Sageb1, thanks for that link. You wrote:
"I still consider the remnants of the KKK, as well as the neo-nazis fringe hate groups with very little support. What bothers me is that as the poltical race-baiters grab more blacks, we will see a backlash in the rise of some of these groups. Unfortunately, the black racist politicians hold much sway with their constituents. They know that they must keep alive the hate and victim status to maintain their own personal power. How do we combat this problem?" You just had to ask. LOL. I have a few thoughts to offer, taking into account some remarks from that link.
First, these two separate remarks:
"Conservatives are generally so oblivious to (or complacent in the face of) the actual threat posed by the political Left in this country..." and
"...the power of a Left-wing culture, which is vastly underestimated by conservatives, as Heilbrunn’s comments make clear (and Jacob Heilbrunn is one of the most intelligent conservatives writing today). It is true, as Heilbrunn writes, that conservatives take principles and intellectual arguments more seriously than do their counterparts on the Left. That why they can be misled into thinking that intellectual nonsense is self-evident..."
Both remarks, IMHO, are extremely important in the first recognizes 'conservatives' are oblivious or complacent, and the second that 'conservatives' underestimate the power, of the 'left' (I'm using a VERY broad definition of the 'left' one that includes all socialists -those who like eggs OR ribs OR kraut : ) Tie it all up neatly with a pretty bow with the conclusion that conservatives "take principles and intellectual arguments more seriously". The kicker then (as in a fabulous point), to me, is the last of the remarks which says we can be "misled into thinking that intellectual nonsense is self-evident."
Okay, here I go...The word 'misled' is key. I think that is very much a true statement, in many ways, but one observation I might add is that if we were to change 'misled' or add the other words used above: 'oblivious, complacent, underestimate' we could arrive at another level of comprehension. Perhaps if we change 'intellectual nonsense' to also include 'principles' we could raise that bar a little higher yet. We are oblivious, complacent, and underestimate the left's (here, I am NOT speaking of the many socialists, but those who blindly follow) ability to understand that they may perceive and/or confuse what they may see as our intellectual nonsenses that are in fact, principles. Or standards, or ideals. And more, how those principles, standards, or ideals are applied.
I hope I'm making sense, because what I'm about to say might sound really stupid. I believe that the counter-protest in Toledo was handled wrong. But, at some base level, I think that those folks were 'right', yet they (nor even I) can not begin to comprehend why. I cannot keep from picturing in my mind's eye how this particular situation would have been not only acceptable, but lauded, had the counter protesters been dressed in American WWII uniforms. sageb1, I think you might have touched on it in this post you wrote, bothered that this behavior will continue. If it were somehow possible for conservatives to publicly embrace that the actions of the counterprotesters were wrong and but the principles 'they' denounced (at the core was.... idealogically... supremacy) -could we separate this and bring it to a screeching halt right now? The counter protesters would be stunned - the original protesters would be dead in the water.
If I may, there was more from that link that I thought bore tossing around a bit.
IMHO, it is very important when Horowitz says that while we take our principles very seriously and assume they are self-evident to everyone else that is precisely why our 'intellectual nonsense' is therefore 'destined for the political dustbin'. He's right. I once was told I spoke and wrote not to my audience, but above their head, above their level of understanding and that if I was to reach my audience, I needed to be at their level. Duh. Pretty simple. I love Bush but see many examples where the words and phraseology he has chosen are very complex and above the comprehension of many, many people. It's obvious to even a log that the man has principles and, as Horowitz says, that Bush takes them more seriously than did Clinton. What Bush (and we as well) don't expound upon in simple terms is WHY.
Melding into my thoughts is a study I just came across on FR about black/white religious life that shows the black population is inherently more religiously conservative than the white population. The obvious question was, why are there not more black political conservatives?
Horowitz says something very key at this point..
"Is Kerry a liberal? Absolutely. But a hardened Leftist? No way. Kerry isn't interested in ideology, but in his personal advancement."
