Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 122 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Mar 9, 2008 8:45:44 PM PDT
R. Lopez says:
Goldberg pointed out that identity politics is a means to maintaining political power. It does not help minorities or the country as a whole.

From the National Black Republican Association:

Why Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican

By Frances Rice

It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: Slavery, Secession, Segregation and now Socialism.

It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860's, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950's and 1960's.

During the civil rights era of the 1960's, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman's issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was President Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Senator Al Gore, Sr. And after he became president, John F. Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Attorney General Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.

In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King's leaving Memphis, Tennessee after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a "trouble-maker" who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.

Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860's, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon`s 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation`s first goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.

Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans.

Critics of Republican Senator Barry Goldwater who ran for president against Democrat President Lyndon Johnson in 1964, ignore the fact that Goldwater wanted to force the Democrats in the South to stop passing discriminatory laws and thus end the need to continuously enact federal civil rights legislation.

Those who wrongly criticize Goldwater, also ignore the fact that President Johnson, in his 4,500 [word] State of the Union Address delivered on January 4, 1965, mentioned scores of topics for federal action, but only thirty five words were devoted to civil rights. He did not mention one word about voting rights. Then in 1967, showing his anger with Dr. King's protest against the Viet Nam War, President Johnson referred to Dr. King as "that Nigger preacher."

Contrary to the false assertions by Democrats, the racist "Dixiecrats" did not all migrate to the Republican Party. "Dixiecrats" declared that they would rather vote for a "yellow dog" than vote for a Republican because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks. Today, some of those "Dixiecrats" continue their political careers as Democrats, including Democrat Senator Robert Byrd who is well known for having been a "Keagle" in the Ku Klux Klan.

Another former "Dixiecrat" is Democrat Senator Ernest Hollings who put up the Confederate flag over the state capitol when he was the governor of South Carolina. There was no public outcry when Democrat Senator Christopher Dodd praised Senator Byrd as someone who would have been "a great senator for any moment," including the Civil War. Democrats denounced Senator Trent Lott for his remarks about Senator Strom Thurmond. Senator Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats. If Senator Byrd and Senator Thurmond were alive during the Civil War, and Byrd had his way, Thurmond would have been lynched.

The thirty-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party began in the 1970's with President Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy" which was an effort on the Part of Nixon to get Christians in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were still discriminating against their fellow Christians who happened to be black. Georgia did not switch until 2002, and some Southern states, including Louisiana, are still controlled by Democrats.

Today, Democrats, in pursuit of their socialist agenda, are fighting to keep blacks poor, angry and voting for Democrats. Examples of how egregiously Democrats act to keep blacks in poverty are numerous.

After wrongly convincing black Americans that a minimum wage increase was a good thing, the Democrats on August 3rd kept their promise and killed the minimum wage bill passed by House Republicans on July 29th. The blockage of the minimum wage bill was the second time in as many years that Democrats stuck a legislative finger in the eye of black Americans. Senate Democrats on April 1, 2004 blocked passage of a bill to renew the 1996 welfare reform law that was pushed by Republicans and vetoed twice by President Bill Clinton before he finally signed it. Since the welfare reform law expired in September 2002, Congress had passed six extensions, and the latest expired on June 30, 2004. Opposed by the Democrats are school choice opportunity scholarships that would help black children get out of failing schools and Social Security reform, even though blacks on average lose $10,000 in the current system because of a shorter life expectancy than whites (72.2 years for blacks vs. 77.5 years for whites).

Democrats have been running our inner-cities for the past 30-40 years, and blacks are still complaining about the same problems. Over $7 trillion dollars have been spent on poverty programs since President Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty with little, if any, impact on poverty. Diabolically, every election cycle, Democrats blame Republicans for the deplorable conditions in the inner-cities, then incite blacks to cast a protest vote against Republicans.

