Skip to comments.The awkward co-dependence of blacks and liberal Democrats
Posted on 12/29/2008 5:33:54 AM PST by Kaslin
What does Caroline Kennedy have in common with black America? If your answer is not much, I'd tend to agree with you.
When I think of Caroline, I think of Manhattan and Park Avenue, not the Bronx and Brooklyn. I think of Brentwood and Beverly Hills, not Watts and South Central Los Angeles.
But there is something that Caroline and black America do have in common. The Democratic Party.
Whether Kennedy succeeds in her effo rt to slide into Hillary Clinton's soon-to-be-vacated Senate seat will have little to do with her Democratic Party bona fides. Per her policy positions ticked off the other day, she is in perfect and predictable liberal alignment with party boilerplate. If she fails, it will be for reasons other than her views.
So what exactly is the common political ground that Kennedy bluebloods share with the 90 percent of America's blacks who vote for Democrats?
A careful look shows the deep internal contradictions of the Democratic Party and the complexity of the political psyche of black Americans.
Ironically, despite Democratic Party rhetoric about economic inequities and wealth and income gaps in America, those gaps are more pronounced inside the Democratic tent than inside the Republican one.
According to exit polls from November's election, Barack Obama captured the vote of America' richest and America's poorest. Fifty-two percent of those with incomes over $200,000 voted for Obama and more than 60 percent of those earning under $30,000 did.
Our wealthiest senator, John Kerry, is a Democrat, as is our wealthiest House member, Jane Harman.
The nation's two wealthiest men, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are both, by all indication, Democrats.
What political aspirations can black Americans, whose median income lags the nation's share with these multimillionaires and billionaires?
There is little common ground regarding values.
Church attendance correlates reliably over time with party affiliation, and this remained true in this last election. Those who attend church frequently vote Republican. Those who don't usually vote Democratic. Except blacks.
Blacks, in fact, have the highest church attendance in the country. Seventy-six percent of black Democrats attend church at least monthly. Sixty-seven perce nt of Republicans do and 50 percent of white Democrats do.
A recent Gallup poll shows blacks more aligned with Republicans than Democrats on social issues -- moral acceptability of homosexuality, abortion, and sexual promiscuity.
On energy and environmental issues, blacks poll more closely with conservatives than with liberals. It's because these are pocketbook issues. Working blacks have little interest in paying the higher taxes and bearing the higher costs that will result from chasing global warming windmills and displacing cheap hydrocarbon energy with exotic government-subsidized alternatives. Lower energy costs also put blacks on the side of offshore drilling for oil and gas.
How about education? Wealthy liberals, despite having their own kids in private schools, oppose school choice. When a black family is given the opportunity to pull its child out of a failing public school and send him or her to a church school or another alternative, they are grateful.
So where's the common ground? Income redistribution. A recent Zogby poll shows 80 percent of Democrats, 90 percent of liberals, and 76 percent of blacks supporting taxing the weal thy to give money back to low-income Americans.
Despite everything else, blacks vote to stay on the liberal plantation. Pop psychologists would call the relationship between wealthy liberals and blacks co-dependence.
Republicans are wrong if they think they'll win blacks on social issues alone. They need to help blacks understand that lim ited government provides the economic mobility and opportunity they need and that the welfare, redistribution state does the opposite. They must help blacks gain self-confidence so that they can enjoy the benefits that can only come from freedom.
So far, Republicans have failed to do this. Which is another reason why they now sit on the outside looking in.
“the awkward co-dependence of blacks and liberal democrats”
should read “the awkward position of blacks as they are turned into a herd and contiually exploited by liberal democrats”
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but the mindset seems pretty simple to me: “They are black like me. They understand me and they will give me free stuff.”
Why would anyone vote for the Democratic Party?
