U.S. Rep. Lynn Jenkins told a recent gathering in northeast Kansas that the Republican Party is looking for a "great white hope" to help stop President Barack Obama's political agenda.For the record, I don't think Jenkins was trying to make this a racial issue. The term "Great White Hope" is really just a euphemism for "we need to pull the ultimate trick out our a$$es, cause it ain't lookin' good for 2012 right now". I am willing to give Jenkins the benefit of the doubt. The fact that she went on to mention three white guys (Cantor is Jewish) is merely a coincidence. Again, it ain't like the GOP has a bunch of brothas just waiting for their shot. Ya'll saw that convention in St. Paul last Fall. It looked like one of my corporate managerial retreats.
Videotape shows Jenkins, a Republican, making the comment at an Aug. 19 forum. She was discussing the GOP's future after Democrats took control of the House and Senate and Obama became the nation's first black president. Jenkins is white.
"Republicans are struggling right now to find the great white hope," said Jenkins. "I suggest to any of you who are concerned about that, who are Republican, there are some great young Republican minds in Washington." As examples, Jenkins mentioned Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI).
Jenkins' spokeswoman Mary Geiger told the paper that Jenkins' remark was not meant to refer to "race, creed or any background." Said Geiger: "There's no doubt the Republican Party has gone through some dark and challenging times in recent years, but thankfully bright young leaders have stepped up to lead the party into the future and she hopes to be a part of it. That was the intent of her comments -- nothing more and nothing less. Congresswoman Jenkins apologizes for her choice of words."
The term stems from the early 1900s when there was a campaign to find a white boxer who could defeat heavyweight boxing champion Jack Johnson, who was black.
So, for those of you who label me some vicious race baiter, please circle today's date on your calendar. And cut the lady a break.
Question: Was Lynn Jenkins using racial codewords, or does the term "Great White Hope" just speak to the level of desperation that permeates the Republican party?
GOP Congresswoman: Party Looking For "Great White Hope" [TPM]
Average Email
Average FAQ
Average Bio
AB @ AOL BlackVoices
AB @ NPR
AB @ WashingtonPost
Posts
45 AverageComments™:
I think she meant just what her words said: The Republican party needs to find the next great white hope. After the words were aired in the media, there was a backlash against them. Therefore, she had to back pedal as they all do when they get caught saying something untoward.
It must be such a joy to be a Black Republican these days.
The GOP deserves the rough times it's suffering because they abandoned their principles, and most importantly the will to fight for their principles. Even now I'm not completely sold on the GOP's rush to fiscal responsibility and limited government given what they did from 2000-2006. While Obamacare could jeopardize the Democrats in 2010, the GOP should not frame the Obamacare in that fashion; frame it for what it is: poor legislation that does not withstand Constitutional, individual liberty, or free-market scrutiny. The GOP needs to champion these tenets of limited government, individual liberty, and free markets, and let the power of those fundamentals of our Constitutional, democratic republic determine who shall be our elected representatives.
unintentional, but code, nontheless...It is ingrained.
At first I was pissed that yet again a bunch of hyperreactive, English-butchering crybabies were abusing the racism issue, and dulling what should be its very sharp edge. (Recall the whole "niggardly" debacle a few years back. Even though that one WAS awkward, the people pitching hissy fits just made themselves look illiterate and ignorant by insisting race had anything to do with it. It was like that town in Texas that once tried to replace the word "hello" with "heaven-o" because they didn't want to say "hell," even though it has NO lingual relation to the greeting).
I was given pause, however, when Olbermann informed the audience of what was allegedly the ORIGIN of "great white hope."
Whoa. I had NO idea.
But if it's true (a quick Google search doesn't provide much proof either way) clearly, neither did Jenkins. So everyone should just back the hell off, and leave us to ponder the sometimes unsavory origins of commonly used expressions. People (especially fellow liberals) who get all up in knots over this strike me as pretty hypocritical. Wait until one of THEM uses an expression whose origins they didn't know.