In order to break the Democrats' stranglehold on the black vote and free black Americans from the Democrat Party's economic plantation, we must shed the light of truth on the Democrats. We must demonstrate that the Democrat Party policies of socialism and dependency on government handouts offer the pathway to poverty, while Republican Party principles of hard work, personal responsibility, getting a good education and ownership of homes and small businesses offer the pathway to prosperity.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2008 4:13:16 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 10, 2008 4:26:59 AM PDT
Frank Werner says:
Where do I begin?
This is absurd.
This must be a group of self hating blacks.
The Democrats are not now socialists. You can say they are liberals and that liberalism is somehow connected to socialism, but even Jonah Goldberg would not say liberalism
and socialism are identical.
Black Republicans are a small minority of blacks. Anyone who says that blacks are brainwashed implies that blacks are stupid. Most blacks dislike what the Republican party is. No one forces the blacks to vote Democrat, so there is no plantation. This logic would mean that given the black's overwhelming preference for Democrats, antipathy toward President Bush, that they are all poor and angry. They're the ones who are patronizing other blacks, not the Democrats.
Lyndon Johnson was largely responsible for the Civil Rights Acts getting through. This article is an extreme example of cherry picking.
Nixon's southern strategy was an appeal to those who were opposed to the Civil Rights movement. He appealed to racist southern whites who had voted for Wallace.
This article is totally wrong about Nixon.
Ronald Reagan made remarks about "welfare queens" and the homeless. Apparently though these people have contempt for poor people too.
George HW Bush used the Willie Horton ads in 1988.
They ignore that Martin Luther King was really non partisan. He was not only for Civil Rights, he opposed the Vietnam war and would have been opposed to Nixon's Viet Nam policy as well as his southern strategy.
He would be opposed to the Republican policy of increased military spending.
Martin Luther King was an advocate for poor people and was opposed to the Viet Nam war as well as being a Civil Rights leader. There is no way that he would be a Republican. Nor is there any evidence he was a Republican.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2008 11:14:57 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 10, 2008 1:50:44 PM PDT
R. Lopez says:
As I said,
Identity politics is about politicians maintaining political power. It does nothing for minorities or the country as a whole. The Democratic party at this moment is experiencing something of a split along racial lines, Latino vs Black. I'm a political independent and could care less to which political party Dr. King belonged. But I think he would have been dismayed at the racial/ethnic pandering that has been a key strategy in politics since his death.
That strategy is paying a negative dividend which identity politics ultimately must as it balkanizes the nation.

In any case, it seems the NBRA is raising hackles among Republicans and the NAACP. Using a an icon such as Dr. King for partisan purposes is not acceptable to either party. However, the NBRA represents a small but growing minority of Blacks who feel that the welfare state has done the Black community more harm than good. It is incorrect to say the NBRA represents a form of Black "self Hatred." What they hate is the welfare dependency and sense of entitlement that was bred into their communities.

Group Insists Martin Luther King Was a Republican
By Kate Monaghan Correspondent
October 02, 2006

( - A radio ad sponsored by the National Black Republican Association (NBRA), a grassroots activist group, not only touts Martin Luther King, Jr. as a Republican but also states that "Democrats passed those black codes and Jim Crow laws. Democrats started the KKK," and "Democrats fought all civil rights legislation from the 1860s to the 1960s."

The radio ad begins running in Florida on Monday. It has already run in Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Georgia, causing controversy among Democrats as well as Republicans.

According to the Associated Press, the U.S. Senate campaign of Maryland's Republican Lt. Gov. Michael Steele asked the NBRA to stop running the ad and called it "insulting to Marylanders."

The problem with the ad, according to Kevin Martin, a member of the conservative black leadership network Project 21, is not that the ad isn't factually true but that the NBRA is using a dead man to further its cause, something he said is a Democratic, not a Republican tactic.

"We do not need to stick words into a dead man's mouth," Martin told Cybercast News Service, "no, not for our policies. Our policies do win at the end of the day. They do win at the ballot box. We have seen that over the last 12 years and we do not have to dig up MLK as they (Democrats) do and use him as a foil towards outreach. I think we're much better than that."

However, the rest of the ad is right on target, according to Martin.

"It's true," said Martin, "the part about the KKK and all that other stuff. That is factually accurate."

Richard McIntire, national spokesman for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), disagreed. "It's not factually accurate in a number of places," said McIntire. "They are trying to sway history to their benefit."

McIntire insisted that King was neither a Republican nor a Democrat, but rather, non-partisan. "It is very obvious in Mr. King's work overall he was very non-partisan. He lambasted both parties.

"There's been a continuing history or pattern here in recent years of the Republican Party coming out around election time with somewhat different and aggressive tactics. It's fine to do that if your information is accurate and fair, but in this particular case it's slanted and does a disservice actually."

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) has condemned the NBRA for "spewing inaccurate facts and half-truths to convince African-Americans that the Republican Party shares their values and beliefs ... Unfortunately, for the Republican Party, their record of failure and lack of ideas to move this state and country forward can't be disguised even by front groups like the NBRA."

