An honest discussion about Racism?

I asked you a question and you can't seem to answer it. The question stands; "How would you qualify as a judge on what gives Obama "black street creds"? You aren't black. Do you speak for blacks on things like that?

The video of the debate does nothing of the sort. Baldwin is making a statement on racism. Buckley's speech is in complete opposition to Baldwin. That's the reason that they were both debating. The Cambridge Union clearly understands what you don't; that James Baldwin and William F. Buckley are 180 degrees apart on the question of race. That's why they were brought to England for that debate. I've not only posted Buckley's justificationist position on opposition to the idea that the American Dream came at the Expense of Negro's, but I've also posted his very own words on the subject of White Supremacy that he published in his own magazine. You can live in denial for only so long before reality finally hits you over the head. Buckley lost that debate by 380 votes. What don't you understand about that kind of loss?

No I haven't. What I said was that YOU are in no position to make that determination, and you aren't. You aren't qualified to say what gives Obama "street cred" in the black community that you aren't a part of. You don't get to decide what "street cred" means to a black man.

You need to be educated by somebody. Might as well start here. These forums are where you can test your theories and you're ability to argue your case. So far, you're not doing so well. And I can point directly to the reason. You fail to see that it's about ideology. NOT party. You're extremely defensive about your ideology so you attempt to pass it off as party issues. It's not. Never has been. Oh sure the Democrats were crap back in the day. We all know that. But the party made a conscious decision to change and they were taken over by the liberals. The conservatives had no place to go, until the Republicans said "come on in, and bring your guns, your Bible, and your racism. You're welcome here". The rest as they say, is history.

 

81% of how many? If 10 black people voted, he got 8 votes. What kind of numbers are you talking about?

How does what I posted amount to a long citation regarding the 1870's? If you're talking about this: "There was a logical reason why the South turned Democratic. The South hated Lincoln for freeing the slaves. They hated Reconstruction. They would have nothing to do with the Republicans"...then you should know that the reason that the South would have nothing to do with the Republicans was because it was MR Republican, Lincoln that freed the slaves, and Republicans that imposed Reconstruction and the 14th and 15th Amendments on them. They hated that and that solidified their Democratic opposition to all things Republican until the shift after the CRA and VRA. Democrats became liberals embracing the very thing they hated more than Republicans. Rights for Blacks. The Republicans employed the Southern Strategy to win them over and it worked. Today, they're all Republicans. This should not come as any surprise to you. They still have groups like "Sons of the Confederacy" that advocate for secession and wave the Confederate flag. Like I said, they're very tribalistic down south. What was once the Party of Lincoln is today the party of Jefferson Davis. The Southernization of the Republican Party is complete. It's dominated by Southern style conservatism, and they've always endorsed segregation and the Confederate ideals.

 

This still does not make him a leader in the sense that he was a major power player politician or presidential nominee. I do know Buckley but he is not as important as you make him out to be. He's less significant than say, Dan Rather.

Karl Marx started the socialist movements in Europe including communism. He started a whole political system. What type of government or political system is designed after Ayn Rand?

Why would you compare these two gentlemen? They are in different leagues.

In your opinion he is a white supremacist. You have yet to provide any evidence to substantiate that claim.

At 9:00 in the video the first speaker clearly says, "...it is not the purpose of this side of the house to condone that (discrimination) in any way at all. It is not our purpose to oppose civil rights".
This is what you have omitted. This is what you are ignoring. It doesn't fit your preconceived notion that Buckley is an evil conservative racist.

I've seen Buckley over the years and have always felt he was a bit of a pompous ass, and pretentious. But he is an insignificant person as much as you'd like to make him out to be the boogie man. He never violated one person's civil rights.

If you want to compare Buckley against Robert Byrd or Wallace lets say on a scale of one to ten, Buckley would be a one and Byrd and Wallace would be a ten. Buckley has no connection to white supremacists while both Byrd and Wallace do. The comparison you are making is laughable. Yet, despite their histories of racism both Byrd and Wallace received endorsements from the NAACP at some point in their political careers? How is that possible? Both received the black vote, even Wallace as I pointed out in an earlier post, do I have to repeat it again?

One thing that is still sorely lacking in your argument is facts to support your view. If racism is endemic to conservatism and everybody but me knows it, I should think it should be fairly easy to point out the proof. When you do cut and paste articles, you seldom separate them with the proper quotation format, and rarely accompanied by the link to the original source. Your posts are too long, contain extemporaneous or irrelevant information and are long-winded.