I've never thought of the phrase "great white hope" referring to anything other than defeating a black person. So it's hard for me not to read race into the mix. Although I've always considered it more tongue in cheek in this day and age. But I don't think it's appropriate for a politician to joke like that. And if she wasn't joking, then I'm more likely to think she's just latently racist. Not "hang me a nigga" racist. Just "you people" racist.
@ Derek:
So you knew, then.
I'd always assumed it had a simlar origin to the whole "white knight" or "coming in on a white horse" thing.
Obviously, nope.
Wow. In a year or so they will be openly throwing round the N-word. I agree with Monie it must be hard being a black republican now. It must feel like being like being a Black man at an Aryan Nation's rally. To all do yourself a favor and at least join the Libertarian party at least they hold true to their values.
After my summer long encounter with the good whyyyyte folk of Murrah-land's Montgomery County, I realised most of them speak out of ignorance--SHEER ignorance.
I'm more than willing to give her a pass on this one.
No news story here.
Just because she may not have meant it on one level doesn't necessarily mean she may not have meant it on another (unconscious) level. Seems to me that this Republican white woman's Freudian slip is showing.
@Wave,
While I am not a registered Republican, I don't recall people asking Democrats/Liberals to hide or mask themselves when those loony lefties made their outrageous claims during the Regan-Bush years. When these disingenuous, hypocritical celebrities say stupid stuff I don't hear anyone suggesting Democrats run away or be embarrassed. When Barney Frank wonders 'from what planet' another person is from, I didn't hear any revulsion or distancing from his condescending and sarcastic comments. The reason why the loony Left hates Bill O'Reilly because he's not afraid to call out MoveOn, Daily Kos, the Huffington Post, Code Pink, and hypocritical celebrities for their socialist-statist lunacy.
Few people draw my wrath more than celebrities. These people champion socialist-statist philosophies for the proletariat while their lawyers and accountants squeeze every dime out of the movie producers and hide as much as possible from the IRS. Will they 'dump' their health care into a single-payer, government option? I would pay good money to witness their reaction when society decides it's their 'right' to 'affordable entertainment', and seeks to 'cap' movie salaries to no more than the President of the United States, and keep movie tickets at no more than $6.00 since we all 'deserve' an 'affordable' night of entertainment for hard-working/poor families.
My standard phrase describing all who fit this:
hypocritical SOBs.
I have never heard the term "Great White Hope" used in anything other than a racial context. So, its hard for me to think it was intended otherwise. Although a friend from Kansas tells me this Congresswoman isn't the sharpest tool in the drawer so she may not have known.
Also, GOPers are alway quick to throw up Michael Steele when speaking about politics (why I will never know), so I find it interesting that she did not mention him when speaking about the future of the party.
Well, at least she didn't give a rendition of a Paul Robeson-like voice over to "the White Man's Burden"...LOL!
Nope. No pass. She knew what she meant.
I'll chalk it up to a Freudian slip though.
I implore everyone to watch, "Unforgivable Blackness: The Rise and Fall of Jack Johnson" to see how the origins of the term "Great White Hope" came to be.
It's a Ken Burns film by the way. A wonderful documentary.
EG
Freudian slip...she meant it.
Palin/Steele 2012
Her next campaign slogan can be:
"Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins - Too Stupid to be Racist!"
Actually, against my will, I have to pull out my Expert Witness card on this one due to my Kansas roots and say AB is actually right about Jenkins - outside of Kansas City, Lawrence or Topeka, they really are unaware of...well...anything in Kansas. So it is very possible that Jenkins really had never been educated on the meaning of the phrase "Great White Hope."
I mean, c'mon. We're talking about the same state that failed to see the irony in killing an abortion doctor in the name of "pro-life."
@ adinasi:
"I don't recall people asking Democrats/Liberals to hide or mask themselves when those loony lefties made their outrageous claims during the Regan-Bush years."
Claims such as what?
