(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]

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.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

A) The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence!
B) What? There are federal elections every two years. There are special elections, like the NJ Senate race, that are *only* for a federal office....I might agree they don't *run* the elections, but there are federal elections. Anyway.


C) What makes it unlikely? What is your reason for believing Mississippi state assemblyman 12, or Texas State Senator 4, or Louisiana county legislator 2, isn't a racist?

There are SOOOOO many elected officials that you have never even heard of

Your arrogance is consistently astounding.

[paft.livejournal.com]

es: Your arrogance is consistently astounding.

It could be less arrogance than bad faith.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

What do you mean? You mean he doesn't believe what he is saying?
Are you telling me not to feed the trolls?

[paft.livejournal.com]

es: What do you mean? You mean he doesn't believe what he is saying?

It's a bit more complex than that. I've encountered a certain pattern here and on other internet sites, especially when the discussion involves racism. A poster will appear to be mystifyingly obtuse about the realities of racism. If you ask the right questions, however, it will often turn out that they're using a definition of "racism" completely at odds with the way most people define it, a definition that does not include the common usage defintion of "the belief that certain races are less competent than others." They seem to be aware that they're using their own, Humpty-Dumpty definition, because they tend not to come out and offer it unless asked, but they're content to baffle other posters in extended debates.

No, I'd never tell someone to stop communicating with another poster, whether I considered him or her a troll or not.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

A) The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence!

of course. But Occam's Razor - there aren't many racists, and racism is highly frowned upon, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to believe that a racist could reach office.

What makes it unlikely? What is your reason for believing Mississippi state assemblyman 12, or Texas State Senator 4, or Louisiana county legislator 2, isn't a racist?

The likelihood is simply too low.

Your arrogance is consistently astounding.

And yet I'm not wrong.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

What is your mathematical model for determining the likelihood?

There aren't many racists--depends where you are!
And racism is highly frowned upon--DEPENDS WHERE YOU ARE!

Why is your brain so weak? Do you expect every racist to scream their racism from the rooftops? Or, do you think maybe some racists realize that *the general electorate* is not racist, and so to get elected, the only let their racism on to those who they know will embrace it.

Do you think The Klan has ceased to be? Do you think the KKK would like to get people who share their ideology elected?
Do you think they could *hide* their racism?

This is absolutely insane.

"Yet I'm not wrong"

BUT YOU HAVE NO PROOF THAT YOU ARE NOT WRONG

you merely assert things, and then say "see, my assertion is proof!"


PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT THERE ARE NO RACISTS IN THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

One can't afford to ever be wrong. Or else the world would stop turning and we'd all fall off.

[paft.livejournal.com]

bdj: It means that the evidence is significant that there are no racists.

What would be evidence that there ARE racists?

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

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

BadlyDrawnJeff: 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.

Wait, pafts perceptions (cited (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1779442.html?thread=142073842#t142073842)) are "not reality (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1779442.html?thread=142100210#t142100210)", but your uncited perceptions are evidence?

[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.

[paft.livejournal.com]

bdj: 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.

Which, again, is miles away from taking steps to hobble the ability of the voters in that house to actually cast a ballot.

paft: 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?
bdj: 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.

And to prevent them from voting you would...?

See, I think what's happening is not that you don't understand reality. You do. You just don't want to come out and directly say what it is you and the right wing advocate.

I see this all the time from posters who will furiously deny that a given policy or statement is "racist", all the while using a definition of "racism" that they know is not in accordance with common usage. In short, they debate in bad faith.

That's what I suspect is happening, and why some people have begun suspecting your motives in posting here.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Which, again, is miles away from taking steps to hobble the ability of the voters in that house to actually cast a ballot.

Which isn't happening.

And to prevent them from voting you would...?

Not engage them in voter outreach. Essentially pretend they don't exist from an electoral standpoint.

That's what I suspect is happening, and why some people have begun suspecting your motives in posting here.

I can't stop people from being blithering idiots. Whatever conclusions people want to jump to, I can't stop. I'll just keep being honest and calling out racism-bait like this.

[paft.livejournal.com]

bdj: Which isn't happening.

As you know, it is.

bdj: Not engage them in voter outreach. Essentially pretend they don't exist from an electoral standpoint.

The GOP has gone beyond that, however. They've engaged in voter caging and attempted voter ID laws that they know will suppress the black vote.

bdj: I can't stop people from being blithering idiots. Whatever conclusions people want to jump to, I can't stop. I'll just keep being honest and calling out racism-bait like this.

Can you offer some examples of what you would consider bona-fide racism?