Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
GunnyL said:Your question might be applicable if Republcians ran around promising things to minorities and swearing they were the ones that truly represented them.
Look at the current administration itself. African Americans and Hispanic Americans hold more prominent posts that at any time during a Dem's administration.
Oh that's right ...Clinton DID appoint Henry Cisneros as the Head of HUD. Having to resign as mayor of San Antonio in disgrace when his extramarital affair made page one was probably the true qualifier for Clinton though.
William Joyce said:Funny essay on Cons v. Libs and the racial issue...
The Conservative Conceit
The most laughable self-delusion of mainstream conservatives these days goes roughly as follows: "I'm conservative, but I'm not racist. In fact, liberals are the real racists. Why else would they believe in affirmative action and welfare? Stereotyping minorities as helpless -- now that's racist." Whereupon, an eager young Republican becomes misty-eyed and imagines himself braving the hose blasts in Alabama whilst warbling "We Shall Overcome."
Oh, and don't forget, these Eddie Haskells of freeperdom love to add: Republican Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves, while Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, a Democrat, was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. Right. Rattle off these townhall.com geek-facts to a clutch of corn-rowed bubble-jacket boolies in East New York and see how far it gets you. So whatchoo sayin', son? I gots to be GOP? Da free market is mad tight? Fo-shizzle!
There is trace validity to this racism-denial by conservatives, particularly the exposure of white liberals as having a paternalistic attitude toward blacks. Which they do, but because the paternalism benefits blacks materially, it's the lonely black who's genuinely upset by it. Hookers may not be proud of what they do, but they don't turn down the cash. Conservative "outrage" about how the poor blacks are turned lazy by liberals and their welfare, by contrast, is heavily feigned. But feign they do, working themselves into a righteous lather about how Arthur Laffer is the true heir to Martin Luther King, Jr. Go tell it on the mountain!
But the truth is that conservatism and racism are closely linked. Both summon experience and instinct as guides, both are jealous of territory, and neither flout natural orders for very long. It's the subconscious realization of this truth that prompts mainstream conservatives go to ridiculous lengths to convince the world -- and themselves -- that they're not racist. The attempt at self-delusion manifests itself in such tomes as Liberal Racism by Jim Sleeper or The End of Racism by Dinesh D'Souza, elevation of such ridiculous characters as Alan Keyes to presidential candidacy primacy, or pretending that J.C. Watts was congressional leadership material instead of admitting what he really is, a ghetto-dweller of the most common variety. Witness Republican conventions featuring "Turbo, the Republican Rapper." I know of what I speak. Shit like that used to get me excited. The phenomenon reveals the mental gymnastics that even thoughtful, politically engaged people are willing to perform in order to avoid thinking honestly about race. Culture, class, values, economics -- conservatives will cling desperately to these abstractions to avoid facing the truth on the ground: blacks and Hispanics have not, cannot and will not be the raw material for a civilization that approaches anything like what they have in mind. Period. If you seek to conserve anything, conservatives, you must first seek to conserve the race that made it.
The antics are amusing. Debate along the liberal-conservative spectrum today is mostly a contest over whose ideology is most anti-racist. Conservatives will speak of "school choice" in the same reverent tones as liberals speak of "civil rights." Oppose "school choice," and why, who are you, Hitler? Oh, how good it feels to call the other side racist for once! I get a newsletter from a libertarian legal outfit called the Institute for Justice, which never fails to present itself as the champion of black women who would be launching their race to riches with hair-braiding establishments were it not for those burdensome regulations no doubt promulgated by big-government racists at the health department. Liberals and conservatives are tripping over each other in a mad scramble to grab the golden ring of multiracialism. I even read an essay recently in which the writer compared the Janet Jackson tit flash to Weimar Germany. Yeah! Our declining values can only be a preview of Nazi takeover! Never mind living, breathing Jews pumping this stuff in 2004. Let's talk about those darn racists! It's almost as if conservatives, aware that they're "behind" when it comes to multiracial hipness, are pouring most of their energy into this pursuit, rather than, say, I don't know, preserving our culture and some semblance of American freedom.
The same realization also explains why "conservatism," even in its most defanged incarnations, still retains a hint of the forbidden. In a typical college campus showdown, the lefties, liberals and other crunchy activists will chant that the College Republicans are a bunch of racists. On cue, the Republicans will deny it, holding up their pictures of the brown-skinned Dinesh D'Souza like silver crosses. Affirmative action bake sale my ass. For those who've missed it, campus Bushies have been attempting to garner attention with bake sales that offer different prices for similarly-sized cookies depending on who's buying: $1 for whites, 25 cents for blacks, etc. Tee-hee. The point being, all the races are the same, and isn't affirmative action silly? Only in Amerikwa could students get in trouble for a stunt that only seeks to affirm racial equality. But what's really going on is that the darkies sense, correctly, that however superficially sincere the point of the exercise, the College Republicans are Polo-wearing white kids contemptuous of blacks and reluctant to associate with them unless they're Tiger Woods. The random Asian in the club only serves to strengthen the point.
White liberals and white conservatives differ very little in their core regard for blacks. Deep down, white liberals correctly see blacks as a perpetually inferior breed. If one happens to spring from the pack and start working calculus functions in grade school, they're happy, but they really don't have high expectations for the group. Most are interested more in feeling good about themselves, which for them comes from doing whatever they think will create the impression of black success. White liberals have little interest in getting too close to blacks, unless it's in zoo-like settings where they can ooh and aah over their naturalness but there's thick plexiglass in case anything gets out of hand. So, you'll find them putting up paintings of blacks or watching PBS specials about jazz, but never wandering around the Bronx after dark. White conservatives aren't much different. They don't feel quite the compulsion to watch PBS, but still like to think of themselves as non-racist "good guys." In the end, I think the only difference between white liberals and white conservatives is where they prefer to send the check: the welfare office or the prison. Why don't we stop writing the checks altogether?
The conservative conceit is funny, yes, but maddening. It's indicative of a political thought process that seeks self-pleasure, not truth, and is thus understandable but not honorable. The conservative failure to see the truth of racial difference is killing the white race. Conservatives, it's time to come down off the trapeze and get to work.
ploitical-guru said:Haven't any of you figured it out yet. The Republicans are not always true conservatives and the Democrats are not always true liberals. You have to choose a philosophy and vote according to which cantidate is most in line with it regardless of policy. For example if Clinton ever ran against Kerry (theoretical situation) and Kerry was the Republican and I wanted a truely liberal president I would vote for Kerry anyway because Kerry was a truer liberal than Clinton and more firmly believed in limited government power, freedom of speech, and the right of the masses to high-quality public education.
Kathianne said:Why do you think that?
ploitical-guru said:btw the true liberal policy is a non-rascist one. If you are rascist you beleive in conserving the old ways of thought or resicinging to the just passed ways of thought about minorities (rascism) and in that aspect are by definition a conservative. If you are non-rascist you believe in a new way (non-rascist) and are thus by definition in that aspect a liberal.
Be disgusted you non-rascist "conservatives" for you are really liberals