 

I'm not defending or offering excuses for Buckley or Goldwater. They are just 2 people. So blacks will never vote for republicans because of what Buckley and Goldwater did in the 50's? One editorial by one man in 1957 is hardly proof of a connection between conservatism and racism. Is that all you have? Most people have no clue as to who these men are. Frankly, you still have not proved a connection between conservatism and racism. The closest evidence you have offered is animated smileys.

 

Here is my answer to your question: Who gives a crap. This was your assertion and it is a dumb one. I was only pointing out how dumb is was.
I think we're done with Buckley because he is insignificant, and unimportant to the question does conservatism = racism. I'm still waiting for you to document that, and if this is all you have, uh, weak, very weak.
I'm afraid then you are not the one to educate me because you know so little.

 

How about you offer proof that only 10 black people voted?

Ah, the mythical "Southern Strategy". Now there's proof that republicans are racist. Complete with codewords and subtle signals to southern racists.

I fail to see a connection between Faubus and the above paragraph.

I've asked you to provide some proof that conservatism = racism and the only proof you've presented is a video of Buckley from 1965, an article he wrote in 1957 and a bunch of racist democrat politicians. I think we can safely say that you have failed to prove your case.

 

Let me review...

I have provided tons of evidence that democrats have a long racist history.

You have provided almost nothing to prove conservatives are racists.

I'd say so far you are not doing so well.

You have failed to provide any proof that racism is related to ideology. I have provided ample proof that if it is related to any ideology it is related to liberalism.

And once again you are asserting that republicans are democrats and democrats are republicans or that they switched ideologies when I have proven that is absolutely false.

Where's your proof man, where's your proof?

 

You might think this is a political poster from the "Deep South". It's not. It the Governor's race in Pennsylvania, 1866.

 

This isn't the William F. Buckley is a racist thread is it?

Still waiting for some evidence that conservatism is related somehow to racism. You have failed miserably on this point.

All I see is six pages of cut and past with no attributions. More plagiarizing? There is no proof here that Buckley was associated with any white supremacy movement that I can see. Just more baseless accusations with no evidence as has been your MO.

You yourself acknowledge that Buckley changed his views, so why are you on about him? Nobody else cares but you.

I was trying to save you the trouble of going on another rant about Buckley, but here you are again. I'm on to the next subject.

 

No no no. It's a bit more complex than that. Buckley and Goldwater were living symbols of conservatism. So was Russell Kirk. They wrote about it. They defined it. They were the intellectual voices that launched the movement. People like Mark Levin have even come up with new versions of an old theme. He wrote a Conservative Manifesto. Kirk updated Edmund Burke into a modern era, and a guy like Levin injected his more strident version filled with hostile condemnation of all things not conservative.

It was more than one editorial. It was a foundational principle. And it was also totally in keeping with Russell Kirk's 6Canons. And with Burke himself. This is conservatism unfolded and placed under a microscope to examine what it believes, and what it finds as the most important factors that construct the ideology. I would do the same with liberalism, and have tried, except that it never stays in one place long enough to be an ideology. It changes with the times. You could say that "change" is the one common thread that explains liberalism. It always questions itself. Truth is the most important factor, and you can never assume that you own that. So what works today may not work tomorrow. There are always factors that come into play that couldn't be anticipated, so flexibility is most important. For the liberal, the human mind is to be used to solve problems. What makes it different from conservatism is that it always holds it's own values under self-examination. The conservative doesn't do that. He knows that he's right. Of course that would mean that he owns the truth...and nobody owns that, so the premise is false. The old saying is that the conservative knows that he's right. The liberal knows that he could be wrong. Who's closer to the truth?

Kirk begins with his first principle as being that “the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order”.

He states, “Twenty-five centuries ago, Plato taught this doctrine, but even the educated nowadays find it difficult to understand. The problem of order has been a principal concern of conservatives ever since conservative became a term of politics.

Plato’s view of society was pinned by the belief that philosophers are capable of knowing the absolute truth about how to rule society and thus are justified in wielding absolute power.

Slave State:

Putting it mildly, Plato’s view was that we are ineradicably social, and that the individual person was not, and could not, be self-sufficient. In fact, Plato offered up humans like so many animals that could do nothing for themselves unless they had constant and detailed direction from those who were to be their leaders:

“... And even in the smallest manner ... [one] should stand under leadership. For example, he should get up, or move, or wash, or take his meals ... only if he has been told to do so. In a word, he should teach his soul, by long habit, never to dream of acting independently ... There will be no end to the troubles of states, or of humanity itself, till philosophers become kings in this world, or till those we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers, and political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands.” (Plato - The Republic.)