DEMOCRATS: Supported slavery
REPUBLICANS: Abolished slavery
DEMOCRATS: Created Jim Crow Laws
REPUBLICANS: Abolished Jim Crow Laws
DEMOCRATS: Voted barely 50% to pass Civil Rights Act of 1964
REPUBLICANS: Voted over 80% to pass Civil Rights Act of 1964
DEMOCRATS: Continue enslavement via the narcotic welfare plantation for votes
REPUBLICANS: Color blind and judge people by individual erit and effort.
The Democratic Party has a horrific history and continue that record even today.
Professing Christians who vote Democrat are a pet peeve of mine. I worked with a gal who read her Bible daily in the break room and talked about her love of Jesus all day. She is black and when politics came up she said "I'm sorry, Bush is not my President, Bill Clinton is MY President!". And went on to say how sorry she was that he got caught "with all his women".
NYC=A King for Mayor, an unelected Gov. and an unelected Senator.
funny thing about CK is her dad. what would the democrat power structure do if she started espousing her dad’s policies?
JFK didn’t like unions and busted up a strike, IIRC it was steel workers(?), much like Reagan busted the ATC strike, JFK was s supply-side economist, much like Reagan, and JFK didn’t care for communists, again like Reagan. JFK beleived in getting the government off the backs of the people, much like Reagan.
He also was a bit of a ‘cowboy’, especially in relations with cuba, for example, a la GWB.
Since Hillary helped put Obama in the spotlight and got bitten when he didn’t wait his turn for the presidency, methinks that should the ny gov annoint her highness with hillary’s seat, CK could certainly cause the socialist dems some heartburn should she take up her dad’s policies...;-)
Where most Republican politicians chicken out.
Insulation from life through government requires a kind of social novocain. Welfare satisfies this requirement. And like all narcotics, addiction sets in at an early stage. Blacks were the first to suffer this addiction, but now it is spreading into the majority with alarming rapidity. The addiction numbs the patient into passivity so long as the drug keeps coming in it’s various forms: welfare, of course, and government medical, government schooling, government retirement, government cradle to grave, etc.
Eventually, government will be unable to meet the requirement. Cold turkey detox will occur, and this is a dangerous thing. It isn’t going to happen any other way, because the numb keep voting for the pushers, and the opposition keeps siding with, or refusing to oppose them.
You could be right and make a good point but that would only be if CK had a backbone and could stand up to the other dems. Having no experience and being void of personality, as far as I can tell, would make me believe otherwise.
WTH does that mean?
I tend to agree that CK doesn’t have the cojougles to stand up to the party, but what a frankenstein’s monster she COULD be!;-)
the dims like the blacks just where they are: dependant on government. what would kennedys do (and more importantly) how would they maintain power, if their dependant blacks succeeded, and moved on?
the dims are just another type of drug dealer, keeping their customers hooked up, alive, but barely.
This is the truth. The problem is that the "Great Society" sucked in a very vulnerable population at a very vulnerable moment, that is, just as all the hideous legal restrictions were falling and when blacks could really have made a surge ahead, and made them believe that all good things came from the hand of government. It destroyed black responsibility, black families and black initiative.
During segregation, my town in the south had a very busy black business district - note, I'm NOT saying that segregation was good, but simply that even in the face of terrible adversity, blacks were entrepreneurial, hard-working, solid members of the community. Everybody thought that the end of segregation was going to mean more economic freedom and possibility for blacks; but then the government came through and paid people to be dysfunctional, and many of the grandchildren and great-grandchildren (probably almost all illegitimate) of those same shopkeepers of 50 years ago are probably unemployed, maybe in jail, and certainly going nowhere. But they've become the sole property of the Dem party, which gave them federal dollars like heroin.
Notice that their lodestone is always raising marginal tax rates. This is meaningless to the very wealthy, since their assets remain untouched and such income as they have is heavily sheltered.
But for the middle class and especially the upper middle class, this is devastating.
For the blacks, the everyday whites they come into contact with get screwed by raising marginal tax rates, which must be highly satisfactory for them. The blacks get a slice of the money.
And the wealthy win both ways - everybody, including them, stays in their place. And they feel virtuous.