In a statement to Cybercast News Service, DNC Deputy Press Secretary Amaya Smith said, "Republicans continue to resort to desperate attacks to hide their failed record with African Americans and all working Americans." She continued: "We challenge Republicans to cease engaging in negative and distasteful attacks on minorities and take action by working with Americans of all communities."

But Frances Rice, chairman of the NBRA, insisted that "everything we wrote is true." She added that Democrats do not help blacks but rather hinder them.

"Democrats claim they care about black people, but what they actually do is harmful to black people," said Rice. "It's a shame and we're going to do all we can to shed the light of truth.

"If the truth offends people, I'm sorry," Rice added. "Dr. Martin Luther King was a Republican. The Democrats are saying, well maybe he was a non-partisan or independent. He was a Republican. If the King family wants to sue us, fine. Go right ahead and bring in his voter registration card while you're at it."

Martin of Project 21 said Republicans and conservatives can do better than running ads on the same level as Democrats. "We can do better than this ad," said Martin. "That is the worst type of gutter politics there is."

"They (Democrats and liberals) use race and they use dead people to get their political message out, because when it comes down to it at the end of the day, liberals and Democrats in general do not know how to approach the issue of race. That's why they have to go and scare minorities into the polls."

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2008 1:55:07 PM PDT
Frank Werner says:
Okay I am glad that you didn't get outraged by my rebuttal.

I think it is likely, if not definite, MLK would be an Obama supporter, and I am certain he would be opposed to the Iraqi invasion and to the policies and political tactics of Republicans. I think Obama has made it clear he is above gutter politics. I think MLK would be considered a "liberal" by Goldberg's supporters.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2008 2:02:16 PM PDT
R. Lopez says:
With regard to what I said previously about identity politics, the effects for Latinos have been largely negative as well. Liberal Latino politicians, such as Los Angeles Mayor Tony Villar and California State Senator Cedillo among others, built their careers pandering to Latino ethnic identity and creating a constituency that has suffered a debilitating inability to assimilate into American culture. Consequently, Latinos are forming a permanent underclass in California beholden to their legislative benefactors who chant,"Si se puede!" while bankrupting the state.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2008 2:32:09 PM PDT
R. Lopez says:
I believe your correct to the extent that Dr.King would have supported large government programs, although we'll never know how he would have viewed the outcome of those programs over the years. However, I also believe he would have been a social conservative supporting the maintenance of intact Black families and opposing anything that threatened the stability of those families. I think conservative Blacks have received undue villification for calling attention to the very things that Dr. King would have criticized about Black inner city communities such as high rates of single motherhood, self destructive art, and an aversion to education.
It would have been interesting to see how Dr. King would have viewed the current rift in the Democratic party. But I agree with you that he would have likely supported Obama.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2008 5:20:54 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 10, 2008 5:23:57 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2008 8:57:04 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 11, 2008 5:27:17 AM PDT
Stormcrow says:
"Lincoln was, in his day, considered to be a radical or extreme Liberal. To claim that Liberals wanted Slavery and Conservatives opposed it is absolute DoubleThink."

You're being very liberal with the term Liberal - and not in a good way.

Trying to claim Lincoln as a liberal (which, as a classical liberal, he was), while also attempting to exclude his party, the Republican party, from the term Liberal, is to use your favorite phrase "DoubleThink".

What you are apparently so afraid to name and face, is the fact that the Democrat party was indeed the party of the policies and actions named below. The Democrat party, especially as it absorbed (or was absorbed by) the Progressives (who were seeking to rid themselves of the reputation they'd built, by glomming onto the name 'Liberal' - now that they've sullied the name of 'Liberal', they are again trying to switch names back to Progressive), has been the most illiberal of the two main political parties in the USA.

To be a Liberal, as it was originally understood to be meant, in America with the Founders, and with the English such as Edmund Burke, and in its last gasp in France with Fredrich Bastiat, it meant to uphold the principles of Individual Rights(best laid out in the original 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution), and those rights were seen to be closely tied to, and indeed dependant upon, Property Rights - and all of it depended upon the idea that people had, and relied upon Free Will and principled Reason to exercise their rights, and to deprive them of that, or use force to over ride them, was to deprive them of their rights as free men. That was what was behind the `no taxation without representation' dust up you may have heard about.

