Asymmetrical Information

Heeeey! That's what I said! And days ago in fact. Though nobody shall ever know now because blogspot is fuxored. (try this, if that doesn't work, try here).

I'll prefer the "great minds think alike" theory over the "criminally negligent plagiarism" theory.... for now. ;)

Any politician who ignores race is going to have it bite him in the ass. Is it 1960? No! But it's not nearly utopia either. It's going to take more than one Trent Lott to dispose of the GOP's code talk. What happens in a close election in the south and a candidate needs to "play to his base"? Think GWB will risk going to the "Trent Lott-supported" Bob Jones University again? Me thinks not. GWB is doing a good job on race, but I seriously doubt the rest of his party will fall in line so quickly.

One thing at a time.

The GOP could have taken a big step in the wrong direction in response to the Lott affair. Instead they took a step in the right direction. We can acknowledge this even while noting that the journey must continue.

Lott's resignation will have little effect, if any. The Democrats will continue to race-bait and slander the GOP. They have no other choice the way their party is currently structured. The slander will continue to bring in 90+% of the black vote. But that is a backward looking strategy that has little upside and a serious long term downside.

The GOP will continue to focus on the agenda that GWB has articulated. The GOP strength will continue to grow in the South because of cultural, religious and economic reasons. Liberals want to think that racist appeals work for the GOP in the South because they don't want to face up to modern reality and their own policy shortcomings. It so much easier to slander 50 million people than to engage in intelligent thought.

The liberals on the coasts have no clue what is really going on in the South in 2002. They offer nothing but fifty year old stereotypes, but they forget that Strom is 100. His generation is dead. The next one is dying.

Americans everywhere deplore racism. Once John Rocker was labelled a racist for his comments in the SI interview, he became the most reviled person in America. Even OJ and Andrea Yates get more sympathy! Think about it. Racist language is deemed to be a far more egregious offense than murder. In a society with attitudes like this, one has to be brain dead to think that appeals to racism can attract a majority of voters.

Lott had to go. He was stupid and ineffectual. Frist well be far better for the GOP. But the resignation change very little in the future.

If the Republicans wave the Stars and Bars a bit less, will the Democrats get over their love affair with the Hammer and Sickle?

My wife and I are northerners but, due to reasons of family and general sightseeing, we have backroaded the South a few days in the last couple of summers.
I was in Mississippi in the Sixties--before redneck was cool--and I have to say the changes are astonishing. The town where I worked in 1967 and 1968 seemed hopeless (I was young). When I visited it recently, the county courthouse had a memorial to a black sherrif (that's county sherrif, not deputy. the boss) who died in the line of duty IN 1987!! Which means he had to have been active in politics before that, and his constituents were either white--which means they voted for a black, or black, in which case they had the vote, all long before 1987.
All in all, they were pleasant trips with little to remind one of the pain of racial issues.
The South is getting a bum rap, but it is the necessary straw man for various political uses.
That's too bad.
Maybe it's time to resurrect Jim Bishop's story about Pappy from Mississippi.

stan, I don't think you give blacks and hispanics nearly enough credit. They are not mindless morons, they will be able to determine for themselves which party better suits their interests, especially as it becomes increasingly difficult to claim that the Republican party is anti-minority.

Why is it everybody assumes black people only vote on race?

Robin,
I have a number of minority neighbors. In my conversations with them on politics, they have told me that the theme of pervasive racism is a constant drumbeat in their churches and social gatherings. Any perceived social slight or personal setback will very often be attributed to racism by many of their contemporaries.

The civil rights establishment has everything invested in this message of pervasive racism. Which is why some leaders are quoted as saying that things are as bad today as they were during Jim Crow.

The vicious ad run by the NAACP against Bush in 2000 was used so often precisely because black voters bought it. As long as race-baiters like Sharpton and Jackson use fraudulent stories like the church burnings to stoke the issue, I don't see the percentage of blacks voting for Democrats falling much below 90%. The prominence of Powell and Rice in a GOP administration has had zero impact. The Dems will continue to slander them and Justice Thomas to make sure of it.

One need only read stories of polls showing a majority of blacks believe that crack is a CIA plot to kill them off to understand the power of race-based rumors in their community.

As for current politics, John Conyers just accused Bill Frist of orchestrating voter intimidation in Senate races around the country. We can only assume that Conyers also thinks these slanders are effective.

