Breaking: Republicans are Racists Now So It's Okay

I'm not quite I understand what conservatives are doing when they bring this kind of thing up:

The original targets of the Ku Klux Klan were Republicans, both black and white, according to a new television program and book, which describe how the Democrats started the KKK and for decades harassed the GOP with lynchings and threats.

Which is precisely the point. Decades ago, the Democratic Party was, among other things, the political home of white supremacy in the United States. In the 1960s, the party's leadership decisively broke with that record. At around the same time, part of the rise of the conservative movement inside the Republican Party was the growing prominence of folks like Barry Goldwater who opposed the Civil Rights Act and who found in his 1964 campaign that the main electoral constituency for his brand of conservatism was . . . white supremacists. Other white supremacist politicians (some of whom, unlike Goldwater, would forever remain unrepentant) like Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms moved into the GOP column. And of course while explicit advocacy of segregation has long since vanished from the top ranks of the Republican Party, major conservative leaders have been heard in recent years issuing paens to the work of Thurmond and Helms, with key legislative leaders specifically regretting that Thurmond's 1948 white supremacist presidential campaign failed, and pointing to Helms as exemplifying what conservatism is all about.

But, yes, decades ago things were different.

Comments

Hey Matt, as a non-racist who reads your blog religiously, I've got to say, what's up with all of the racists in the comments section? Does that ever bother you (I'm not blaming you, I mean as a writer)? Why do legitimate writers on this site even link to some of them, like Steve Sailer?
Thanks.

Posted by Fuck Racism | July 11, 2008 12:55 PM

Whoa... did you just calle Barry Goldwater a "white supremecist politician"? I think you did. That's pretty fucked up. He was against the Civil Rights Act, and I think he was wrong on that, but I've never heard him accused of being a "white supremacist," like Thurmond or Helms.

As far as the Steve Sailer thing, he trolls about half of the blogs in the universe with his "gentleman racist" schtick. Matt isn't that special.

Posted by too many steves | July 11, 2008 1:01 PM

In the 1960s, the party's leadership decisively broke with that record. At around the same time, part of the rise of the conservative movement inside the Republican Party was the growing prominence of folks like Barry Goldwater who opposed the Civil Rights Act and who found in his 1964 campaign that the main electoral constituency for his brand of conservatism was . . . white supremacists. Other white supremacist politicians (some of whom, unlike Goldwater, would forever remain unrepentant) like Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms moved into the GOP column.

No. The Democrat leadership continued - and continues to this very day - to have racists white leaders, like Robert Byrd. Which completely undermines Matthew's thesis.

Meanwhile, Senator Obama cosponsored the Senate resolution that stated "Jesse Alexander Helms, Jr., made invaluable contributions to his community, State, Nation, and the world". Which also undermines Matthew's thesis.

Let's face it - as between the Republican Party and the Democrat Party, the Democrat Party has in the past been, and currently remains, the more racist of the two. Which is evidenced by the continuing leadership in the Democrat Party of outright racists like Byrd and Jim "The Confederacy was teh awsome" Webb.

Posted by Al | July 11, 2008 1:02 PM

When Edward Kennedy's brain tumor was announced I don't remember anyone reminding us all that he got away with manslaughter in his youth due to his rich political family connections.

It is human nature not to bring up the worst a man has done in his life at the time of his death.

Posted by bluesmoke | July 11, 2008 1:06 PM

Whoa... did you just calle Barry Goldwater a "white supremecist politician"? I think you did. That's pretty fucked up.

Better reading comprehension, please. He correctly stated that Goldwater originated a political movement which found its bedrock constituency among white supremacists.

Not to go off on a tangent, but it's weird the way anytime someone on the net touches on Goldwater, apologists leap out of the woodwork to remind us he was the greatest guy ever--and it doesn't even seem like they're conservatives half the time. Why is this guy such a sacred cow that it's gauche to make perfectly reasonable observations about his political career?

Posted by Jake H. | July 11, 2008 1:07 PM

I know exactly what they're doing. You know and I know and anyone else with a reasonable awareness of American political history knows that the parties switched sides on the race issue and that descriptions of the Democratic party's race record in the 19th century have nothing to do with the Democratic party of today. But there are millions and millions of potential voters out there who have only the vaguest understanding of what the two parties are all about, and if you keep repeating "Democrats founded the KKK" some proportion of those voters will conclude that the Democrats must have been racist all along. Yes, this will be easily rebutted by knowledgable people, but knowledgable people are not the target audience.

Posted by eohippus | July 11, 2008 1:11 PM

Matt wrote: "Other white supremacist politicians (some of whom, unlike Goldwater, would forever remain unrepentant)"

Sounds to me like he's including Goldwater in the category of "white supremacist politicians," just not "unrepentant white supremacist politicians."

I don't think Goldwater's a sacred cow, I just think it's a little unfair to call him a white supremacist.

Posted by too many steves | July 11, 2008 1:12 PM

Which is evidenced by the continuing leadership in the Democrat Party of outright racists like Byrd and Jim "The Confederacy was teh awsome" Webb.

Oh yeah, Jim Webb! Hey, remind me how he won that election--who was he running against again?

Posted by Jake H. | July 11, 2008 1:23 PM

"No. The Democrat leadership continued - and continues to this very day - to have racists white leaders, like Robert Byrd. Which completely undermines Matthew's thesis."

That would be the Robert Byrd who has now accumulated something like an 82% (i.e., high mixed, close to positive) record according to the NAACP? The one who now denounces the Klan?

This has to be one of the dumbest right-wing talking points on how the Democrats are really racists ever, and provides absolutely no persuasive warrant for the broader conclusions those parroting it like to draw.

It looks particularly stupid in the face of the serious possibility that our first black President will hail from the Democratic party.

Posted by Daniel Nexon | July 11, 2008 1:27 PM

and of course Byrd is a repentant former racist, not a current one like, I don't know, you.

Posted by dbt | July 11, 2008 1:27 PM

too many steves: I see what you mean now. I still don't get why it's "fucked up" to call a Civil Rights opponent a white supremacist, however. The shoe seems to fit.

For what it's worth, Goldwater is far, far down on the list of Republicans who exploited racist attitudes for political gain. Hello, President Nixon and Pat Buchanan.

Posted by Jake H. | July 11, 2008 1:28 PM

Let's face it - as between the Republican Party and the Democrat Party, the Democrat Party has in the past been, and currently remains, the more racist of the two. Which is evidenced by the continuing leadership in the Democrat Party of outright racists like Byrd and Jim "The Confederacy was teh awsome" Webb.

I shouldn't bother, but I need to ask. Have you ever known and lived among any hard-core racists? Real, honest to goodness white supremacists? I've known lots, and while I won't guarantee that every single one votes Republican in every single election, they *overwhelmingly* see themselves as conservative and Republican.

They burned churches and drove out black families where I lived in the early 90s. Good, god-fearing white conservatives.

Yammer on about the thoroughly repentant Byrd as much as you want, ignore the thoroughly unrepentant Helms as much as you want. None of it matters. The white supremacist vote goes Republican.

Ever been to Idaho, Al? Ever connect the radical white-supremacist presence in Idaho with the fact that it views with Utah for being *the* most Republican state? Ever been to the wrong parts of Appalachia, which are blood-red republican, and where black people don't go for fear of their safety? I have; that's where I grew up, and *I know*.

I'd like to think that you're merely ignorant of what real white supremacists are like, which is why I tried to phrase this as gently as I could.

Posted by Harvey Lobster | July 11, 2008 1:32 PM

To follow on to my last post, while the phrase "white supremacist" has connotations of extremism today, the attitudes it suggests were not extreme in Goldwater's era. White supremacy was a mainstream political cause, and opposition to Civil Rights and integration was its cause celebre. I don't know or care whether Goldwater harbored racist attitudes (I'm sure some apologist is lurking with a story about how he and MLK were pen pals or something) - I just don't think it's inaccurate to characterize him as a white supremacist politician at that point in his career. It doesn't mean he was out burning crosses on people's lawns.

Posted by Jake H. | July 11, 2008 1:34 PM

matt,
get someone to fix your comment system so that it:

a) disallows multiple posts
and
b) doesn't give '500' errors every time a comment is posted

long threads are completely unreadable since half the comments are duplicates and 1/4 of the rest are apologies for the duplicates.

Posted by cleek | July 11, 2008 1:34 PM

I'm black. Have some Republican "friends" who probably secretly hate me because I'm black.

Posted by Newcoon | July 11, 2008 1:39 PM

See, Republicans think blacks are stupid for voting something like 9-1 for those racist Democrats all the time... but that doesn't mean Republicans are racist.

Posted by SP | July 11, 2008 1:44 PM

There are obviously a lot more racists in power in the GOP than the Democratic Party, but I don't think there's a big difference in the level of racism among party members. Talk to some of those working-class white dems, union members, and ask them about the Mexicans. Or the Indians. Or anybody who took their jarbs.

Posted by too many steves | July 11, 2008 1:45 PM

OK, what's the deal with Robert Byrd and the Klan? He was a member and a local leader for many years in the 1940's (sixty years ago) and has not been involved in it since then. He has repudiated it and apologized for it repeatedly. Many people belonged to the Klan sixty years ago and held positions of racial hatred; most are either dead now, or Republican. Byrd is an outlier of the survivors because he has remained a Democrat. He is now a very old man, and his leadership derives from his age and his impassioned defense of Congressional power, especially to declare war.

And when he dies, his racism will be remembered.

The GOP honors Helms because he tested the envelope to find the best ways to make appeals to racism in the voters acceptable in the mainstream. It is worth noticing that he was first a broadcaster -- Helms is the father of Rush and talk radio.

Posted by Tom in Ma | July 11, 2008 1:46 PM

I marched arm in arm with MLK Jr.

Posted by Mitt Romney | July 11, 2008 1:48 PM

Here's another deeply relevant fact. The original enemies of the United States were the English. At the time of the country's founding and shortly thereafter the US fought two wars with England.

Posted by Retief | July 11, 2008 1:53 PM

See, Republicans think blacks are stupid for voting something like 9-1 for those racist Democrats all the time... but that doesn't mean Republicans are racist.

This perfectly captures the underlying contradiction of the talking point (if it could even be called that) that the Democrats are the real racists.

For a while, conservatives were having some fun with the idea that white Democratic leaders use blacks and don't put them in positions of authority ("The Democratic Plantation"), but now there are black guys in charge of House Judiciary and Ways & Means...oh, yeah, plus the guy running for President. So that whole thing kinda ran out of steam. But hey, JC Watts was in GOP Leadership for a while!

Posted by Jake H. | July 11, 2008 1:54 PM

It's pretty simple -- the target of these talking points is the Republican BASE.

It helps reduce the cognitive dissonance they feel when their leaders praise unrepentant racists like Helms, Thurmond, Lott, and the "Minutemen."

And inoculates them from charges of racism when they forward racially inspired smears of Obama to all their friends.

Because if the Democrats are the racist party, it makes what Republicans are doing today OK.

Posted by theo | July 11, 2008 1:56 PM

The GOP has had, and still has a lot of prominent bigots, but any member of a party which gave one of their limited number of speaking slots at their last national convention to Al Sharpton has no business singling out the opposing party for being tolerant of bigotry.

Posted by Will Allen | July 11, 2008 1:56 PM

To answer the question of which party is more racist I have two words for you: David Duke. Case closed.

Posted by freddiemac | July 11, 2008 2:16 PM

"Decades ago, the Democratic Party was, among other things, the political home of white supremacy in the United States."