It will never happen. Free stuff wins over theoretical arguments every time. The GOP needs to give up on "trying to win over blacks." It ain't gonna work. They should spend their time on something more productive.
A real mistake here. How is taking money from the wealthy
to “give money back” to low income people? It was not taken from them in the first place.
A co-dependence purposely constructed by the RAT party to breed the appropriate voting segment to keep them in power. The trouble grows deeper.
So your resolution is to just throw up your arms and give up? It has never hurt to try and keep on trying. Eventually most will see the light
Excellent points bump
Looking from T Sowell’s “unconstrained” vs “constrained” visions of humanity,
the left seeks to address results directly, but directly confiscating wealth from the wealthy and giving it to the “poor”. This is the unconstrained “solution”.
The right seeks to apply the wisdom of the ages, that individual hard work and freedom and entreneurship lead to wealth. This is the constrained method of “solving” problems.
Yes, the left, with their “unconstrained” vision of the human condition are WRONG and DANGEROUS, but it does help your own sanity to understand where they’re coming from.
Sowell is a great thinker!
Except for that word in that sentence it's a pretty good article.
In US politics you get ZERO credit for actually solving a problem, but you get oodles of political support if you can slyly perpetuate a problem while simultaneously blaming the other party for it — this the Democrats have always excelled at.
You don't get it.
They aren't taking MONEY from the wealthy.
They're stealing INCOME from the middle and upper middle classes, before they ever possess it.
The assets of the wealthy are untouched by this scheme, while the labor of the middle classes is undermined to buy lower class votes - specifically, the votes of the low-IQ incompetents who cannot rise in our system.
Blacks, in fact, have the highest church attendance in the country. Seventy-six percent of black Democrats attend church at least monthly.
But how many of those churches echo the views of obama’s minister the hate filled Rev. Wright?
When the Brinks trucks start pulling up to Katzenberg's and Springsteen's estates to confiscate their sh*t, give me a call.
No wonder 95% of the gimmie-gimmie vote went for Obama, they saw him as the end of that excuse.
That “cold turkey detox” is usually followed or accompanied by a civil war. It will be a civil ware between those that seek to maintain a “free” society and simply correct the issues that caused the down fall (i.e., get rid of welfare and social security, re-institute self-reliance and individual purpose, etc...) and those that now realize their cash cow has expired and seek to take complete control to “equalize” the perceived imbalances that have occurred in the past (a few recent examples of this type of civil war are South Africa, Mozambique, heck, MOST of Africa).
As you can see by the examples, the “free” society has not fared well in those endeavors.
I guess this is where I get lost. Why isn't it obvious that freedom and limited government are better? Why does anyone need to teach this? If people can't see the benefits of freedom, it's because they wont think for themselves. There is no confidence-building exercise that will replace common sense. If someone needs help for something this basic, how will they protect and perpetuate it? Intellectual laziness isn't a disease and can't be fixed by a third party.
Maybe she should ask for little Barry’s seat. Their politics seem to aline in the fact neither are ever working; neither has experience; and both could vote Present and run for POTUS.
Of course, Caroline would have to get a gig for the public like exercising.
And now we see the end result of the dumbing down of America! It was not to destroy the constitution, it was to mine and foster votes. The net result is a loss of self-reliance AND complete government dependence: a two-for-one scenario.
The real problem is YES it can be taught. It was taught in the past: by parents and family and society as a whole. If you got caught doing something wrong, you were punished and no one thought a second about YOUR rights: common sense. If you didn’t grow enough or hunt enough food you died: common sense. There are too many examples for me to write them all, but you see what I am saying.
These things were taught and are still being taught in small towns across America, but unfortunately, both, the faculty and the student body, are dwindling exponentially.
That's a South American banana republic pattern - the rich use the poor and criminal poor to pound the middle class. It's class warfare at it's ugliest.
“As you can see by the examples, the free society has not fared well in those endeavors.”
Spooky. Ain’t it?
