(no subject)

[paft.livejournal.com]

Democratic Underground, 2002 -- In the eyes of many modern conservatives, the battle between Republicans and Democrats is a battle between the Godly and the Satanic. To call this mindset a rejection of civility is to seriously underestimate the danger it poses. It's a rejection not merely of civility, but of the assumptions about tolerance and equal access that drive our political process….

Modern right-wing rhetoric becomes much less irrational if it's seen as the last gasp of the right's pretense of commitment to political freedom. Rather than self-destructing or imploding, it's quite possible that many conservatives are on the verge of moving from the covert to the overt rejection of this ideal. (emphasis added)

The first opinion piece aside from discussion forum OPs that I ever posted to the Internet was an essay carried by the then-brand-new website, Democratic Underground back in 2002. My piece was about American liberals and moderates hopefully opining (and let me emphasize -- this was eleven years ago.) that the right was “imploding.” As I observed back then, “This often takes place after some spectacularly insane statement from the right, like a Bush administration spokesman claiming that toxic sludge is good for the environment or a right-wing pundit suggesting that we invade France… Many liberals mistakenly believe that the right wing has an emotional investment in the logic of its own claims and, as a result, is due any day now to simply die of embarrassment.”

And that, I think, has been the core of the problem – a naïve refusal by many in politics and the media to focus on the serious agenda underlying all that ridiculous right-wing rhetoric. For three decades these extremists have been dismissed as irrelevant by moderate liberals and tolerated as “useful” by moderate conservatives. Now they have amassed enough influence to set into motion their dream of what amounts to a political monopoly. Voter suppression and gerrymandering are there to short-circuit the power of demographically liberal voters, and the very ability of a presidential administration to implement a law it has passed has come under attack. Merely enacting important legislation with which the right disagrees is presented as an outrageous act, even an impeachable offense.

And yes, the fact that our president is an African American does give a boost to this attack on political diversity. One of the oldest tricks in the racist book is portraying acts considered normal when done by a white man as criminal when done by a black man. The Republican Party, always willing to exploit racism, is happy to use that assumption as leverage.

I don’t know where this will end. Salon has a piece up saying the Republicans are just likely to get even more right wing. How much further can the GOP go to the right without openly declaring themselves the party of racism and religious dominionism and embracing violence as a tactic?

*

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The southern strategy that was begun 50 years ago is still in place, as any black voter knows.

You're speaking for black voters now? Beyond that, there's no evidence whatsoever that it's the case.

It's not the Democrats who've repeatedly attempted to suppress the minority vote since the '80s.

Nor is it the Republicans. Not sure who you're actually talking about.

We women who disagree with you on this aren't basing it on what we've seen with our own eyes?

No, you're basing it on what you've been lead to believe on the matter, as opposed to using your own eyes to see what is right in front of you.

The Republicans, in fact, are ardent supporters of our right to decide for ourselves about abortion?

They're ardent supporters of the right to life. They're not really seeing how choice comes into it. Talk to a Republican sometime, you might learn something about their actual beliefs.

They support our access to contraception? To healthcare in general? That's why they've gone after Planned Parenthood?

Absolutely. They have issues with the government mandating or providing those things (thus the issue with giving government money to Planned Parenthood), of course, but the idea of access has not been controversial for some time.

So I just imagined that consent decree the Republicans were forced to sign back in the '80s, and that lawsuit over the 2000 presidential election the state of Florida settled out of court?

In a way, yes. You have misunderstood the intentions and the actions of those things, assuming racism and voter suppression without evidence.

Ed Rollins never boasted about suppressing the black vote at a breakfast back in 1993?

This was 20 years ago, and hearsay at that.

Tom Tancredo, in the wake of Obama's election, didn't complain about the lack of literacy tests that he believes would have blocked Obama voters?

There's nothing racially-tinged about this. It's a strong belief of many that we need more filters for a more informed electorate. I believe they are wrong, but this is again the whole "everything has a racist context" issue.

PA rep Mike Turzai didn't cite voter ID as a tool that would allow Romney to win Pennsylvannia?

Of course he did. Most people who can't get IDs, or won't get IDs, or would vote illegally, are believed to vote Democratic. Not a racial issue.

Ohio GOP chair Doug Preisse didn't explain cutting back early voting hours in Democratic districts while expanding them in Republican districts by saying " “I guess I really actually feel we shouldn’t contort the voting process to accommodate the urban—read African-American—voter-turnout machine.”