It still is Matt. Isn't it the avowed position of Democrats generally and liberals specifically that blacks and some other minorities (women and Hispanics) are genetically or physically incapable of competing with whites (men) and some other minorities (Asians) on a level playfield? Hence the need for a lowering of qualifications in their favor via "affirmative action."

Posted by Chicounsel | July 11, 2008 2:17 PM

Yeah, Byrd has repudiated racism. He's no longer a racist. Sure.

He said years ago that he would never fight in the armed forces "with a Negro by my side.... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels." And just a few years ago, he called people n****rs on national TV.

He voted against the Civil Rights Act years ago. And he voted against Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice recently.

So, his "repudiation" of racism is BS. But, remember, the Democrats believe he is the Conscience of the Senate!

Posted by Al | July 11, 2008 2:18 PM

This stuff is like saying that because some guy named his kid Mikey 80 years ago and that kid was a nice kid, any kid named Mikey today is also a nice kid, or that because a lot of church-going folk were against women wearing pants 140 years ago, all church-going folk today must also be against women wearing pants.

It's terrible that people fall for it.

Posted by Swan | July 11, 2008 2:26 PM

Was Barry Goldwater a white-supremacist? No. Did he owe the smal number of electoral votes he did get to a functionally racist political position: opposing federal civil rights legislation. Yep?

Goldwater didn't win over libertarian minded Westerners in 1964 who just wanted to be left along to hunt, make money and enjoy the land, even if he was one of them. He won over white southerners who wanted to left alone so they could stomp all over black people. Was their any other reason for Goldwater winning the deep south?

Posted by am | July 11, 2008 2:29 PM

Yes, Thomas and Rice have proven to be such brilliant, well-qualified, faultless public servants that racism must be the only reason to have opposed them.

Surely you don't actually believe what you're saying.

I usually don't like it when people accuse you of being a paid shill, but I hope that you're getting some sort of money to shovel out crap like that.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | July 11, 2008 2:31 PM

Chicounsel:

You are either profoundly ignorant, or profoundly disingenuous on the subject of affirmative action.

Posted by Ryan | July 11, 2008 2:32 PM

But the Obamamessiah is catering to those very same bigots and racists.

Get ready, NASCAR fans.... here comes the ObamamessiahMoblie!

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/tom_bowles/07/11/obama/index.html

Oh the humanity!

Posted by Rednecks Fer Obama | July 11, 2008 2:33 PM

Al wrote:

He said years ago that he would never fight in the armed forces "with a Negro by my side.... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels."

He said that 63 years ago.

Al wrote:

And just a few years ago, he called people n****rs on national TV.

Maybe you're referring to this:

In a March 4, 2001 interview with Tony Snow, Byrd said of race relations:

They're much, much better than they've ever been in my lifetime... I think we talk about race too much. I think those problems are largely behind us... I just think we talk so much about it that we help to create somewhat of an illusion. I think we try to have good will. My old mom told me, 'Robert, you can't go to heaven if you hate anybody.' We practice that. There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time. I'm going to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much.

Byrd's use of the term white nigger created immediate controversy. When asked about it, Byrd responded,

I apologize for the characterization I used on this program... The phrase dates back to my boyhood and has no place in today's society... In my attempt to articulate strongly held feelings, I may have offended people.

So what Al is complaining about is that Byrd, a Democrat, called white people "niggers." Oh.

You can also find the following about Byrd on Wikipedia and check out their links:

In 2006, Byrd received 67% rating from the ACLU for supporting rights-related legislation.

Byrd has since explicitly renounced his earlier views on racial segregation. Byrd said that he regrets filibustering and voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and would change it if he had the opportunity. He has stated that joining the KKK was "the greatest mistake I ever made". Byrd has also said that his views changed dramatically after his teenage grandson was killed in a 1982 traffic accident, which put him in a deep emotional valley. "The death of my grandson caused me to stop and think," said Byrd, adding he came to realize that black people love their children as much as he does his.

In his latest autobiography, Byrd explained that he was a member because he "was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision—a jejune and immature outlook—seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions." Byrd also said, in 2005,

I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened.

Posted by Swan | July 11, 2008 2:39 PM

I am a liberal raised in a Southern household. The issue was never party, it was ideology. If I were voting in TN or AL in the 1950s, I would have been a Republican. Nowadays, I vote for Democrats. But the constant relevant thread has been liberalism -- which was utterly vindicated in the civil rights struggle -- versus Southern conservatives, who were utterly unmasked to the world. Everything else the conservatives are saying here is smokescreen and apology for the racism of Southern conservatism.

Posted by Dr. Victor Davis Handjob | July 11, 2008 2:41 PM

Let it be noted that David Duke has run for political office as a Democrat as well, but more importantly, Duke has nevered been honored by the Republicans with a speaking slot at their national convention, and as noxious as David Duke is, he never stood silently by at a public event while an associate implored a crowd to harm a black business owner by saying "Make this nigger suffer!", prior to a homicidal firebombing. Duke never, to my knowledge, called for white people to drive "black interlopers" out of a white neighborhood, in the weeks leading up to a black person's business being firebombed.

This is the equivalent of what Sharpton did in New York in the mid '90s (I won't even go into his very lightly veiled virulent anti-semitism during and after the Crowne Heights riots), and this is the sort of person Democrats thought fit to have a speaking slot at their national convention in 2004. This is the sort of person many prominent Democratic candidates have thought it was important to be seen consulting with prior to elections.

Democrats have no business delivering lectures on the toleration of bigots.

Posted by Will Allen | July 11, 2008 2:41 PM

Al wrote:

He said years ago that he would never fight in the armed forces "with a Negro by my side.... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels."

He said that 63 years ago.

Al wrote:

And just a few years ago, he called people n****rs on national TV.

Maybe you're referring to this:

In a March 4, 2001 interview with Tony Snow, Byrd said of race relations:

They're much, much better than they've ever been in my lifetime... I think we talk about race too much. I think those problems are largely behind us... I just think we talk so much about it that we help to create somewhat of an illusion. I think we try to have good will. My old mom told me, 'Robert, you can't go to heaven if you hate anybody.' We practice that. There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time. I'm going to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much.

Byrd's use of the term white nigger created immediate controversy. When asked about it, Byrd responded,

I apologize for the characterization I used on this program... The phrase dates back to my boyhood and has no place in today's society... In my attempt to articulate strongly held feelings, I may have offended people.

So what Al is complaining about is that Byrd, a Democrat, called white people "niggers." Oh.

You can also find the following about Byrd on Wikipedia and check out their links:

In 2006, Byrd received 67% rating from the ACLU for supporting rights-related legislation.

Byrd has since explicitly renounced his earlier views on racial segregation. Byrd said that he regrets filibustering and voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and would change it if he had the opportunity. He has stated that joining the KKK was "the greatest mistake I ever made". Byrd has also said that his views changed dramatically after his teenage grandson was killed in a 1982 traffic accident, which put him in a deep emotional valley. "The death of my grandson caused me to stop and think," said Byrd, adding he came to realize that black people love their children as much as he does his.

In his latest autobiography, Byrd explained that he was a member because he "was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision—a jejune and immature outlook—seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions." Byrd also said, in 2005,

I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened.

Posted by Swan | July 11, 2008 2:41 PM

So what kind of car will it be?

A tricked-out Escalante?

A low-riding Honda with those ridiculous little wheels?

A jacked up Cutlass Supreme with rim spinners?

This could be fun.

Posted by Homie the Clown | July 11, 2008 2:42 PM

So, his "repudiation" of racism is BS.

Hmm. To make his point, Al pulls a quote from 1944(!), a vote from 1964, and a comment he made about white people, for which he apologized by saying "I apologize for the characterization I used on this program... The phrase dates back to my boyhood and has no place in today's society."

Of course, anything to prove that the Democratic party, which gets 90% of the black vote and has been the party of 91 of the 94 black Congressman since WW2, somehow has more problems with race than the grand Old party.

But anyone who votes against Clarence Thomas must be a racist, right?

Posted by Brad L | July 11, 2008 2:43 PM

Sorry, I forgot that Matt's site is programmed to screw up html. Let me try this again:

Al wrote:

He said years ago that he would never fight in the armed forces "with a Negro by my side.... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels."

He said that 63 years ago.

Al wrote:

And just a few years ago, he called people n****rs on national TV.

Maybe you're referring to this:

In a March 4, 2001 interview with Tony Snow, Byrd said of race relations:

They're much, much better than they've ever been in my lifetime... I think we talk about race too much. I think those problems are largely behind us... I just think we talk so much about it that we help to create somewhat of an illusion. I think we try to have good will. My old mom told me, 'Robert, you can't go to heaven if you hate anybody.' We practice that. There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time. I'm going to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much.

Byrd's use of the term white nigger created immediate controversy. When asked about it, Byrd responded,

"I apologize for the characterization I used on this program... The phrase dates back to my boyhood and has no place in today's society... In my attempt to articulate strongly held feelings, I may have offended people."

So what Al is complaining about is that Byrd, a Democrat, called white people "niggers." Oh.

You can also find the following about Byrd on Wikipedia and check out their links:

In 2006, Byrd received 67% rating from the ACLU for supporting rights-related legislation.

Byrd has since explicitly renounced his earlier views on racial segregation. Byrd said that he regrets filibustering and voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and would change it if he had the opportunity. He has stated that joining the KKK was "the greatest mistake I ever made". Byrd has also said that his views changed dramatically after his teenage grandson was killed in a 1982 traffic accident, which put him in a deep emotional valley. "The death of my grandson caused me to stop and think," said Byrd, adding he came to realize that black people love their children as much as he does his.

In his latest autobiography, Byrd explained that he was a member because he "was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision—a jejune and immature outlook—seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions." Byrd also said, in 2005, "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."

Posted by Swan | July 11, 2008 2:48 PM

When Edward Kennedy's brain tumor was announced I don't remember anyone reminding us all that he got away with manslaughter in his youth due to his rich political family connections.

Ah, remember that bastion of good taste Will Allen spent many, many, posts telling us how important it was to forget Jesse Helms' racism by focusing on Kennedy's "murder." Yes, that's right. Will Allen is so incredibly braindead that he accuses Kennedy of actually intending to harm his passenger. But, no, no one will mention this at Kennedy's death.

As for Will Allen's idiocy concerning Sharpton - let's not forget that the Republicans are still courting the terrorists of the KKK. The difference bewteen asking Sharpton to speak and electing Nixon speaks volumes. Nixon was elected by appealing to the people who firebombed churches, burned crosses on lawns and hanged peopel for not being white. Every Republican President has relied on those same people to continue voting for them. While their numbers have been dwindling, the racist base of the Republican Party is generally greater than their margin of victory.

Will Allen's fundamental racism reveals itself once again.

Posted by Not As Stupid As Will Allen | July 11, 2008 2:55 PM

As for Will Allen's idiocy concerning Sharpton - let's not forget that the Republicans are still courting the terrorists of the KKK.

Let's not forget Republican luminaries like Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell who said we were to blame for 9/11. Jeremiah Wright said 9/11 was caused by bad U.S. foreign policy, and they wanted to lynch him and Obama. Yet after Pat and Jerry say that god brought 9/11 on us because of the gays, they got a direct line to the White House.

Sorry, but Republicans don't just attract bigotry, they celebrate it.