According to Kirk, “In politics we do well to abide by precedent and precept and even prejudice, for the great mysterious incorporation of the human race has acquired a prescriptive wisdom far greater than any man’s petty private rationality”. Kirk is justifying prejudice here and we have many examples of conservatives over the years taking that justification to heart. He's also denying that mans mind should be used to solve our complex problems and instead to defer to precedent and precept because the human race has acquired a prescriptive wisdom far greater than any mans "petty" private rationality. It's a denigration of the intelligence of the individual and a call to deference for the collective wisdom of the ages.

Kirks Canon of Conservatism is this:

Kirk described six basic “canons” or principles of conservatism:

1. A divine intent, as well as personal conscience, rules society;

2. Traditional life is filled with variety and mystery while most radical systems are characterized
by a narrowing uniformity;

3. Civilized society requires orders and classes;

4. Property and freedom are inseparably connected;

5. Man must control his will and his appetite, knowing that he is governed more by emotion than
by reason; and

6. Society must alter slowly.

As Kirk said, “Conservatives are champions of custom, convention, and continuity because they prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t know. ( read; status quo) Order and justice and freedom, they believe, are the artificial products of a long social experience, the result of centuries of trial and reflection and sacrifice. Thus the body social is a kind of spiritual corporation, comparable to the church; it may even be called a community of souls. Human society is no machine, to be treated mechanically. The continuity, the life-blood, of a society must not be interrupted”.

In Kirks Fifth principle he states, “conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety”. In this principle he claims that "For the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality. The only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at leveling must lead, at best, to social stagnation. Society requires honest and able leadership; and if natural and institutional differences are destroyed, presently some tyrant or host of squalid oligarchs will create new forms of inequality”.

What we have here is a justification for a hierarchal society. Otherwise known as an aristocracy. We also see a justification for prejudice and bigotry as being a good and necessary part of the conservative concept of society. We also see, a justification for the segregation that occurred in the south where natural and institutional differences were destroyed in the eyes of conservatives.

When Kirk states that “the human race has acquired a prescriptive wisdom far greater than any man’s petty private rationality”, what he is in fact endorsing is a collective theory of rationality and dismissing the liberal critical rationalism of the individual. It seems that although conservatives like to speak of individualism, it really amounts to little more than words. What they subscribe to according to Kirk, is a collective theory of rationality.

No. You're wrong. Every conservative knows who they were. The fact that you don't is more a reflection on you and your ignorance of your own ideology. You've been handed a theory of rationality from some authority and that authority provides you with a "handbook" to deal with life. No "heavy lifting" of actual thought is required. I'd wager that you never questioned any of your beliefs in your entire life. You lack an inquisitive mind. You don't question the ideology because it always tells you what you want to hear. Frankly, I doubt if you've understood a single thing I've posted. It's your ideology that is the source of racism. Every racist is conservative with regards to race. No racist carries a liberal view of other races.

 

You do, since you brought up the entire issue of Obama's understanding of the Black experience. You claim he has no "street cred" among blacks. My question is; "How would you qualify as a judge on what gives Obama "black street creds"? You aren't black. Do you speak for blacks on things like that? And so now...because you have your nuts in a vice you offer this brilliant retort: "Here is my answer to your question: Who gives a crap. . You cared enough to make a dumb-ass comment, and when can't respond with the only answer possible...which is that You Can't possibly know that experience, and you were just shooting your conservative mouth off and demonstrating what a jerk you are for making a dumb statement, you instead take the cowards way out with "who gives a crap". Bravo..well played

No sonny. You made that assertion. Now you want to compound your stupid remark by denying it? Denial is a way of life for you isn't it? You're the one that insisted that Obama knows nothing of the Black experience. Not me.

Ahh...so William F. Buckley is insignificant and unimportant to the question eh? The carefully worded and unmistakable support of White Supremacy by a leading voice of conservatism should be disregarded is meaningless to conservatism and it's appeal to the racist. I'm not surprised you'd like to leave that behind. It's really not very flattering to the ideology that is "all about civil rights" is it? He kind of undermines your thesis doesn't he?

I already did that. In the August 24, 1957 issue of National Review.
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2005/10/from_national_r.html

Did you think I was making all of this up?