When any ethnic or racial group votes that monolithically, it's a good bet that the issue they're voting on is race. That's why when Democrats campaign in black neighborhoods, the message isn't "Senator X has an outstanding plan for prescription drugs and missile defense"; it's "Senator X is going to do Y and Z for blacks". That's only possible when the group at hand considers themselves largely outsiders, a feeling that's harder to maintain as the group grows richer. Jews seem to manage it, but they've also had a lot more practice than other groups.

Donna Brazille is a lady that, because of her sometimes incendiary speech, I don't admire. But I do admire and trust her political acumen and konwledge of the black vote. I read the other day - unfortunately I can;t recall where - that she said that young black voters are identifying less with the democratic party. I think that they are still voting consistent with past patterns though. Perhaps these are the tentative steps toward individualism. The same is happening in that age group with self-identification re Tiger Woods. I'll know it's arrived though when Donna advises she's just received in the mail a voter registration card from - Oliver Willis.

The vicious ad run by the NAACP against Bush in 2000 was used so often precisely because black voters bought it.

Was the ad factually incorrect?

Nice attempt at misdirection, Jason.

It was as factually correct as the infamous 'Willie Horton' ads.

And similarly designed to inflame existing biases in the viewers, which is the point.

Come on, Jason. . . electing George Bush was just like lynching a black man? Are you really asking that question?

Come on, Jason. . . electing George Bush was just like lynching a black man? Are you really asking that question?

Have you seen the ad? They don't say or imply that electing George Bush is just like lynching a black man.

The quote from the ad, lifed from a Kurtz column:

In the new NAACP ad, which features a picture of the back of a truck and a chain, Renee Mullins, Byrd's daughter, says that in 1998 "my father was killed. He was beaten, chained and then dragged three miles to his death, all because he was black. So when Governor George W. Bush refused to support hate crimes legislation, it was like my father was killed all over again."

In other words: George Bush didn't support hate crimes legislation. Yes, they left out that the law wouldn't have done anything in this case, as the perps were getting the death penalty anyway, but that doesn't change the message of the ad:

1) Byrd's daughter thought hate crimes legislation was a necessary response to her father's murder.
2) Bush did not support the legislation.
3) When the legislation failed, Byrd's daughter said it was "like my father was killed all over again."

Does 3) translate to "not passing hate crimes legislation means Bush supports lynching?" Of course not; Byrd's daughter just considers its non-passage equivalent in impact to her father's lynching.

A quote from the NAACP director:

But Andrea Pringle, communications director for the NAACP National Voter Fund, said that "we're very proud of the ad, actually. . . . Renee has been a wonderful spokesperson for us. She tells her story and her experience. She feels like his death was in vain. She doesn't hold [Bush] responsible for her father's death. But she asked him to support a bill, and he said no."

I have no idea if hate crimes legislation is really necesary, mind you.

Logically, this ad was:

1) Assumption that lynching is bad.
1) Argument-from-authority that hate crimes legislation is necessary to stop lynching.
2) Bush doesn't support hate crimes lynching.
3) Therefore, you shouldn't vote for Bush.

Nothing objectionable there.

2) should obviously be "Bush doesn't support hate crimes legislation."

one need only read stories of polls showing a majority of blacks believe that crack is a CIA plot to kill them off

Except there was evidence for that, but the mainstream media mostly killed the story. Albeit the motivation was probably biased more toward money-making by the perpetrators, than hostility toward blacks in particular.

I disagree Jason, the statement "so when Governor George W. Bush refused to support hate crimes legislation, it was like my father was killed all over again," is pretty damn bad. In the extreme it could be interpreted as saying that George W. Bush supports lynching, or that George W. Bush's failure to sign the specific hate crime legislation was nearly as bad as lynching. Even a more moderate interpretation along the lines of: "George W. Bush's policies aid lynching" (which is basically what is being implied), or at least "George W. Bush is soft on lynching", is still quite unsavory and objectionable in my opinion. I don't see many ways you can slice it without the result being a very slanderous and emotionally manipulative allegation against George W. Bush.

Jane, I think your optimism on the rebirth of the party of lincoln is a little premature. politicians still need to survive primaries, and in both parties the extremists control the primary process more than ever. As long as Log Cabin republicans are utterly marginalized, as long as bitter disputes about abortion tear at the repub party, as long as "states rights" is code for ignoring the civil rights act, as long as the anti-immigrant, anti-latino wing has clout, then many gays, women, blacks and latinos will find home in the democrats.