IMHO there is still a very deeply imbedded fear in much of the black population. The fear of repression. IMHO this fear conquers the full courage needed to follow the real freedoms offered by the ideology of their religious conservatism. The scars of taking one step toward a real (full) freedom are indeed real and are indeed deep.
As Horowitz said, "It would never have occurred me that in opposing Communism America was in fact living up to its ideals."
Incredibly, IMHO, I think that deep, deep, deep in their heart it never occurred to the counter protesters or the rest of America that in opposing these protesters, the counter protesters were in fact living up to America's ideals.
IMHO to blindly assume that any moment of this had any connection to black violence is, at the core, not only shallow but to be dangerously misled. I personally maintain a focus in my life to look beyond the obvious and to always, always search for good in all things. There is a way to turn this sow's ear into a silk purse. It won't be easy. Nothing that really matters ever is. Yes, I am an idealist and a realist, a dreamer, a lover of concord and... a believer that anything is possible. Funny, and coincidentally, doesn't that describe America?
I hope this makes sense. Sometimes I even confuse myself while I'm thinking LOL : ) I am sure that is the root cause for my husband's baldness. LOL!
A couple of things off the top of my head. As far as "self-evident truths" go, I certainly hope they will not be relegated into the dustbin, as John Hancock seemed to think the phrase had merit. One could certainly argue that our Founding Fathers should have dotted their "i's" and crossed their "t's" more carefully by explaining exactly what they meant by that. (But of course, because truth was self-evident to them, it didn't occur to them that an explanation might be necessary). To those on the left, they are less likely to actually denounce self-evident truths (although some do) and more likely to say that there are more truths now, hence the left's need for a "Living Constitution."
When Heilbrunn points out that conservatives are more serious than the left about principles and intellectual arguments, he is semi-right Conservatives are much more likely to regard the lessons of history and tradition when planning practically for the future and are more inclined to protect lessons learned in a fair manner. Horowitz points out that the purpose of the Intellectual Leftist is to be the antagonist, and he is also right. But I think Heilbrunn is wrong when he says we conservatives are "misled" into thinking that intellectual nonsense (coming from the left) is self-evident. I think that is precisely where conservatives have a leg up, so to speak. I may be speaking for myself only, but I must agree with Horowitz's comment that the left lives in a fantasy land that they cannot leave. I think politically-minded conservatives understand something that the left doesn't get. For instance, take the statement, "It would be wonderful if we could have world peace!" Well, who among us wouldn't wish for that? The problem is that the leftist line of thinking ends there in that fantasy land of immediate gratification. This is also why we see leftists become conservatives as they mature. You rarely ever see a conservative become a leftist (unless they were lying to begin with:) Conservatives did certainly fall asleep at the wheel for awhile, but I truly believe that there has been a "Great Awakening" going on. The Internet has been a great help to the vocally quieter conservatives. On the other hand, the looseness of the general atmosphere of the Internet has also been productive for the louder voices of the left and, in fact, lends itself more easily to their "anti-" purposes.
I understand, I think, where you're coming from in a desire to let the rioters know that whereas their actions were wrong, there is some constitutional and moral basis for their feelings. The counter-protestors who came in to make sure that the locals were going to be involved are probably at the point where no such compassion and understanding would work anyway. But I think that attempting to be an apologist for the actions of the rioters in ANY way is very dangerous. I don't think that anyone who looks at this violence is "misled" in thinking that in some areas of this country there is a culture of violence within some black communities, because it is a fact that this culture exists. Too many black leaders enable this culture to continue by pointing the finger of blame at everyone BUT those who are responsible. You point out that there are few conservative blacks. I would say that the number of conservative blacks is increasing as black communities begin to reject the blame game played by their leaders. The number will continue to increase as responsible black leaders (political and religious) go into their communitities with the message that violence will not be tolerated for ANY reason because civilized society can only exist when individuals are responsible to themselves, their families and their communities.