on the race issue, citing George Wallace as their role model, and criticizing the Democratic Party for failing to recognize their own vulnerability on the issue.

 

Thomas Edsall

Edsall has acknowledged that the GOP has pursued policies that have hurt white blue collar workers economically. His most recent book was published in 2006. I am waiting eagerly for his next book. He will probably say that much of the Democrat renaissance is due to the fact that the Democrats have moved away from support for policies like affirmative action and busing, that they have allowed welfare to stop being a life time entitlement given without judgmentalism, and that they have adopted a more punitive approach toward crime. He will likely draw attention to the fact that white blue collar workers lost ground during the Bush administration. In other words he will probably say that the Democrats and the Republicans have each moved to the right on issues where they have been vulnerable.

I have no desire to demonize blacks. I learned how to debate by advocating the integration of the segregated elementary school I attended. I respect facts, however, and I lack respect for the restrictions of political correctness.

 

But you DO encourage her, DL....with statements like this.

 

While I can agree that the Democrats have, for the most part, backed away from affirmative action and busing, I think it's also fair to say that the Republicans brought about their declining fortunes without much help from the Democrats. They did it by:

1. Exploiting the extreme religious right, and focusing on wedge issues like gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, Terry Schaivo...issues on which they are clearly in the minority.

2. Steadily losing support among blacks and hispanics, because their policies are of no conceivable benefit to those groups.

3. Purposefully demolishing the white middle class and catering to every whim of the wealthy, and in so doing, bankrupting the country.

4. Fighting a series of unnecessary and costly wars.

5. Undermining the moral standing of the United States internationally.

So now the shoe is on the other foot, and Republicans are on the brink if irrelevance, if not extinction. None of it has to do with the Watts riots. It has to do with political strategy and positioning. If Democrats have moved toward the center, it's to capitalize on the fact that Republicans are, in their infinite wisdom, moving further to the right.

 

What I am doing is recommending calmness.

 

Good luck DL.

The reluctance to examine others opinions by those who claim to be open minded is quite obvious.

 

Several decades ago I thought liberals and even radicals stood for free speech, and all that. Then in September 1971 Richard Herrnstein published an article in The Atlantic Monthly in which he introduced the ideas that he and Charles Murray were later to develop in The Bell Curve.

The response illustrated Thomas Hobbes' maxim, "When reason is against a man, a man will be against reason." There was even a move to get Herrnstein fired from Harvard.

 

So now you're going to defend The Bell Curve to me? I can't wait.

And by the way, Hernstein died before The Bell Curve was even released for publication.

 

But you DO encourage her, DL....with statements like this.

encourage me to do what? make you look stupid?

 

No, encourage you to keep insulting people. Thank you for proving the point yet again.

 

i only insult those that would insult me first so if you want to play like you and your little atheistic friends are innocent go ahead. i tried to be nice but you all choose not to play that way, fine by me.:rose:

 

Yes, you tried to be nice once or twice, in between calling me a cunt (which, by the way, I've never stooped to).

I've tried to make allowances too, because I think you're in serious need of professional help, and probably can't be held responsible for the things you say here. But even taking that into account, I cannot sit idly by while you spew your venom and your enablers look the other way.

 

that is the funniest joke i have heard all day, thank you i stand behind everything i say here and you have never once tried to be nice, not that i can tell but thanks for the effort.

 

I agree with most of this. The Republicans did poorly in the last two elections because George W. Bush started two wars he could not win, and because most Americans lost ground economically during the Bush administration.

I am less certain that the religious right has been an albatross for the Republicans. The GOP exists in order to advance the economic interests of the richest 10% of the country. Republicans need to be able to appeal to those who are not rich. Pretending to share the concerns of Protestant Fundamentalists has been one of the ways they do it. Nevertheless, the Republicans have done little to advance the agenda of the religious right. Twenty-nine years after the election of Ronald Reagan abortion is still illegal. Prayer and Bible reading in public schools is still illegal. The popular culture is as sexually explicit as it has ever been.

The black ghetto riots that happened between 1964-68 happened so long ago that they have little effect on contemporary politics. I read one poll that indicated that 50% of white blue collar workers voted for Barack Obama in the last election.

 

Well, far be it for me to object to the sexual explicitness of pop culture.

I agree, though, that it's not clear who is really using whom when it comes to the Republican relationship with the religious right. I agree that the Republican Party has done little to advance the agenda of the religious right, other than appoint pro-life Supreme Court judges. But they have still catered to them rhetorically, and they did manage to obstruct stem cell research, access to birth control, and stick their fingers in the dike of the gay marriage ban (good choice of words there!).

The point is, together, they took this country in the wrong direction, toward intolerance and away from inclusiveness.

 

And this thread has been derailed about 100 or so posts ago.

 

I see this differently. What I saw was the Ronald Reagan Campaign go directly to the far religious right to garner the support of leaders like Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts, anti porn crusader Dobson and others.

This was an untapped voting block that had rightfully been pushed to the fringe due to their intolerant and outdated beliefs. They had been trying to make inroads for decades but were largely ignored. Ronald Reagan et al brought them right to the Republican Party Plateform.

One of their holy grails if you will was to end abortion. Also anti pornography, bringing religion into the government and clear up to "Biblical Correct" textbooks were some of their pushes.

And once they had their foot in the door there was a religious stampede. People who didn't even believe each other were going to go to heaven suddenly came together for the first time and their voting block and their prominence started to grow exponentially.

With a big shift in momentum the next step was to start organizing, at the national level, often hiding their true religious beliefs and motivations and start making inroads on taking smaller local governments, most often school boards and city and town councils trying to work their way up to county and state offices.

This is where I ran into them personally and the things you might not have noticed unless you were actually confronted by them were things like canceling sex education classes, refusing the allow AIDS awareness into the curriculum, challenging books in school libraries and things like that. And it was frightening how successful they could be.

They also made tremendous inroads in things like trying to outlaw pornography. I especially remember the Meese Commission to outlaw pornography and perhaps that was the first crack in the dam they were constructing. The commission was so slanted, so determined to reach a foregone conclusion, so bent on outlawing pornography that first the academics fled in protest and then I believe even the American public could see both their findings and their aim were ridiculous.

Now I differ with almost all political pundints on what happened next because by that time we were past Reagan and going into George HW Bush's first term.

What I actually believe happened was that the religious right had gained so much power and influence it appeared that they would actually be successful in overturning Roe v. Wade and women all over the country, whether they admitted it or not, became very concerned about that and started to bolt to the left. And inside the Republican party women began to move away from the far right.

There was a moderation effect and while it was still the republican intent to keep the right solidly in their voting block they backed away from them main issues and instead started to patronize them and placate them with more minor appointments and platitudes.

The religious right's influence has waned in the past two decades but at least for the 1980's and into the 90's they were a political force that nearly succeeded in their fundamentalist agenda.