Liberals, Race & History

[Tigermike 3,055]

May 24, 2005

Liberals, Race & History

By Thomas Sowell

If the share of the black vote that goes to the Democrats ever falls to 70 percent, it may be virtually impossible for the Democrats to win the White House or Congress, because they have long ago lost the white male vote and their support among other groups is eroding. Against that background, it is possible to understand their desperate efforts to keep blacks paranoid, not only about Republicans but about American society in general.

Liberal Democrats, especially, must keep blacks fearful of racism everywhere, including in an administration whose Cabinet includes people of Chinese, Japanese, Hispanic, and Jewish ancestry, and two consecutive black Secretaries of State. Blacks must be kept believing that their only hope lies with liberals.

Not only must the present be distorted, so must the past -- and any alternative view of the future must be nipped in the bud. That is why prominent minority figures who stray from the liberal plantation must be discredited, debased and, above all, kept from becoming federal judges.

A thoughtful and highly intelligent member of the California supreme court like Justice Janice Rogers Brown must be smeared as a right-wing extremist, even though she received 76 percent of the vote in California, hardly a right-wing extremist state. But desperate politicians cannot let facts stand in their way.

Least of all can they afford to let Janice Rogers Brown become a national figure on the federal bench. The things she says and does could lead other blacks to begin to think independently -- and that in turn threatens the whole liberal house of cards. If a smear is what it takes to stop her, that is what liberal politicians and the liberal media will use.

It's "not personal" as they say when they smear someone. It doesn't matter how outstanding or upstanding Justice Brown is. She is a threat to the power that means everything to liberal politicians. The Democrats' dependence on blacks for votes means that they must keep blacks dependent on them.

Black self-reliance would be almost as bad as blacks becoming Republicans, as far as liberal Democrats are concerned. All black progress in the past must be depicted as the result of liberal government programs and all hope of future progress must be depicted as dependent on the same liberalism.

In reality, reductions in poverty among blacks and the rise of blacks into higher level occupations were both more pronounced in the years leading up to the civil rights legislation and welfare state policies of the 1960s than in the years that followed.

Moreover, contrary to political myth, a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But facts have never stopped politicians or ideologues before and show no signs of stopping them now.

What blacks have achieved for themselves, without the help of liberals, is of no interest to liberals. Nothing illustrates this better than political reactions to academically successful black schools.

Despite widespread concerns expressed about the abysmal educational performances of most black schools, there is remarkably little interest in those relatively few black schools which have met or exceeded national standards.

Anyone who is serious about the advancement of blacks would want to know what is going on in those ghetto schools whose students have reading and math scores above the national average, when so many other ghetto schools are miles behind in both subjects. But virtually all the studies of such schools have been done by conservatives, while liberals have been strangely silent.

Achievement is not what liberalism is about. Victimhood and dependency are.

Black educational achievements are a special inconvenience for liberals because those achievements have usually been a result of methods and practices that go directly counter to prevailing theories in liberal educational circles and are anathema to the teachers' unions that are key supporters of the Democratic Party.

Many things that would advance blacks would not advance the liberal agenda. That is why the time is long overdue for the two to come to a parting of the ways.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentar...5_24_05_TS.html

[DKW 86 7,441]

Another stunnig article by Thomas Sowell...

Moreover, contrary to political myth, a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But facts have never stopped politicians or ideologues before and show no signs of stopping them now.

Priceless...

[Auburn85 432]

Liberal Democrats, especially, must keep blacks fearful of racism everywhere, including in an administration whose Cabinet includes people of Chinese, Japanese, Hispanic, and Jewish ancestry, and two consecutive black Secretaries of State. Blacks must be kept believing that their only hope lies with liberals.

Jessie Jackson, Fahrakan, Alvin Holmes..ect.. would be out of a job, thus causing a rise in unemployment,

Let's face it racism is still out there, but black leaders such as Jackson and Holmes will keep it in the mainstream even if it isn't

Yet Bill Cosby is telling them to get up while Jackson and Holmes are telling them to stay down... you can't help yourself.... we'll get reparation someday

Everything in these guys eyes is racism. Everything. Ohio didn't go their way so they call racism.... Florida didn't go their way..racism

Fliers are sent out with pictures of blacks being sprayed with water in the 60s stating that they tried to keep us from the polls then, now they're at it again

Yet, Jackson and Holmes would vote Dean for president or Robert Byrd in the Senate before any Republican

We all see on tv or read the papers about ALLEGED race descrimination or racism.

And how bout we call it descrimination ratrher than reverse descrimination when a white is descriminated

Achievement is not what liberalism is about. Victimhood and dependency are

This is a good one too..describes a good portion of them

Buit the issue of race is like the border chaos....... some people don't want speak out at it because of fear of beiing labeled a racist or they embrace it because they won't be labeled a racist plus can be used for political gain

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Another stunnig article by Thomas Sowell...