"When Barney Frank wonders 'from what planet' another person is from, I didn't hear any revulsion or distancing from his condescending and sarcastic comments"
Darn right you didn't. Because first of all, what he said was nowhere NEAR as poisonous as what some people on the right have said. But more importantly, you can only go so far in engaging juvenile paranoid hysteria and pretend it's actual adult conversation. People like that woman are damaging our national discussion, and the rest of us gain nothing by taking them seriously. Someone has to break the nice act and call them out publicly.
Macon D:
You can't persecute based on what we presume someone's subconscious to have been thinking. That's downright totalitarian.
The term "Great White Hope" was coined by author Jack London in the early 1900's. He was a racist who was incensed with Jack Johnson's success in the ring against white men. The term has had a specific racial context for the better part of a century. That is, the protection of white privilege against non-white "usurpers." Whether it's Jack Johnson becoming the heavyweight champion or Barack Obama becoming President, the meaning is the same, and it's obvious to many. The esteemed representative from Kansas chose the wrong dog whistle in her racist plea for a white savior.
What's interesting is that one Republican is pleading for a "Great White Hope" at the same time that another Republican is trying to get a pardon for Jack Johnson, a black man whose athletic successes against white men in the ring led to the use of the term.
Great Old Party, Great White Hope, Great White Elephant - White Elephants do not earn their keep, and they eat and cost a lot - Republican Party
Kansas House Representative Lynn Jenkins said this week that the Republican Party needs a "Great White Hope" and enumerates a list of only White Persons as possible political candidates for the future.
The Republican Party or GOP is becoming a "Great White Elephant", but the problem is that White Elephants are very costly, useless, etc ... Many Sacred Laws of Kings forbid the use of White Elephants for practical purposes and for work.
In the following section wee see the Biggest White Elephants in South East Asia, Europe and North America :
White Elephants in Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_elephant
Some excerpts :
The term derives from the sacred white elephants kept by Southeast Asian monarchs in Burma, Thailand, Laos and Cambodia. To possess a white elephant was regarded (and is still regarded in Thailand and Burma) as a sign that the monarch was ruling with justice and power, and that the kingdom was blessed with peace and prosperity. The tradition derives from tales in the scriptures which associate a white elephant with the birth of Buddha, as his mother was reputed to have dreamed of a white elephant presenting her with a lotus flower, a symbol of wisdom and purity, on the eve of giving birth.
Because the animals were considered sacred and laws protected them from labor, receiving a gift of a white elephant from a monarch was both a blessing and a curse: a blessing because the animal was sacred and a sign of the monarch's favour, and a curse because the animal had to be kept and could not be put to practical use to offset the cost of maintaining it.
........................
Examples of notable alleged white elephants :
The Concorde, a supersonic transport built by Aérospatiale and British Aircraft Corporation, intended for high-speed intercontinental passenger travel. Only fourteen production aircraft were built, though it was planned that development costs were to be amortized over hundreds of units: the British and French governments incurred large losses as no aircraft could be sold on commercial terms. Concorde flew the transatlantic route for over two decades, and it did at least make a big operating profit for British Airways.
Lambert-St. Louis International Airport runway 11/29 was conceived on the basis of traffic projections made in the 1980s and 1990s that warned of impending strains on the airport and the national air traffic system as a result of predicted growth in traffic at the airport. The $1 billion runway expansion was designed in part to allow for simultaneous operations on parallel runways in bad weather. Construction began in 1998, and continued even after traffic at the airport declined following the 9/11 attacks, the purchase of Trans World Airlines by American Airlines in April 2001, and subsequent cuts in flights to the airport by American Airlines in 2003. The project required the relocation of seven major roads and the destruction of approximately 2,000 homes in Bridgeton, Missouri. In addition to providing superfluous extra capacity for flight operations at the airport, use of the runway is shunned by fuel-conscious pilots and airlines due to its distance from the terminals. Even one of the airport commissioners, John Krekeler, deemed the project a "white elephant".
Montréal-Mirabel International Airport is North America's largest airport, but has been abandoned as a passenger airport.