Posted by LFC | July 11, 2008 3:08 PM

Lying again, I see, meathead (and really, is it polite to threadjack nearly all the time in order for you to satisfy your obsession with me?), in that I specifically wrote that I had no problem with the mention of Helms' racism. Also, you are lying when you say I accused Kenndy of "murder". I did not. Stop lying, please. I will say, however, that failing to attempt to contact authorities while his victim might still have been rescued can reasonably be said to have been a willingness to allow his victim to die rather than face the career consequences for his actions.

Glad to see you have little problem with giving speaking slots at national conventions to people who stand by silently at public events while their associates at the podium call for making niggers, or crackers, or any other bigoted label for a person suffer, prior to murderous firebombings. How decent of you.

Posted by Will Allen | July 11, 2008 3:11 PM

Of course Al is going to mis-characterize stuff: he's a Republican. "The party which repudiated its past and learned to love lying because it brought power."

A title that would take Charles Ives to put to music.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 11, 2008 3:13 PM

Will Allen is, of course, the same fellow who defends the Iraq war, defends Jesse Helms' "staunch anti-communism" (i.e. support for bloodthirsty capitalist tyrants in Central America), supports America's Cold War against Cuba, and speaks about Henry Wallace and Jesse Helms in the same breath. It's hard to see why anyone would take anything he has to say seriously.

Posted by Hector | July 11, 2008 3:36 PM

Remember when Bush launched military attacks on Iraq that killed countless civilians, wrongly imprisoned Iraqis and abused those prisoners, and got thousands of American soldiers killed or permanently injured in Iraq, and then just kept right on letting those soliders be wounded and killed even though the occupation of Iraq wasn't becoming more stable or peaceful? What a mass-murderer!

On top of it, Bush won't even get off of the plane when he's in a country inhabited primarily by brown-skinned people, unless they're rich and expect him to bow down for their oil, in which case he'll walk through their flower gardens with them while holding hands with them (which in America makes him look like a homosexual).

Sounds like a genocidal maniac to me!

Posted by Swan | July 11, 2008 3:50 PM

defends Jesse Helms' "staunch anti-communism"

As did the resolution that Harry Reid sponsored and Barack Obama cosponsored.

Posted by Al | July 11, 2008 3:52 PM

Hector is the same fellow who has asserted that human beings are properly thought to be property of the state, thus the state is not responsible for their deaths when the state prohibits their emigration by safe means, forcing them to risk their lives via attempting emigration by extremely unsafe means. Hector is lying when he asserts I defended Jesse Helms' staunch anti-communism. Hector lies a lot. I wrote that Helms was quite likely a disgusting bigot and a staunch-anticommunist.

Now, it may be that what appears to be dishonest in Hector's posts is merely the result of his illiteracy. For instance, when I wrote that Henry Wallace supported Stalinists, and that Stalinism had resulted in more murders than all noncommunist dictators combined, and that Wallace was not infected with racism, Hector replied that I had asserted that Wallace was a Stalinist.

Hector either can't read, or is a pathological liar. Either way, it is hard to see why anyone would take anything he has to say seriously.

Posted by Will Allen | July 11, 2008 3:53 PM

Remember when the Republicans implemented a bunch of policies including "War on Drugs" policies that turned blacks' neighborhoods into crime-promoting environments, or didn't help blacks even though blacks obviously have troubles, so that instead of growing up more like white kids in middle-class neighborhoods, tons of black guys grew up to steal somebody's car, rape some woman, or shoot some innocent bystander in the head?

Sounds to me like a lot of people who have had a relative hurt by a black person can lay the blame pretty squarely with the Republicans! I really don't recall black kids from middle-class and affluent neighborhoods growing up to be gangsters. It seems to me with their idiotic racist policies the Republicans have basically single-handedly created violetn street crime in America. What a bunch of human rights violators!

I personally would be much happier if there were no more Republicans.

Posted by Swan | July 11, 2008 3:57 PM

I can't believe I'm the only person annoyed enough at the use of "Democrat" party to mention it. Actually, can anyone clue me in to why some conservatives insist on using this term? Are they trying to avoid the implication that the Democrats are more interested in democracy?

But yes, none of these arguments are made in good faith. The difference between Byrd and Helms is too plainly obvious for there to be any other explaination.

Posted by MosBen | July 11, 2008 3:57 PM

I'll also note that in the posts attacking me, mostly by lying about what I posted in other threads, it is not disputed that Democrats think is is tolerable to give speaking slots at their national convention to someone who stands silently by while an associate at a public event calls for making another human being suffer, while employing racist and bigoted invective, prior to a homicidal firebombng. Nor is it disputed that Democrats think it acceptable to give such a speaking slot to such a person who has also called for an "interloper" to be driven from a neighborhood, based upon the "interloper's" skin color, in the weeks leading up to the firebombing.

Posted by Will Allen | July 11, 2008 4:10 PM

Al,

The Democratic Party is just another wing of the same liberal-capitalist establishment, and was only slightly less enthusiastic Cold Warriors then the Republicans. That much has been obvious for a long time, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that Harry Reid and Barack Obama signed onto a resolution praising Helms' conduct of the Cold War.

No one is 'forcing' disloyal Cubans to run away to America by any means, safe or unsafe. They are welcome to stay and be good citizens by working for the common good of Cuba.

As for 'lying'...

Re: I rather suspect that Jesse Helms was a disgusting bigot who had the virtue of being a staunch anti-communist, much like, say, Henry Wallace was disgustingly soft on communism while having the virtue of not being terribly racist.

You said being a 'staunch anti-communist' in the mold of Jesse Helms was a virtue, ergo you approved of Jesse Helms' anticommunism, if not his racism. Of course, they were the same thing at bottom for Helms, maybe not for you. Wallace was a true hero of his time, much like you and Helms are true scumbags of your time, and liars as well.

Posted by Hector | July 11, 2008 4:10 PM

Democrats have no business delivering lectures on the toleration of bigots.

Leaving aside the fact that the Democratic party is the home to the vast majority of actual elected black people, there is something odd about trying to paint the party with the brush of one convention speaker (out of about 60).

I'd similarly not make too much out of the fact that 7 of the Republican speakers were entertainers of some variety (not including, of course, Gov. Schwarzenegger, but including a former Miss America). Rather than show that the Republicans are the party of the Hollywood elite (complete with actor-hero Reagan as their patron saint), what this really points out is the relative insignificance of being a speaker at one of these things.

Posted by Brad L | July 11, 2008 4:16 PM

Hector, Stalin eventually was a staunch anti-nazi. This was a virtue of Stalin, which does not obviate the fact that Stalin was every bit as bad, if not worse, than Hitler. Got it, liar? Or do you want to assert again that I claimed Wallace was a Stalinist? Yes, I undertand you consider people who supported Stalinists to be heroes, but that is your problem.

Yes, I understand you think that state has the legitimate power to prevent people from using safe means to leave a polity that they would like to leave, and thus the state is not responsible for their deaths if they then try to use very unsafe means to leave the polity. That makes you a moral idiot. Congratulations.

Posted by Will Allen | July 11, 2008 4:20 PM

You are right Hector that no one does take him seriously. I amuse myself by pointing out his lunacy - but hell, half the time I don't even bother to read his responses. He isn't even bright enough to come out of the 70s for his insults.

As for Will's amazing ability to conflate remarkably unequal things - $1 is not the same as $100,000. Al Sharpton's bad acts in no way compare to the vile history of the American terrorists the KKK. Nothing makes up for the fact that the Republican Party actively courted these people away from the Democrats. The Dixiecrats were shameful. The Republican courting of those thugs (Gramm, Helms, Thurmond) was vile beyond belief. Those voters should have been left without any representation at the national level.

Nothing changes the fact that Nixon, Reagan, and the Bush duo relied on terrorists and terrorist sympathizers to gain power.

That Will Allen can't tell the difference between a single incident and a pattern of behavior stretching back now three decades is at the heart of why no person can take his apologia for racists seriously.

Posted by Not As Stupid As Will Allen | July 11, 2008 4:22 PM

OK, Hector just gave the game away. His whole persona here must be an elaborate joke, right? How else to explain this:

"No one is 'forcing' disloyal Cubans to run away to America by any means, safe or unsafe. They are welcome to stay and be good citizens by working for the common good of Cuba."

Dude, seriously? Defectors are "disloyal Cubans"? No one really talks that way, do they?

I'm glad I figured this out. Hector was starting to get to me there. Every time I saw his name I wanted to interject by saying horrible things about the Virgin Mary. Like some case of Hector-triggered blasphemous tourette's.

Posted by too many steves | July 11, 2008 4:24 PM

Will Allen,

You said that Helms had the virtue of being a staunch anticommunist, which means that in your book staunch opposition to regimes like Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Vietnam is a virtue. Do you deny it? I.e. you agree with Helms' Fascist policy towards Latin America. You are a scumbag almost as bad as Helms, you think that the United States should impose capitalist "democracy' on darker skinned people so that you can live in comfort and pleasure while the peasants don't have enough to eat. Not only that, but you then lie about it. Scumbag.

Posted by Hector | July 11, 2008 4:28 PM

Well, perhaps 'disloyal' is too strong. I have some strong criticisms of the Cuban socialist state, but I still think it is better than the alternative, and I think it has much, much more good than evil to its credit. I think, yes, that Cubans do have the moral obligation to try to contribute to building socialism in Cuba. I wouldn't make it a _legal_ obligation though, and I think it was both wrong and counterproductive for the Cuban government to restrict emigration though I see why they did so.

But yes, I'm definitely more for than against the Cuban socialist regime, and very proud of it.

Posted by Hector | July 11, 2008 4:33 PM

Apparently, Brad L., your undertanding of the word "bigot" is such that you think the relative percentages of one set of elected people of a particular skin color in two parties leads to some sort of logical conclusions regarding relative amounts of tolerated bigotry within two parties. Your understanding of the term "bigot", or your undertsanding of logic is likely very flawed.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be also claiming that the fact that, out of tens of millions of Democrats available, the fact that one of sixty speaking slots at a national convention was given to a man, who has been deeply involved in the most vile bigoted rhetoric leading up to a homocidal firebombing, does not have implications regarding Democrats' toleration of bigotry.

I respectfully must say your reasoning process seems extraordinarily flawed.

Posted by Will Allen | July 11, 2008 4:34 PM

"Remember when the Republicans implemented a bunch of policies including "War on Drugs" policies that turned blacks' neighborhoods into crime-promoting environments, or didn't help blacks even though blacks obviously have troubles, so that instead of growing up more like white kids in middle-class neighborhoods, tons of black guys grew up to steal somebody's car, rape some woman, or shoot some innocent bystander in the head?"

Posted by Swan | July 11, 2008 3:57 PM

Hey Swan, remember who it was who were demanding increased prison time for those who were dealing crack cocaine and engaged in drive-by-shooting in black neighborhoods was none other than Charlie Rangle and the rest of Congressional Black Caucus. Do you also remember that prior to 1994, the Democrats were charge of the House for 40 years and it was they who passed all those nasty, evil "War on Drugs" laws and programs.

This was obviously before Maxine Waters discovered that it was the CIA that was flooding her district with crack. As well as, before the different prison terms for crack versus powered cocaine became evidence for the "institutional racism" that is inherent in the criminal justice system and American society as a whole.

But since liberals are not known for their intellectual consistency, it apparently never dawns on them that it was their own policies that have caused the problems that are destroying the very people that they claim to care for.

Posted by Chicounsel | July 11, 2008 4:35 PM

"Remember when the Republicans implemented a bunch of policies including "War on Drugs" policies that turned blacks' neighborhoods into crime-promoting environments, or didn't help blacks even though blacks obviously have troubles, so that instead of growing up more like white kids in middle-class neighborhoods, tons of black guys grew up to steal somebody's car, rape some woman, or shoot some innocent bystander in the head?"