 

Why would I do that? Why would I feel compelled to prove something I never said? I never said only 10 black people voted. You have reading comprehension difficulties.
What I said was; "81% of how many? If 10 black people voted, he got 8 votes. What kind of numbers are you talking about?" I could have said 100 people which would have meant 80 voted. I never said only 10 people voted. What I said was that 8 out of 10 voted, but since we don't know the total number of votes cast, the 81% can be misleading. IF 10 people voted, then 8 cast their votes for the guy. If it was 100 then 80 cast votes for the guy. How many votes does the 81% represent? 5% of something is still greater than 100% of nothing. The question is how many people voted, which then puts the 81% into some perspective. I think you've slipped off the rails.

So now you're saying that it's a "myth? Once again denial becomes the defense. It was a brilliant yet cynical political strategy. It worked. You cultivated all the racists to the Republican party. The issue with the dog-whistle's is that they are aimed at White people. Not blacks. Blacks already know about it. It plays to the bigotry of whites and they fully understand that States Rights is a call for segregation. Do you HONESTLY think that those people filled with hate in their hearts for blacks, changed and suddenly "saw the light" after the CRA was passed? Seriously? Those are voters, and they were there to harvest by very cynical politicians. And cynicism is what politicians major in at college. A cynical politician knows that he can play on fear which is the greatest motivating sales technique of all.

I don't think so. I think, no....make that, I know that James Baldwin made his case to the Cambridge Union and despite the vote difference of a 380 vote margin, you still didn't see the loss by Buckley. So why would I be convinced that you think that I've failed to prove my case? You didn't get that right. You offer no defense other than denial of facts and history and logic. Denial is no defense. So although YOU may feel that I've failed to prove my case, you are biased in that judgment. You cannot be objective about it anymore than you could assume to judge Barack Obama's understanding of the Black experience. In the end, those reading these posts will draw their own conclusions.

 

Your ability to filibuster is no substitute for facts. I'm still waiting for you to provide proof of your basic argument.

 

You are the one who brought up Southside Chicago community organizing as Obama's black street cred. It's just plain asinine. Nobody gives a crap about your ridiculous assertion.
Look, I am growing quite tired of your insults and lengthy diatribes that have nothing to do with the subject nor provide proof of your thesis that conservatism is inherently racist. So if you can't make the case we really are done aren't we?

Don't expect me to be drawn into your straw man arguments or to argue lengthy cut and paste blather you found on the internet. If your going to quote something, you should have the integrity to use proper quotations and attributions.

 

We all know that. But that doesn't tell us the source of that racism. It's conservatism. The parties themselves are not inherently racist. It's the ideology of the members of the parties. A party could be racist one day and change it's position the next. The question is how and why? What caused them to change? It's always about philosophy and ideology. The Red Sox were dead last a year ago. Today they are the World Series Champs. Same uniform. Same name. Same city. Different team. They made changes and went from worst to first. They got a new GM and went about building a team differently. A different philosophy produced different results. So are we to say that the Sox suck because they did last year? A little hard to say right that right now... unless you're from St Louis.

Is Republican a philosophy? Is Democrat? What do they stand for? What do they mean? I honestly don't know if you're this thick, or you're simply committed to denial. Perhaps you don't understand what an ideology is? Maybe that's it.
Ideology: a system of ideas and ideals, esp. one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
1.The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.

2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

Take a good look at 2. It's the ideology that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.
The basis of the Republican Party is an ideology. The Republican Party is a party. The party doesn't form the doctrines or beliefs of the ideology. It's the ideology that informs the Party which becomes the foundation that is used to promote the ideology.

Within that ideology is a system of doctrines and beliefs that date back to Edmund Burke who obviously you don't know too much about. More recently it was codified into canon as doctrine by Russell Kirk in his book The Conservative Mind, and adopted by Ronald Reagan who we all know was a conservative.

IF you call yourself a conservative then you are committed to preserving those things that you find important culturally and otherwise. You want to keep those traditions. You want to maintain the status quo. And you reject any challenge to those traditions. Perhaps you really aren't a conservative? If you are then you know that this is true. This is not my claim, this comes from actual conservatives that wrote about the ideology of conservatism. IF you are actually a true conservative then you would want to be consistent with the very thing you claim to be. You would want to preserve those things that you accept as traditional in every sense and there is nothing more embedded into the consciousness of America than race and the FACT that throughout the earliest years of this country, the institution of slavery were part of the culture. The very fact of another race serving the every need and whim of some landowner was certainly a luxury that the landowner would be reluctant to part with. To have that taken away....by force, and then to have those very people given the same rights to this country that you have always held as yours, through every tradition you've come to know is not going to sit well. It...is the most radical challenge to an institution that you want to preserve, and conservatism is ALWAYS concerned with maintaining the status quo. Liberalism is ALWAYS concerned with challenging the status quo.