Olympic Stadium in Montreal cost about C$1.61 billion. Since the departure of the Montreal Expos baseball team in 2004, it has had no main tenant. The debt from the stadium wasn't paid in full until December 2006. Because of the financial disaster in which it left Montreal, it was nicknamed "The Big Owe", "Uh-O", and "The Big Mistake".
Raciality.com
Vicente Duque
As a formerly registered Democrat, watching the way the party allowed Obama to be slandered, called a muslim, a terrorist, and allowed his family and church to be racially slurred last year was such an eye opener to me that I changed my party affiliation. The stuff he put up with while going against Hillary was so blatant, so uncalled for, and so uncouth that I simply could NOT allow myself to still be associated with such a party anymore. I officially switched to unaffiliated after the November election.
There were some folks in the party (ie: James Clyburn) that had the decency to call a spade a spade, but by and large, the Democratic party and its many operatives just stood by idly as this man and his wife were called every name in the book by the Clintons and their lackeys. Remember all THIS stuff?
http://clintonattacksobama.pbworks.com/Incident+Tracker
It showed me that the party wasn't much better than the GOP. And I did what was necessary (changing party affliation and sending an email to DNC) to make it known that I wasn't happy with this.
I hate calling people out, but I really, really only want my Republican friends (especially the black folks) to respond to this question...
Q: How does it make you feel to see the party you ride with doing this sort of racial (not necessarily racist) stuff on a regular basis? Do you ever contact your party leaders (as I have, I've sent emails to Steele and RNC) and voice your disagreement with this sort of tactic? Again, Conservatives ONLY, no Dems/liberals.
It bothers me a lot. I haven't left the party over it, but I've informed the national party and the state GOP how much it upsets me to see foolishness like this tolerated, even a little. I also support and promote both the Black Republicans and the Log Cabin wing within the party.
One of the challenges for a Republican is to navigate between racism and victimology / falsehood. Politically, Democrats use race against their opponents and benefit from divisive racial politics. Plenty of stuff clearly should not be tolerated but it's occasionally hard to know whether something genuinely offends... or whether the claim of offense is merely a political gambit intended to fragment opposition.
Occasionally the GOP will massacre one of its own for racial foolishness, in ways I never see the Democratic party do. Trent Lott anyone?
@ Spool
"Occasionally the GOP will massacre one of its own for racial foolishness, in ways I never see the Democratic party do. Trent Lott anyone?"
Oh please. Are you conveniently forgetting how many folks went to bat for Lott? Forgetting that disgraceful "save my ass" interview on BET? Forgetting his BS "I'm sorry if you were offended" apologies? Forgetting how Bush and the GOP slammed him but didn't ask him to step down until the story got way out of control? Forgetting that Lott had said essentially the same thing in the past? That Lott had voted against the friggin' voting rights act?
I don't think it's even remotely fair to use this as an example of the GOP self-policing anymore than the Dems do. Face it, both parties allow this stuff to run rampant. It just seems (to me) that such incidents occur on the right with a greater frequency.
@the uppity negro
Srly? I live in the Mo Co. While its not Sesame Street and no place is perfect most pink folks out here are pretty informed. Where are you hanging? Closer to Frederick?
Both parties are clearly guilty in this area (Dem Sen Robert Byrd anybody), but clearly the GOP has had a resurgence of this behavior since Obama's election. Maybe the answer is to give black voters more choices other than Democratic or Republican. I know that isn't going to happen anytime soon.
Speaking of Byrd here is one of his classics. Where was Democratic outrage when he said this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnO6ai0Ktro
One of the challenges for a Republican is to navigate between racism and victimology
I thought they figured out that route decades ago with the southern strategy. They just work to embrace white victimology. And the less insidious conservative victimology (see: everytime a conservative cries about the media)
"Boo hoo, we need a great white hope" is just an extension of that mentality. But the GOP, especially now that it's moderates have all been electorally defeated really have nothing else to fall back on.