Posters here talk about the vital importance of the black vote. but al gore still got more votes. and in many of the states where he lost, the vote was very very close. So the demo. party can afford to lose black votes, if they can pick up white centrist votes (soccer moms, anyone?)

It will be very interesting to see whether more moderate republicans can survive the primary process and peel votes away from the democrats. but i think its just as likely that the republican spine has cracked. The MORE extremist candidates will survive the primary process, because the ability to speak in code has been diminished, driving the more moderate voter to the democratic side.

That, of course, would be good for the demo. party. If it had more white centrists, then it wouldn't need to radicalize the left wing so much.

Remember, in the end the party that wins is the one which both gets high turnout from its extremists and captures the center. If the repubs are better able to capture the center, they may lose turnout among the extremists.

Jason,What is your opinion of the Willy Horton ad?

Huh? What gives you the impression that abortion, homosexuality, and open immigration are supported by a majority of minorities and women? I think if you'll look at the polls you'll see those are losing issues with all three groups. Abortion doesn't even poll that much better with women; it's certainly not a winner in the minority community, especially among Catholic latinos. Gay rights just isn't that big an issue for anyone except a small, though vocal, group in both parties. And while immigration is obviously big in the latino community, it's neutral-to-negative with women, and strongly negative with the Democrats' labor and african-american constituents.

Trying to hold that coalition together without the Demon Racist Republicans on the other side is more likely to tear apart the Democratic Party than the GOP.

What a crock. The failure of the state legislature to pass a law felt just like having her father lynched? One, that is ridiculous. Two, even if she was so screwed up that she equated a legislative defeat with her father's murder, the NAACP was the one running the ad. Responsible groups don't spend that kind of money to broadcast lunatic ravings.

Everyone involved knew it was a blatant effort to tar Bush with the lynching. That was the effect and that was the goal. This ad was 100 times more objectionable than the Horton ad. There is no way that an honest observer can find the Horton ad to be dirty politics, but consider the lynching ad to be clean.

Jesse Jackson on CNN about the ad --

"Is the NAACP going too far in suggesting that George Bush is someone who could support the murder of James Byrd? No."

Sounds to me like blacks were expected to, and in fact did, take the ad to mean that Bush was a racist who could support lynchings.

Sounds to me like blacks were expected to, and in fact did, take the ad to mean that Bush was a racist who could support lynchings.

I wouldn't take Jackson's word on anything. :D

The Horton analogy is apt, though; I'll think about it.

Hmm, although the construct that "x politicans supports this bad thing" when they focus on it in an ad (taxes, corruption, child rape, drug use) is pretty well established. Is the line of acceptability drawn soley by the level of slander involved?

"Anyway, they've certainly proved one thing; whatever may have happened in the past, the Republicans are intent on regaining the mantle of the Party of Lincoln."

That's a wonderful thought, and I think it's entirely true of millions of young, and older, Republicans. But I also think that "being intent" isn't the same as having a great depth of understanding of the fact that there still remains a tremendous amount of unconscious racism in the US (as in other countries), so that, yes, people with darker skins are, indeed, frequently treated a bit differently in many circumstances, at many times, than people who look very WASPy.

This difference of experience, and thus different perception, in one's daily life, that racism remains a serious ongoing experience in the lives of millions of Americans, is still a line drawn through America, on which people tend to live on on side or the other.

And while, sure, people can be paranoid about perceiving racism where little or none exists, it is my observation that this takes place rather less frequency than the actual different treatment taking place and whiter folks not seeing it, particularly since it doesn't happen to them, and they would never consciously do it themselves.

Meanwhile, while John Ashcroft remains Attorney General, and there are prominent Republicans such as Don Nickles, Conrad Burns, and so many others, in power in the Republican Party, I think the idea that the Republican Party has now purged itself of racism, since Lott is no longer Leader (but will merely remain a powerful senator, and probably important committee chair), is more of a wish than a reality. And yes, of course the Democratic Party has its long history of racism in the past, with still living extants such as Robert Byrd; of course. But the Democratic Party has been, in modern times, the party of civil rights, particularly since 1964, and the Republican Party has been the party that fought them, and that remains a fact that will still take a long time for future actions to (possibly) overcome. (Bill Frist also has a history of having aroused some racial tension to overcome, you know.)

