Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Magic Man: Race and the Republican Party
Human Events ^ | 1/1/09 | D. R. Tucker

Posted on 01/01/2009 6:27:26 AM PST by MartinaMisc

I’m afraid I must disagree with the great conservative writer Larry Elder, whose January 1 column (“Barack the Magic Negro-gate”) on the controversy surrounding would-be Republican National Committee chairman Chip Saltsman misses the point about why Saltsman’s actions were so misguided.

Elder correctly notes that it was a black liberal writer, David Ehrenstein, who originally started the “Magic Negro” controversy with a March 2007 Los Angeles Times piece attacking Obama as a candidate whose hopes for victory depended upon exploiting white guilt.

“The article produced virtually no outcry,” Elder writes. “Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh then aired a [Paul Shanklin] song parody—set to the music of ‘Puff the Magic Dragon’—called ‘Barack the Magic Negro.’ Referring to the L.A. Times article, an Al Sharpton-like ‘singer’ called Obama inauthentically black. Why, complained the singer, should white folks vote for Obama rather than a true black man ‘from the hood’ like— me.”

Elder continues, “Chip Saltsman, a candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee, sent the song on a CD with 40 other songs, in a Christmas mailer to committee members. Doesn't the mailer, asked several cable news programs, expose the Republicans—yet again—for their tone deafness on the issue of race?…Never mind the parody actually satirized Al Sharpton. The song implies that Sharpton hoped against an Obama victory, for it crushes Sharpton's argument about America's alleged institutional racism, a force so potent in a country so racist that Obama could not win. An Obama win threatens to reduce the significance of Sharpton-like black leaders. And never mind a black liberal—who started the whole thing—called Obama a ‘Negro.’

“When will the GOP—on the issue of race—go on the offense?”

The answer: Never, because it can’t.

(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: magicnegro; obama; rnc; saltsman

1 posted on 01/01/2009 6:27:26 AM PST by MartinaMisc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: MartinaMisc

So true....it won’t because it can’t.


2 posted on 01/01/2009 6:33:13 AM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MartinaMisc
Barack The Magic Negro [sung by Al 'not-so' Sharpton]:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZyPaivOARM
3 posted on 01/01/2009 6:40:01 AM PST by ETL (Smoking gun evidence on ALL the ObamaRat-commie connections at my newly revised FR Home/About page)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MartinaMisc

The only near-term solution is to encourage any and every conservative black or minority Republican leader into the forefront, and have them become the face of the party.

Yes, it may be pandering in the absolute sense .... which is sometimes an insult to some.

But it is critical for the GOP to spread pro-American conservatism.... and if it takes some moving around of RNC leadership... then so be it.

As long as those new GOP leaders maintain a pro-business, values centered, Pro-Life, low-tax, conservative platform. values.....


4 posted on 01/01/2009 6:41:35 AM PST by Edit35 (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun

But wait! I though racism was dead since the media coronation of 0bama.


5 posted on 01/01/2009 6:44:56 AM PST by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MartinaMisc
Called 0bami a negro? Shame.


I guess I am still safe from prosecution for what I call him ... under my breath ... and out loud when I am alone.

At least until the commies can read thoughts.

6 posted on 01/01/2009 6:47:29 AM PST by G.Mason (Duty, Honor, Country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MartinaMisc

This is GREAT! We have Obama now! We are all RICH! No one has to work ever again! The check is surely in the mail!


7 posted on 01/01/2009 6:48:27 AM PST by buffyt (Have a Wonderful FREEPIN' New Year!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MartinaMisc
Thus, Republicans must be careful about not giving the mainstream media the tools with which to bash the party.

Tucker missed this in his final proof before submitting the piece. This is certainly not a serious line.

The MSM will use whatever tools they can stir from their slime barrels. If necessary they will simply fabricate some tools. I know Tucker knows this!