Derek wrote,
I thought they figured out that route decades ago with the southern strategy. They just work to embrace white victimology. And the less insidious conservative victimology (see: everytime a conservative cries about the media)
There's a good piece on this, and more, by Kai Wright at The Root.
Interesting factoid- The Congresswoman Jenkins was born and raised about 30miles away (in Kansas) from where the "great white hope" came from to challenge Jack Johnson back in the early 1900s.
Okay. Benefit of the doubt gone. She supported a measure to pardon Jack Johnson which specifically makes a "Great White Hope" reference. I know members of congress cannot be expected to remember every piece of legislation they support, but this was last month!
http://www.ottawaherald.com/story/082809jenkinsvote
This discussion made me think of a tangential issue, what would the Republican Party have to do to bring in any meaningful number of Black voters? Blacks as a voting block are somewhat monolithic in that they routinely vote Democratic upwards of 90%. For some not so pleasant considersations look up some old LBJ quotes.
At this point I can't imagine the RNC making any particular effort to reach out specifically or meaningfully to black voters. For a lot of time and effort they might be able to pull an additional 2-3% away from the next Presidential Election.
I personally could care less about the Republican party, they haven't held to any principles, or even Fiscal Conservatism. Bush and Company essentially engaged in corporate welfare on the back of the American middle class.
Any time a Republican says something I agree with I assume its just accidental.
Though in truth about the only politicians I can stand are Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. Dennis I disagree with ideologically but at least he is consistent and principled and believes in what he's saying.
@atypical:
AB and I have had that discussion before... it will take a long time and a lot of effort to peel off any significant chunk of black voters. You can intentionally sabotage your standing (southern strategy) but coming back from it is the work of two or three generations... even assuming the Dems sit on their hands and let it happen (which they surely won't).
Clearly, empowering african-Americans in national government doesn't do anything for their numbers in the GOP, and that is part of the danger of racial politics. The public is told that diversity matters, but the architect of the most diverse cabinet in American history is routinely accused of racism. The fact that his party never had a problem with goes unremarked.
And yes, I know that prominent members of the GOP have done plenty to convince minorities that they are callous towards race, and this blunts the effectiveness of any outreach. I wonder how the default black opinion of the Republican Party could possibly be changed, though.
@AB:
Plenty of party powerbrokers stepped up for Lott in the beginning... but the conservative rank-and-file, including many bloggers considered 'far-right, took him to the woodshed. That story only received media attention because the rightwing blogosphere drove the message until the MSM could no longer ignore it. It stands as an example of the party driving out a leader for racist statements, even when the other leaders wanted to run interference for him.
@derek:
Way to take an honest comment and turn it into a partisan attack. I'm talking about today, not thirty years ago.
Is it possible for you to make a comment about Republicans without insulting us?
After looking at the film of Rep Jenkins, I might have to alter my opinion a bit. Although I still think that she wants to find a white candidate to run against President Obama, it looks to me, as if she was paraphrasing someone else, when she sed the phrase great white hope. I don't think she knew the history of the phrase. Irony at it's worst.
Is it possible for you to make a comment about Republicans without insulting us?
Honestly, probably not. The left assimilated the good ideas from the american right at least 10 years ago. The GOP and american conservatism in general is pretty much relegated to "why do you even still exist" status. I can't name a problem the american right has solved in a long time.
But in all seriousnes (not that i didn't mean what i wrote above, but i was somewhat tongue in cheek) I'm just not an even handed guy. Besides, Averagebro already exposed the Dems last great sin. I can't say the GOP has done anything in my voting lifetime (which admittedly is only 7 years) that's bit on a racial level as much as what happened during the 2008 primaries. But the problem is that the GOP's base is basically a marriage of western libertarian leaning folks and southerners that rejected segregation, with a small sprinkling of no-nonsense conservative new englanders. The latter doesn't exist any more, the west is turning blue (reagan and nixon came from cali... how's that west coast thing working out now though?) so i know what's left as a constituency. And it doesn't make me anymore interested in the american conservative movement.