Posted by Swan | July 11, 2008 3:57 PM

Hey Swan, remember who it was who were demanding increased prison time for those who were dealing crack cocaine and engaged in drive-by-shooting in black neighborhoods was none other than Charlie Rangle and the rest of Congressional Black Caucus. Do you also remember that prior to 1994, the Democrats were charge of the House for 40 years and it was they who passed all those nasty, evil "War on Drugs" laws and programs.

This was obviously before Maxine Waters discovered that it was the CIA that was flooding her district with crack. As well as, before the different prison terms for crack versus powered cocaine became evidence for the "institutional racism" that is inherent in the criminal justice system and American society as a whole.

But since liberals are not known for their intellectual consistency, it apparently never dawns on them that it was their own policies that have caused the problems that are destroying the very people that they claim to care for.

Posted by Chicounsel | July 11, 2008 4:37 PM

The Democratic party started breaking with the party's record when President Truman integrated the military in 1948 and supported Hubert Humphrey's anti-segregationist plank at the Democratic National Convention. The States' Rights Democratic Party, more commonly known as the Dixiecrats, split from the Democratic party in protest and adopted the Confederate flag as their standard.

After he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, LBJ said, "we have lost the South for a generation," and he was right. The Republican Party began courting racism with its Southern Strategy, as explained by Karl Rove's mentor, Lee Atwater:

You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.

Posted by croatoan | July 11, 2008 4:44 PM

Yes, Hector, I said staunch anticommunism was a virtue. So was staunch anti-nazism. You, on the other hand, think a person who supported Stalinists can be a hero. How thoughtful of you.

Meathead, you really can't write a single post without lying, can you? "Single bad act", indeed.

Posted by Will Allen | July 11, 2008 4:47 PM

You don't have to mince words about "supporting Stalinists" with Hector. Hector's just a Stalinist, plain and simple.

Now I'm sure Hector will correct me on how Castro is no Stalin, and he'd never support Stalin, but "Stalinism" to me means more than literal support for Stalin. It's an ideology based on denial of basic human rights, elevation of the state above all else, nationalization of everything, and particularly state monopolization of history & information. I'd call Hector a Christofacist, but it would get his sacred undershorts all in a wad to be called a fascist. Fascists are the authoritarians he doesn't like. I'm sure there's a very subtle difference between that and the authoritarians he does like.

I don't mean "authoritarian" in the glib way Al throws it around in reference to liberals. Not "authoritarian" as in, "those anti-smoking Nazis are such authoritarians," but "authoritarian" as in, "those actual Nazis were such authoritarians." I guess "totalitarian" is the better term. Or "asshole."

Posted by too many steves | July 11, 2008 5:08 PM

... Isn't it the avowed position of Democrats generally and liberals specifically that blacks and some other minorities (women and Hispanics) are genetically or physically incapable of competing with whites (men) and some other minorities (Asians) on a level playfield? Hence the need for a lowering of qualifications in their favor via "affirmative action."

Your knowledge of the reason for Affirmative Action is on the same level as my three-year-olds knowledge of string theory.

Affirmative action has nothing to do with minorities being "incapable of competing with whites" -- it was created to keep racist white people from discriminating in their hiring and selection processes.

Not sure if you really don't know that, if you're lying about it. My guess is the latter.

Posted by Mark D | July 11, 2008 5:15 PM

your undertanding of the word "bigot" is such that you think the relative percentages of one set of elected people of a particular skin color in two parties leads to some sort of logical conclusions regarding relative amounts of tolerated bigotry within two parties.

That's an awfully tortured sentence.

If you are asking whether I think it means anything about a party's general racial tolerance that 90% of black people vote Democrat, and that 90% of the black elected Congressman are Democrats, I suppose I do.

Are you suggesting the opposite - that the fact that black people shun the Republican party both as voters and politicians has no implications about whether the party faithful are equally (or, per Al , more) welcoming of black people? That would be a strange outcome indeed.

But let me ask: why do you suppose there is such an incredible tilt? I admit, tolerance of bigotry seems like an Occam's Razor sort of answer.

you seem to be also claiming that the fact that, out of tens of millions of Democrats available, the fact that one of sixty speaking slots at a national convention was given to a man, who has been deeply involved in the most vile bigoted rhetoric leading up to a homocidal firebombing, does not have implications regarding Democrats' toleration of bigotry.

Ok, I confess I didn't really know about the incident in question, so I looked it up. I was a bit surprised at the connection between the protests and the later crime; as you describe it, I thought Sharpton had a bit more to do with the actual event, like being present at a riot that got out of hand or something. The rhetoric mentioned ("white interloper") is not particularly pleasant, but not something I would think "leads" to mass murder.

And yes, that is exactly what I am suggesting. Similarly, I don't think the Republicans inclusion of Archbishop Egan make them the pro-pedophilia party. It makes for a good chance to get morally outraged, but actually means very little about the 60m people that voted Republican in the last election.

Are we seriously arguing that the Republican party is just as racially tolerant as the Democratic party?

Posted by Brad L | July 11, 2008 5:17 PM

Are we seriously arguing that the Republican party is just as racially tolerant as the Democratic party?

No, there are no rational people aruging that position. Only dimwitted morons like Will Allen and Chico Unsel - smearing the good name of the Marx brother. Just as Jesse Helms did more damage with his support of muderous dictators than if he had murdered a human being with his bare hands, so too does Sharpton's bad act in no way compare with the Republican Party giving aid and comfort to those thugs in our society who terrorized our citizens. Idiots like Will Allen pollute our discourse by pretending that the choices are black and white and that ecru is exactly the same as black.

Sure, it isn’t rational, but then neither is supporting the murder of foreigners because you believe that we own their resources.

Posted by Not As Stupid As Will Allen | July 11, 2008 5:27 PM

Brad, you still seem to be of the impression that bigotry is some sort of exclusively anti-black phenomena. It is not. Also, the piece you linked fails to mention Sharpton standing by silently while an associate speaking to the crowds Sharpton also regularly addressed promised that the crowd would "make this cracker suffer", prior to the firebombing. The fact that it was not immediately prior to the firebombing seems to be mitigating for you. Imagine some Republican "preacher", who was invited to speak to the Republican National Convention, who had previously stood by silently, while an associate stood in front of a white crowd picketing a black-owned business, promising that "the nigger will suffer". Would you consider it mitigating that the business wasn't immediately firebombed, but only later?

Are we seriously arguing that Democrats aren't just as willing to tolerate bigots, when the bigots' support is sought? Democrats will be just as solicitous of black bigots as Republicans are of white bigots. Which is why New York elected Democrats in particular have made a habit over the years of being seen "consulting" with the likes of Sharpton in election season.

Posted by Will Allen | July 11, 2008 5:38 PM

Yeah, Al "one bad act" Sharpton. Meathead, you truly may be the most dishonest person on the planet. You cannot utter a phrase without lying, can you?

Posted by Will Allen | July 11, 2008 5:47 PM

Brad, you still seem to be of the impression that bigotry is some sort of exclusively anti-black phenomena. It is not.

I've left the issue of general bigotry vs. specific racism to the side, largely because it is a little too complicated to really dig into in this format.

I'll say that I think, philosophically, bigotry is not to be tolerated. In practice, the fact that there is a deeper history of suffering of one group at the hands of another is a very important context, and affects my personal judgment of individual incidents. In the Rev Wright kerfuffle, for example, it matters to me that he was alive during segregation when I think about his viewpoint (it also matters to me that he actually served his country, something that seems to be forgotten).

Put bluntly, in the real world, cracker != n---er.

(Additionally, I've just never thought that cracker was a word with any particular emotional resonance, and certainly not the kind that n---er has).

The fact that it was not immediately prior to the firebombing seems to be mitigating for you. Imagine some Republican "preacher", who was invited to speak to the Republican National Convention, who had previously stood by silently, while an associate stood in front of a white crowd picketing a black-owned business, promising that "the nigger will suffer". Would you consider it mitigating that the business wasn't immediately firebombed, but only later?

I do think that holding people accountable for actions that they didn't promote and were not present for is a stretch. I'd need to know more to really feel like Sharpton was guilty-by-association (which is really the nut of the argument here). I am fairly predisposed against such arguments; I think most people are responsible for their own actions.

Are we seriously arguing that Democrats aren't just as willing to tolerate bigots, when the bigots' support is sought? Democrats will be just as solicitous of black bigots as Republicans are of white bigots.

Yes. You know where the "tell" is? It's in the slips, the fact that you get the Trent Lott, Pat "Spearchucker" Buchanan, and George Allen type of gaffes (as well as more obvious race-baiters like Thurmond or Helms). Where are the equivalents amongst Dem elected officials, particularly those of high standing?

You are right that if the test is purity, nobody will pass. There's always a certain amount of accepting the voters that you have and the voters that you need. All the same, there just is no real equivalence here.

Posted by Brad L | July 11, 2008 6:08 PM

Brad L., if you want to make the case that the leader of a protest movement is not responsible for his inaction, when an associate stands in front of a crowd and uses racist rhetoric to incite the crowd to make the target of the racist rhetoric suffer, well, you just go right ahead.

Every prominent elected Democrat in New York has pandered to the vile Sharpton, because getting out the bigoted black vote is critical. That's why Sharpton was invited to speak at Democratic National Convention.

I highly suspect that you are being dishonest in your assertion regarding how you would view a white Republican speaker at their convention, if the speaker had spoken of "black interlopers" being driven from neighborhoods, or had stood by silently while an associate used racist rhetoric while promising to make a black man suffer. If I am wrong, I apologize.

Posted by Will Allen | July 11, 2008 6:28 PM

Will the moron keeps harping on Sharpton, not because there is any moral equivalence between Sharpton and Nixon, Reagan, Bush, and Bush who all used to varying degrees the legacy of racism to gain power, but because by claiming such he can pretend that his votes for murdering Iraqis was a "balanced and thoughtful" decision.

Like his defense of Helms, this is stupid.

Will's motto: "And why beholdest thou the beam that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the mote that is in thine own eye?"

Posted by Not as Bloodthirsty as robert powell | July 11, 2008 7:25 PM

Will the moron keeps harping on Sharpton, not because there is any moral equivalence between Sharpton and Nixon, Reagan, Bush, and Bush who all used to varying degrees the legacy of racism to gain power, but because by claiming such he can pretend that his votes for murdering Iraqis was a "balanced and thoughtful" decision.

Like his defense of Helms, this is stupid.

Will's motto: "And why beholdest thou the beam that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the mote that is in thine own eye?"

Posted by Not As Stupid As Will Allen | July 11, 2008 7:26 PM

Brad L., if you want to make the case that the leader of a protest movement is not responsible for his inaction, when an associate stands in front of a crowd and uses racist rhetoric to incite the crowd to make the target of the racist rhetoric suffer, well, you just go right ahead.

Sure, he's responsible for his inaction, and I would need to see a better account of this to make a personal judgment about what his sin really is here.

But there's a chasm to cross between being responsible for not objecting to overheated rhetoric that someone else is saying, and being responsible, in any meaningful way, for a mass murder that takes place some time later.

Then, putting all of that in the context of a convention slot (did you know Dorothy Hamill spoke at the Republican convention?) -- well, it just doesn't seem like there is a whole lot of there there. Enough to say that there is no such thing as purity, but not enough to mount a case for equivalence. At worst, it sounds like a Pat Robertson sort of moment, of which there are plenty on the other side of the fence.