The Rousseauian branch of the liberal Enlightenment, broke off from the (now Classical) Liberals, precisely in questioning and opposing the ideas of Free Will, and Property Rights, in a supposed effort to bestow liberty upon people by handing out the fruits of liberty taken by those who had earned more of them.

Read Rousseau, Godwin, Condorcet. They stated it clearly (Kant said the same, but hid it within some massive convolutions). The transcendentalists and progressives in America put that line of thought into practice right away to shore up whichever elitist program of the day they were enthusiastic for, whether it be to shore up slavery, or some other form of class warfare of Gov't expertise in managing from on high the decisions which the mere people could not and should not be trusted to manage on their own - for their betterment, of course.

The long and short of it is that the ideals of the Democrat party does not have much at all in common with the original liberalizing ideas of Liberalism, and has not had much in common with it for over a hundred years. In fact, if you want to ally yourself with Liberalism, the only choices you have today are either Libertarians, or Conservatives, and the only political party they have any strength or influence in today - is the Republican Party.

Now you can rant all you'd like (see reino for some pointers on how you can do that while keeping the spittle down), but it is a fact, and Goldberg is hardly the first to say so - just the most successful at getting the attention of the popular press in saying it.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2008 9:22:44 PM PDT
the 1860 GOP is about as applicable to the 2008 GOP as the first roman triumvirate

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 11, 2008 5:47:27 PM PDT

Your reply mirrors the sly distortions and DoubleThink which riddle `Liberal Fascism' from start to finish. Goldberg's shrewd, underhanded omissions only make his rantings that much more Orwellian.

"Trying to claim Lincoln as a liberal (which, as a classical liberal, he was), while also attempting to exclude his party, the Republican party, from the term Liberal, is to use your favorite phrase "DoubleThink". "

Actually, the original GOP was very Liberal.

"The Republican Party was created in 1854 in opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act that would have allowed the expansion of slavery into Kansas. Besides opposition to slavery, the new party put forward a progressive vision of modernizing the United States-emphasizing higher education, banking, railroads, industry and cities, while promising free homesteads to farmers" - Wikipedia

Now if that ain't Progressive/Liberal/whatever, I don't know what is. I've said it before, and will again: if Abe Lincoln and Jefferson Davis came back today, they might need to trade their party I.D.'s.

Also, Jefferson Davis and his Confederates were solid believers in Property Rights. State Rights as well.

Curious in your rantings against Liberalism that you fail to mention John Locke, who influenced Rousseau and who had both a positive view of Human Nature and as well as a belief in Property Rights. Locke's theories of course, would have a profound influence on the Constitution of the United States and its Declaration of Independence. Rousseau argued for free will as part of man's natural state, a fact which you also seem to forget.

Classical Liberalism also is pro-rationalism. If people can actually figure reality out, then there is hope for Human Nature.

You also seem to `forget' to mention Thomas Hobbs ( Joe anti-rationalist ) or the Protestant doctrine of Original Sin.

Then again, maybe Wikipedia is a Fascist/Nazi/Liberal/Socialist/Communist
/Collectivist/Trekkie plot originally thought up by Nietzsche.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 11, 2008 7:56:18 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 11, 2008 8:14:12 PM PDT
Stormcrow says:
"Curious in your rantings against Liberalism that you fail to mention John Locke, who influenced Rousseau and who had both a positive view of Human Nature and as well as a belief in Property Rights."

Wow, that's a lot to be wrong about in such a short comment, your ignorance of philosophy is most impressive - Wiki is fine for quick reference, but you really need to read some books.

I have spoken of Locke many times in these threads, and with great respect. To compare Rousseau with Locke as being similar, is akin to philosophical blasphemy.

Rousseau was opposed to Locke and his empiricism in almost every way it was possible to be. He believed in getting back to nature, to discovering the natural innate goodness of man that was just 'there' beyond the fringe of logic and Reason - he was a rationalist to the core.

"Classical Liberalism also is pro-rationalism"

No, Classical Liberalism, the English and American understanding of it, was mainly empiricist. Rationalism is not the same as rationality. Rationalism has little to do with reality, it took its modern form following Descartes revival of the Cogito, "I think, therefore I am". Descartes, Rousseau's hero, wrote an entire physics based upon how he thought the universe should operate - not upon observation, as did Newton, but on inner reflection, and his followers among the rationalists fought long and hard to have it accepted in France as a more acceptable 'French physics' - the roots of fascist thinking even go back that far.