And it's not like we are that far removed from the roots of the conservative coalition:
This guy is essentially arguing that Buckley was right to oppose lifting segregation... at the national review.... IN 2009
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWFjZTEyOGQ3ODBmOGVjMmVjMWY5N2JhZjUzMDcwMTE=
"Darn right you didn't. Because first of all, what he said was nowhere NEAR as poisonous as what some people on the right have said. But more importantly, you can only go so far in engaging juvenile paranoid hysteria and pretend it's actual adult conversation."
Marbles, If I talked this way to a 15 year old I should be fired as a teacher. Yes, this woman in question was a partisan plant, but Frank should have risen above that instead of sinking to her level. Frank never shared specifics of the House Bill, and then went to the classic leftist tactic of deriding military spending as the cause of our spending woes.
When you roll in the mud with pigs you get dirty, but the pigs love it.
@ adinasi:
Look, in most cases---life and politics---I completely agree. I try to live by that principle of not sinking to the low levels others are willing to sink to.
But like I said, I am sick to death of watching these crazies control our national conversation.
Every. Single. Time.
They ALWAYS get their way. The debate is ALWAYS framed with THEIR language. Their "concerns" ALWAYS infiltrate the mainstream. It should not be tolerated anymore. It has caused enormous damage over the years. Why should legislators consent to dumb down urgent discussions of national policy just to accomodate these shrieking cretins? Seriously, why? Playing nice with them, as our toothless President does, is pointless. There's only so much that rational people can be expected to take.
If this sounds elitist and condescending, I'm afraid I can't apologize for that. Call it a character flaw, but I have zero patience for what Martin Luther King called "conscientious stupidity." (Possibly the best thing he ever said.)
And by the way, I know it's a slippery slope to argue things like this, but I've come to belive that you as a teacher SHOULD be allowed to talk to an out of control student that way. But then again, I guess that would be pointless, because we live in a culture where shame has no meaning. (IMO Asian societies go too far the other way, but there has to be some comfortable middle somewhere.)
@derek
7 years eh? No wonder you're so radicalized. Something I learned around here a while back: the more condescending you are, the less people believe you're arguing in good faith. If persuasion is your goal, I'd suggest you think of ways to moderate your tone.
If proving to yourself that your beliefs are better and more correct is your goal... well, OK then.
As for solved problems... we're approaching another "have cake / eat cake" moment with the economy... AB has argued consistently that Obama is merely continuing the Bush ideas on saving the economy. If they work, does that mean Bush gets the credit? I could go on, but "who has fixed more problems" is a silly metric. It skips actually defining a set of problems; a huge exercise in itself, and one I'm certain you would define such that you prove yourself correct.
---
I'm watching California go blue... and watching their pensions vanish, their economy disintegrate, their schools fail, and their businesses flee to conservative states on the borders. Not exactly a solid argument there. How's it working out? Good for Democratic politics, astoundingly terrible for people forced to live under the resulting policies. Talking about acting against your interests!
I'd like to read the NRO article you linked to, but it runs off the edge of the comment box...
<
a href="link_goes_here"
>link text here
<
/a>
If you use the above format, while removing all the carriage return, I'll be able to click on and read your link.
Here's the link. It's premise is basically excusing the fact that people completely make up shit about the healthcare bill by saying that all the shit conservatives made up about why segregation shouldn't be ended, ended up true.
National Review link
Choice quotes: "So what if the Democrats’ health-care bill does not explicitly mention single payer, abortion, death panels, treatment for illegal aliens, or any of the other “myths” that “alarmists” are peddling? There’s plenty of wiggle room"
"Anyone who knows what “states’ rights” meant in 1964 must shudder at those words; but in retrospect, Goldwater and the editors had at least half a point."
Why am I condescending? Because this magazine is supposed to show how be the flagship of conservative thought. But this article shows exactly why I can never really even respect the conservative movement. I know the roots of it's political power. It's opposition to big government IS founded on being anti civil rights act and anti voting rights act. It's alleged support for color blindness in law is founded on being against forced integration. The southern strategy isn't a strategy so much as it is an identity. And this identity results in adopting ideologies not for their practical impact, but to calm fears of the rise of the cultural other. And like i said, in the wake of the electoral defeat of most moderate and liberal republicans, this becomes the only thing left for the conservative movement. Looking for that great white hope to defeat the other.