Meanwhile, the general evidence on the ground is pointing in a different direction: one party is clearly more embraced by the minority that has my greatest sympathy for dealing with historical bigotry.

I will grant you that you are right that I am, and would be, more sensitive to racism aimed at black people than racism aimed at white people. It's true and admitted. As I said, this is not really a philosophical difference, but a practical one, borne of the fact that a) history, including relatively recent history, is far less kind to one group than the other and b) it is a lot harder to oppress the majority than a minority, and my natural inclination is to fear the tyranny of the majority far more than the other way around.

Posted by Brad L | July 11, 2008 7:29 PM

Yep - I missed the name change and double posted - and still don't manage to be the kind of willful idiot that it takes to pretend that black on white racism has the same effect, the same power, or even the same basis as white on black racism.

Here's a clue for the totally clueless - a 400# gorilla smacking you around is not the same as having a toddler hitting you, even if, as may happen, the toddler actually breaks your nose.

Pretending that the fact that toddlers occasionally draw blood makes them as dangerous as a gorilla takes a special kind of knee-jerk ideology.

Posted by Not As Stupid As Will Allen | July 11, 2008 7:39 PM

Too Many Steves,

Don't be utterly ridiculous. Your glib appelation of "Stalinist" to anyone who holds authoritarian Left-wing views is itself reminiscent of the Stalinist penchant to call anyone who disagreed with them a "capitalist" or a "fascist". By that logic, people like Trotsky, Tito, General Velasco, Michel Aflaq, Julius Nyerere, Miguel d'Escoto, and Simone Weil were all 'Stalinists', in spite of the fact that they all were bitterly and personally opposed either to Stalin himself or to the Stalinists in their particular context. I'm not even a Leninist, in that I think it was a tragedy that the Russian Revolution was taken over by Lenin and the Bolcheviks instead of by the Left SRs (they were the far-Left peasant party, if you don't know who I'm talking about).

And no, Castro wasn't a Stalinist, he was in fact opposed by the Communist Party of Cuba when he declared war on the government, and one of the first acts of his regime was to purge the Communist Party of the hard-line Stalinists. I believe I have made favorable noises in the past about Peru's crackdown on the Stalinist Shining Path so your accusation is really dumb.

If you want to know my views on nationalization, human rights, the state vs. the individual and so forth, I'm happy to share them. For example, I generally favor workers' cooperatives over state industry, not to exclude the latter entirely. But you need to ask politely, as I don't feel inclined to respond to juvenile name-calling that is reminiscent of Uncle Joe Stalin himself.

Posted by Hector | July 11, 2008 8:32 PM

For semi-literates like Will Allen, I should note that I'm not necessarily identifying my opinions with those of the anti-Stalinists that I mentioned above. Trotsky was responsible for much evil, although his courage in defying Stalin, which cost him his life, helps redeem a bit of it. The other men and women I mentioned were generally much more on the good than on the bad side of the ledger.

Posted by Hector | July 11, 2008 9:17 PM

Hector, a man who says the phrase "supported Stalinists" is synonymous with "Stalinist" has no business alleging others are semi-literate. Look, you are are a liar who can't who can't read. Don't get all huffy about it.

Meathead, you really can't help yourself, can you?Of course, I never wrote that white and black racism have the same effect, did I? That was something you simply lied about. Do you ever write an honest post?

Posted by Will Allen | July 11, 2008 9:46 PM

Brad L., let me know when Dorothy Hammil tells white people to drive black interlopers out prior to a firebombing, or when she stays silent while standing by Nancy Kerrigan as 'ol Nancy says to a crowd, a crowd which Dorothy is also speaking to, "make this darkie suffer!!!", prior to said firebombing. Let me know when Dorothy Hamill makes a career of slandering innocent white people with false allegations of horrible crimes, or Jew-baiting, and then has a parade of Republican elected officials stop by to be publicly seen with her prior to elections.

Look, you think it is tolerable for the Democratic Party to use Sharpton to get out the black bigot vote. Thanks for making my point.

Posted by Will Allen | July 11, 2008 9:59 PM

Brad L., let me know when Dorothy Hammil tells white people to drive black interlopers out prior to a firebombing...

I'd have thought this was obvious, but the point I was trying to make was not that Dorothy Hamill is like Al Sharpton. It is that convention speaking slots aren't always high-profile, and don't frankly mean that much. And the speakers, many of them people of modest name-recognition or political value, hardly speak for everyone or even a large portion of the voting group of the party.

Look, you think it is tolerable for the Democratic Party to use Sharpton to get out the black bigot vote.

Tolerable?

Certainly in the sense that I recognize that politics is politics, and nobody asked me who gets to speak at the convention. And in the sense that the blue guys have, on the whole, done far far better on race relations than have the red guys have, so their missteps are more easily forgiven. Tolerable in the sense that I don't feel the need to "reject and denounce" the entire party based on a speaking engagement, in the name of some sort of perfect purity.

(I'm not sure what it is that you think I am to do here in the name of being "intolerant." Tear up my voter registration card? Gnashing of teeth and rending of garments? I've never been a big fan of pointing fingers and saying "you did not reject XYZ appropriately!" -- either with politicians or in private discussion. It's tedious, and frankly a little cheap. Our own words go far enough in explaining what we think, without measuring the quality of disagreement unexpressed about the multitude of people that we might dislike.)

For better or worse, Sharpton ran for president in '04, and actually made a decent accounting of himself in the high-profile events of the campaign - he managed to refrain from that ugly and peculiar strain of antisemitic Tourette's (which seems to have also infected our own Chris Ford). The party decided to respect his contribution to the race, but I doubt there was anything as cynical as an effort to court "black bigot" voters as a block, as though they were in a war-room concocting a scheme.

And, at the end of the day, I'm not seeing an equivalence between Al Sharpton and the overall GOP when it comes to race relations, and my impression was this was the case that was being made, in a "glass houses/don't throw stones" sort of way.

Plus, I confess, the phrase "black bigots" makes me chuckle a bit. To steal your line, let me know when "black bigotry" becomes some sort of actual problem, with real-world implications. Context matters.

Posted by Brad L | July 11, 2008 10:42 PM

You know, were Will Allen not a knee-jerk "you did it too" moron, pointing out that the "black bigot" vote is so small as to be infinitesimal would be a convincing argument.

Unfortunately his mind is not adaptable to facts. For him, history stops at the moment he says it stops. If Al Sharpton ever did something bad - that defines Al Sharpton. The fact that George W. Bush has engineered the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis does not stain his character (odd how this works isn't it), but letting Al Sharpton speak at the a Democratic convention is identical to having Lester Maddox speak at a Republican one.

This is the same idiocy that allows him to place the blame for the Khmer Rouge on George McGovern. Never mind Nixon's carpet bombing of Cambodia - that's not important. What's important is that McGovern is a Democrat and the Democrats are to blame for all the evil in the United States (except the warmongering ones - who Will thinks should be the party, never noticing that the history of US warmongering over the last 40 years has been pretty fucking bleak).

Yes, once you get to know him you realize that he has very few thoughts and a lot of simple-minded reactions to events.

Racist Republican is having the truth told about him? Will Allen to smear a Democrat as a rescue.

Someone is pointing out that Saddam Hussein's body count over the decade prior to Bush's assault on the Iraqi people was lower than Bush's body count in the five years since - Will Allen to call you a supporter of Hussein as a rescue.

It's all about his rigid ideology and no amount of factual rebuttal will sway him.

But I'm somewhat entertained by his flailing.

Oh, he will get the last word. He lives for it!

Posted by Not as stupid as Will Allen | July 11, 2008 11:13 PM

Um, Will Allen, the only liar here is you. You said that Helms' anticommunist foreign policy was a virtue. (And note, you defended HELMS' brand of anticommunism, not the anticommunism of, say, Neil Kinnock.) Then you denied you said it was a virtue. Then you denied you denied you said it was a virtue. At this point I don't pretend to know what you believe, except that whatever it is, it's a bunch of BS. You probably liked Hitler's brand of staunch anticommunism too. What a c--s--r is Will Allen.

Posted by Hector | July 12, 2008 12:08 AM

I had thought it was obvious, but I guess not; if the speaking slots at the convention really don't mean much, then there is no need to give one to a person who has engaged in the behavior Sharpton has, is there? Sharpton's name recognition derives from him being a prominent bigot. The Democrats find his bigotry has utility, so they use him, and not just at the last convention. In other words, the Democratic Party is not in principle opposed to the use of bigotry to obtain votes. They just scream when their opposition does it.

Golly, Brad L., regarding the existence of black bigotry, maybe you should go ask some relatives of some folks who were in a certain store in New York one day, a store which had it's existence picketed by a crowd that Al Sharpton helped organize, by, among other things, calling the owner a "white interloper" and standing silently by while his associate called for making the "cracker suffer". Maybe their response will make you chuckle! What a laff riot!

Posted by Will Allen | July 12, 2008 12:29 AM

Amazing, Will Allen still thinks that the lives of a few white people in New York are worth the lives of God only knows how many black people all over the United States.

Get this through your thick skull you fucking piece of racist trash: Al Sharpton isn't the equivalent of Richard M. Nixon. Al Sharpton ran for President on the Democratic ticket - he lost the nomination. Ronald Reagan ran for President on the Republican ticket and opened his campaign at the site of more deaths than even your fevered imagination claims Sharpton incited. He did it strictly to send a message that the Republican Party was just fine with racism (yes you slow witted clod, I purposely shifted from the architect of the Southern Strategy to his first heir - the "epitome" of the Republican Party).

The elephant in the room is Republican Racism. The Democrats aren't perfect, but your whitewashing of the Republicans by insisting that the Democrats are exactly the same is ultimately racist.

Then again, anyone who supports the murder of Iraqis for the purposes of stealing their oil has already ceded the moral high ground.

Posted by Not as stupid as Will Allen | July 12, 2008 12:42 AM

Meathead, you are the marathon runner of liars. To choose just a few......

I have never remarked one way or another about the stains, or lack thereof, regarding George Bush's character.

I have never written that George McGovern was to blame for the Khmer Rouge.

I never smeared Kennedy in response to any remarks made about Helms, assuming that is what you are referring to. In fact, I stated I had no objection to any remarks made about Helms' racism. I made completely accurate assertions regarding Kennedy. Please point out one false statement I made about Kennedy which would constitute a "smear". Why do you think writing blatant lies is effective rhetoric?

Finally, I most certainly have never attributed all evil in the U.S. to Democrats. In this very thread I acknowledge the Republican employment of bigotry for electoral advantage. What offends you is the truth that each and every evil the Republicans engage in is an evil that Democrats will employ when it suits there purposes. Every last one. Thus you lie constantly when this is pointed out.

Posted by Will Allen | July 12, 2008 12:45 AM

Yes, meathead, in other words, when Democrats need to use bigotry to obtain votes, they are not in principle opposed to it. They just get mad when their opposition does it.

Posted by Will Allen | July 12, 2008 12:49 AM

Hector, you are hopeless. Let me know when you have passed a fifth grade remedial english course. I stated that Helms had the virtue of being a staunch anticommunist. He was. Stalin eventually had the virtue of being a staunch anti-nazi. He did. Does this make me a supporter of Stalinist foregin policy?

Posted by Will Allen | July 12, 2008 12:55 AM

Reading this thread has just made me feel embarrassed for Will Allen. I'm guessing he's able to smoke a cigar with his toes from how many knots he can tie himself in.

