(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]

Just as you can, though, note that a portion of the left is obsessed with racial equality, I think you could also accept that a portion of the population also carries baggage about the role of races in society.

The overlap, I suspect, is quite large there. The ideal of "racial equality" typically involves creating some type of inequality, based on that baggage they carry.

Trent Lott supposedly convinced Reagan's election team that they could reverse that trend—Southern social conservatives voting the Dem Party line—if Reagan could signal loudly and clearly that he was not of Lincoln's party. That speech was that signal, at least for people paying attention.

That's the story that comes about. Reagan was actually doing a lot of African-American outreach that week, so it would be tremendously stupid to actively play that card at that time in that place given what his campaign plan was. Sure, the Romney campaign showed us that even a professional campaign can be immensely stupid, but one random data point in Reagan's long career is not really enough to justify the sort of outrage he gets to this day about that speech.

That's not an economic observation, not at all, given (as you correctly point out) the context.

I disagree. I'll offer a larger section of the speech:

Today, and I know from our own experience in California when we reformed welfare, I know that one of the great tragedies of welfare in America today, and I don't believe stereotype after what we did, of people in need who are there simply because they prefer to be there. We found the overwhelming majority would like nothing better than to be out, with jobs for the future, and out here in the society with the rest of us. The trouble is, again, that bureaucracy has them so economically trapped that there is no way they can get away. And they're trapped because that bureaucracy needs them as a clientele to preserve the jobs of the bureaucrats themselves.

I believe that there are programs like that, programs like education and others, that should be turned back to the states and the local communities with the tax sources to fund them, and let the people [applause drowns out end of statement].

I believe in state's rights; I believe in people doing as much as they can for themselves at the community level and at the private level. And I believe that we've distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended in the constitution to that federal establishment. And if I do get the job I'm looking for, I'm going to devote myself to trying to reorder those priorities and to restore to the states and local communities those functions which properly belong there.

I'm going to try also to change federal regulations in the tax structure that has made this once powerful industrial giant in this land and in the world now with a lower rate of productivity than any of the other industrial nations, with a lower rate of savings and investment on the part of our people and put us back where we belong.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

The overlap, I suspect, is quite large there. The ideal of "racial equality" typically involves creating some type of inequality, based on that baggage they carry.

If snark was intended, well played.

To the Philly speech, what better way to mask the ultimate goal of attracting the southern conservative vote than to first perform "a lot of African-American outreach"?

I would still disagree about the economics of the speech. Yes, it dealt with welfare, which is a government program, so technically that is an economic issue. The excerpt you provided, though, confirms that this was a dog whistle loud enough to be heard by distant packs. Consider:

The trouble is, again, that bureaucracy has them so economically trapped that there is no way they can get away. And they're trapped because that bureaucracy needs them as a clientele to preserve the jobs of the bureaucrats themselves.

That is a tired stereotype, exactly from the same mold as the claim that scientists only pretend to accept AGW as a reality so they can accept "lucrative" research grants. (I'm not saying there aren't members in bureaucracies out there that might embrace that cyclical theory of dependency, only that it seems to be a trope on the right.) Let's further note that to many southern social conservatives, the typical (if not archetypical) welfare recipient is black. Continuing:

I believe that there are programs like that, programs like education and others, that should be turned back to the states and the local communities with the tax sources to fund them, and let the people [applause drowns out end of statement].

Again, while mildly economic, the impetus driving the Civil War itself was right there in that statement.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

To the Philly speech, what better way to mask the ultimate goal of attracting the southern conservative vote than to first perform "a lot of African-American outreach"?

This is veering into tinfoil territory now, where you're asserting that, to gain the support of Southern racists (the intention of two words in the middle of a speech in a section about economics), Reagan spent the day on African-American voter outreach.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

More into tinfoil territory would be: a) your assertion that the speech had nothing to do with race since he (Gosh!) reached out to black voters earlier; and b) that you keep insisting a speech laden with conservative stereotypes and references to the Civil War that would play well in a crowd that fondly remembers the days of uninterrupted Jim Crow restrictions on black citizens should strictly be referred to as dealing with "economics."

Close your eyes as tightly as you wish, but the wink and the nod can be detected by just about anyone else (at least anyone without a political ax to hone on this very issue).

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

More into tinfoil territory would be: a) your assertion that the speech had nothing to do with race since he (Gosh!) reached out to black voters earlier; and b) that you keep insisting a speech laden with conservative stereotypes and references to the Civil War that would play well in a crowd that fondly remembers the days of uninterrupted Jim Crow restrictions on black citizens should strictly be referred to as dealing with "economics."