Your description of conservatism is a childish and ignorant caricature, Derek. I'm sorry if it annoys you to say so, but there's really nothing else to call it.
The conservative movement finds its roots in the founding documents, in the writings of the Founders, in Alexis de Tocqueville, in Lincoln's vision and in Reagan's spirit of optimism. Conservatism didn't begin in the 50s... not even the 1850s.
------------
While we're being condescending, I might suggest that, at the ripe old age of 25, you consider dropping phrases such as "I can never..." from your lexicon. You really can't finish that sentence at your age, regardless of what you believe or how strongly you believe it.
Also, actually believing that your politics makes you a better person than me is... well, it's par for the liberal course, to start with. That type never seems to realize the inherent hypocrisy of a belief that perspectives are important, and a visceral rejection of perspectives that contradict their idea of what is "right".
----------
Full quote, for context:
When the bill was debated in the Senate, opponents charged that it would require employers and educational institutions to meet rigid racial quotas in hiring and admissions. Nonsense, said the bill’s sponsors (and fully believed what they said). Nowhere did the bill mention quotas; in fact, it repeatedly and explicitly required equal treatment regardless of race. What could be plainer than that? And yet less than a decade later, “affirmative action” became all but mandatory.
While you may believe that AffAction was a good thing, on reading the quote it's impossible to disagree with Schwartz's point... i.e. that the Goldwater and the editors had half a point when they claimed the one would lead to the other. It most certainly did.
Likewise, he has another solid point in the example of the Federal jurisdiction clause in the Voting Rights Act. You might think it should remain in effect (I have no opinion but eight Justices would agree with you, including the most 'conservative' ones) but you can't argue the fact that it was sold with a 5-year sunset and still remains in effect today.
Again, the full quote from your example:
There’s plenty of wiggle room, with determinations to be made by boards and committees and experts and bureaucrats; and even where there’s no explicit authority to regulate, imaginative bureaucrats and their judicial enablers will conspire to create it — as has happened through the years with (for example) mandatory affirmative action, the EPA’s acquiring power to regulate carbon dioxide, and the FDA’s attempting to ban saccharin.
Schwartz's point is a central one, a common one, and one that is practically impossible to argue with. His point is that this step with healthcare must inexorably lead to further, more onerous and invasive steps... just as it has many times before.
Disagreeing with this can only mean one of three things:
1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, you believe Government can restrain itself this time.
2) You just read "states rights' and applied your radical condescension filter, thus rending yourself unable to comprehend the article.
3) You agree completely with Schwartz but secretly think single payer and care rationing is either good, or necessary, or both.
While you may believe that AffAction was a good thing, on reading the quote it's impossible to disagree with Schwartz's point... i.e. that the Goldwater and the editors had half a point when they claimed the one would lead to the other. It most certainly did.
The argument is that we we shouldn't desegregate because then the country might be open to affirmative action... it's a point that even if true, is so ridiculously wrongheaded and such complete catering to the worst american impulses that it barely even deserves consideration.
The judgment call on affirmative action doesn't even matter, the issue is segregation. The point goldwater and co had was racist fear mongering.
His point is that this step with healthcare must inexorably lead to further, more onerous and invasive steps...
It's called democracy. People realize the doomsday that the opposition was crying about never occurred so they become more receptive of even more progressive measures. That's the plus side of having policy that works. That's the plus side of being in an ideological tradition that isn't merely rooted in reactionary complaints.
Conservatism didn't begin in the 50s... not even the 1850s.
No, it developed in Europe as a way to oppose democratic developments in France. But as that's not very descriptive of how it exists now. Although it does keep it's authoritarian streak and love of cultural traditions/hierarchy.