The Republican Party could yet eventually, again, become the Party of civil rights. That would be wonderful. But it will take a lot of acts over some years, and actual accomplishments to make that a fact, and then a perception. Good intentions and good hearts among many ain't going to do it by its lonesome.

"Bread?" :-)

The Republican party has a lot to overcome to become, again, the Party of Lincoln. Most of these things are in the perception of the public rather than the realities of the party.

For example, on a recent call in radio show a black listener said the Lott affair would not be resolved just by Lott's resignation. It would require the removal of John Ashcroft and the other racists in the party. The host asked the caller to give examples of Ashcroft's words or actions that showed him to be a racist. He could provide such examples, but stated that "Everyone knows he's a racist and its up to him to prove that he's not."

Of course that's the problem. Liberals have been so successful in painting conservatives as racists (anti-affirmative action = racist) that few Republicans are given the benefit of the doubt by many blacks. If you are a Republican you a racist until proven otherwise!

David--
John Ashcroft gave an interview to Southern Partisan, a magazine devoted to defending the Confederacy, including this quote:
"Your magazine helps set the record straight. You've got a heritage of doing that, of defending Southern patriots like [Robert E.] Lee, [Stonewall] Jackson and [Jefferson] Davis. Traditionalists must do more. I've got to do more. We've all got to stand up and speak in this respect or else we'll be taught that these people were giving their lives, subscribing their sacred fortunes and their honor to some perverted agenda."

I won't get into the obligations of soldiers like Lee and Jackson. But Davis led a treasonous rebellion that was designed to preserve slavery. Even if the listener couldn't think of it right away, this makes some people (not just black) suspicious of Ashcroft.

Mr Weiner, Jefferson Davis didn't lead a 'treasonous rebellion'. He led the defense of a collection of states that had seceded from the Union. The North has to present that act as treason to justify the carnage of the subsequent war.

It's true that the major issue with secession was slavery. However, it's *not* true that the major issue for the North was the eradication of slavery. Or would you like to explain why it took Lincoln a couple of years and some victories before he issued the narrowly tailored document we know of as the Emancipation Proclamation?

It takes two to have a war, and it's long past time for the North to accept their share of the responsibility. And there is absolutely no shame in defending Southern heritage - why do Yankees insist on fighting the war all over again?

There will always be some wink-wink-nudge-nudge people around. And if you think they're all in the South you're sadly mistaken.

Incidentally, I was born in IL, and my ancestors fought on the Union side. But I know BS when I see it.

In the interests of maintaining standards in these dark days, I must don my mortarboard, wave a schoolmaster's cane threateningly, and with beetled brow, ask the editors of this site why they are saying that "Lott must be destroyed" when they most likely mean "Lott has been destroyed".

Mr Weiner, Jefferson Davis didn't lead a 'treasonous rebellion'. He led the defense of a collection of states that had seceded from the Union. The North has to present that act as treason to justify the carnage of the subsequent war.

In other words, you don't think the Civil War was immoral, which is kind of the entire point under discussion.

Jason McCullough: Mr. Weiner had spoken of treason, and I addressed that.

So you're saying the Civil War was immoral? Just so I'm sure where you're coming from, why is that?

I suggest that if you want to pursue this, you take it to email so as not to tie up bandwidth here.

As a middle aged white male with roots in the south,choosing between 2 parties that openly despise me isn't going to get me to the polls.

"Racism is dying"

May I politely say "Bullshit",much of the undercurrent in this has been very racist,the racial spoils system will only be more deeply imbedded,further alienating many voters.I take it you mean white bigots are publicly burned whlie more trendy bigots are not?Hearing "Hymietown" Jackson lecture on this is simply galling.The left in this country judges people solely on the color of their skin,not the content of their character.Hearing the anit-white racism expressed so openly distasteful.It's taken for granted and accepted,the post-colonial theory in practice,"White=bad".No,I doubt I'll be voting in '04 at all.Why should I?

>>May I politely say "Bullshit",much of the undercurrent in this has been very racist,the racial spoils system will only be more deeply imbedded,further alienating many voters.I take it you mean white bigots are publicly burned whlie more trendy bigots are not?Hearing "Hymietown" Jackson lecture on this is simply galling.The left in this country judges people solely on the color of their skin,not the content of their character.Hearing the anit-white racism expressed so openly distasteful.It's taken for granted and accepted,the post-colonial theory in practice,"White=bad".No,I doubt I'll be voting in '04 at all.Why should I?