8 posted on 01/01/2009 6:53:27 AM PST by stevem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MartinaMisc
Maybe they should Read a Book. (Warning Vulgar Language). An actual BET PSA.
9 posted on 01/01/2009 6:53:33 AM PST by rawcatslyentist (Proud non productive worker under directive 10-289)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MartinaMisc
Like I've been saying, conservatives desperately need to develop our own institutions parallel to those dominated by the liberals, so as to provide an alternative to the left-wing dominated MSM. Then we can get our message out by simply doing an end-run around the leftist media blockade. THAT'S the failing of conservatism and the GOP.

I still think that white, middle class values are the winning message - they HAVE to be unless we want to discard America on the ashheap of history and admit that we're destined to become another ethnically-Balkanised, kleptocratic failed state like they have in so many places in Africa and Latin America. We have to push those values aggressively now, so tnat we don't have to fight the inevitable civil war provoked by black and Hispanic ethnic separatists later on. True Americans - those who are grounded in the traditional civi ethos of this nation - need to firmly take the reins of power, even if we have to give a boot to the face of the Democrat coalition in the process.

Did you know that if McCain had increased his share of the white vote by 5%, we'd be talking about President McCain today? Yep. Guess what? The GOP doesn't need to reach out to minority voters as badly as many think. The GOP needs to FIRST solidify its standing with white voters, many of whom left this year because they didn't like McCain, and thus didn't vote, or else voted for Obama because of the economy (Hint - saying the economy is "fundamentally sound" while millions are losing their jobs, is flat stupid).

Further, it's inaccurate to say that Americans have rejected "white, middle class values" (i.e. conservatism). They were never presented with that option this year. McCain certainly didn't represent it, even despite his feeble attempts to link President-elect Soetoro to socialism and talk up tax cuts. Frankly, I doubt McCain even understands why we needed tax cuts, and was reading off a script that he had printed up in desperation. He wasn't convincing. If we present people with a convincing conservatism that rests on individual liberty, economic freedom, and traditional social values, we WILL win. We DID win on just that platform, back in 1994, and held onto that majority using that platform all the way to 2000 (which is when Bush fundamentally altered the message). I simply do not believe that "demographics" (or whatever other excuse people use) have changed so radically in eight short years. Simply doesn't happen.

10 posted on 01/01/2009 6:55:22 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Nihil utile nisi quod honestum - Marcus Tullius Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MartinaMisc

Don’t pander period. The GOP should not “reach out” to Blacks or whites or browns or us Cajuns or anyone, cher. (Pronounced ‘sha’) Every year more tradionally dems are abandoning liberalism as they grow econimically. The problem is that there is no place for them to go. Yes, it will take many years but too bad.


11 posted on 01/01/2009 7:05:15 AM PST by HChampagne (I am not an AARP member and never will be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MartinaMisc

The answer is to sell the basic conservative values and how we all of every race benefit as Americans to those values. We definitely need commercials that incorporates America as it is statistically represented when it comes to race. The problem is that even though blacks historically have been 12% of the US population the liberal media tries to populate them and push for them as if they were 85% and shoved in corners. They are not and they often shove themselves in their own corner, not whitey. Conservatives are just more based in reality. Liberals live in their own special hypocritical fantasy world and have the blacks all tied up in their lies. It is the job of conservatives to penetrate this group with fundamental conservative values and how they can benefit. Bottomline. We ALL can benefit. Black, white, red, green, yellow, whatever God birthed us to be. Period.


12 posted on 01/01/2009 7:08:06 AM PST by GOP Poet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MartinaMisc

We have let the left, including the media and the Democrats, frame the argument for so long we no longer see a clear choice in elections. Conservatives are always urged, by their own consultants and this author, to move to the center while the liberals have moved so far left the center is now center left. Yet the population is mostly center right.

When the slightest word of sanity is uttered by the conservatives, or in this case a humorous parody, the media, the Democrats, in otherwords, the Left, jump immediately on top of it, condemning it and basically killing a gnat with a sledge hammer. This cows conservative politicians and their “advisors”, like this author.

