Double standards: Walter Williams says GOP held to higher expectation of decency than liberals

The National Association of Black Social Workers
drafted a position paper calling white adoptions of black children
"cultural genocide."
They warned against "transculturation ...
when one dominant culture overpowers and forces
another culture to accept a foreign form of existence."

Well, blow me down! That 'transculturation' word pretty much sums up what the Liberals are trying to do.

>>>I am glad republicans are held to a high standard.

Me too. But the Lott incident had nothing to do with being held to higher standards. It had everything to do with Democrats being angered over their losing the recent election cycle. The liberal establishment, saw an opportunity to take advantage of a situation and fanned the flames of racial passions. Immediately afterwards, the entire event snowballed, out of control.

>>>Lott is not fit to lead us.

I called for Lott to step down after the Jeffords fiasco. However, I don't want the liberal estrablishment to dictate the terms of Lott's surrender. That's exactly, what has happened here.

Having said that, Lott's pandering on BET, really pissed me off. It's up to the GOP Senators to decide if Lott should stay, or go. It looks like Lott wants to fight. We shall see.

But the Lott incident had nothing to do with being held to higher standards. It had everything to do with Democrats being angered over their losing the recent election cycle. The liberal establishment, saw an opportunity to take advantage of a situation and fanned the flames of racial passions. Immediately afterwards, the entire event snowballed, out of control.

This is quite true. Lott was the weak link and they went after him. If there were no Lott it would have been someone else. When Lott is gone it WILL be someone else. If Republicans cave on Lott the next one will be easier.

Actually, I think that Williams missed the main theory. I hear it all the time when Democrats (and African-American ones) go on TV. They claim that Republicans campaign on a platform of "family values" and that Democrats don't, therefore Democrats never profess themselves to be "moral" leaders and aren't hurt by issues of "ethics." They say that Republicans are hypocritical when caught in adulterous relationships, use swear words, take inappropriate gifts, etc., because the portray themselves as being more moral than Democrats.

In other words, Democrats get a pass on everything because they are expected to be rogues.

-PJ

Good post!

Here is what Freeper driftless wrote at:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/808549/posts?page=3#3

which sums this up quite nicely:

"I don't know if too many people on this forum remember the days when civil rights was THE issue. Back in the sixties the activists argued that we must have a color-blind society where people would be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King. So then we should all try to be color-blind today right? " "Well no say todays race-hustlers, today we have to judge people by the color of their skin because we don't have "a level playing field". The fact is there never was and never will be a level playing field...for anyone. A poor Black person in Detroit is hardly any more economically disadvantaged than some white hillbilly in Appalachia. "

"But the joker in the deck is that todays activists do not desire a level playing field because how would they be able to rip off the rich and powerful. For the race-hustlers there must always be a class of "victims"... helpless pawns in the hustlers quest for their own wealth and power. They make up the rules of the race game and decide who is a racist and who is not. They should look in the mirror."

From Peggy Noonan's column on Friday:

Sometimes I think we should get back to some basic truths when we talk about race and civil rights. Instead we talk past each other.
A lot of liberals harp on the subject of race, and they do it in a way that gives more attention to hatred for racists than love for equality. They can't make or buy enough movies with names like "Ghosts of Mississippi," which illustrate how terrible white people are, were and probably will be again if we don't pass more laws. (White Southerners are and historically have been particularly demonized by liberals.)
The liberals' sin is a mindless race obsession that keeps them from seeing clearly. But conservatives have a sin too. A lot of them become deaf when the subject is race. All their lives they've heard the long 40-year rap about how wicked America is, how hateful, and along the way they just stopped listening. Which left them unable to hear nuance, and slow, if you will, to hear the music of a great movement.
All this is part of the kabuki that happens when you take a great moral movement like civil rights and turn it, as it is inevitably turned, into a political movement. Sides get hardened and sides get stupid. It's a little like the debate the past few years about obscene art. In that particular kabuki liberals get off on their faux courage, making believe it takes guts to create a painting of the Madonna smeared with feces. In the world we live in that takes no courage, and they know it. If they had guts they'd do a beautiful painting of the Madonna and accept the price: marginalization and dismissal by the art establishment. At the same time, conservatives in these battles get off on faux outrage. They stand up, shake their fists and say they're outraged that someone would desecrate the Madonna. And some are. But some in their hearts know it's all nonsense that means nothing, and what they really feel is delight that the left has once again done something ugly and stupid, and in public.

-PJ

Gosh, why don't you enlighten me to your version of history.

Your version of history is more entertaining. Next you'll tell us Jesus was born in India 500 years before Buddha who died in Calgary, Alberta. Or maybe you'll inform us that it was actually the North that had slaves but thanks to Abraham Lincoln's right hand man Cletus Carville the story was actually spun to make it look the other way around.

No, I know, I know...Adolph Hitler started the VRWC and had his agents infiltrate the NRA so it could be spread in America!