Moreover, contrary to political myth, a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But facts have never stopped politicians or ideologues before and show no signs of stopping them now.

Priceless...

160827[/snapback]

Anyone who tries to make a point off of this "fact" in 2005 is either ignorant of recent political history (e.g. the Southern Dems turned Republican) or intellectually dishonest. I'd say Sowell is probably the latter.

[Piglet 0]

Anyone who tries to make a point off of this "fact" in 2005 is either ignorant of recent political history (e.g. the Southern Dems turned Republican) or intellectually dishonest.  I'd say Sowell is probably the latter.

160889[/snapback]

What, you now dare to pretend Bull Connor, Orval Faubus and George Wallace weren't liberals? You revisionist, you! They're unpopular now, so you can have 'em!

[DKW 86 7,441]

Anyone who tries to make a point off of this "fact" in 2005 is either ignorant of recent political history (e.g. the Southern Dems turned Republican) or intellectually dishonest.  I'd say Sowell is probably the latter.

160889[/snapback]

What, you now dare to pretend Bull Connor, Orval Faubus and George Wallace weren't liberals? You revisionist, you! They're unpopular now, so you can have 'em!

160900[/snapback]

A yellow dog is a yellow dog, same then, same now.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Anyone who tries to make a point off of this "fact" in 2005 is either ignorant of recent political history (e.g. the Southern Dems turned Republican) or intellectually dishonest.  I'd say Sowell is probably the latter.

160889[/snapback]

What, you now dare to pretend Bull Connor, Orval Faubus and George Wallace weren't liberals? You revisionist, you! They're unpopular now, so you can have 'em!

160900[/snapback]

A yellow dog is a yellow dog, same then, same now.

160907[/snapback]

Only difference, is the South is full of Yellow Dog Republicans-- they carry on the racist heritage.

[DKW 86 7,441]

Only difference, is the South is full of Yellow Dog Republicans-- they carry on the racist heritage.

I have never met one. I however do know many yellow dog Democrats that would support Adolph Hitler or Beelzebub if they ran as a Democrat.

As far as the racism lie, you dont know me, nor my life as I live it. I am not a racist, nor do I support their actions. Maybe you need to read about a man that opposed allowing blacks into his state's govt and now into the Democratic Party's inner circles. His name is....

Howard Dean!!!

Or maybe a past Grand Dragon of the KKK,

Robert KKK Byrd!!!

Maybe it is time the Dems "Feared the Dean!"

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Maybe you need to read about a man that opposed allowing blacks into his state's govt

Love to. Gotta link?

[DKW 86 7,441]

Maybe you need to read about a man that opposed allowing blacks into his state's govt

Love to. Gotta link?

161045[/snapback]

Link Provided.

Iowa Brown and Black debate : on Civil Rights

Al Sharpton: No people of color in Dean's cabinet-should import talent

Q: How you can explain not one black or brown working for your administration as governor?

DEAN: We do have African-American & Latino workers in state government.

SHARPTON: I said under your administration. Do you have a senior member of your cabinet that was black or brown?

DEAN: We had a senior member of my staff on my 5th floor.

SHARPTON: No, your cabinet.

DEAN: No, we did not. [but the cabinet has only] six members.

SHARPTON: Then you need to let me talk to you about race in this country.

DEAN: If the percentage of African-Americans in your state was any indication of what your views on race were, then Trent Lott would be Martin Luther King.

SHARPTON: But I don't think that that answers the question. If you want to lecture people on race, you ought to have the background and track record in order to do that. Governors import talent. Governors reach all over the country to make sure they have diversity.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

So now you're taking your cues from Al Sharpton? I remember that debate and I knew what you were referring to. It in no way supports what you said. "Opposed allowing blacks in his state government"? That's a flat out lie. Ever been to Vermont?

[DKW 86 7,441]

So now you're taking your  cues from Al Sharpton?  I remember that debate and I knew what you were referring to.  It in no way supports what you said.  "Opposed allowing blacks in his state government"?  That's a flat out lie.  Ever been to Vermont?

161061[/snapback]

Please name the black in his Vermont Cabinet. There isnt one.

Please name the black in his inner circle in the Dem Party. There isnt one.

He does allow them to participate in rather small, unimportant ways.

Bush has had two Sec of States that were Black. That would never happen in a Dean Admin.

[Auburn85 432]

So now you're taking your  cues from Al Sharpton?  I remember that debate and I knew what you were referring to.  It in no way supports what you said.  "Opposed allowing blacks in his state government"?  That's a flat out lie.  Ever been to Vermont?