It shouldn’t. They (we) should stand up to them and declare just as strongly how wrong they are. This is especially true of political correctness. PC is designed to stifle dissent and it is working marvelously. The Left and the Islamists use identical tactics. They stifle dissent with threats of destruction, physically or politically. We are cowards not to face them down each time they do it.

Give America a true choice between a conservative, not a watered down one who is wooing the mushy-middle, and a liberal and the conservative will win.

However, the greater threat is the way the Left, through groups like ACORN, have seized the election process. Unless we can straighten that out we will never again have an honest election. In order to do that we must stiffen our spines and demand it.


13 posted on 01/01/2009 7:14:16 AM PST by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MartinaMisc

Political correctness has now been exploited to its logical conclusion; we have a president who was chosen for his color. There were, of course, a few minimum requirements he had to meet. For instance, he had to be more affable than Al Sharpton, and more articulate Jesse Jackson. He needed to be black in appearance, but had to act more like a cross between Bill Cosby and Will Smith. It was important that he not scare ‘typical white people’. With the assistance of the fawning media, he was able to hide his Tony Rezko and Rev. Wright inclinations. In terms of white guilt, America feels very warm and fuzzy and what it has done for Barack Obama as a black man. It remains to be seen what he will do now that he possesses the keys to the city, and whether it will be worth the price of fleeting emotional gratification.


14 posted on 01/01/2009 7:17:05 AM PST by Spok (Now is the time to cling to faith and freedom, while we still can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MartinaMisc
Conservatives and Republicans will never make significant progress in convincing black Americans to vote for them until black Americans stop lying to themselves.

Republican "racism" is a truism in the African American community; it is preached from the pulpit, touted throughout the news media, advanced by movies, and repeated ad nauseum by black celebrities, educators, and politicians.

Until the black community is willing to take an honest look at what they have "gained" by supporting Democrats and the failure of every Democrat legislative effort to improve their lives; until they understand that they must work for their own support and meet their own needs rather than wait on mana from Lord High Obama, they will not support or even consider supporting Republicans or Conservatives.

What Republicans do matters very little if at all.
15 posted on 01/01/2009 7:20:30 AM PST by Sudetenland (Those diplomats serve best, who serve as cannon fodder to protect our troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MartinaMisc

The song is funny, true, and to the point.


16 posted on 01/01/2009 7:25:02 AM PST by bmwcyle (I have no President as of Jan 20th 2009. No Congress either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ETL

THANK YOU for posting the next Grammy Awards winner!


17 posted on 01/01/2009 7:26:47 AM PST by 2harddrive (...House a TOTAL Loss.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MartinaMisc
Good article and spot-on IMO.

There's really only one choice for me in this RNC race, and it's Ken Blackwell because I trust his conservative values.

Mike Duncan -- RINO loser
Chip Saltzman -- idiot for distributing the CD
Saul Anuzis -- loser for screaming wolf about the CD
Michael Steele -- RINO
Katon Dawson -- good man tainted by all-white country club association

Ken Blackwell is the clear choice IMO.

18 posted on 01/01/2009 7:38:12 AM PST by Al B.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MartinaMisc

Walter E. Williams issued all of us whites a certificate of forgiveness or something similar a few years ago; maybe we could ask him to update it to reflect the Obama election, then publish it everywhere!

Dr. Williams, how about it?


19 posted on 01/01/2009 7:46:13 AM PST by JimRed ("Hey, hey, Teddy K., how many girls did you drown today?" TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOP Poet

****Conservatives are just more based in reality****

OUR reality is no longer THE reality. Welcome to the Brave New Animal Farm.

This is the end. May it be swift.


20 posted on 01/01/2009 7:48:50 AM PST by gost2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Edit35

“The only near-term solution is to encourage any and every conservative black or minority Republican leader into the forefront, and have them become the face of the party.
Yes, it may be pandering in the absolute sense .... which is sometimes an insult to some.
But it is critical for the GOP to spread pro-American conservatism.... and if it takes some moving around of RNC leadership... then so be it.
As long as those new GOP leaders maintain a pro-business, values centered, Pro-Life, low-tax, conservative platform. values..”