You claim Lincoln yet the american conservative party finds it's base in the confederacy. No, the 60's and on are more than enough to know where conservatism comes from. I mean, why is this blog entry even able to exist? How am I able to recite ridiculous conservative apologetics about segregation support of all things in 2009. And it's not like I was looking for that article, it was published on the 27th. You can't escape history by pointing to abstract ideals of what the republican party wants to be.
Don't anyone kid themselves.
Rahm Emanuel is the real president.
@ Derek,
The roots of Conservatism is founded in the Constitution. The Constitution embodies a fundamental mistrust of a large central government that is ultimately unresponsive to the people, which is partly why our states are given such latitude and authority. The smaller the government entity, the more sensitive to the voting public it must be.
@ Marbles,
"But like I said, I am sick to death of watching these crazies control our national conversation."
The crazies aren't controlling the conversation; these are only the people the MSM lets you see. There are many, thoughtful, rational, conservatives who argue rightly against the dangers of the House's health care bill, and the rationale of their arguments are the fuel upon which the common person's anger burns.
If I were a Congressman hosting a town hall meeting I KNOW I could manage the anger and hostility of the crowd through reason, reverence, and facts. That these Democratic representatives cannot do that tells me, as I've said many times before, THE LEGISLATION IS BAD THUS INDEFENSIBLE. Is Charles Krauthammer crazy? Thomas Sowell? Dennis Prager? Hugh Hewitt? The Congressional Budget Office? Would Milton Freidman have been labeled crazy and loony for opposing this government intrusion into private enterprise?
While I didn't follow it that closely when it happened, in retrospect I am repulsed that 'W' caved in on his alleged Conservative principles and allowed Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac chase the utopian dream of getting more people into a home, and look what it did: DESTROYED OUR ECONOMY.
These people may be acting crazy, but the root of their fears are quite sane.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn't cause the meltdown in the housing market or the larger economy.
Conservative principles and allowed Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac chase the utopian dream of getting more people into a home, and look what it did: DESTROYED OUR ECONOMY.
What destroyed the economy wasn't fannie and freddie. Billions in loans from Fannie and Freddie isn't what gives us TRILLIONS in overleveraging for banks. AIG didn't go bankrupt insuring fannie and freddie.
The subprime crisis came in the wake of fannie and freddie RECEDING in market share. The finance crisis came in the wake of the private investment banking industry trying to bypass capital requirement rules by using credit default swaps.
It's one thing to have a conservative mindset. The conservative framework explains very well why government action usually fails (like you say, your fears are quite sane)... but an ideological framework can't replace reality. You have to adjust to what really happened not fit the facts to preconceived notions. Regulating fannie and freddie doesn't solve anything to do with the housing bubble (not saying that it isn't a prime example of crony capitalism and government corruption). Less regulation on the investment banking industry just leads to crashes... just like it did in 1929, the last time we had a republican congress and president. No ideology can substitute for reality. The world is much more complicated then that.
No one said government action usually fails; what we're saying is government should not intrude into endeavors which the Constitution stated it should not.
Fannie and Freddie were coerced by Frank, Dodd, and 'W' to lend money to people who could not afford homes. These banks used their wiz kids to try to make lemons out of lemoade, and the whole house of cards came tumbling down.
As always, the true root of this mess is personal irresponsibility, which is the foundation of individual liberty. People should be free to fail as well as succeed; it's the only way we grow. The moment you start enabling people because of their failure, either big or small, free markets and individual liberty crumbles.
@ Spool,
"While we're being condescending, I might suggest that, at the ripe old age of 25, you consider dropping phrases such as "I can never..." from your lexicon. You really can't finish that sentence at your age, regardless of what you believe or how strongly you believe it."
So very, very, true.
Desperate times often lead to desperate, illogical and often embarrassing measures. Let people say what they want; it's often indicative of how they (and so many others) feel. We as a people should not be surprised. Hatred towards those that may be different is festoring in our society like a cancer. And also like cancer there is no known cure, only ways to decrease pain and suffering or prolong the inevitable.
Post a Comment