What turnip wagon did you just fall off of?

One of the true differences between the extreme right and the extreme left is how they react to capitalists when they do get into power.

The extreme left wants them gone and usually give them the choice of leave or die. The extreme right usually caters to their needs as long as they are cooperative.

Otherwise, their policies tend to look very similar. The right extreme usually lasts longer because at least they don't destroy the basis of their wealth. This is a necessity because by agreeing to be goverened by extremists, the people expect immediate improvements in their lives. Thus, a redistribution of wealth is the immediate consequence.

Yes, of course the NSDAP (the "S" stands for Sozialist) had programs that were very similar to communists. In fact, many have said that the Nazis were brown on the outside, but red on the inside.

Having majored in German history and being fluent in German, I am willing to bet I have forgotten more about the subject than you've ever learned. So take your secondary resources and shove them you know where.

But, I must say, we are definitely experiencing some serious thread drift here. As long as you admit that extreme right wing and extreme left wing philosophies quickly experience confluence, I will cede the fact that my original phrase of "right-wing facist" is a less than clear description of what I was trying to convey.

Here is a definition just for fun. It would appear as if 4. and 5. lend themselves to both sides of our argument:

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.

Fascism (fsh´zm) (KEY) , totalitarian philosophy of government that glorifies the state and nation and assigns to the state control over every aspect of national life. The name was first used by the party started by Benito Mussolini, who ruled Italy from 1922 until the Italian defeat in World War
II. However, it has also been applied to similar ideologies in other countries, e.g., to National Socialism in Germany and to the regime of Francisco Franco in Spain. The term is derived from the Latin fasces.
1 Characteristics of Fascist Philosophy Fascism, especially in its early stages, is obliged to be antitheoretical and frankly opportunistic in order to appeal to many diverse groups. Nevertheless, a few key concepts are basic to it. First and most important is the glorification of the state and the total subordination of the individual to it. The state is defined as an organic whole into which individuals must be absorbed for their own and the state’s benefit. This “total state” is absolute in its methods and unlimited by law in its control and direction of its citizens.
2 A second ruling concept of fascism is embodied in the theory of social Darwinism. The doctrine of survival of the fittest and the necessity of struggle for life is applied by fascists to the life of a nation-state. Peaceful, complacent nations are seen as doomed to fall before more dynamic ones,
making struggle and aggressive militarism a leading charackteristic of the fascist state. Imperialism is the logical outcome of this dogma.
3 Another element of fascism is its elitism. Salvation from rule by the mob and the destruction of the existing social order can be effected only by an authoritarian leader who embodies the highest ideals of the nation. This concept of the leader as hero or superman, borrowed in part from the
romanticism of Friedrich Nietzsche, Thomas Carlyle, and Richard Wagner, is closely linked with fascism’s rejection of reason and intelligence and its emphasis on vision, creativeness, and “the will.”
4 The Fascist State
Fascism has found adherents in all countries. Its essentially vague and emotional nature facilitates the development of unique national varieties, whose leaders often deny indignantly that they are fascists at all. In its dictatorial methods and in its use of brutal intimidation of the opposition by the militia and the secret police, fascism does not greatly distinguish itself from other despotic and totalitarian regimes. There are particular similarities with the Communist regime in the Soviet
Union under Joseph Stalin. However, unlike Communism, fascism abhors the idea of a classless society and sees desirable order only in a state in which each class has its distinct place and function. Representation by classes (i.e., capital, labor, farmers, and professionals) is substituted for representation by parties, and the corporative state is a part of fascist dogma.
5 Although Mussolini’s and Hitler’s governments tended to interfere considerably in economic life and to regulate its process, there can be no doubt that despite all restrictions imposed on them, the capitalist and landowning classes were protected by the fascist system, and many favored it
as an obstacle to socialization. On the other hand, the state adopted a paternalistic attitude toward labor, improving its conditions in some respects, reducing unemployment through large-scale public works and armament programs, and controlling its leisure time through organized activities.
6 Many of these features were adopted by the Franco regime in Spain and by quasi-fascist dictators in Latin America (e.g., Juan Perón) and elsewhere. A variation of fascism was the so-called clerico-fascist system set up in Austria under Engelbert Dollfuss. This purported to be based on the social and economic doctrines enunciated by Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XI, which, however, were never put into operation

My first theory is that conservatives are held to higher standards of decency, conduct and decorum than liberals.
In other words,
it's like behavior that's tolerated
in the case of children
but ostracized when adults do the same thing .
That theory might also explain why racist statements made by blacks are excused.

Oh my. Definitely an un-PC conclusion. And my favorite lines in the whole piece. I'm with the good Doctor on this: if Conservatives are willing to allow themselves to be held to the higher standard and demand much less of Democrats, Liberals, AND blacks, they are guilty of the same conclusion, that we are better than they are. Well, we are not better, and ought not be held to a higher standard of conduct. In our persons we are created equal; in our ideas we are superior. To continue the lie of the Left by allowing them to skate on the race issue is to perpetuate the bias.