Keep dreaming, my FRiend.

In a blinding - yet remarkably clear - flash of racial reality and “identity”, 95% of blacks cast their votes for Barack Obama last November. Just what would you suggest that the few existing “conservative black” leaders offer blacks that they might be persuaded into the conservative camp?

Reread the last paragraph you wrote, extolling the virtues of a “pro-business, values centered, Pro-Life, low-tax” political philosophy. I contend that bulk of the 95% of blacks who voted for Obama did so because they believe in, and expect government to deliver to them something 180 degress the OPPOSITE of “conservative values”. They want as much from your “conservative black leaders” as they do from conservative _white_ leaders.

The bitter, hard, yet undeniable truth is, that blacks (and the majorities of other non-Euro demographic groups in this country) don’t care much for the “conservative values” that have always emanated from the Euro-American heritage.

I have written the following numerous times before on FR, and will state it again:
Not all Euro-Americans are conservative, BUT...
The overwhelming majority of conservatives are Euro-American.

Conservatism, as a set of values and a political philosophy, springs from the heritage of the Euros who first settled America, particularly groups of Scots-Irish. It represents [what is viewed by many today to be] an “old-time” set of values - values that are not shared by the other non-Euro demographic groups that are in ascendance in America today.

On one side of this divide are those who love freedom, who wish to take care of themselves, and who want the government to stay out of their lives as much as possible. On the other are those who love entitlements, who expect the government to take care of everything, who seem fundamentally opposed to our basic freedoms and economic systems as they were established by our forefathers. The numbers of this second group aren’t shrinking - they’re growing.

Let me repeat:
95% of blacks voted for Obama, and _against_ the Republicans and [presumably] the value system that our party at least purports to represent. What values of conservatism do you realistically propose to sell to these people to win their votes?

The results of the election prove to me that the notion of “identity politics” is real and undeniable. So be it.

To be a conservative, one must accept conservatism’s most powerful (and often overlooked) precept: the acceptance of reality on its face, and that truth is truth, even when those truths are unpleasant. And with that, develop the wisdom to understand that reality is what it is, and is NOT what we merely believe it to be. And to accept that sometimes, in spite of our best efforts and most noble intent, that reality has a tendency to slap us in the face.

2008 should be regarded as a “reality slap” for conservatives.

Conservatism cannot be made multicultural. Conservatism is what it is because it represents a value system and a way of life that, for better or for worse, is clearly identified and embraced by Euro-Americans. For EXACTLY that reason, it is also rejected by many who simply do not “identify” with Euro-Americans.

To continue to cling to the notion that “everyone is like us” and that they, too, will accept conservatism “if only it is presented to them in an attractive manner” is nothing more than fantasy. It will not happen, and so long as we waste our efforts trying to do that, we will lose ground. We are quite possibly destined to continue to lose ground anyway, due to demographic changes in this country that by now will be nearly impossible to control or reverse.

In a non-diverse nation, one has the luxury of ignoring the realities of group and ethnic identification, and the identity politics that goes with it. But we are no longer that nation, and we are not moving closer to [once again] being a homogenous and non-diverse nation. With the continual influx of non-Euros and an ever-shrinking Euro-American cohort, our demographics are morphing into an “oil and water” mix in which “political identity” will become an increasing factor in how folks view others and cast their votes.

The key to conservative survival is to understand with whom our own “identity” lies, to accept that reality, and then to unabashedly court those votes to our side.

- John


21 posted on 01/01/2009 8:08:40 AM PST by Fishrrman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

I read Tom Coburn’s book, BREACH OF TRUST, which I recommend highly. Coburn clearly showed that what was won in 1994 was quickly thrown under the bus by the Repubs led by Newt Gingrich, now our born-again “conservative” Sage. The Dems have never been the problem - it’s the so-called Repub leaders whose only interest is to capitulate to whatever degree necessary to stay in office.

