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 ...
“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
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.
bump post 21
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)
Why do you say Steele is a RINO?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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...
KEN BLACKWELL would be an excellent candidate for us in 2012.
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.
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.