To reach the conclusion I have, you have to look at Reagan's body of work, at (again) the context of the speech, of the fact that it never came up before or again, that there would be very limited benefit to this in 1980, that he wouldn't have to court those voters in that way anyway given Carter's positive record on race (a record that racists would reject outright and almost certainly simply go for the other guy), and so on. There is no discernible benefit to your claim for Reagan, and no historical evidence or data to suggest it, either.

Close your eyes as tightly as you wish, but the wink and the nod can be detected by just about anyone else (at least anyone without a political ax to hone on this very issue).

And thus you personify the type of left-winger I was talking about. If you see race in everything, you're going to start seeing it in places it doesn't belong. Don't be this person (http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/09/showbiz/lorde-royals-racism-spat/index.html).

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Wow. You are going to discount my observations with a wave of the hand and a firm "Nah." Ballzy. Completely wrong, but ballzy.

I need only three observations:

• Philadelphia, Mississippi;
  
• a reference to welfare recipients; and
  
• the term "states' rights."

Actually, I take that back. I need only these three observations:

• Philadelphia, Mississippi;
  
• the term "states' rights;" and
  
• Philadelphia, Mississippi.

Trust me; anyone in the South would hear the "hidden" message in that speech loudly and clearly, good buddy.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Wow. You are going to discount my observations with a wave of the hand and a firm "Nah." Ballzy. Completely wrong, but ballzy.

I'm starting to realize that "handwaving" is code for some for "I don't like the logical steps you took." I detailed out exactly why I believe Reagan was not using some coded language. There were four distinct observations:

* Reagan lacked a history of racist speech or activity.
* The context of the speech does not lend itself to a coded racist claim.
* The time in history that Reagan made the speech is not condusive to a racist appeal, coded or otherwise.
* Carter's positions on race relations guarantees that those voters would flock to Reagan anyway, based on basic "lesser of two evils" voting habits.

Far from "handwaving," this is a concise point that you've chosen not to refute, but rather dismiss without examination.

Meanwhile, what you choose as your defense is that it was coded language surrounded by coded language (the reference to welfare, ignoring the context of why he brought it up (hint: it's because he successfully reformed welfare in California)) in an area that had significant racist history. That's not a lot to go on, but you're running with it anyway.

You're a thoughtful guy, your posts show it even though I don't always agree with your conclusions. Why you're jumping on this train when the evidence is incredibly weak, I can't figure out.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

It seems we only disagree on one thing: what constitutes a "coded racist claim." That said, I will revise the list you have (removing the insignificant elements):

• The context of the speech absolutely lends itself to a coded racist claim.
  
• The context of the speech absolutely lends itself to a coded racist claim.
  
• The context of the speech absolutely lends itself to a coded racist claim.
  
• The context of the speech absolutely lends itself to a coded racist claim.

Far from "handwaving," this is a concise point that you've chosen not to refute, but rather dismiss without examination.

Oh, I've examined it, for the over twenty-five years now since I've become aware of the details.

A good friend has family in Philadelphia. He's the one who told me about how the speech was received there, a few years later. He, an avowed liberal (worse than me by far), was told by his uncles and cousins how the speech electrified the area. This was a family who saw each other seldom enough that they did not really talk politics simply because of the area's history and my friend's perceived "outsider" status; but that bit got through to them while discussing Reagan's re-election years later.

At the time M. told me this, I didn't know what he was talking about. I had yet to learn about the Civil Rights murders that took place (gotta love public ed, which avoids controversy like the plague!), and I was still a staunch conservative who supported Reagan. Only years later did I put the facts together and realize what a dramatic leap this *one speech* was for the GOP, again, breaking over a century of Democratic Party hold with holders of Civil War Lincoln grudges.

You may not believe that traditions regarding race have such a power over individuals, let alone regions. That doesn't mean that these traditions don't exist, let alone that the evidence isn't right there in abundance describing such power, just waiting for someone to observe it.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

He, an avowed liberal (worse than me by far), was told by his uncles and cousins how the speech electrified the area.

So, to be clear, someone who is already negative toward Reagan heard what you're hearing, is convinced everyone else did, and this is more evidence - anecdote - than an actual reasoned, considered look at the situation.

Sorry. Traditions regarding race or not, you lack a reasonable argument to support your case here.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

To be clear, dog whistles are dog whistles because of subjective, anecdotal experience, not despite them. That's how they work.

Someone who refused to consider the personal angle of people who listened to a speech, focusing instead exclusively on the surface content, would miss the power—and quite reasonable argument—behind any "nudge, nudge, say no more" references. They might also point to the speaker's past record outside the "nudge, nudge" bits as if to disprove the intent of the speech itself, taking into no account the political strategy the dog whistle might represent . . . even if that strategy proved wildly successful for both the candidate and his party.

Oh. . . . Got it.