Yeh. I was waiting for one of these posts, so that I could possibly suggest that the Left might have a decent chance at hanging onto the black vote for quite some while ...

>>Yeh. I was waiting for one of these posts, so that I could possibly suggest that the Left might have a decent chance at hanging onto the black vote for quite some while ...

Yeah I was waiting for one of those posts,so that I could suggest both parties and the smug twits attached to them,migh have a decent chance of keeping intellectuallyhonest voters away in droves for the foreseeable future.

BTW,Jane is indirectly right about latinos,the question is which party will unravel first,Republicans who face white defections trying to outbid the dems,or Democrats who face black defections trying to outbid the repubs.One way or another,it's going wreck the system.It will be interesting seeing what collations emerge from the wreakage.

BTW,Jane is indirectly right about latinos,the question is which party will unravel first,Republicans who face white defections trying to outbid the dems,or Democrats who face black defections trying to outbid the repubs.One way or another,it's going wreck the system.It will be interesting seeing what collations emerge from the wreakage.

Going back to the issue about coalitions and Jane's "Huh?" post: I'm arguing that the Democratic party is the party of people who aren't republican.

In theory, the democrats should be the party of social justice, and republicans the party of limited government. In practice, many urban central-left vote democrat, despite the presence of the loony left, because the republican ticket has too much baggage.

And look where carrying that baggage has lead the president. Bush's record is, by my count, appalling. Environment -- gutting forest and clean water protections. Abortion -- gutting family planning funding overseas. Foreign policy -- failing to win the war in Afghanistan. Repeatedly lying about the nature of the threat posed by Iraq. Steel tariffs. Textile tariffs. Ag. products tariffs (remember the farm bill?) Financial policy -- where are the program cuts to match the tax cuts? Ethics -- Henry Kissinger. Waiting to see which way the wind blew on Lott. Harken. Cheney's energy task force. Halliburton. The Lilly rider. Switching sides on Homeland Security Bill.

And so forth.

But let's keep it simple. Bush's single most important issue in the campaign was tax cuts, and to his credit he has delivered. but WHERE are the corresponding program cuts? Or is the republican party now the party of "pass the deficits to the democrats"?

To their credit, the republicans now may be facing one of their great demons -- racism. But its laughable to suggest that trent lott's demotion has expunged that cancer from the republican party once and for all. for example, take a look at www.atrios.blogspot.com for other examples of leading republicans (like the attorney general) giving favorable speeches to white power organizations. so either the republicans can close ranks, paper over the differences and say that they are cured (amen). Or they can continue to examine the moral deficit that is the Southern Strategy.

But in doing so, they may find that the social conservatives and fiscal conservatives no longer are allies. How do the social conservatives stay in a party that is making a major effort to reconsider the successes and failures of the civil rights movement and moving to ensure equality of opportunity? How do fiscal conservatives stay in a party which (reagan, bush I, bush II) are responsible for huge budget deficits?

And I still don't see any response to the issue I raised of party extremists controlling the primary process.

So, a honest reappraisal of the role of race in the republican party may break the spine of the democratic party by splitting its own black vote. But, I believe that if the republicans do engage in that sort of behavior, making a real effort to address those forces which led to Pete Wilson's support of Prop 187 in California, then the republicans may break their own spine as well.

And if as a result both parties find a way to pay less attention to their own extremists, then the country should be much better off.

merry xmas (and, for the non-christians, happy gregorian calendar new year)

But extremists always control the primary process anywhere a party holds a commanding majority -- just come to New York City to enjoy our annual Leftyfest if you don't believe me. Many of the people who control our primaries are people you wouldn't want running your Prom committee, much less the DNC -- they'd make the theme "Save the Whales" and you'd all have to do native Papuan dances while dining on Lentil Loaf and Spelt Salad. Sorry. I just had to let that out.

D -- I know what it means. . . I was referring to the Republicans who destroyed him, not the fact that he has now been displaced. I confess that with my limited knowlege of latin, I may have been forced into an inferior quote, but not an incorrect one. ;-)

Merry Christmas, everyone.

Yes, if the Southern GOP starts consistently declaring that racism is bad, the GOP will unquestionably have purged itself of racist appeals. But they're still nowhere near that -- as Paul Krugman pointed out recently, they're still trying to have it both ways. Consider Ashcroft's famous gushing 1998 praise in "Southern Partisan" for Jeferson Davis, Lee, Stonewall Jackson and their "agenda" -- and he made that comment in that magazine precisely because at the time he was hoping to use Republican Confederate sympathizers to boost him to the party's presidential nomination.