Posted by Reality Man | July 12, 2008 1:27 AM

Bluesmoke brings up Teddy;s car accident - But it is unafair when rightists bring up Teddy's car accident and then circulate innuendo - Just the same, it is similarly unfair when liberals bring up Laura's car accident and then circulate similar innuendo.

Posted by Comment | July 12, 2008 1:47 AM

I honestly can't remember the last time I ever saw a liberal of any stature bringing up Laura's car crash, never mind adding innuendo. It never emerged as a campaign issue the way Teresa Heinz-Kerry did for Kerry, for example. I'm a political junkie and I didn't really know about Laura's car crash until 2004 or so when I was going through Wikipedia one day. Better false dichotomies please.

Posted by Reality Man | July 12, 2008 1:55 AM

I'd be happy to leave both accidents behind. In fact, it's a pretty sure thing that Laura's accident only comes up only when idiots bring up Kennedy's accident.

Which brings us to Will Allen who, in his racist attempts to conflate Jesse Helms' career of supporting brutal dictators and race-baiting with some bad act by some Democrat, thought that Kennedy's accident was somehow relevant.

The truth being that if the only damage Helms had done was to strangle a random woman with his bare hands he would have been a better human being than he was. Because that racist scumbag caused far more pain and suffering with his personal life than your garden variety serial killer.

It is the truth that only a brain dead fucking moron like Will Allen thinks that Kennedy committed murder.

Posted by Not as stupid as Will Allen | July 12, 2008 2:29 AM

I had thought it was obvious, but I guess not; if the speaking slots at the convention really don't mean much, then there is no need to give one to a person who has engaged in the behavior Sharpton has, is there?

That's not where the scenario you drew with Hamill and Nancy Kerrigan led me, but ok. If you want to say that the Dems didn't "need" to give a slot to Al Sharpton, I can probably agree with that.

If you want to stretch that into the point that, therefore, anyone who identifies as a Democrat should thus not be allowed to mention the fairly vast number of instances of GOP troubles with race, or that on balance, the GOP seems to have more problems with race, then I disagree wholeheartedly. Purity is not a necessary requirement for being better on the matter.

Golly, Brad L., regarding the existence of black bigotry, maybe you should go ask some relatives of some folks who were in a certain store in New York one day...

I know I've tried to make this plain, but I'm just not willing to pin a mass murder on Sharpton because he spoke/protested at the store that was later the site of a crime. That would be like blaming every televangelist ever for abortion-clinic bombings.

Even moving the goalpoasts back to blaming that crime on "black bigotry" seems like guesswork, at least from what I know about it. You seem to know more about the event (though haven't provided any links to help me out). But even - even - if you go there, a problem would be something like an ongoing set of behaviors, not a single incident.

[For example, I thought Matt was off-base the other day for noting that a cyclist got hit by a truck and suggesting there was a "problem" with bikers and cars, when it was indeed a rare, if tragic, event.]

And in that sense... no. I don't see the problem of "black bigotry." Just, in the end, rhetoric designed to somehow claim the mantle of victimhood. And when compared to actual bigotry in the other direction, the claim seems funny to me.

Posted by Brad L | July 12, 2008 3:06 AM

"I can't believe I'm the only person annoyed enough at the use of "Democrat" party to mention it. Actually, can anyone clue me in to why some conservatives insist on using this term? Are they trying to avoid the implication that the Democrats are more interested in democracy?"

Got it in one: It's an insult. And a relatively mild one, IMO, compared to "Repuglican", or "Gibbertarian". Variants on which are employed with some frequency at this site.

Yes, decades ago things were different. Decades ago, the Democratic party was in the business of handing out racial spoils to whites. They eventually saw the way the wind was blowing, and got into the business of handing out racial spoils to blacks. Today, they're the primary advocates of racially discriminatory policies. That this wins them the obsessive loyalty of blacks and the NAACP is scarcely surprising.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | July 12, 2008 10:00 AM

Nor, I should point out, is it particularly surprising that white bigots, faced with a choice between a party advocating racially neutral policies, and another supporting policies actively hostile to their race, would chose the former. This doesn't make the Republicans a mirror image of the Democratic party, it just makes them the lesser evil so far as white bigots are concerned.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | July 12, 2008 10:10 AM

I see Helms and Goldwater as categorically different. Helms was just a blatant racist, whereas I think a good case can be made that the "states rights" stance of Goldwater is reflective of a widespread, and deeply held belief in the Mountain West and Southwest that that the States should be largely left alone by the Federal Government and which doesn't necessarily imply racism. I think opposition to the Civil Rights Act on Goldwater's part was an unfortunate, and unnecessary consequence of this belief.

This is in contrast to people like Helms for whom States Rights was just a fig leaf for continued segregation.

Posted by TW Andrews | July 12, 2008 10:23 AM

The Republican Party is in no way a party "advocating racially neutral policies." Sure they allow that "the millionaire and the homeless are equally forbidden to sleep under the bridge," but such a policy has only the appearance of fairness to unthinking nitwits who imagine that they will never be affected by it.

Oddly you never see opponents of affirmative action for minorities complaining about affirmative action for stupid white people - like legacy admission to elite schools for dimwitted scions of wealth and prestige.

Hell, looking at the Republican Party you see far more affirmative action for black people than you do in the Democratic Party. That's why J.C. Watts was given plum positions long before his tenure would have warranted such, that's why noted looney Alan Keys was a Republican candidate for Senate - in spite of having no elected experience at all.

This is fundamentally what is wrong with the glibertarians. Their fundamental unseriousness about politics makes them imagine that the playing field is level and that any attempts to make it so are unfair. Sure, it's childish and leads to the idiotic and effectively racist defense of the racists in the Republican Party, but there you go.

What's the easiest way to get a million dollars? Start with two million dollars.

Posted by Not as stupid as Will Allen | July 12, 2008 10:34 AM

Meathead, does lying give you physical pleasure? No (sigh), I did not accuse Kennedy of murder. Nearly every post you have written in this thread contains a lie. Why on earth do you do this?

Posted by Will Allen | July 12, 2008 2:35 PM

Yes, Brad L., I understand that you are willing to give Sharpton the benefit of the doubt, in regards to whether his words and inaction had any connection to the murders. This is precisely the benefit of the doubt you would not be willing to extend if the skin colors were reversed. In other words, you're a fairly blatant racist who would presume to lecture others on their racism. That is pretty consistent with my original assertion. Thanks for the point of agreement.

Posted by Will Allen | July 12, 2008 2:53 PM

Also, is should be noted that to say Sharpton's actions in regard to Freddie's were an isolated instance of race baiting on his part, or that the Democrats' use of Sharpton at the 2004 convention was an isolated instance of Democrats working to get out the black bigot vote, would be disingenuous in the extreme. Sharpton's race baiting has been a near constant feature of his career, and he has damaged a lot of wholly innocent people with it. In fact, his race baiting has resulted in civil judgements against him, which he naturally tried to avoid paying. All the while, prominent elected Democrats have made an effort to be seen with him in every election cycle, because they though it important to the effort to get out the black bigot vote. It's no different than Republican elected offcials who appear in front of racist white groups, in terms of what the motive is: to increase the turnout among bigots.

Posted by Will Allen | July 12, 2008 3:05 PM

Just a quick reminder that nothing Matt said is in any way controversial - unless you are trying your damnedest to cover for a party that welcomed the racists fleeing the Democratic Party starting with the 1948 presidential run of...well, I'll quote Matt:

of course while explicit advocacy of segregation has long since vanished from the top ranks of the Republican Party, major conservative leaders have been heard in recent years issuing paens to the work of Thurmond and Helms, with key legislative leaders specifically regretting that Thurmond's 1948 white supremacist presidential campaign failed, and pointing to Helms as exemplifying what conservatism is all about.

Yep, the Democratic Party has an ugly history. Yep, there are some in the Democratic Party to whom I wouldn't give prominent speaking gigs. But just as it is better to use gray water from your shower on your garden than it is to use raw, untreated sewage from the mind of Will Allen or your local utility (not that there's any difference), so too is the Democratic Party a much better place than the Republican one.

And it isn't even just the racism that is inherent in the courting of the treason in defense of slavery crowd that makes the Republicans a bad place to place your vote. There's also their mindless warmongering. How many died in Vietnam and Cambodia and Laos because Nixon wouldn't admit that it was all a bad fucking idea? How many nuns were raped and murdered by Reagan backed death squads? How many Americans have been killed in the blowback from Reagan's support for religious fanatics in his proxy war with the Soviets? How many Panamanians died because George H. W. Bush decided that his old buddy Noriega had to go?

The list of bad choices by Republicans is nearly endless - but it pales in comparison with the death toll of Republicanism.

Given such feckless use of American power it is unimaginable that anyone with the ability to parse English correctly would ever vote for a single one of these clowns - and to vote for one of the clowniest, stupidest, warmongering idiots after seeing how incompetent and how dangerous he was to world peace marks one as a spectacularly brain dead piece of human offal.

Posted by Not as stupid as Will Allen | July 12, 2008 9:10 PM

This is precisely the benefit of the doubt you would not be willing to extend if the skin colors were reversed.

This is, of course, absolutely wrong. I don't blame televangelists for abortion-clinic bombings, I don't blame Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell for incidents of gay bashing, etc etc. I've said as much all along. As odious as I find them, they are not somehow secondhand murderers.

In other words, you're a fairly blatant racist who would presume to lecture others on their racism.

Will, I've refrained from making straight-up ad hominem attacks on you, or even being snarky, really. Instead of addressing my points, you come back with this crap.

I've tried to keep this discussion in a friendly and open spirit, addressing your points specifically, asking for clarifications where warranted, and staying away from claims of your motive or personality.

I pretty much regret that now. I probably won't make the mistake again.

Posted by Brad L | July 12, 2008 11:11 PM

Incidentally, Will, that is the second time in this thread that you quite literally put words in my mouth in order to bash me, without actually addressing any of my arguments.

That is probably an even lower form of argument than stupid straight-up ad hominem attacks and name calling. Best to you in your virtual food-fights.

Posted by Brad L | July 12, 2008 11:23 PM

Well, Brad L.,when you write this.....

"I will grant you that you are right that I am, and would be, more sensitive to racism aimed at black people than racism aimed at white people."

...and also say that you don't consider a black man in any way responsible for a firebombing, after he has called for the victim, a "white interloper", to be driven out, and then stood by silently while his associate implored a crowd to make the "cracker suffer", I plead guilty to making an assumption, because, no, I don't believe for a moment that you would be so generous to a Republican who had called for "black interlopers" to be driven out, and who had stood by silently while an associate implored a crowd to "make the darkie suffer", and then the business was firebombed later. I'd wage large sums of money that you would assert that such a Republican had helped create an atmosphere in which pepople were encouraged to commit lawless violence, and guess what? You would be right. If Jerry Falwell stood silent while an associate at the pulpit called for a crowd to "make queers suffer", and people who heard that message assaulted gays, yeah, Jerry Falwell has blood on his hands. Not legally, but certainly ethically.

In this case however, because you are less sensitive to circumstances when black people help create an atmosphere in which lawless violence is encouraged, you are willing to obsolve Sharpton of any eithical responsibility for what happened at Freddie's. There is nothing ad hominem in noting that this is racist.

Posted by Will Allen | July 13, 2008 2:03 AM

you are willing to obsolve Sharpton of any eithical responsibility for what happened at Freddie's

This is now the third time you have put words in my mouth. I said that I would need further account of what Sharpton said and did to evaluate his particular sin at this event, and asked for you to provide one.