Carry on. We're done.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Someone who refused to consider the personal angle of people who listened to a speech, focusing instead exclusively on the surface content, would miss the power—and quite reasonable argument—behind any "nudge, nudge, say no more" references. They might also point to the speaker's past record outside the "nudge, nudge" bits as if to disprove the intent of the speech itself, taking into no account the political strategy the dog whistle might represent . . . even if that strategy proved wildly successful for both the candidate and his party.

What you're doing here is exactly what happens in the OP, you realize. That it stops being about what's actually happening, and instead the racial angle is inserted into everything. It's not that people care about a secure vote, it's that they don't want the poor to vote. It's not that they don't want to see people vote for someone else, it's that they want to actively suppress the minority vote. It's not that the song is critiquing an unrelatable, unrealistic culture of wealth, it's an attack on African-American cultural identities.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[paft.livejournal.com]

bdj: Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

And frequently, it's not.

As I've observed, you must be awfully confused by old gangster movies where a thug walks into a business, looks around, and says, "Nice place here. Be a shame if it were to burn down."

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Not really, because that sort of situation has context. And history. And basic observation. Not a feeling, not an agenda.

It's like watching a gangster movie, hearing "be a shame if it were to burn down," and assuming that the guy learned about a CIA asset.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

And sometimes it's a big, fat, Freudian dick.

Perhaps that is what's happening here. A dog whistle is, after all, an appropriate metaphor because only those in certain circumstances can "hear" the message, in this case the folks of the Deep South for whom (again) the Jim Crow laws are a social norm that should have been continued, but weren't because of yet more interference from those Northerners. Northerners (like yourself) have not been steeped in this cultural history; you therefore don't hear the whistle. As I explained, that whistle was explained to me by a friend with southern family; I didn't get it before that explanation, either.

I think I'll take the word of someone with ties to the South over another Northerner like yourself. Nothing personal. You just don't have the right "ears." I might try to confirm/debunk my suspicions with another Southerner later (could be much later, as our work schedules no longer mesh), one who also happens to hail from a rabidly racist family and who is, himself, quite admittedly racist (though, as he also admitted, "mellowing with age").

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

* Reagan lacked a history of racist speech or activity.

Reagan opposed the civil rights act and the voting rights act. He signed the mulford act to prevent black panthers from defending themselves with guns. He had a history of going in front of southern audiences slinging wildly distorted anecdotes of welfare queens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen#Origin) and young bucks (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/10/innocent-mistakes/)? His went around with his communications director Pat Buchanan (http://fair.org/press-release/pat-buchanan-in-his-own-words/). He opposed MLK's birthday as a holiday until he was forced to sign it into law.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Reagan opposed the civil rights act and the voting rights act.

As did many antiracist conservatives, like Barry Goldwater.

He signed the mulford act to prevent black panthers from defending themselves with guns.

True. Not really an anti-black situation, but a pro-police one, and a terrible bill to sign in any context.

He had a history of going in front of southern audiences slinging wildly distorted anecdotes of welfare queens and young bucks? His went around with his communications director Pat Buchanan.

Okay...?

He opposed MLK's birthday as a holiday until he was forced to sign it into law.

Reagan's opposition to it appears to have been based in the cost of yet another national holiday, not because of who MLK was.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

I am certain Reagan's history didn't endear him to the AAC, and he was never inclined to boycott hanging out with and helping actual racists, but he wouldn't wear a sheet, no.

Do you think Nixon was racist? Just a calibration question.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Do you think Nixon was racist? Just a calibration question.

From what I've read, it's probably very likely. Certainly anti-Semitic.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Okay. Reagan orbited those circles and when you dance with devils, its hard to tell who is leading.

The Mulford act itself, and the fact that someone like Reagan signed it, is undeniably racially entangled. Not sure if you know but it was commonly known as the Panther Bill (http://www.pbs.org/hueypnewton/actions/actions_capitolmarch.html) at the time - before it was signed.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Okay. Reagan orbited those circles and when you dance with devils, its hard to tell who is leading.

And Obama actually did "pal around with terrorists." I'm sure if we parsed your list of friends, you'd find some rough stuff there, too.

The Mulford act itself, and the fact that someone like Reagan signed it, is undeniably racially entangled. Not sure if you know but it was commonly known as the Panther Bill at the time - before it was signed.

Well, right. It was designed to keep the Panthers from interfering with police work. It's "racially entangled" because, well, they're the Black Panthers.