And, of course, we have Sonny Perdue and his upset victory for governor of Georgia made possible (as a county-by-county survey of the drop in Gov. Barnes' vote makes clear) only because he said the people of Georgia should be allowed to follow the people of Mississippi in voting to put a big Stars and Bars back on the state flag. (Of course, the people who wildly support this aren't at all sympathetic with or nostalgic for racism. Heavens, no! They just favor honoring the South's Historical Heritage, just like any Germans who want to put the swastika back on the German flag -- and just like the half of white voters in both South Carolina and Alabama who have voted in state referendums in the last four years to keep interracial marriages illegal.)

In short, the GOP is still more the Party of Davis than the party of Lincoln, as it has been since 1964 -- and it will be a while before it makes the transition back.

Postscript (before somebody drags this red herring out): yes, black racists are every bit as bad as white racists-- but they have vastly less power in this country for the simple reason that there are still far fewer of them, there being nine times more whites than blacks in the U.S. You'll never see the likes of Sharpton or Cynthia McKinney elected to any statewide office -- let alone becoming U.S. Attorney General or Congressional leader of their party. So let's keep our eyes on the main threat, eh?

Second postscript (regarding the James Byrd TV spot). There obviously is one set of circumstances in which assaults committed in the name of bigotry actually do more harm than those committed out of a cold-blooded desire for money, and should therefore receive additional punishment: those in which it can be proven (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the assault was committed not just to attack the victim, but to terrorize other members of a group to which the victim belonged. (One could, I suppose, argue that the bigoted component of the assault in such cases was a form of free speech -- like publishing a book recommending an ethnic massacre - but this would seem to be stretching the definition of free speech a bit.) Whether one could prove such intent in the case of Byrd's killers is very doubtful, but there are some others in which it can be proven.

Janey,

Did you, as Brad puts it, miss the big story? Sounds like it. Oh, but what am I saying. Please, let's keep this event partisan.

Lifted from Brad DeLong's site:

A Very Good Day for the Country
I wander on over to InstaPundit.Com to read about the reaction to Trent Lott's stepping-down as Senate Majority Leader:

--------------------------------------------------

"...a huge plus for the Republican Party..." "...this is the worst possible solution for the Democrats, who won’t have Trent Lott to kick around anymore as leader, but also won’t be getting a Democratic replacement in his seat..." "...this will be good for the Republicans in the long term..." "...Lott has stepped down as Majority Leader... a good deal for everyone involved except... the Democrats, who would have rather kept Lott around..."

--------------------------------------------------

My first reaction is: what narrow-minded dorks we have here!

Yes, Lott's resignation is (probably) good news for most Republican candidates up for election in 2004.

But that's not the big story.

The big story is that one of our two political parties has now taken a big step toward breaking the fetters of servitude that Richard Nixon fastened upon it when he decided on his Southern Strategy of nudge-nudge-wink-wink we-won't-enforce-the-civil-rights-laws that was so successful in getting people like Trent Lott to move over to the Republican Party.

It is a great day for the Republic. (It will be an even greater day when Nixon's fetters are completely broken.) Those of us in the Democratic Party are very happy to see something new in the Republican Party--that it contains real Men and Women, and large numbers of them, too.*

--------------------------------------------------

>> but they have vastly less power in this country for the simple reason that there are still far fewer of them, there being nine times more whites than blacks in the U.S.

Except that things don't work that way.

The power of a racist is not increased by the power of other folks who happen to have the same skin color.

Nope -- the power of a racist is increased when there are enough of them that they actually govern the politics of one or more states. Which is still the case with white racists in the Deep South (albeit less than used to be the case), and has never remotely been the case with American black racists.

>> the power of a racist is increased when there are enough of them that they actually govern the politics of one or more states.

And that's very different from Moomaw's original claim that racists had power because someone else with the same skin color had power.

Yes, there are some racists with political power in the US. Interestingly enough, some of them are Black.

BTW - Which states is Moomaw referring to and what is his evidence? (Before we get started - is it possible to disagree with the NAACP's plank and not be a racist? I ask because the NAACP's plank is almost a copy of the Dem's plank.)

Comments are Closed.