You keep creating this story and substituting new people into it, and then imagining how I would feel about it. You don't have to invent me; I'm right here. And I have yet to hear any other account of the actual original story to form good basis of comparison.

In the very real case of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, plenty of people stood silent (or nodded in agreement) when they claimed that 9/11 was punishment for homosexuality and the ACLU, thereby suggesting that violence against them was not only appropriate (against innocents, no less), it was Godly.

This makes them awful people, but it does not make them murderers in any real sense. It may to you, but don't build that assumption into my thinking. Further, it doesn't mean to me that anyone that identifies as a Republican (as Robertson, former nomination convention speaker, does) is thereby disqualified from having thoughts or judgments about race unless they somehow properly denounce him (and so many others) to my liking first.

I also think you have misunderstood my point about having a more forgiving heart towards the group of people who have been more severely harmed by actual racism. I'll leave you one last benefit of the doubt, and not assume you have misunderstood me intentionally as an exercise in sophistry.

Posted by Brad L | July 13, 2008 11:01 AM

Yes, Brad L., I understand that you are willing to give Sharpton the benefit of the doubt, in regards to whether his words and inaction had any connection to the murders.

By the way, there are a few "benefits of the doubt" that I am giving him here.

The first is the benefit of the doubt that I would give to anyone, that words generally do not cause violence in such a direct fashion as to lead me to implicate a speaker in a murder that they had no part in planning, executing, or being present for. The responsibility lies with the murderer.

The second is the benefit of the doubt I would give to anyone, that my secondhand hearing of an account may not be a terrific record of what actually happened. For that matter, as we've continued in this discussion, you've given me less and less reason to believe that you are accurately portraying someone else's words, actions, or motives.

The final benefit of the doubt is that, while there is circumstantial reason to believe that the crime in question was related to the protests, there is little actual proof of that; there was no equivalent of a burning cross present. It's a reasonable guess, but a guess all the same.

Whatever incident you concoct with new people substituted for Sharpton, please consider that I would also give them these benefits of the doubt. Yes, even if they are white Republicans.

Posted by Brad L | July 13, 2008 11:15 AM

Trust me Brad L, there is no such thing as reasoning with Will Allen. His touchstones, Kennedy "murdered" a young woman, McGovern gave his "full throated support to Pol Pot," and Al Sharpton is responsible for the murder of some white people are all fantasies in his head - but powerful ones. These incidents allow him to excuse any amount of lawlessness on the part of Republicans who are "just as good" in Will's twisted little brain.

Will Allen's full throated support for the mass murder of Iraqis, on the other hand, is available to you anytime you ask. He'll just pretend that his mass murder was a humanitarian effort and lie about how much worse Bush's Iraq is than Saddam Hussein's Iraq was.

That's why I don't bother to engage him. He's an idiot and a willful one. With all the information out there he still claims Democrats are the racist party (and, as you saw, that anyone who says they are not is a racist) and that the Republicans, in spite of their massive outreach to racists and their recent expressions of admiration for well known racists, are not.

Posted by Not as stupid as Will Allen | July 13, 2008 12:06 PM

Well, golly, Brad L., since I never said Sharpton was a murderer in any real sense, why would you provide an example of Falwell not being a murderer in any real sence, thus implying a false counter example? I'm right here. You don't get to invent me.

Look, I assume you can access google. If you wish to remain ignorant regarding Sharpton's behavior, fine, but don't blame your willful ignorance on me. If your point is that anything less than legal responsibility for murder renders one fit to speak at a national political convention, well, we'll just have to disagree.

Next, I never stated that certain people could not have thoughts or judgements regarding racism if they tolerated associates who engaged in vile racist behavior. Again, I'm right here, You don't get to invent me. I could not care less what people's thoughts and judgements are. I only pay attention when they presume to vocally pass judgment on other groups, while being tolerant of similarly vile behavior by associates within their own group. Is this clear enough to you, or does it need to be explained in more detail?

Also, it appears to me that you are now saying that absent the firebombing, or a proven link between the bomber's acts and the atmosphere Sharpton's behavior helped create, Sharpton's behavior is less noxiously bigoted. By that standard of reasoning, Falwell's and Robertson's behavior would have been less noxious if it had not been followed by violence targeting gays. This is morally bankrupt reasoning. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion would have been no less vile, even if it had been completely ignored through the years. Furthermore, a person who distributed The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or said nothing while an associate distributed them, would be unfit to speak at the Republican or Democratic National Convention, no matter if no violence followed such distribution. Do you really need to have this explained in more detail as well?

In any case, I'm still curious as to why you think the concept of black bigotry, which has resulted in death (and in case you can't grasp it, I'm referring to the bomber, not Sharpton, not to mention other racially based violent crime), such a source of chuckles.

Posted by Will Allen | July 13, 2008 5:04 PM

Meathead, how many times are you going to lie by stating that I asserted that Kennedy was a murderer?

I did say that McGovern gave full throated support for the Khmer Rouge, because I am unwilling to slander the patriot McGovern as you do, when you assert that McGovern's infamous remarks did not assume that the Khmer Rouge was the only viable entity other than the Lon Nol which would govern Cambodia. I mean, I criticize McGovern for not grasping the nature of the Khmer Rouge, thus making him willing to give them his full throated support. You, on the other, hand, posit that McGovern had the intellectual capacity of a carrot. Why do you slander this patriot in such a vile manner?

Posted by Will Allen | July 13, 2008 5:17 PM

Well, golly, Brad L., since I never said Sharpton was a murderer in any real sense, why would you provide an example of Falwell...

You said:
If Jerry Falwell stood silent while an associate at the pulpit called for a crowd to "make queers suffer", and people who heard that message assaulted gays, yeah, Jerry Falwell has blood on his hands. Not legally, but certainly ethically.

Since this all started with the observation that

"[Duke] never stood silently by at a public event while an associate implored a crowd to harm a black business owner by saying "Make this nigger suffer!", prior to a homicidal firebombing."

I think it is pretty fair to think that when you say "has blood on his hands," you are saying that he is responsible in some meaningful way for the murder. If not, it is a peculiar choice of words.

Next, I never stated that certain people could not have thoughts or judgements regarding racism if they tolerated associates who engaged in vile racist behavior.

To that, I would note that this is your very first post, the one that provided your thesis:

any member of a party which gave one of their limited number of speaking slots at their last national convention to Al Sharpton has no business singling out the opposing party for being tolerant of bigotry.

I suppose you can say that "singling out" is not the same as "making judgments," but that is quite a parse.

Or:

I only pay attention when they presume to vocally pass judgment on other groups, while being tolerant of similarly vile behavior by associates within their own group.

So, we can have judgments, and they may be valid, but we just can't vocalize them? Because we didn't pass the purity test of intolerance towards, in this case, Al Sharpton? And by being intolerant... how? Were we supposed to be picketing? Apparently, simply agreeing with you that he was not a good choice as a speaker is not enough.

Also, it appears to me that you are now saying that absent the firebombing, or a proven link between the bomber's acts and the atmosphere Sharpton's behavior helped create, Sharpton's behavior is less noxiously bigoted.

No, this is not what I am saying at all. I'm saying that it is dumb to continually tie the firebombing to the rhetoric, implying culpability for it.

Noxious is noxious. The one point that I made that I expect you find distasteful is that, when I consider the wrong of it, I also consider the context, and that I am more forgiving to some in light of it.

Look, I assume you can access google. If you wish to remain ignorant regarding Sharpton's behavior, fine, but don't blame your willful ignorance on me.

I did that - I looked it up. The best article I found was the Chronicle one I posted. I haven't seen anything that provides the level of detail (such as what was actually said and by whom). I suppose I could spend a long time looking, but it sounded to me like you might actually have ready sources.

Posted by Brad L | July 13, 2008 6:50 PM

See what I mean Brad? Will's McGovern example is exactly the same bullshit he's doing with Sharpton - McGovern was a "supporter of the Khmer Rouge" because he was opposed to American support for the brutal Lon Nol dictatorship. For complete fucking morons like Will Allen there is no difference between opposing a bad course of action and supporting a different bad course of action.

In that mass of shit he has between his ears he hears whatever he wants to hear. So Sharpton didn't say "go kill some white people?" No matter, that's full throated support for murder and Sharpton is as culpable as those who committed the action. Sure, that's stupid, but the handle didn't create itself.

Compare this with Will Allen's full throated support for sectarian murder in Iraq. Sure, he didn't actually say that, and if you accused him of it he would angrily denounce you for putting words in his mouth and an inability to read. But it would be unkind to slander the brilliant Will Allen with not understanding that the only thing standing between Iraq and sectarian violence was a repressive police state, so he had to know that toppling the government would lead directly to the killing fields that is Iraq under George W. Bush.

See how stupid that is fuckwit? On the other hand, the real reason you have blood on your hands you subhuman monster is that knowing what happened you still fucking support the course of action that lead to all of this brutatlity.

If you had any decency you would never post on any board ever. But then if you had even a smidgen of decency you wouldn't be Will Allen - the dumbest motherfucker to ever post anything on any board.

Posted by Not as stupid as Will Allen | July 13, 2008 8:44 PM

Re: when you assert that McGovern's infamous remarks did not assume that the Khmer Rouge was the only viable entity other than the Lon Nol which would govern Cambodia.

It's difficult to parse the tortured grammar of the semi-literate Will Allen. He sounds like a high school student to me. In any case, as we eventually learned, the only viable entity that had both the capability and moral legitimacy to govern Cambodia happened to be the government of Socialist Vietnam. That's right, the same government that shut down the Khmer Rouge death camps at the cost of many Vietnamese soldiers' lives.

Of course, you won't hear Will Allen thank the Socialist Vietnamese for ending one of the century's worst genocides. You also won't hear him censure the Reagan government for continuing throughout the 1980s to recognize "Democratic Kampuchea" (i.e. the Khmer Rouge) as the lawful government of Cambodia. Will Allen's moral compass is so defunct that he thinks that the guys who _stopped_ the genocide are somehow the bad guys, and the guys who _criticized_ the Vietnamese liberation of Cambodia and actually _sided with the f--ing Khmer Rouge_ are somehow the good guys.

Posted by Hector | July 13, 2008 9:17 PM

Is there any moral abomination that Will Allen _won't_ defend?

He defends the US embargo of Cuba. He defends the Vietnam War. He defends the invasion of Iraq. He defends Jesse Helms. No doubt he defends the US support of anti-government terrorists in Nicaragua, and death squads in El Salvador. Is nothing too shameful for Will Allen?

Posted by Hector | July 13, 2008 9:21 PM

Oh my fucking god.

All this time and I'd missed the Heritage Foundation and Reagan's support for Pol Pot. Not indirect, "we should not be supporting dictators like Lon Nol," but actual diplomatic and ideological support for the Khmer Rouge.

In other words, Will Allen is, far more than his dumb-ass slander of McGovern, an actual full throated supporter of the party that gave aid and comfort to Khmer Rouge and, by Will Allen logic, himself a full throated supporter of the Khmer Rouge. It makes one wish that, for his own sake, he was a performance artist.

Just fucking priceless.

Posted by Not as stupid as Will Allen | July 13, 2008 9:37 PM

No, Brad L., the term "murder" has a specific legal implications. Must this really be explained to you? A man who drunkenly drives a car with a passenger inside off a bridge, and then does not attempt to contact authorities while a rescue of the passenger might be attempted, has blood on his hands. He is not a murderer. Sheesh. Are you sure you are not posting under another moniker in this thread?