Voltaire, who was taken with the English philosophy, with Newton and their ideas in Gov't put all his impressive efforts into refuting the foolishness of Descartes and Rousseau, and Locke was one of the big guns he armed himself with for that battle.

The English branch of the enlightenment, the worthwhile side which Locke was a huge influence upon, and which the American Founders grew from, was rooted in empiricism - that man was a blank slate and through his senses and reason, reality wrote upon him - the opposite of the rationalists, who thought knowledge innate, that it was just there within us all, ready for the discovering, and that the more 'Natural' your mind and nature, the more noble and knowledgeable you would be - hence the idealization of the 'Noble Savage' by Rousseau.

To put it politely, Rousseau is at the route of all that is foul and irrational (not speaking about rationalism, but rationality), or as Voltaire summed him up on reading Rousseau's 'Social Contract':

"I have received your new book against the human race, and thank you for it. Never was such a cleverness used in the design of making us all stupid. One longs, in reading your book, to walk on all fours. But as I have lost that habit for more than sixty years, I feel unhappily the impossibility of resuming it..."

Words of wisdom that apply equally well to most leftists today. I do like Voltaire.

Here's a quick google find of a lecturer's key points at one of the Calif. State Univ's, that gives a quick run down of the facts you are in so desperate need of... unless the California university system is just too darn conservative for you.

You should be able to figure out the other books you need to read from, that point.

And Btw, that's Hobbes, and he had far more in common with Rousseau, a flipside to the same low opinion of man that Rousseau held, than he had in any way with Locke. Rousseau believed that man could be molded and perfected and 'Forced to be free', Hobbes believed that man was savage and must be forced to behave.

And yes, as I've noted several times elsewhere (reino's groaning 'no not again, please not again') that it was the Republican's who first brought the taint of Progressivism into the federal gov't through the Morrell Act to establish land grant colleges - and that in short order led to Gov't meddling, guidance of and finally taking over and destroying the American 'system' of education. It was also the Republicans who, especially with Teddy Roosevelt, introduced Progressivist policies of the Federal Gov't interferring in the economy and business. When Progressivism began to get a bad name though, fortunately the Republicans mostly (not completely, sad to say, but mostly, at least in comparison with the democrats) put them out, finally seeing how deeply their ideas contradicted those of the Classical Liberalism of the Founders and the Constitution.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 11, 2008 7:58:54 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 11, 2008 8:17:17 PM PDT
Stormcrow says:
"Jefferson Davis and his Confederates were solid believers in Property Rights."
One more point, to confuse Property Rights with the right to own people as property, was one of the core contradictions of the Founders ideas, and it nearly destroyed the country. Not too surprising that you would hold Confederates up as paragons of Property Rights.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 11, 2008 8:39:10 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 11, 2008 8:40:09 PM PDT
R. Lopez says:
Hey Stormcrow!
I couldn't remember where you posted a link to info on the Federalist - Anti-Federalist debates. If it's not too much trouble could you put it in your next post? You've got a great grasp of the enlightenment and the philosphy of the founders.

So Geraldine Feraro exposes the inherent hypocrisy in the identity politics of the Democratic party. Obama wouldn't be where he is if he was white?! What the hell?!
Not that Democrats are voting for him because of his race but if many were, would that violate some unspoken liberal rule. I've heard a number of women say they were voting for Hillary because "we need a woman president." What would happen if one of Obama's people said that Hillary wouldn't be where she is if she was a man? Let the denunciations fly! Hillary must be treating this one like political kryptonite. This is making for great theatre. I wish I could enjoy it but the real issues, such as national bankruptcy, have me very worried for my child's future.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 11, 2008 9:15:36 PM PDT
Stormcrow says:
"I couldn't remember where you posted a link to info on the Federalist - Anti-Federalist debates. If it's not too much trouble could you put it in your next post?"

Oh... happy to (and thanks for the kind words)!

It really is a remarkable site, the range of references and context it brings to not only the Constitution, but Liberalism as the Founders understood it, is unmatched. If anyone wants to understand what they had in mind, what they agreed and disagreed upon and why, you'll find no better presentation than what they've laid out in a fully referenced line by line examination of the U.S. Constitution. You can see from this page of the Preamble to the constitution alone, with hyperlinked references ranging from John Locke, to William Blackstone, the relevant Federalist papers, and Joseph Stories' commentaries... amazing.