Are you saying there is not a concerted effort to get out the minority vote? That opening certain voting hours will help some groups and not others? Remember that this is the Huffington Post's spin on the response, not necessarily what the response was about.

All of that was a figment of our imagination?

Most of the interpretation is, yes.

Like the bits about banning abortion and same sex marriage?

Yep.

[paft.livejournal.com]

bdj: You're speaking for black voters now? Beyond that, there's no evidence whatsoever that it's the case.

What would you accept as evidence, if not black voting patterns and the opinions black Americans have voiced about the Republican party?

bdj: Nor is it the Republicans. Not sure who you're actually talking about.

What would you accept as evidence that the Republicans have been engaging in voter suppression over the past three decades?

bd: No, you're basing it on what you've been lead to believe on the matter, as opposed to using your own eyes to see what is right in front of you.

I've already cited what I've seen with my own eyes.

bd: They have issues with the government mandating or providing those things (thus the issue with giving government money to Planned Parenthood), of course, but the idea of access has not been controversial for some time.

Then why has the Republican Party blocked women's accesss to healthcare in Texas by closing down Planned Parenthood clinics?

bdj: They're not really seeing how choice comes into it.

That's the problem.

bdj: In a way, yes. You have misunderstood the intentions and the actions of those things, assuming racism and voter suppression without evidence.

Jeff, do you even know what consent decree I'm talking about?

bdj: This was 20 years ago, and hearsay at that.

"Hearsay?" You suspect an entire room of reporters all got together and conspired to lie about what Ed Rollins said?

Your entire approach to debate seems to consist of looking up at a clear blue sky and saying, "it's brown." I think at some point you figured out you could "win" an online debate by saying the "sky is brown" and sticking to it.

Do you have any stake at all in reality?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

What would you accept as evidence, if not black voting patterns and the opinions black Americans have voiced about the Republican party?

...

What would you accept as evidence that the Republicans have been engaging in voter suppression over the past three decades?

...

I've already cited what I've seen with my own eyes.

Actual evidence would be useful. Perceptions are not reality.

Then why has the Republican Party blocked women's accesss to healthcare in Texas by closing down Planned Parenthood clinics?

They haven't. They've blocked access to abortion services in some areas because the centers do not meet the new regulatory standards yet. Sort of like how a restaurant needs to be clean.

Jeff, do you even know what consent decree I'm talking about?

My assumption was the agreement between the Republican and Democratic Parties regarding ballot issues and challenges.

"Hearsay?" You suspect an entire room of reporters all got together and conspired to lie about what Ed Rollins said?

If it wasn't hearsay, where's the evidence?

Do you have any stake at all in reality?

Oh.

[paft.livejournal.com]

bdj: Actual evidence would be useful.

But you're unable to provide any examples of what you would accept as evidence. The fact is, Jeff, you base nothing you post here on reality.

I very, very much hope that is not a reflection of how you deal with the real world in your offline life.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

But you're unable to provide any examples of what you would accept as evidence. The fact is, Jeff, you base nothing you post here on reality.

This is a cop-out.

I very, very much hope that is not a reflection of how you deal with the real world in your offline life.

I don't know what it is that continually makes you need to go personal on these issues.

[paft.livejournal.com]

bdj: This is a cop-out.

No, it's a direct reaction to your refusal to actually explain what you would accept as evidence.

You don't communicate here. You play word games. Your posts are pretty much meaningless.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

How about providing any sort of actual evidence for your claims. Let's start there.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Can't start until you explain what you'd accept as evidence. I've provided quotes. I've provided legal cases. You don't accept them.

So, what WOULD you accept?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Toss some evidence out there are we can hash it out.

[paft.livejournal.com]

I have.

The fact is, Jeff, there is absolutely nothing you would accept as evidence.

Why not just admit that and save us all a lot of trouble?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Mainly because it's not true. Since you don't have evidence to support your claims, I suppose we can button this up and move on.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

When asked at a meeting of Texas Republicans “what can Republicans do to get black people to vote,” a Texas Tea Party leader, Ken Emanuelson, gave the following answer:

“I’m going to be real honest with you, the Republican Party doesn’t want black people to vote if they’re going to vote 9-to-1 for Democrats.”