The Conservative position on affirmative action puts forth the proposition that blacks, whites, reds, browns and yellows are equally capable, equally culpable, and ought to be judged by the content of their character, NOT the color of their skin. The Liberal position, on the other hand, would keep us forever separated by race, by gender, and by a thousand other qualifiers. I'm mad as hell about such segregation.

I appreciate your posting from the Columbia Encyclopedia on fascism.

I had always learned that fascism means that the State allows you to keep your property. They just tell you what you can do with it.

My comment still stands regarding Peikoff's book. I think you could learn much from it.

FReegards, 'Pod

To call the Nazis extreme right is a slander on the extreme right which by definition seeks maximization of individual liberty. The state control over the means of production, socialist medicine, state control over all schools, guarantteed employment are all left wing programs.

In the early days of the Third Reich German armed forces were trained in the Soviet Union. The first big break between Stalin and Hitler came in the Spanish Civil War.

This break was later repaired in the non-agression pact of 1939 that carved up Poland and the Baltic states.

In coming to power the big difference between the NAZI party and the Communists was that the NAZI party asserted the Germaness of its people and the nation as opposed to the internationalist system espoused by the Communists. Yes I accept that the NAZIS did allow a large portion of their capitalists to retain their wealth but they as a party fed off the Jewish population's wealth confiscating that to support their abomination of a political system.

Now as to which is able to last longer, clearly the Soviet system endured for many more years as horrible and murderous as it was than the Third Reich. The Soviet system killed more and some remanents of this structure still hang on to this day.

If you wish to bring Mussolini into the discussion will you also bring up the fact that he was head of the Italian Socialist Party.

You have cited one small difference of degree in stating that the Communists and Nazis were very different. The Communists in the Soviet Union did not completely eliminate the Capitalists from their system nor did the Chinese or any other Communist/Socialist regime. Occidental Petroleum was coducting business in the Soviet Union under Lenin, Stalin, Krushchev and to this day. There were numerous other such operations both foreign and domestic in the CCCP.

Do not just look at what others have stated about the Third Reich look at the actual policies. Do not just consider the crackdown on the German Communist Party as definitive it has long been documented that the Soviet Union provided the names of many members of that party to the Nazis.

Also study the actual policies of the time. Study the news coveraqge from nations where there was a free press. study Mussolini's rise to power along with that of the NAZI's. The rhetoric was different between the National Socialists and the International Socialists but the fundamental operations of the two was very similar in its effects.

Thank you. Excellent summary! 'Pod

However, unlike Communism, fascism abhors the idea of a classless society and sees desirable order only in a state in which each class has its distinct place and function.

However party appartchiks are a distinct "higher" class within any Communist state. Therefor such a state does not abolish social classes it merely cjanges the basis for entry into the middle and upper classes. Birth right of the children of party members is also presumed in Communist states so that instead of tracing its nobility to roots of fuedalism it traces its nobility to loyal party service and often to service in the civil war resulting in the Communist state. Is this so different than nobility being confered by prior service to a king in a civil war to establish his legitamacy or prior familial wealth? Further, there was probably more "class mobility" for the average peasent, factory worker or shopkeeper's child under the Nazi Party than ever existed in the Soviet Union without party membership. A German child in the 1930's did not have to become a member of the Nazi party to advance to say a professional position but the same can not be said of the Soviet Union.

Representation by classes (i.e., capital, labor, farmers, and professionals) is substituted for representation by parties, and the corporative state is a part of fascist dogma.

First, within all Communist states there has never been any representation by any group other than the Communist party and its appartchiks. Second, since supposedly all capitalists are abolished within the Communist state how can they be represented. In short this internally inconsistent lie can not be even considered.

5 Although Mussolini’s and Hitler’s governments tended to interfere considerably in economic life and to regulate its process, there can be no doubt that despite all restrictions imposed on them, the capitalist and landowning classes were protected by the fascist system, and many favored it as an obstacle to socialization.

The support of the wealthy of both Italy and Germany is not a given per se. One could make the same claim abnout the October Revolution of Russia. Clearly that revolution was supported by the Kaiser of Germany and many of the Bolsheviks were actually quite well off expatriates who had returned during the Menshevik government.

On the other hand, the state adopted a paternalistic attitude toward labor, improving its conditions in some respects, reducing unemployment through large-scale public works and armament programs, and controlling its leisure time through organized activities.

As opposed to the Soviet system which preserved leisure time primarily for the Party members and their families

In short ERF you really need to improve your personal analytical skills and study more than Germany in isolation. As to primary sources they are available in more than just German and actually from the period of the 1930's and early 1940's many of the best are not originally written in German due to the nature of the regime in power.

I think Dr. Walter Williams is hosting Rush's show today bump!