Unfortunately (and I say this with no joy), I am beginning to doubt Black social conservatism.
Why is it that seemingly every single Black politician is an across-the-board social liberal? They can be from the deepest, most rural part of the South, can have been raised in "sanctified" churches from day one, and yet once they become politicians it isn't just the economic or racial issues (which I can understand) . . . automatically this person becomes a "profound leftwing intellectual," supporting abortion, "gay rights," Darwinism, and "separation of church and state" (how many sermons did they hear on that topic?).
And worst of all, whenever a Black politician arises who actually votes and speaks out on these issues, he is labeled an "Uncle Tom."
Maybe the leftwing revisionist historians are right. Maybe Black Americans never were fundamentalists, and all their sermonizing was a coded way of teaching their people the Dialectic.
But I see zero evidence that today's Republicans believe this, themselves.
John Kennedy died at precisely the right moment to freeze his 'legacy' in place. Had he lived, he would have been subject to the same cultural gravitational forces that have pulled the rest of the democrat gaggle toward the black hole of neoMarxism.
oh I dunno, I think that had he lived, the dems wouldn’t have gotten so far left - he would have been a moderating force.
The reason that blacks vote Democrat is simple: The liberals have convinced them, through careful manipulation over the course of DECADES, that Republicans hate black people. It really is that simple.
I've posted this story before and I'll do so again. About ten years ago, I had a conversation with a young, female, black coworker. I took her through the Republican platform step by step, and she agreed with every single position. Then, I told her that she'd just agreed with every single position that the Republican party held, and asked her if that was enough to convince her to vote R instead of D. Her answer shocked me: “No... I won't vote for Republicans because they hate black people.”
Hasn't anyone ever wondered why they invariably call conservative blacks “Uncle Tom,” but never say any such thing for a successful liberal black? In the African American community, “Uncle Tom” doesn't just mean a black who acts “white,” as there are lots of blacks who do that, such as Barak Obama, Colin Powell, Oprah Winfrey, etc. It's okay to act “white” as long as you're not conservative. “Uncle Tom” goes further — it carries the same weight of meaning as “collaborator.”
We will continue to get less than ten percent of the African-American vote as long as we continue letting the Dems tell blacks that conservatives hate them.
Please see my post #42.
(I could whine about my own ethnic group, but that isn't relevent here, except the shared grievance politics.)
There is some merit in what you say, but it still doesn't explain the unpleasant fact that every single Black politician (as I said earlier, no matter how Southern, rural, or "sanctified") automatically becomes an across-the-board social liberal (advocating everything from euthanasia, to "animals are people too," to homosexuality, to "creationism is anti-science!") from the very instant they become politicians.
If your Black female was representative of the Black population, why aren't there ever any conservative Black Democrats (at least on non-racial, non-economic issues)?
Honestly. This is what I don't get.
In the sixties there were others like Kennedy (you know, the old Democrat Party - Moynihan, et al) they may have slowed the leftward lurch, but they certainly didn’t stop it.
you are correct, but JFK, being larger than life, would have had considerably greater influence.
Because, like all politicians, they lust for power above all else. If they want the power of moving up in the Democrat machine, that's what they have to believe. ALL politicians change their personal beliefs as they move up the ladder. Remember, Al Gore was pro-life at first...
If your Black female was representative of the Black population, why aren't there ever any conservative Black Democrats (at least on non-racial, non-economic issues)?
That's fairly simple. For decades now, the Democrats have taught blacks that conservative = Republican = racist. Black conservatives get ostracized and demonized, and so they either get quiet or switch over to the Republican party -- VERY hard to do when you've been taught your whole life that Republicans hate you.
Have you ever heard liberals use the phrase "voting in your self-interests?" That's code for "Republicans hate you, so you'd better vote for the Democrat instead."
An interesting theory, and perhaps correct. It just seems to me that at some level in some sleepy little Southern town there would be at least one Black conservative Democrat--and that eventually the radical left social positions would alienate some Blacks somewhere.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.