Liberalism is therefore active. Conservatism is passive.

Conservatism is defined as the ideology arising out of a distinct but recurring type of historical situation in which a fundamental challenge is directed at established institutions and in which the supporters of those institutions employ the conservative ideology in their defense.

Slavery was an established institution in the United States. Freeing the slaves was a liberal challenge to that established institution.

Thus, conservatism is that system of ideas employed to justify any established social order, no matter where or when it exists, against any fundamental challenge to its nature or being, no matter from what quarter. Conservatism in this sense is possible in the United States today only if there is a basic challenge to existing American institutions which impels their defenders to articulate conservative values.

The very concept of slavery is of course racist. And clinging to that institution is a conservative ideal. They were serious enough to fight a war about it. There is NOTHING liberal about slavery.

Racism requires a commitment to an existing institution. It shows itself in commitments to segregation, Jim Crow, slavery, and all the disgusting and violent things that are associated with it. It is impossible for the Liberal to be a racist. If he is, then he isn't a liberal. He's still holding fast to an idea that is rooted in the past. He still has a conservative element to his thinking that see's race as an issue. Fundamental to liberalism is a commitment to change, and that includes predisposition's on previously held beliefs. A Liberal always questions and challenges long held beliefs. It's always expansive. Never contracting. It's concerned with expanding rights. Not restricting them.

The conservative is Parochial by contrast. The term "parochial" can be applied in both culture and economics if a local culture or geographic area's government makes decisions based on solely local interests that do not take into account the effect of the decision on the broader community. For the conservative the natural order of things are to be maintained. The Status quo serves their purpose. The liberal always challenges the status quo. They're simply two different ways of seeing things. Where conservatism gets ugly is in it's commitment to institutions that do harm to others. Conservatives are invested in tribalism. They're exclusionary because their ideology tells them they are justified in being that way.

Of course you would, but you aren't an objective player in this.

No you haven't. Liberalism is always expansive. Conservatism is restrictive. It resists change. The CRA and VRA were certainly radical changes for the conservative which he of course resisted. Racism is a restrictive process. So...you're simply wrong. They also resisted the womens right to vote, child labor laws, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA. Every one of those things is a liberal idea. Not a conservative one.

No. what I've said is that the Democrats have embraced liberalism, and the Republicans have embraced conservatism. That's not false. That's a fact. If you don't see that, then I'd suggest you check out the ideological position of the Republican party today. The South used to have all Democrats for Senators. Today they are all Republicans. Are these Republicans Liberals? Except in Louisiana and Arkansas which each have one Democrat although neither is a liberal. So I'm afraid all you've proven is your own ignorance. The only thing happening now within the Republican Party is a civil war over who's the most conservative. Each guy is running to the right of the next. "I'm more conservative than you are", so now it's a contest over who is the craziest. Ted Cruz is leading a war against his own people in the Senate seeking to challenge them with even more radical right wingers. It's an extremist party today.

- - - Updated - - -

And your point is.....?? Pennsylvania has a conservative governor today. So what?

 

Once again you have posted a long diatribe of meaningless crap off the internet without attributions. I vehemently disagree with your definition of conservatism. When you do find some actual factual evidence that conservatism is inherently racist, be sure to give me a call.

The poster from 1866 shows the racist attitudes of Northern democrats. It is not just a Southern thing.

 

BOY!!!

You two have been at it for awhile....I can't even remember who is arguing what! LOL!!!

Being a Conservative does not mean one is Racist as well being Liberal does not mean one is not racist.

AboveAlpha

 

I have met MANY Liberal Minded Democrats who might get on TV or on a stage and talk about how they support all people and all races....and then get off stage and say..."Let's get out of this ghetto!!!"

I am a Fiscally Conservative and Socially Liberal Independent from Massachusetts and not everyone who is either conservative or liberal is racist....or not.

AboveAlpha

 

See how you are? More insults, more baseless allegations. You know a liberal has lost the argument once he's played the race card. I have won the argument. You have in fact conceded that the democrat party has a long history of racism. I on the other hand have not conceded. Conservatism is not racist.

Now let's assume your argument is true for a moment. How would you explain black conservatives?

 

You've made a big mistake with this post. Never take somebody's work and pull it out of context like you've done. Whatever credibility you may have hoped to have, is gone now.