It's The Founders Constitution, hosted by the University of Chicago Press and the Liberty Fund at:

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2008 4:36:29 AM PDT
reino says:
Now that Frank Werner, Periodical King, and John Fontaine answered the original question in the thread, let's wonder why Republicans hate rich people.

The stock market goes up 13.3% annually when Democrats are in office and 6.9% when Republicans are in office. Why do Republicans hate rich people so much? Is this class warfare?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2008 5:46:37 AM PDT
Stormcrow says:
"Now that Frank Werner, Periodical King, and John Fontaine answered the original question in the thread"

Saying '5' to the question of 'what does 2 + 2 equal?' is also an answer, and one of similar worth to theirs, but it is not a correct one. Note the current dust up in the media about Gerarldine Ferraro's comment about Obama. The thing to note regarding it is not whether her comment was racist, but that their party is seriously divided over two camps based on incidental group attributes, skin tone and gender - not Ideas, and all are concerned that Hillary might try to get the nomination based upon 'Special Delegates' current and former party elites whose votes are given more significance and power than that of the voters.

That is a party that is anti-conceptual at root and based upon the manipulation of raw power. Racism, class warfare, and any other group seeking power will all feel equally home in such a party.

"let's wonder why Republicans hate rich people."
Start a new thread. Try answering this thread with an answer that actually holds up against the facts and ideas involved.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2008 9:34:28 AM PDT
reino says:
The answer to the original question, which should be obvious to anybody, is No. You can answer Yes if you close your eyes and tap your heels together three times, but otherwise the answer is No.

The reason the Democratic Party is not divided over ideas is that Obama and Clinton have the same ideas.

What were the great ideas that led to McCain getting the nomination of the Republican Party? Please tell me.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2008 11:09:44 AM PDT
Stormcrow says:
"The answer to the original question, which should be obvious to anybody, is No"

I can understand not wanting to answer the thread topic by topic as dealt with in the opening post. I can also see not wanting to because it can quickly become a mere tet for tat (amazon won't allow that 'tet' to be spelled with an 'i') series of responses, but trying to put forward the slop the later two of those three (Werner's answer uses facts with an opinionated spin, which isn't out of bounds, and even your briefer "No", since it is an opinion based question) replied with as qualifying as answers with plausible ties to reality, is ridiculous.

"The reason the Democratic Party is not divided over ideas is that Obama and Clinton have the same ideas."
Partially true, since they both are running on essentially equivalent socialist rooted platforms, but that should cause the race to fall back on a contest on character, personality and expertise of the two candidates. But neither stated policy nor the individual candidates are the what the party has fallen back to, but instead to a battle to its more fundamental beliefs - pressure group warfare between race and gender mongers. It's sad to see, and will probably be the cause of McCain winning in November - I don't think he would, otherwise.

"What were the great ideas that led to McCain getting the nomination of the Republican Party? Please tell me."
Oh... don't I ever wish I could give a resounding answer to that one, but sadly, not possible. On the greyer side of night however, I can at least say the contest between essentially equivalent mushy semi-statist-semi-'conservatives' didn't fall into what the Dem's have. Why? Those sexist and racist ideas are not fundamental to any ideas or platforms in the Republican party. Not so with the Dem's.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2008 12:52:10 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 13, 2008 12:55:27 PM PDT
R. Lopez says:
Thanks for the info. Great resource!

I don't want to get off the topic of this thread because I believe it is important. But here's some quotes from Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom." I will start posting Hayek's work because it predates "Liberal Fascism" by 64 years and lays a solid groundwork for understanding the dangers we now face and of which "Liberal Fascism" is merely an echo, although an important one.

"Few discoveries are more irritating than those which expose the pedigree of ideas" - Lord Acton

"The number of dangerous mistakes we have made before and since the outbreak of the war because we do not understand the opponent with whom we are faced is appalling. It seems almost as if we did not want to understand the development which has produced totalitarianism because such an understanding might destroy some of the dearest illusions to which we are determined to cling." (p.6)