Next, how is one to know that another party has singled out yet another party, unless it is vocalized? Also, people who tolerate behavior in their allies which they claim to be intolerable when practiced by their opponents are not to be taken seriously. Why? because they quite obviously don't mean what they say, otherwise they wouldn't tolerate their allies' behavior. After all, it is far more within the control of the Democartic party to reduce the tolerance of bigotry by being intolerant of bigotry by Democrats, than it is to police the bigotry of Republicans. The rather simple step of not allowing Sharpton a platform at a national convention, because it is judged that he has engaged in a pattern of blantantly bigoted behavior, reduces the tolerance of bigotry. Instead of takig this simple step, which the Democratic Party has total and complete control over, Democrats instead choose to rail against the bigotry of Republicans, which they cannot control. This provides insight as to how seriously Democrats wish to pursue a reduction in the tolerance of bigotry. They really aren't very serious at all. After all, if Sharpton is a noxious bigot, and Democrats really wish to reduce the tolerance of noxious bigotry, why invite a noxious bigot to speak at the Democratic National Convention?

Posted by Will Allen | July 14, 2008 1:15 AM

Hector, a guy who can't tell the difference between "he supported Stalinsts" and "he was a Stalinist" has no business criticizing others' grammar. As to the rest, I really don't deal with such childish nonsense as "good guys" and "bad guys". Politics is a mostly amoral enterprise in which people try to subjugate other people, with varying levels of violence. I try to make judgements as to which actor, were they to prevail, at a specific point of time, would eventually result in more prosperity and liberty, relative to another actor prevailing at that specific point in time.

By the way, you are lying about my alleged support for the embrago of Cuba. I've opposed it for years. What is it about the meathead and you, which prevents both of you from writing a post which does not contain a lie?

Posted by Will Allen | July 14, 2008 1:28 AM

No, meathead, I stated that McGovern gave full throated support for the Khmer Rouge because, when a Seanate debate took place, regarding a cutoff in funds to the only viable entity which could oppose the Khmer Rouge, the Lon Nol government, McGovern stated that the fall of the Lon Nol government would likely result in Cambodia being ruled by the country's most gifted intellectuals. I stated that McGovern did not appreciate the nature of the Khmer Rouge, and thus expressed support for their taking power. You, on the other hand, despise McGovern so much that you posit that McGovern was the dumbest man on the planet at the time, and thus did not appreciate that the fall of the Lon Nol government meant that the Khmer Rouge would take power. I have to ask again: from where does you deep contempt of George McGovern come from?

Yeah, I know you think despotic Baathist rule for Iraqis, for several more decades, was the preferred policy to pursue.

Posted by Will Allen | July 14, 2008 1:42 AM

So for Will Allen, McGovern "supported" the Khmer Rouge, but the guys who gave them diplomatic recognition after they fell - the Republican Party headed by Ronald Reagan, and the guys whose carpet bombing led to the rise of the Khmer Rouge, the Republican Party are all get a pass. It doesn't require a twisted version of a quote - it just requires knowing that Reagan's government actively supported the deposed Khmer Rouge.

Sorry Will, you are now and forever going to be known for your support of the Khmer Rouge after it was known that they were brutal killers. But I guess that's in line with your support for brutalizing the Iraqi people so you can steal their resources.

Good job shithead - always on the side of mass murder, that's our Will!

Posted by Not as stupid as Will Allen | July 14, 2008 7:44 AM

Will Allen,

Oh, I see. So it's OK if I say "Will Allen supports bigots and tyrants" as long as I don't say "Will Allen is a bigot and tyrant". Nice to know.

Henry Wallace didn't support Stalinists. He believed, and acted on, the following ideas:

1) The Soviet Union was more than just Stalinism and it would be well to prepare for when Stalin was dead.
2) Marxist regimes weren't monochromatically evil, it was a mixture of good and evil and it would be good to be open to the good aspects and oppose the bad aspects.
3) Opposition to Stalin should not mean opposition to all socialist and communist forces that were out there, some of whom were probably the best alternative their country had.
4) it wouldn't be wise to pursue a war, hot or cold, with Russia at the time.

Which of those ideas counts as 'supporting Stalinism"? They all happen to be true.

It's telling that you think that the purpose of government is to provide 'prosperity and liberty". In other words, more money and goodies for Will Allen, and more freedom for people like Will Allen to do whatever he pleases. Personally, I think that's a lousy basis for a society, and far from the highest purpose of government. But then, it makes sense why you would support the Vietnam War and the Iraq War. After all, a socialist Vietnam would have little place for amoral scumbags like you.

Posted by Hector | July 14, 2008 8:09 AM

Hector, it takes a special kind of dolt to knock, in a forum such as this, obtaining prosperity as a central goal of politics. Congratulations.

As to Wallace, he once said that if he if he became President, he would appoint Laurence Duggan as Secretary of State and Harry Dexter White as Secretary of Treasury. Both Duggan and White were Stalinist spies, which Wallace did not know, but he certainly must have known of their Communist sympathizing. Wallace supported Stalinists, although to be fair, the Korean War had dramatic effect on him, to the point that by 1956 he was supporting Eisenhower for President.

Posted by Will Allen | July 14, 2008 11:59 AM

Meathead, it was McGovern, not Reagan, who voiced support (assuming your theory of McGovern being the dumbest man on the planet is inaccurate) for the Khmer Rouge when they were poised to kill a third or more of the Cambodian population. If you want to criticize Reagan for supporting the Khmer Rouge after they had performed their slaughter, and after they were removed from power, as a means of countering Vietnamese communist domination of Indochina, fine. My concern with how the Khmer Rouge was dealt with by Amrican actors is much more concentrated on why might have been done PRIOR to the genocide. Politics, for you, is all about moralistic posturing, isn't it?

By the way, I've been very critical of Nixon's role since I became politically aware as a high school student. However, criticizing Nixon in a forum such as this is sort of like criticizing bacon consumption in certain types of religous gatherngs; it becomes so redundant as to be pointless.

Posted by Will Allen | July 14, 2008 12:19 PM

No Will, your first concern was, as it always is - smearing Democrats. Ronald Reagan wanted to return the butchers to power. That's all that needs to be said. You want to rationalize it, but the logic you use for others marks you a supporter of the Khmer Rouge now and forever.

Posted by Will "Khmer Rouge Supporter" Allen | July 14, 2008 12:26 PM

No, Brad L., the term "murder" has a specific legal implications. Must this really be explained to you? A man who drunkenly drives a car with a passenger inside off a bridge, and then does not attempt to contact authorities while a rescue of the passenger might be attempted, has blood on his hands. He is not a murderer. Sheesh. Are you sure you are not posting under another moniker in this thread?

OMFG - really?!?

Like many other words, the word murder (etymology here) happens to have a legal definition in addition to its much older common one.

Since nobody is making any kind of legal claim as to liability, the legal definition should be of little import to this discussion, and the common one should suffice. What I thought we were discussing was whether Sharpton was somehow morally culpable for a mass murder that was committed at a scene where he had earlier been a protester. You seem to think so (otherwise, continually linking the firebombing to it would either be highly disingenuous or simply nonsensica), I think not.

You also seem to think I would change my mind if the situation were inverted, and it was a white man standing silently (or vocally) complicit with agitation. My examples were intended to disabuse you of that notion, nothing more or less.

Also, people who tolerate behavior in their allies which they claim to be intolerable when practiced by their opponents are not to be taken seriously. ... Instead of takig this simple step, which the Democratic Party has total and complete control over, Democrats instead choose to rail against the bigotry of Republicans, which they cannot control. This provides insight as to how seriously Democrats wish to pursue a reduction in the tolerance of bigotry. They really aren't very serious at all

As a rank-and-file, I still don't know what level of intolerance would suffice to make my concerns "serious" in your eyes.

It seems to me that you have created a condition in which you can excuse yourself from addressing the concerns of tens of millions of people by pointing out a decision that approximately 99.9999% were not actually involved in making, and which I would guess the vast, vast majority was not even aware of (I didn't know offhand that he had spoken, for example). Congratulations, I suppose, but I think most purity tests are pointless, and this one is more ridiculous than most, for the overall lack of involvement of the people in the action for which they are being judged, and for the overall lack of significance that the event itself has.

I mean, you're right that he shouldn't really be a speaker there -- its just the massive, massive leaps about what that all means in the bigger picture about individuals and their concerns that I think you are way, way off base about. And I've come to agree with NasaWA that this is more about wanting to see a certain side in a certain light than any particular unyielding attachment to principles. Otherwise, I think the discussion about what an individual's appropriate response is might have actually gotten off the ground.

Posted by Brad L | July 14, 2008 3:04 PM

Brad L., when I hear someone say that another party is responsible for a murder, that has inescapable legal claims to me. Call me crazy. Here'a a suggestion; unless you think someone is in some way legally responsible for a murder, don't call them a murderer.

No, what I am suggesting is that people expend a great deal of energy getting their own house in order prior to engaging in a great deal of criticism regarding the houses of others,for the simple reason that they have far more control over their own . When people can't even be bothered to expend any energy to prevent the likes of Al Sharpton from speaking at their national conventions, or having prominent elected officials making a point to being publicly seen with the likes of Sharpton, it calls into question their sincerity in denouncing others' tolerance of bigotry. The false dichotomy you've put forth, between purity and Al Sharpton having a prominent role in the Democratic Party is indicative of an unwillingness to approach this in an intellectually honest fashion.

Posted by Will Allen | July 14, 2008 4:43 PM

Brad L., when I hear someone say that another party is responsible for a murder, that has inescapable legal claims to me. Call me crazy. Here'a a suggestion; unless you think someone is in some way legally responsible for a murder, don't call them a murderer.

Le sigh. Semantics aside, I still don't think Sharpton is somehow morally culpable for that mass murder, and you seem to ("blood on his hands," etc). I'm sorry if my use of the term "secondhand murderer" threw you off base there for a minute. Degrading the discussion into these sort of semantics seems kinda pointless; unless you thought I was trying to make a legal claim, I'm not sure why you would go here when the actual point I was making was far more explicitly stated.

No, what I am suggesting is that people expend a great deal of energy getting their own house in order prior to engaging in a great deal of criticism regarding the houses of others,for the simple reason that they have far more control over their own .

I am not sure what kind of control you suppose I have, but I doubt it is any more than what I have regarding Republican speakers. I vote, I occasionally give money, but not in a sum that would get me an audience with a congressman. If it did, I would surely have bigger fish to fry than whether a slot at the convention went to someone I dislike.

When Dems or other progressives do dumb things, I go "huh, that was dumb." I might even engage a discussion about it on a blog. Which is, come to think of it, about what I do when it happens to a Republican. I'm not seeing any grand hypocrisy there.

The false dichotomy you've put forth, between purity and Al Sharpton having a prominent role in the Democratic Party is indicative of an unwillingness to approach this in an intellectually honest fashion.

This dichotomy, between being "serious" or "not serious" based on how someone reacted to Al Sharpton, was not proposed here by me, I'm pretty sure. Using that sort of measure is often known, in parlance, as a "purity test." It is the measurement of how pure your motives are, rather than an effort to deal with the substance of an argument (such as here, that the GOP does much more poorly on race relations than the Democrats do).

FWIW, I rarely ever question the motives of the people I talk with (in fact, I think this thread may represent a first in that regard - congrats again). Either the substance is worth addressing, or it is not, even if it comes from, say, Steve Sailer. If I don't want to respond on the merits of an argument, I pretty much don't want to respond. I usually think questions of motives are the last gasps of an expiring argument.

Posted by Brad L | July 14, 2008 5:05 PM