It's like calling the Patriot Act "racially entangled" because it's designed to help stop Al Queda terrorists from attacking us again.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Ronnie's son is pretty much on your side (http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelreagan/2013/08/22/the-butler-from-another-planet-n1670773/page/full) on this issue, which isn't surprising. Though I bet John Sayles loathes the title of that article! That shiny gold kid had a butler holding his silver spoon and considers one of said butler's most praiseworthy traits that he never complained IRL. So, um....well, "when I die I wanna white boy by my side"

Anyway, I am curious if you think Nixon was racist or not, especially with what you said previously about intention being important. His is a far odder case intention wise.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

I just Googled up an interesting take (http://books.google.com/books?id=ZThyQEeZjdkC&pg=PA108&lpg=PA108&dq=trent+lott+philadelphia,+mississippi+reagan+speech&source=bl&ots=2YeF1fqjz-&sig=5_k7sPJ6nY-xcaQTi_QRXc_XTJs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=r0BcUs2pD-aeiQLQxICIDg&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=trent%20lott%20philadelphia%2C%20mississippi%20reagan%20speech&f=false) on this question. I'm going to lean toward's Paul Krugman's take (from the top of p. 109): "Reagan's defenders protest furiously that he wasn't personally bigoted. So what? We're talking about his political strategy. His personal beliefs are irrelevant."

Exactly. The speech was designed to gain votes, and it worked, breaking in one fell swoop the traditional tie the GOP had to Lincoln, and in so doing breaking the over century-long hold the Democratic Party held over the deep South. The few votes it lost the campaign paled in comparison. (I also agree with that portion of the story that covers Reagan's Lockean conservatism; it was one of the reasons I voted for him.)

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

You realize that the book is called Conservatism and Racism, right? That you find Krugman's take (a man who has a punditry record that nearly diminishes his economic record in how poor it is) more compelling than Frum's (who is nearly as bad, and for worse reasons) further strengthens my case that this is not based on what Reagan said, but more who Reagan is and to further tropes about race and the right.

If we're trying to figure out Reagan's political strategy, let's look at his political strategy. To believe that he was courting racists in coded language would mean that he is intentionally nuking the rest of his week's campaign schedule. That his campaign, as disheveled and error-laded as it was, would spend significant campaign time and money weeks before an election in urban areas, speaking with African-American leaders and publications, and so on, right after rhetorically spitting in their face.

Think about that. Think about how illogical that is, from a campaigning standpoint and from a personal standpoint. It doesn't make sense, logically or otherwise.

This is not doing your argument any favors.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Yes, yes, you've pointed out before that anyone who looks to works with any just-off-center-left-leaning bent whatsoever is deliberately either misleading himself or others, probably both. I don't buy it, and my reasons are a matter of public record. To recap, as long as the facts are there, one can cite away. When the facts are distorted, that's another matter. Determining the factual content of the work is not a simple litmus test involving whether or not it is "fair" to extremists. Citing sources should not be exposed to well poisoning.

To believe that he was courting racists in coded language would mean that he is intentionally nuking the rest of his week's campaign schedule.

Or injecting plausible deniability. Which ever comes first.

Think about how illogical that is, from a campaigning standpoint and from a personal standpoint. It doesn't make sense, logically or otherwise.

That's kinda the point of campaign strategies. They don't have to "make sense;" they only have to work. And, lets remember, it did. GWB's decision to suggest that John McCain's daughter might be his natural child in South Carolina? Despicable, but it worked.

I am amazed that something so blatant can be denied by you so blithely. But, please, don't let me stop you. Continue to insist that mentioning a favorable position on States' Rights in a region so emotionally charged by our fairly recent history is simply to discuss "economics." I leave it to others to judge who here has the more solid argument.

Since I mentioned wells earlier, keep digging. The well you're poisoning is the rhetorical hole you're digging for yourself right now!

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Yes, yes, you've pointed out before that anyone who looks to works with any just-off-center-left-leaning bent whatsoever is deliberately either misleading himself or others, probably both. I don't buy it, and my reasons are a matter of public record.

This is not actually any position I've ever taken, so...

Or injecting plausible deniability. Which ever comes first.

That's a lot of money for plausible deniability that no one cares to buy anyway, is it not?

GWB's decision to suggest that John McCain's daughter might be his natural child in South Carolina? Despicable, but it worked.

Assuming it actually came from Rove. A claim never substantiated, and one I don't buy for a second.

I am amazed that something so blatant can be denied by you so blithely. But, please, don't let me stop you. Continue to insist that mentioning a favorable position on States' Rights in a region so emotionally charged by our fairly recent history is simply to discuss "economics." I leave it to others to judge who here has the more solid argument.

This is the problem - you call it blatant, but you have no supporting evidence outside of the "dog whistle politics" canard and the location of the speech. That's incredibly weak evidence, if we even want to call it that, and it makes no logical sense, does not hold up to even basic scrutiny.

The question is not about any holes being dug, but rather why you're clinging to a point that can't be supported.