Back to the Democrats -
If this nomination goes to a brokered convention there is no way for the Democrats to come out clean. If the nomination goes to Hillary, the lingering suspicion of racism will do serious damage to the cohesion of the pary. On the other hand, if Obama is awarded the nomination, there will be the lingering suspicion that the party nominated him to avoid the charge of racism which could hurt the party with regard to the ever important "latino vote" since latinos have strongly favored Hillary (It's also very un-PC to point out that Mexicans tend to be very prejudiced toward blacks). Whether or not the above issues are actually material to the nomination is irrelevent at this point. It's all about perception now. The fact is the Dems are painting themselves into an "identity politics" corner.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2008 1:04:24 PM PDT
J. DeMeo says:
Great posting. I grew up in the South, and remember the "Dixiecrats" Lester Maddox and George Wallace, big racists and all Democratic Party honchos. The Dems were the party of Slavery, white racism and segregation. Lincoln and the Republican Party opposed slavery and fought for the freedom of all people. The Democratic Party controlled the South over decades when blacks were squashed down, but something like the Stockholm Syndrome, they continued to line up to vote for the party that formerly kept them in chains. Somehow, the liberals of my day also brainwashed me into thinking the liberal Democratic Party was "for the blacks" while the Reps were "against civil rights". It wasn't so. In any case, this debate is raised now for clear reasons of the current election. So I would say, Ferraro is correct, if Obama wasn't black, he would not be in this race. He is an empty suit, and one we should fear. His first foreign-policy decision was made in Kenya, where he supported a violent Islamic fanatic who ordered street butchery when he lost the election, and Obama helped him to push Sharia Law onto non-Muslims. He may not be a Muslim himself, but he is very sympathetic to Muslim causes, to the point of being blind about the anti-freedom, enslaving and anti-woman aspects of Islamic social institutions. The same naive willful ignorance shown by liberals towards the "Party of Slavery" in the USA, their denials about the reality of "liberal fascism", is today finding expressions in their naive attitudes towards the "Religion of Peace" and the candidate whose middle name we may not utter.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2008 2:31:27 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 13, 2008 2:33:53 PM PDT
R. Lopez says:
Entertaining article and clever use in an argument ad absurdum.
What's more important to focus on is the fact that inflation (as measured using heavily manipulated government figures which drastically understate inflation) turns a roughly $270,000 nominal gain into a $23,000 real gain over 48 years. Where does all that lost value go? It is the hidden inflation tax payed to maintain government deficit spending. That tax is now rapidly rising as the USDX repeatedly hits new lows. As I type, the index is at a record low of 71.89 and oil is over $110 a barrell, while gold is less than $5 away from $1000 per ounce. The dollar is crashing. The real cost of statist policies is being revealed in a horrifyingly clear case of a run up to a hyperinflationary depression.

But back to the issue at hand. Stormcrow's comment bears repeating.

"The thing to note regarding it is not whether her comment was racist, but that their party is seriously divided over two camps based on incidental group attributes, skin tone and gender - not Ideas,"

Liberal politicians have undeniably played the game of identity politics for so long that a conflict such as this was inevitable. The reason is not so complicated. Liberals have worked very hard at destroying the unifying principles of classical liberalism and have gone very far in replacing them with a relativistic ethos that can have no absolute unifying principles beyond the will to equality of entitlement for constituencies of various "victimized" groups. What we now have in the Democratic race are two candidates who embody the aspirations of different identity consituencies who see a real shot at getting their candidate into the White House and who will feel cheated if they are unsuccessful, not to mention the ill will that will be generated within the Democratic party if McCain wins as each constituency will believe their candidate could have beaten McCain.
And as I have said already, Latinos will be suffering some serious angst if Obama wins. Obama will offer up the southwestern U.S. on a silver platter to Mexican interests but Mexicans just hate the thought of a Black guy running the country. If McCain makes it clear that his securing the border is just a gesture, wink,wink,nudge,nudge, then the latino vote will probably go to him.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2008 2:32:58 PM PDT
reino says:
"So I would say, Ferraro is correct, if Obama wasn't black, he would not be in this race."

Republicans claim not to be the party of racism, which might be believable if their words and actions didn't prove otherwise. Please explain to me how far George W Bush or Dan Quayle would have gotten in life if they were not white males.

"Why? Those sexist and racist ideas are not fundamental to any ideas or platforms in the Republican party."

Perhaps it's because all the Republican candidates were white males.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2008 2:37:02 PM PDT
Stormcrow says:
"So I would say, Ferraro is correct, if Obama wasn't black, he would not be in this race."