There are a handful of worthies in Congress and out there in State govt. that could lead the Conservatives. Basically Conservatives are too normal, I fear, to win big any more considering the professional organiation of the “you owe me” mob. It looks like few care about saving our country and even fewer are even aware of the path we’re on. We’re full circle back to 1776 when only about 10% believed in the Revolution, Freedom and Sovereignty.


22 posted on 01/01/2009 8:08:40 AM PST by Sioux-san
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Fishrrman

bump post 21


23 posted on 01/01/2009 9:22:20 AM PST by Christian4Bush (Role of the press: Republican scandal - prosecutors; Democrat scandal - Defense attorneys.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Fishrrman
Just what would you suggest that the few existing “conservative black” leaders offer blacks that they might be persuaded into the conservative camp?

I don't want black conservatives to offer anything other than straight-up, easy-to-understand values conservatism.

Over and over, high profile. Proud, articulate and energetic minorities leading the way.

Nothing fancy. Nothing moderate or Democrat-leaning.

My point is that the more publicity showing black conservative-Republicans promoting conservatism, the better.

We have got to change the perception of the GOP as anti-minority (even though it's laughably wrong) and I see no better way of doing that than having successful 'minorities' leading the way while promoting and demonstrating the conservative way of life.

There are many fabulous black conservatives who just might jump at the chance.

If there is another solution, then let's try it.

Bottom line: The GOP will have an awful time if it's faced with a 25% voting deficit right off the bat in every election due to minorities thinking the GOP hates them (again, the claim is laughable ... but it is the perception)

24 posted on 01/01/2009 11:30:52 AM PST by Edit35 (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Al B.

Why do you say Steele is a RINO?


25 posted on 01/01/2009 11:44:47 AM PST by Hanna548 (s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Fishrrman
The results of the election prove to me that the notion of “identity politics” is real and undeniable.

Actually, I am much more optimistic... even with the Obama victory.

I strongly believe if the GOP had put up a strong, likable, enthusiastic, articulate, charasmatic conservative.... white male or otherwise.... Obama would have lost.

I have 'friends' and relatives who are solid Democrats, and in the spring of 2008 many were practically begging for someone to support other than Obama.

Yes, some because of race and some because they don't trust Obama.

By summer's end, it was evident that McCain was STONE-COLD AWFUL as a candidate... Sarah Palin not withstanding.

McCain was a boring, liberal old as dirt Washington insider.... which was EXACTLY what the nation (Republicans included) were desperately trying to run away from.

Run away with a capital RUN!!

So what does the idiot Republican Party voters do????

They nominate the worst of all worlds, a back-stabbing, anti-faith, irritating voiced, yellow teeth, wishy washy guy who THOUGHT his POW status of 50 years ago would make him electable.

HA!

If the GOP can come up with a good articulate, LIKABLE conservative leader... we will regain those six million conservative Republicans who DIDN'T vote for McCain.... plus we will attract a decent percentage of old time Democrats who don't really care for liberal politics, but were embarassed to support McCain and his ilk.

26 posted on 01/01/2009 11:45:47 AM PST by Edit35 (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Fishrrman

Heck, I was embarrased to admit I supported McCain... and I am a Repub committeeman who is about as values based a conservative as possible.

I am convinced that many conservative Republicans (and Democrats) simply closed their eyes and voted Obama because they couldn’t stand the thought of enduring the next four years with a frumpy, boring, old geezer like McCain.

Please don’t misunderstand. I respect and admire John McCain for some aspects of his life.

But he is EXACTLY the type of Washington insider I didn’t want to see become President... and like Ann Coulter said, NOW I am free to admit that.

We desperately needed new blood in 2008, and instead the GOP offered us tired old iron-poor Geritol.


27 posted on 01/01/2009 11:51:57 AM PST by Edit35 (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Fishrrman

We have a considerable number of people in this country who voted for the person they were encouraged/told to vote for, as they were lead or herded to the polls. A lot of these same people would have difficulty naming the current President and I’d venture to say 99% could not tell you who the current Vice President is.