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's entirely sensible. That certain biases lead people to believe that it leads to voter suppression as opposed to saying "we aren't going to spend time getting out the vote with a group that isn't going to vote for us" is the problem.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Do you believe racists exist? Do you believe they want to disenfranchise minorities? Do you believe David Duke is a racist? Do you believe he held elected office? Can you give me any reason to think David Duke could not get elected to smaller scale local office, and in some areas, possibly even meet other like-minded people who are also elected, and they might plan to enact some of their awful racist ideology?


Where did all the racists *go* in your world? How come they don't exist anymore. Accepting the reality that racism *is still a thing* has consequences.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Do you believe racists exist? Do you believe they want to disenfranchise minorities? Do you believe David Duke is a racist? Do you believe he held elected office?

Yes to all of these. This is basic fact.

Can you give me any reason to think David Duke could not get elected to smaller scale local office, and in some areas, possibly even meet other like-minded people who are also elected, and they might plan to enact some of their awful racist ideology?

David Duke represents a fringe ideology that has been publicized and exposed quite a bit, and his win in 1988 was largely a fluke based on special election politics, and he barely won at that. He never held elected office again, and for good reason.

Where did all the racists *go* in your world? How come they don't exist anymore. Accepting the reality that racism *is still a thing* has consequences.

They're still around. They're just not in any actual position to do anything about anything. They're certainly not holding elected office.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Wait, what? How do you know that NONE of the elected officials in this country are racist? What the flying fuck?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Speaking solely on federal matters, I see no indication that we have any actual racists in office. Obviously, small state legislatures may be a different story, but I have my doubts as well.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Ok, but let's try this simply.

Does the fact that you see no indication mean there are no racists or does it simply mean *YOU* see no indication?


Also, voter ID laws are not being pushed at the federal level, they are being pushed at the state level. North Carolina tried to directly contradict the constitution and establish a state religion. State legislatures have been doing some crazy ass shit lately; do you accept (what should be very easy to accept) that you do not know the state legislatures around the country and that it is *a distinct possibility* that a racist could get elected to local office?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Does the fact that you see no indication mean there are no racists or does it simply mean *YOU* see no indication?

It means that the evidence is significant that there are no racists. If there are any, they keep it extremely quiet and don't act on it, and thus we'd never know anyway.

Also, voter ID laws are not being pushed at the federal level, they are being pushed at the state level.

Obviously. We don't have any federal elections, nor does the federal government run any.

do you accept (what should be very easy to accept) that you do not know the state legislatures around the country and that it is *a distinct possibility* that a racist could get elected to local office?

Of course it's a possibility. It's just not likely.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Except he goes beyond that. He says "The Republican party doesn't want black people to vote if they're going 9-to-1 for Democrats."

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Correct. No campaign wants people who aren't going to vote for them to vote. That's just smart.

[paft.livejournal.com]

No, that's not "just smart." That's a rejection of the basis of our representational system. And of political diversity. There's a big difference between saying , "I don't want you to vote for my opponent" and "I don't want to you vote if you're going to vote for my opponent."

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

When campaigns put together their get out the vote plans, do they hit every house on a street, or just the ones they want to see head to the polls?

[paft.livejournal.com]

Obviously, they hit the districts where they figure they'll have a strong showing of voters. Again, that's miles away from taking steps to ensure that manty voters in districts where you're NOT strong will be unable to vote.

Do you understand the difference between saying "I don't want you to vote for my opponent" and saying "I don't want to you vote if you're going to vote for my opponent?" Yes or no?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Obviously, they hit the districts where they figure they'll have a strong showing of voters. Again, that's miles away from taking steps to ensure that manty voters in districts where you're NOT strong will be unable to vote.

And this is where your biases are clouding your understanding. Even in strong districts, if you know a voter is probably going to vote your opponent, you're skipping that House.

So when you read this:

Do you understand the difference between saying "I don't want you to vote for my opponent" and saying "I don't want to you vote if you're going to vote for my opponent?" Yes or no?

Yes, with a caveat. If I have the opportunity to get 100 people out to vote, and 10 of them are black, and 9 of them will vote for my opponent, statistically speaking, and the question is posed about getting the black vote out, the correct answer is that I don't want them to vote at all. It is better for my campaign, better for my chances of winning, and correctly expresses my point of view. It's not a statement on whether they should vote, nor a statement on how we will keep them from voting.