Ya know, I'm not so sure of that - among the party movers and shakers, that's probably true, but I actually think Obama is doing so well - among the voters - precisely because he isn't coming across as a 'black' candidate. For those people who didn't really care about race before, and who were turned off by the race hustlers, and are relieved that race Isn't an issue, his race seems to be far more incidental than Romney's religion apparently was.

From the people I know and work with, who like him, and their emphasis is on the word 'LIKE', few know his policies at all other than they know he's a dem like them, or he's cool, or they think he's seems to be a genuinely likeable guy, and few if any of them have heard about Rezko, etc. All of that likeability may go out the window if and when any dirty details come to light, but remembering Bill, the other guy they liked... I'm not so sure.

What I've been surprised to find is the level of Dislike for Hillary among people other than conservatives, people I assumed would be for her - put their DISLIKE for Billary together with their LIKE for Obama, and his got the Big MO.

Got any details on those Kenya ref's? They sound a little over the top, are we talking he endorsed some guy on the level of 'Hey, nice to meet you, I hear you're the leader of the village my Dad was from...', or something more substantial?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2008 3:20:03 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 13, 2008 3:21:19 PM PDT
Stormcrow says:
On that point of why hasn't a party front runner been black (or for that matter, Oriental or Mediterranean, etc), I think you need to separate race from either party affiliation and look at the population in general.

Up until... maybe the 80's, I think there really was a racial aspect to it. People who weren't overtly prejudiced (and I think the majority of people were prejudiced, in a non-virulent way, to one degree or another), were in some undefined way hesitant to put their vote to someone of another race - and I think that undefined way had to do with experience - or more likely, lack of experience with people who appeared different from themselves.

Today, among those who don't hold a racial-preference-backlash view, I think they really could care less. If race doesn't appear to be an issue for the person running, I think it isn't for them either. As to why the Republicans haven't fielded a major candidate until recently(Steele, Jindal, etc), as most comics love pointing out - there just haven't been any sizable numbers in the party to choose from(I heard this weekend "Yes Obama even reached out for the Wyoming Black Republican vote too - and Tyrone said he'd think about it"). Again, that began to change in the 80's, with people like J.C. Watts, not to mention intellectuals like Thomas Sowell(if reading one of his books, doesn't quash a person's 'racial inferiority' biases and make them feel like fools for ever having had them, then they are just too messed up to begin with), and I don't imagine the day will be long off before there is a major non-white Republican candidate.

Democrats, on the other hand, have some 'splaining to do. They've had the numbers in their party for decades. Why so few non-white's in major candidacies until now? Hmm?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2008 10:00:48 AM PDT
J. A Magill says:
As with many discussions on these boards, this one tends occasionally to the absurd, but there are a few points here that require some correction consideration. Firstly, Rousseau did not oppose private property, this is an incorrect reading of his treatise, "The Social Contract." Moreover, while he broke with Locke on a number of points -- or more particularly with Hobbes, as it was primarily the Hobbsian views found in Locke which he opposed with regards to issues of consent -- they also held much in common as did most enlightenment theorists. Both were of considerable influence on the framers, particularly through Montesquieu, who attempted a synthesis of the two philosophies.

"Democrats, on the other hand, have some 'splaining to do. They've had the numbers in their party for decades. Why so few non-white's in major candidacies until now? Hmm? " I am not sure what number counts "so few" but Democrats have been fielding black candidates, with varying degrees of success, for decades, in positions across the nation from mayoralties to the senate.

It was Nixon's conscious and ethically repugnant choice to swing white formerly Democratic voters to the GOP by exploiting their racism and fears, and tactic that was successfully continued by the imagined saint Ronald Reagan and continues to be used by GOP candidates to the present day. Moreover, we now know that LBJ, when he signed the voting rights act, explicitly stated that in signing it he was also signing away his party's control of the south for at least two generations, an act of principle over course politics for which he is rarely given his due.

All of this goes to the point, and this would be generally obvious were it not for so much effort given to obscure the issue, is that the Republican party of the mid-19th Century is not the same party as that of the early 21st. The Party which Lincoln led and as it stood after his death, believed in federal supremacy, affirmative action to redress previous wrongs, and aggressive spending on education and infrastructure. If this sounds like that party of George Bush, you haven't been paying attention.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in


This discussion

Participants:  18
Total posts:  122
Initial post:  Mar 9, 2008
Latest post:  Apr 10, 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about
Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning
Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning by Jonah Goldberg (Hardcover - January 8, 2008)
4.1 out of 5 stars   (715)