These people were made to believe that Daddy was coming to take care of them, in a very literal sense, and they jumped on it because that is what they are always looking for....someone to take care of them.

These people are deciding elections, and unless we find a way to get these people to see the truth it is only going to get worse.

Liberalism is a virus in every aspect of our society, and it is going viral. We send our children to school and they better have daily doses to inoculate them against the liberal influence and indoctrination they receive everyday, or the virus will overtake them.

We need our own schools, our own universities, our own media, our own history books. We must be a strong and ever present alternative.

But first we need to get our own house in order. In so doing we need to stop our own infighting. That is more dangerous than anything the liberals can do and in fact the liberals get downright gleeful over it. In fact I am certain that one of their goals is to fracture the Republican Party. They do that and it is over.


28 posted on 01/01/2009 12:14:35 PM PST by Hanna548 (s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Hanna548
Why do you say Steele is a RINO?

Because of seemingly credible reports on this forum detailing his lack of support for conservative Republican positions on abortion, affirmative action and gun control.

I personally don't know that much about him but if those reports are accurate, we can do better. He seems to be an extremely likable fellow and does well in front of the camera, certainly an important part of the job.

This party, however, must get back to its core beliefs to be successful again and that must be presented to the public with no ambiguity. I think Blackwell is the best choice among the candidates currently out there. If there was a Tom DeLay or Lee Atwater-type running, I'd probably feel differently...LOL.

29 posted on 01/01/2009 12:43:28 PM PST by Al B.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Like I've been saying, conservatives desperately need to develop our own institutions parallel to those dominated by the liberals

Ask yourself why no big money conservatives, have picked up one of the major newspapers that have been trying to sell for years. In my opinion the big money conservatives have no interest in conserving the nation, only the bottom line. Libertarians not Conservatives.

I am open to valid alternative theories.

30 posted on 01/01/2009 12:55:31 PM PST by itsahoot (We will have world government. Whether by conquest or consent. Looks like that question is answered)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
Ask yourself why no big money conservatives, have picked up one of the major newspapers that have been trying to sell for years. In my opinion the big money conservatives have no interest in conserving the nation, only the bottom line. Libertarians not Conservatives.

I would agree, and I think it is in part because conservatives have bought into the "rugged individualism" nonsense peddled by both Rush Limbaugh as well as by libertarians. This junk about how any sort of working together for a common good is inherently "socialist". Try telling that to Locke and to our Founders. This country was not founded by rugged individualists. It was founded by communities of rugged individuals - and there is a big difference. Modern conservatives have this idea that, if something doesn't directly and immediately benefit us personally, then it's "socialist" to do it. That type of short-sightedness is going to end up killing this country.

31 posted on 01/01/2009 1:37:19 PM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Nihil utile nisi quod honestum - Marcus Tullius Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
I would agree, and I think it is in part because conservatives have bought into the "rugged individualism" nonsense peddled by both Rush Limbaugh as well as by libertarians. This junk about how any sort of working together for a common good is inherently "socialist".

I've got to ask...did you arrive at these points of view by yourself...or in college?

Because your mindset is so rock-bottom wrong, I hesitate to address your argument...because I've no idea where to start.

"Rugged individualism" isn't "nonsense". It's just another way of saying "individual responsibility". And "working together for the common good" isn't "socialist" -- so long as it isn't the government dictating the common good or how it will be achieved.

Americans are the most inventive, prosperous...and generous...society on the face of the earth. Because we have individual liberty -- thus, individual responsibility -- and private property, so that we might have the freedom to profit from our labors.

Conservatives wish to conserve that heritage. And the remarkable societal success it has brought s. What, in heaven's name, is wrong with that?

32 posted on 01/01/2009 1:49:18 PM PST by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance on Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: okie01
I arrived at this view by actually looking at the history of our country. When the people who yap about "rugged individualism" speak of it, you'd think they thought we were all just a bunch of Daniel Boones, running around the wilderness all by our lonesomes, somehow building a society that way. That's not how it happened. If anything, we were rugged communitarians, working together to subdue the land.