161061[/snapback]

Please name the black in his Vermont Cabinet. There isnt one.

Please name the black in his inner circle in the Dem Party. There isnt one.

He does allow them to participate in rather small, unimportant ways.

Bush has had two Sec of States that were Black. That would never happen in a Dean Admin.

161172[/snapback]

on a side note.... Gonzales is the attorney general

[TexasTiger 13,028]

So now you're taking your  cues from Al Sharpton?  I remember that debate and I knew what you were referring to.  It in no way supports what you said.  "Opposed allowing blacks in his state government"?  That's a flat out lie.  Ever been to Vermont?

161061[/snapback]

Please name the black in his Vermont Cabinet. There isnt one.

Please name the black in his inner circle in the Dem Party. There isnt one.

He does allow them to participate in rather small, unimportant ways.

Bush has had two Sec of States that were Black. That would never happen in a Dean Admin.

161172[/snapback]

At least your BS meter accurately describes your post. Nothing will never happen in a "Dean Administration" because there will never be one. But your conclusion is just plain dumb. The population of Vermont is 96.8 percent white and 0.5 percent African American, so making some broad condemnatory conclusion based on the makeup of his Vermont inner circle is ridiculous.

[Auburn85 432]

A yellow dog is a yellow dog, same then, same now.

Only difference, is the South is full of Yellow Dog Republicans-- they carry on the racist heritage.

160911[/snapback]

you got a link

[TexasTiger 13,028]

A yellow dog is a yellow dog, same then, same now.

Only difference, is the South is full of Yellow Dog Republicans-- they carry on the racist heritage.

you got a link?

161226[/snapback]

Any intellectually honest person with a knowledge of history knows this. The information is so volumnous it can't be summed up in a single link. But here's something to get you started:

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?sectio...&articleId=5701

One of the trailblazing Southern Republican posterboys:

http://flag.blackened.net/daver/misc/helms.html

[Auburn85 432]

"Crime rates and irresponsibility among Negroes are a fact of life which must be faced." (New York Times, 2/8/81)

Nothing wrong with tyhis statement. Bobby Bright, mayor of Montgomery is quite concern with black on black crime. Many black children are born out of wed-lock and born to single mothrs without a father around.

"There is not one single case of AIDS in this country that cannot be traced in origin to sodomy." (States News Service, 5/17/88)

and some thought that homosexual men were the main cause of aids.

Ancient history? No. Helms remains unapologetic to this day. Forty years after the Smith campaign, Helms would win election against black opponent Harvey Gantt with another ad playing to racist white fear-- the so-called "white hands" ad, in which a white man's hands crumple a rejected job application while a voiceover intones, "You needed that job…but they had to give it to a minority."

kind of like the NAACP giving out brochures that had pictures of the 1960's where blacks were being hosed down. and then stating.. they tried to keep us from the polls then... now they're at it again

definately from the segregated politcs but he's no different than the Alvin Holmes and Jesse Jackson of today. They'll live and die by the race card.

[DKW 86 7,441]

Any intellectually honest person with a knowledge of history knows this. The information is so volumnous it can't be summed up in a single link. But here's something to get you started:

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?sectio...&articleId=5701

One of the trailblazing Southern Republican posterboys:

http://flag.blackened.net/daver/misc/helms.html

Both are from years ago, got to mention that one right off the top.

The first Article claims no facts at all. Just more Democratic Speak. The Ashgroft quotes all say, "He is not a racist." They say it adf nauseum. Even the Dems say it. But the author still contradicts them all?

Second Article, Fair enough, If I can smear you with the Kennedy, Byrd, Dean stuff than you can use the same brush to attack Reps with Helms and Thurman. Thurman was even a real Dixiecrat. But funny, Wallace was one too and yet stayed in the Democratic Party. Se la vie...

Now the real point to my reply was the second article under the first author. I read that and maybe you guys are starting to see the light.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?sectio...&articleId=7218

The authors talk about Dean and his effect o the party and get it right. He really didnt win that much, not one state, not even 500k votes. Jackson before got 7M votes btw. Very interesting facts. Why has Dean become the party leader then? Some questions must be asked.

You see, to us in the Republican Party, we feared Clinton and the DLC far more than Dean. Clinton and Stephanopoulos would co-op our ideas faster than we could get them out as ours. You see, we lead in the idea department. Newt is a washed up candidate even though he may run in 2008, but the man is a real political thinker. The Dems have very few of those and they tend to be extreme Left.

The second article opened my eyes to my own biases against the Dems. I can now see i was wrong and that the Dems do have some real thinkers out there. They are not all reactionary Left wing nuts reading from the latest talking points memo.