Your objection demonstrates exactly the error in thinking that I was talking about - as if rejecting this "rugged individualism" necessarily means rejecting individual responsibility or individualism proper. It does not. Every individual is ultimately responsible for his or herself, sooner or later, regardless of what type of system they live under.

What's ironic is that we only have individual liberty because we have government, because we are banded together in a commonwealthian system. This libertarian-style "minarchy", perversely, would destroy the very liberty it thinks it's preserving. Don't agree with me? Then you don't agree with John Locke or the Founders, either.

33 posted on 01/01/2009 2:10:57 PM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Nihil utile nisi quod honestum - Marcus Tullius Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Your objection demonstrates exactly the error in thinking that I was talking about - as if rejecting this "rugged individualism" necessarily means rejecting individual responsibility or individualism proper. It does not. Every individual is ultimately responsible for his or herself, sooner or later, regardless of what type of system they live under.

Excuse me, but it is your objection which demonstrates the error. You are conflating "rugged individualism" as exclusive from "individual responsibility". But they are NOT two separate things: they are just two ways of saying the same thing.

Consequently, I conclude that your objection is to the term "rugged". OK. Moderates and urban dwellers are, shall we say, uncomfortable with the term. The Daniel Boone analogy supports my assessment.

Why can't we then agree to wholeheartedly support the conservative concept of "individual responsibility", without being distracted by the adjective "rugged"?

A leading question: how do you feel about the 2nd Amendment and CCW laws? Any problems with them; do they relate to the "rugged" adjective?

34 posted on 01/01/2009 2:25:34 PM PST by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance on Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: okie01
Excuse me, but it is your objection which demonstrates the error. You are conflating "rugged individualism" as exclusive from "individual responsibility". But they are NOT two separate things: they are just two ways of saying the same thing.

I did no such thing, though as I'll show below, this isn't actually far from the mark. Indeed, I never mentioned "individual responsibility", positively or negatively. That is entirely your invention. By "rugged individualism" is meant this notion that every man is an island, and that de facto rejects as important any societal organisation above the level of the individual. Who do I mean? The people who think, for example, that worrying about "the common good", regardless of the context in which the term is used, is always and at all times a mark of "socialism". Ergo, they would say that the statement "the Pilgrim's worked together for the common good" was trying to rewrite history from a communist viewpoint. As if the Pilgrims all got over here and just ran around having nothing to do with each other, no neighbourly assistance, no forming of governments, anything. I've actually had libertarians tell me that any use of the word "community" is fundamentally communist - since by gum, individuals should have absolutely no political organisation above them or any responsibility to the rule of law. In other words, short-sighted people who don't even understand the philsophy underlying the founding of their own nation.

The error is yours - you're assuming that the rejection of radical, libertarian-idealised "rugged individualism" equates to a rejection of "individual responsibility". What you don't realise is that there cannot even BE any concept of "individual responsibility" without there being some structure through which individuals are held accountable for their behaviour. That's the whole point to Locke's reasoning for why men form commonwealths in the first place - without them, without some sort of government that keeps in check the excesses of "the state of nature" (which would be the ULTIMATE expression of radical "rugged individualism"), there is no accountability for individuals who violate the natural rights of others. Individual responsibility isn't just "taking the lumps for my own actions" - individual responsibility is also a POSITIVE requirement for not harming OTHER individuals through your actions. Individual responsibility ultimately is NOT compatible with radical, "me-only" libertarian concepts of individualism.

Consequently, I conclude that your objection is to the term "rugged". OK. Moderates and urban dwellers are, shall we say, uncomfortable with the term. The Daniel Boone analogy supports my assessment.

Well, if that's your conclusion, then it's apparent you don't "get" what I'm talking about.

Why can't we then agree to wholeheartedly support the conservative concept of "individual responsibility", without being distracted by the adjective "rugged"?

I certainly do support the concept of individual responsibility. I simply recognise the fact - as did our Founders, as did Locke - that the individual is only "responsible" when he is in community with others in the commonwealth. Outside that, he is an apolitical animal who has no responsibility to govern his actions or bear consequences for them other than the simple fact that he maybe gets hurt while trying to do something. If that's your idea of "individual responsibility", then it is not conservative, and I would reject it.

A leading question: how do you feel about the 2nd Amendment and CCW laws? Any problems with them; do they relate to the "rugged" adjective?

I think that individuals ought to be able to own and use any weapon, up to and including military-grade light arms and explosives. I think there should be no regulations upon the right of the people (oops, dirty word there) to keep and bear arms. Indeed, my wife and I are in the process of obtaining our CCW licenses for our State.

35 posted on 01/01/2009 2:52:34 PM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Nihil utile nisi quod honestum - Marcus Tullius Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Well, if that's your conclusion, then it's apparent you don't "get" what I'm talking about.

Well, to be honest, I don't.

Your position seems founded in anti-libertarianism, rather than any positive embrace of conservatism.

Your values seem to be wrapped up in government and structure, while rejecting the individual.

The philosophy of conservatism celebrates the individual...and, recognizing the need for government as a necessary evil, tries to restrict government to its proper place.

You seem to be coming at it from the other direction.

Just my opinion, based on what you've written...

36 posted on 01/01/2009 3:56:29 PM PST by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance on Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Al B.

KEN BLACKWELL would be an excellent candidate for us in 2012.


37 posted on 01/02/2009 5:59:00 AM PST by buffyt (Have a Wonderful FREEPIN' New Year!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: okie01
Well, to be honest, I don't.

Yes, I could tell.

Your position seems founded in anti-libertarianism, rather than any positive embrace of conservatism.

Of course it's founded in anti-libertarianism, because libertarianism and conservatism are two different things. I am a conservative, not a libertarian, and I reject the radical individualism of libertarianism. I accept the reasoned individualism and ordered liberty which is a hallmark of conservatism, as well as liberty ideology from Locke to the Founders and on down to us. The Founders would reject modern-day libertarianism just as much as I do.

Your values seem to be wrapped up in government and structure, while rejecting the individual.

If this is the take-home message you got from what I wrote, then no, you really, really don't have a clue what I was saying. I suggest you read Locke's two treatises on government.

The philosophy of conservatism celebrates the individual...and, recognizing the need for government as a necessary evil, tries to restrict government to its proper place.

Exactly, which is why conservatism and libertarianism are not the same thing. Libertarianism seeks to replace the government with the individual - and would have the inevitable consequence, if taken to its logical conclusion, of producing individuals who are just as bad as any government with respect to the liberties of other individuals. This is why Locke abhorred the "state of nature" and the unordered "liberty" that it contained. This is why Locke felt that the commonwealth was formed by individuals giving up a certain portion of their liberty (i.e. absolute freedom of action) so that they all existed within the "structure" (ooh, dirty word again) of society in which every individual's liberty (that didn't entail being able to trample others) was preserved by the government of the commonwealth. Really, your argument is with Locke - the originator of classical liberal ideology - not with me.

You seem to be coming at it from the other direction.

I'm coming at it from the informed direction. A lot of people out there - primarily libertarians - like to claim to be classical liberals, or Lockeans, or American conservatives, or whatever other term they may use, without having a clue what these actually entail. Libertarians have abandoned Locke, they have abandoned Jefferson, they have abandoned Madison. Libertarianism, if actually taken to its logical conclusions, would actually constitute one of the greatest threats to each individual's liberty that we could conceive of. It was just this "state of nature" threat that led Locke and his descendants to come to the understanding of the necessity of commonwealthian ideology.

Just my opinion, based on what you've written....

Well then, your opinion is wrong, I'm sorry to say.

38 posted on 01/03/2009 8:10:51 PM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Nihil utile nisi quod honestum - Marcus Tullius Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson