It’s Not Just MSNBC Making Flip Assumptions About Non-Liberal Racism (UPDATED)

Last night, the official Twitter feed of MSNBC used a Cheerios Super Bowl commercial to make a crack about non-lefties being uncomfortable with race-mixing:

Maybe! |||

After an eruption of outrage on Twitter, including a volley of colorful family snapshots under the hashtag #MyRightWingBiracialFamily, MSNBC online chief Richard Wolffe withdrew the Tweet:  

The Cheerios tweet from @msnbc was dumb, offensive and we've taken it down. That's not who we are at msnbc.

Sending out an S.O.S. |||The "that's not who we are" claim generated a flurry of LOLs, and not just from conservatives. New York magazine put the issue succinctly in a headline: "MSNBC Is Very Sorry for Suggesting Conservatives Are Racist (Again)."

But making broad and essentially pejorative generalizations about giant swaths of non-Democrats is hardly the exclusive domain of the racist-chasers at MSNBC and Salon.com. Journalistic outlets at the highest levels have been making non-jokey versions of the same accusation throughout the Obama presidency, ever since the twin ascension in 2009 of the Tea Party and opposition to the Affordable Care Act.

For an example, check out this passage in New Yorker Editor David Remnick's extraordinarily long and often insightful recent profile of the president.

In the electoral realm, ironically, the country may be more racially divided than it has been in a generation. Obama lost among white voters in 2012 by a margin greater than any victor in American history. The popular opposition to the Administration comes largely from older whites who feel threatened, underemployed, overlooked, and disdained in a globalized economy and in an increasingly diverse country. Obama's drop in the polls in 2013 was especially grave among white voters.

Where's that confounded bridge? |||Italics mine, to underscore what one of the nation's most decorated journalists felt zero need to substantiate in a 16,000-word article. Do older white voters really feel more "threatened" and "disdained" by a "globalized economy" and "increasingly diverse country" than other age and ethnic/pigmentation cohorts? I'm sure there's plenty of interesting poll data out there, but Remnick (a 55-year-old white guy, FWIW) doesn't need to cite any: He knows it's true, his readers know it's true, and the only real question is how much you can respectably pin opposition to this twice-elected black president on racism.

This isn't just bad journalism, it's bad tolerance. Attributing a single set of personality traits to scores of millions of people whose only commonality is age and race is the opposite of judging people not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. It's also a cheap way to wave off the substance of anti-Obama criticism—why bother figuring out why a majority of Americans have consistently disliked the flawed Affordable Care Act when you can just roll your eyes and assert that the real reason is white anxiety and worse? There is nothing tolerant about assuming that those who have different ideas than you about the size and scope of government are motivated largely by base ethnic tribalism.

MSNBC, on whose shows I have happily participated* (see update below), engages daily in the othering business, of making conservatism itself (and sometimes libertarianism, and other non-Progressive ideological strains) a disreputable condition, explicable in terms of pathology. That this is done in the name of tolerance and sensitivity to punitive stereotypes is one of the ironies of our age.

To his credit, Barack Obama himself seems to have a more nuanced understanding of race and his own popularity than many of his supporters and interlocutors. Here he is in the Remnick piece:

"There's no doubt that there's some folks who just really dislike me because they don't like the idea of a black President," Obama said. "Now, the flip side of it is there are some black folks and maybe some white folks who really like me and give me the benefit of the doubt precisely because I'm a black President." [...]

"There is a historic connection between some of the arguments that we have politically and the history of race in our country, and sometimes it's hard to disentangle those issues," he went on. "You can be somebody who, for very legitimate reasons, worries about the power of the federal government—that it's distant, that it's bureaucratic, that it's not accountable—and as a consequence you think that more power should reside in the hands of state governments. But what's also true, obviously, is that philosophy is wrapped up in the history of states' rights in the context of the civil-rights movement and the Civil War and Calhoun. There's a pretty long history there. And so I think it's important for progressives not to dismiss out of hand arguments against my Presidency or the Democratic Party or Bill Clinton or anybody just because there's some overlap between those criticisms and the criticisms that traditionally were directed against those who were trying to bring about greater equality for African-Americans. The flip side is I think it's important for conservatives to recognize and answer some of the problems that are posed by that history, so that they understand if I am concerned about leaving it up to states to expand Medicaid that it may not simply be because I am this power-hungry guy in Washington who wants to crush states' rights but, rather, because we are one country and I think it is going to be important for the entire country to make sure that poor folks in Mississippi and not just Massachusetts are healthy."

There is plenty to disagree with here—not least of which is Obama's asymmetrical desire to have federalists answer for racism while Progressivism's nasty history of same gets a pass, and also his inability to process the substance of anti-Medicaid complaints. But the president's broad framing offers the modern left a useful alternative for talking about race in 2014 America. Namely, that it's complicated, and that reducing entire population blocs to caricatures does not necessarily improve the conversation.

* UPDATE: To clear up a possible misconception: I am not remotely complaining about my treatment on MSNBC, which has typically been very generous and open-minded, particularly on the longer discussion shows like those hosted by Chris Hayes and Melissa Harris-Perry. These are not the only shows on the network, however, and even in those thoughtful venues (as in, it should be said, plenty of shows on Fox and CNN) you can see evidence of othering.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Idle Hands||

    Projection.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Or you could like, I dunno, not even notice because you aren't focused on race?

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    When you have no philosophical underpinnings to your arguments, you're forced to rely on poor substitutes.

  • JohnD||

    And when you are terminally stupid, like MSNBC, you are forced to talk out your butt.

  • kris713||

    what Patrick said I'm shocked that a mom able to get paid $5552 in four weeks on the internet. did you read this site link ..,.,..,.,.,., jobs80
    (Go to site and open "Home" for details)

  • KDN||

    Yeah. I think I saw that Cheerios commercial a hundred times before I noticed the black father. Though that's probably because I zone out whenever I see one because their commercials are universally terrible.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    The worst one was about 7 or 8 years ago--the one where the mother tells her kid "Daddy did a lot of stupid things before he married your mother."

    That's not quite as bad as the "Suzanne researched this!" Century21 commercial from the housing boom years, but it's damn close.

  • ||

    Awwww...I love the Cherrios commercials. They're beautifully simple. They almost make me want to pop out a kid or two.

  • John||

    They are cute. And the mom is pretty hot for a commercial mom.

  • Gene Poole||

    CMILF?

  • ||

    I have a very cute kid. Would you like one just like him?

  • John||

    They are all fun and games and cute until you actually have to own one.

  • Brett L||

    I think OMWC is only offering to participate in the making, but I could be wrong.

  • ||

    Why Brett, she's young enough to be my daughter. That's what makes it interesting.

  • ||

    More Real Talk from John

  • John||

    I call it like it is Nikki. ;-)

  • ||

    Ayup.

  • Mike S.||

    You know they grow up and turn into people, right?

  • MSimon||

    Are you absolutely sure about that?

  • buybuydandavis||

    Occasionally.

  • Bobarian||

    Only if you let them.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    "older whites who feel threatened, underemployed, overlooked, and disdained in a globalized economy and in an increasingly diverse country"

    Because younger black people, like the black woman who told me she wanted zero immigration, don't feel in any way threatened by globalization and diversity.

  • JohnD||

    Never mind the fact that they are the highest unemployed group in America

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Obama can take his passive-aggressive, "nuanced" insinuations of racism and put them where the sun doesn't shine.

  • Gene Poole||

    ...and where everyone's skin is pale?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    This is what happens when you take up residence in a house of race cards. MSNBC might want to rethink its tired rhetoric. Or get off of Twitter.

  • Snark Plissken||

    house of race cards

    That's a keeper.

  • Jon Lester||

    Robert Sarvis should capitalize on this and spoof the Cherrios ad in one of his own.

    Seriously, I think quite a few older white Americans are happily shipping their eBay items internationally, and may even have some Bitcoin, too.

  • Doctor Whom||

    Robert Sarvis

    comment doubleplusungood refs unperson revise fullwise upsub antefiling

  • eyeroller||

    But the tweet attacked right-wingers, not libertarians. If Sarvis responded, people might accidentally think he was a right-winger.

  • Jon Lester||

    But voters need to know there aren't just two sides to choose from.

  • Jon Lester||

    New visitors to Reason might think it's a right-wing site when they see the Newsmax ad on every page.

  • Brandon Magoon||

    That's probably the fault of Google.

  • sarcasmic||

    of making conservatism itself (and sometimes libertarianism, and other non-Progressive ideological strains) a disreputable condition, explicable in terms of pathology

    It's all about intentions. Progressives have good intentions. They want to punish the rich and help the poor. If you oppose their policies then you oppose their intentions. You want to help the rich at the expense of the poor. There is no other explanation. Intentions are everything.

  • Will Nonya||

    I sum them as in a similar way. They want to help the poor and thwart the greedy.

    The rub comes when you ask how do they identify a greedy person? Well they're rich of course. How did they get rich? Obviously the only ay to get rich is to exploit the poor. Why did they get rich? so they could make slippers out of baby seals, burn mountains of that awful planet destroying carbon and wipe their butts with gold leaf toilet paper, why else.

  • Mike M.||

    To his credit, Barack Obama himself seems to have a more nuanced understanding of race

    He actually doesn't, if you read his first autobiography, which was clearly written before he seriously starting thinking about running for president. He's just smart enough to understand that as president, he has to play the public role of the "good cop", while Eric Holder and his supporters can all be the bad cops.

  • John||

    ^^THIS^^ Obama is just versed in the game of seeming reasonable while letting his supporters and minions do his dirty work.

    Obama has uttered a lot of reasonable sounding racial platitudes over his time in office. But he has never once to my knowledge ever called out his own supporters or even his own cabinet members for their race baiting. Eric Holder called the entire nation cowards for not wanting to deal with racism and Obama never contradicted him.

  • Almanian (yeah, I said it)||

    Eric Holder called the entire nation cowards for not wanting to deal with racism and Obama never contradicted him.

    ...because Obama's cowardly about dealing with racism, thereby proving Holder's point! Genius, again, from Him (PBUH).

  • Mike M.||

    Honestly, it's just too mind-boggling that after all these years and everything we have seen and now know that an independent like Welch would still take his public comments on this subject at face value.

    Welch is a smart guy, so I have to assume that he just doesn't want to go down the truthful road on this subject out of fear.

  • John||

    I think it is a cultural thing. I really think that a lot of people are bullied into being afraid to tell the truth about Obama. So they talk around it. Well Obama is a nice guy but his supporters are not, as if Obama exists completely separate from those who support him.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Not just that, but the actual Obama quote kept the meme going -

    "But what's also true, obviously, is that philosophy is wrapped up in the history of states' rights in the context of the civil-rights movement and the Civil War and Calhoun. There's a pretty long history there. And so I think it's important for progressives not to dismiss out of hand arguments against my Presidency or the Democratic Party or Bill Clinton or anybody just because there's some overlap between those criticisms and the criticisms that traditionally were directed against those who were trying to bring about greater equality for African-Americans. The flip side is I think it's important for conservatives to recognize and answer some of the problems that are posed by that history."

    Don't dismiss the conservative arguments just because they overlap with John C. Calhoun's! And conservatives have to confront the problems of their ideas being oddly similar to Calhoun's.

    And this qualifies as nuanced, respectful discussion!

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    And of course before the Civil War the battles over federalism generally pitted a proslavery government against antislavery Northern states, but let's just dump that down the memory hole.

  • Libertarius||

    /Thomas DeLorenzo

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Abraham Lincoln, states-rights defender:

    Here he is, re a Massachusetts law partially disenfranchising immigrants:

    "Massachusetts is *a sovereign and independent State; and it is no privilege of mine to scold her for what she does.* Still, if from what she has done an inference is sought to be drawn as to what I would do, I may without impropriety speak out. I say, then, that, as I understand the Massachusetts provision, I am against its adoption." [emphasis added]

    http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/cgi.....:1.lincoln

    (I should have worked up to that quote, saying "a prominent politician referred to "a sovereign and independent state," and the big reveal would be "the name of that politician was...Abraham Lincoln!!!")

  • Tommy_Grand||

    Quiz: Which *Democrat* was elected ans served as Vice President of the U.S.A.?

    Joe Biden
    Walter Mondale
    John C. Calhoun
    All of these

  • John||

    Don't dismiss the conservative arguments just because they overlap with John C. Calhoun's! And conservatives have to confront the problems of their ideas being oddly similar to Calhoun's.

    In fairness, I don't think that means Obama is engaging in race baiting. It just means he is a typical brain dead Prog. Tony and Shreek engage in that kind of fallacy daily. Obama is more than anything a typical uneducated, ignorant, upper middle class American Prog. This is how these idiots actually think.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    OK, but it says something that offensive remarks like that qualify as reaching out to the other side.

    It's like that "moderate" Malaysian prime minister who gave that enlightened, uniter-not-divider speech about how Muslims should eschew violence, work hard and succeed - just like the Jews who run the world!

    Or like that Jim Crow politician who spoke at a black college and thought he was so enlightened, and just couldn't understand why some students objected when he said "nigra." It wasn't as if he'd used the actual n-word!

  • John||

    Those are all good analogies GKC. To people like Obama and his idiot supporters like Shreek, reaching out to the other side is saying "I know what is good for you, so shut up and let me do it". Sort of like the liberal view of debate, which is "shut up and let me tell you why you are wrong".

    These people are not big on thinking.

  • Gene Poole||

    Now, is that race-baiting? Or is it "Prog" baiting? Do you want to be called a "Con"? It's what my cousins in France call people who make that sort of comment.

  • Emmerson Biggins||

    I really don't think thats what it means. Maybe it's dog whistle talk and I just don't get it.

    But I read that as : there are good faith arguments for federalism, and there are bad faith arguments. Both sides need to admit that both types exist.

  • Pulseguy||

    He is saying that States can't be relied upon to make good decisions, only the Feds can. Because look what happened 150 years ago.

  • Seamus||

    If only Comrade Stalin knew what his underlings were doing, he'd stop them.

  • OneOut||

    And Hitler of course.

    When confronted by US Ambassador Dodd about the Nazi's ill treatment of Jews he replied that he was, " shocked that his supporters would do such a thing and that he would look into the matter". Shocked I say !

    Maybe he should have been reading the newspapers like our President so he could be kept up to date on the doings of his underlings ?

  • DarrenM||

    as if Obama exists completely separate from those who support him.

    You can say this about a lot of people. I've seen what I would consider fair-minded bloggers with some pretty disgusting posts by commenters. The post reflects on the blogger.

  • John||

    If the blogger never repudiates those comments, at some point doesn't he endorse them by default?

  • Mike M.||

    Look at how much grief poor old Ron Paul took, even here at Reason, for a couple of statements that appeared in his old newsletter, even though they were written by someone else.

    And yet we're told that it's unreasonable to draw any association between Obama and Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, his attorney general of the last five years, etc. etc. The double standards that get applied on this subject are absolutely ludicrous.

  • wwhorton||

    Birds of a feather, etc. You can tell a lot about someone by the people with whom they associate. Barack Obama is not a radical socialist terrorist who hates white people and believes the United States should be destroyed. However, the people he respects most and who have influenced him most deeply are those things. He might not be corrupt, but he thrived in the Chicago political machine known for endemic corruption, and hired political advisors from that environment such as Rahm Emmanuel. He rolled out the slickest, most high-octane marketing campaign to convince the American public that he was Mr. Goddamn Smith come to Washington to bring a dose of idealism, in the most ironic campaign in American history.

  • Gene Poole||

    "Birds of a feather, etc. You can tell a lot about someone by the people with whom they associate. Barack Obama is not a radical socialist terrorist who hates white people and believes the United States should be destroyed. However, the people he respects most and who have influenced him most deeply are those things. ..."

    The only difference between your comment and the ones I read on Patriot Update and Eagle Rising is that you can more or less write a sentence. Well, come to think of it, you're also more hypocritical.

  • JohnD||

    Of course not. He sets the racist tone for his goons and thugs. Not to mention the low information "useful fools" that buy into his garbage.

  • Gene Poole||

    "Low information" and "useful fools" are also phrases I find on hate blogs like Eagle Rising and Minuteman News, dutifully copied in post after post, and have been finding for months. The only difference is that they don't usually put them in quotes.
    I think that may mean their authors are smarter than you.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    That's not who we are at msnbc.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Yup. Didn't anybody teach that guy he'll go to hell for lying?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The reason for the ACA's lack of support (only about 40%) is in that spoiled progressives who wanted government run single-payer break ranks quickly and join the conservatives in polls. Conservatives would never do that - their very nature is to march in lockstep with their AM radio party leaders.

  • John||

    It hasn't nothing to do with millions of people who have seen their rates go up, lost their doctors, or lost their insurance altogether. It is all about angry progs who wanted it to be single payer.

    That might actually be more derptacular than you claim that everyone who wants a job today has one. You just keep topping yourself in the retarded lies you tell.

    I am not sure which is more amazing; that you are this stupid or that you think anyone reading your posts is that stupid.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Look at the polls, idiot. The ACA is polling where it did three years ago.

  • John||

    Look at the Polls. It is wildly popular. That is why Obama made it's success the center piece of his state of the union and why Democrats running for election are running based on its success rather than not mentioning it. I mean Democratic Senators are just ecstatic about its effects on their re-election chances.

    You might actually be the most mendacious retard in the known world. We shouldn't respond to you. But you are just so epically stupid, you can't help but respond sometimes. You are the elephant man of intellectual discourse. If your mind took physical form, it would have to be kept under a sheet only to be revealed to people who paid $10 at a carnival side show.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I bring the facts, John. You just don't like them and prefer your own bullshit.

    Like the discussion on the legality of the delay in the employer mandate in the AM thread. I destroyed your narrative.

    Live with permanent runner-up status. It is all you have.

  • John||

    I bring the facts, John.

    That you get from the voices in your head.

  • Pavlov's Cat||

    I bring the facts, John. You just don't like them and prefer your own bullshit.

    Both the Atlantic and CBS report ACA's poll numbers around 60%. That's disapproval, BTW.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    That is why I said APPROVAL of the ACA has hovered around 40% for years.

  • GregMax||

    Poll results are not facts, dumbass.

  • ||

    You are the elephant man of intellectual discourse. If your mind took physical form, it would have to be kept under a sheet only to be revealed to people who paid $10 at a carnival side show.

    I LOL'd.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    why bother figuring out why a majority of Americans have consistently disliked the flawed Affordable Care Act when you can just roll your eyes and assert that the real reason is white anxiety and worse?

    I am agreeing with Welch. Race has little to do with the reception of the ACA.

  • John||

    And than adding in the retarded mendacity that it is only unpopular because America really wanted full on communism.

  • Jordan||

    Conservatives would never do that - their very nature is to march in lockstep with their AM radio party leaders.

    Which would mean they hate the likes of John Boehner. You know, the actual party leader. Derp.

  • Jordan||

    Oh, and lets not mention the Tea Party-Chamber of Commerce-libertarian schism occurring within the GOP.

  • sarcasmic||

    Obvious trolling is obvious.

  • Snark Plissken||

    Marching in lockstep with Nazis as you help them round up fellow Jews, that's the kind of lockstep shrieky can get behind.

    soros.org

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Soros consistently fights for capitalism and freedom - then backs both with millions.

    It is you stuck in the 1940's.

  • Snark Plissken||

    I feel no guilt at all, shrieky, no guilt at all.

    soros.org

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Soros consistently fights for capitalism and freedom

    citation needed

  • Adam330||

    http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2.....h.care.pdf

    Let's see. In March 2010, 13% opposed because ACA wasn't liberal enough and 43% opposed because it was too liberal. In December 2013, those numbers were 15% and 43%. Not really supporting your theory.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Of course they do. Add the "not liberal enough" to the low 40s% who approve and you get an easy majority who want something like the ACA or single-payer.

  • kbolino||

    No Opinion: 8%

  • JohnD||

    Your powers of political observation are seriously flawed. It is the Liberals that march in lock step to the lib leadership. There is a battle going on in the Republican party, the goal of which is to purge the party of RINOs.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    There is a battle going on in the Republican party, the goal of which is to purge the party of RINOs.

    There may be a battle, but I don't think the goal has been decided because a winner has not been decided, though all the factions agree in purging "RINOs", they disagree exactly what a RINO is.

    Additionally - they, like other politicians in campaign mode, are claiming when they win, X people will no longer exist/be marginalized, but reality will work against them as some "RINOs" exist based upon the realities of their districts.

    IE - if they purge RINOs from heavily liberal areas, they are in fact purging even the part-time party vote they once had - which when they are actually in charge, they will not do.

    Just as presidential campaigns claim all kinds of possibilities wrt international policy only to find all their ideas were stupid/impossible and while alternatives to current policy might exist, all options that do exist really suck.

  • DarrenM||

    Yes. Short term thinking (if you could call it that).

  • JWatts||

    "The reason for the ACA's lack of support (only about 40%) is in that spoiled progressives who wanted government run single-payer break ranks quickly and join the conservatives in polls."

    It really doesn't matter why the public dislikes the law.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "spoiled progressives who wanted government run single-payer break ranks quickly and join the conservatives in polls. Conservatives would never do that - their very nature is to march in lockstep with their AM radio party leaders."

    Setting aside the fact that the current Democrat constituency is one of the most monolithic, lockstep collections of control-obsessed jackasses this country has ever seen, why is it that when groups like the Tea Party arise, it's supposed to be a sure sign of internal collapse, but when the Republicans are in agreeance with each other it's because they're all marching lockstep?

    Is it because you're a pathetic fucking straw-grasping weasel who sucks as much at lying as you do every other aspect of life?

  • Dirk Nowitzki||

    Is that David West in one of the pictures? Basketball player on Pacers.

  • Almanian (yeah, I said it)||

    Those collectivists are alllll like this....

    #RaceWars!

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    Racist! Haha, now I can't be racist because I called you racist first!

  • Doctor Whom||

    MSNBC, on whose shows I have happily participated, engages daily in the othering business, of making conservatism itself (and sometimes libertarianism, and other non-Progressive ideological strains) a disreputable condition, explicable in terms of pathology.

    Progtards have been doing this since at least the eighties. They refuse to admit that sane adults making free decisions could ever disagree with them on anything, so they insist that anyone who disagrees must be mentally ill, immature, acting under duress, or some combination thereof. It's almost as though they didn't have any real arguments.

  • Almanian (yeah, I said it)||

    Progtards have been doing this since at least the eighties forever.

    fixed

  • John||

    As episiarch says, it is always about projection with these people. They are the most hate filled bigoted people on earth. They deal with this fact by projecting it onto their opponents.

  • ||

    But they hate rich fat white top hat monocle wearing motherfuckers. So their hate is A-OK.

  • John||

    South Park had an episode where the class went to the Museum of Tolerance. While there, another visitor light up a cigarette only to be run out of the museum by an angry mob of staff and other visitors. That one scene pretty much summed up Progs.

  • RBS||

    Did you know there is an actual Museum of Tolerance in LA?

  • John||

    I bet anything you can't smoke there.

  • waffles||

    Or even within some arbitrary distance of the doors.

  • fish||

    But they hate rich fat white top hat monocle wearing motherfuckers. So their hate is A-OK.

    It's the trump card that you can play every single time! It never stops working and you never have to discard!

    PS:PENCILNECKSHREEKCHRISTBUTTPLUGDICKWEED

  • sarcasmic||

    It's all about intentions.

    They have good intentions.

    If you disagree with them then you must have bad intentions.

    There can be no other explanation.

    If they propose something with the intent of helping blacks, poor, gays, whatever, then any opposition is rooted in intending to hurt those people.

  • Doctor Whom||

    Do tell. This week, I got called self-hating for daring to think for myself about whether the LGBT orthodoxy is correct.

  • SusanM||

    That's a fine club to be in. Welcome to it ;)

  • montana mike||

    Free teh restrooms.

  • montana mike||

    Free teh restrooms.

  • montana mike||

    squirrelz

  • montana mike||

    squirrelz

  • JohnD||

    The problem liberals have in winning more intelligent followers is it is difficult to agree with their ignorance.

  • ||

    Progtards have been doing this since at least the eighties. They refuse to admit that sane adults making free decisions could ever disagree with them on anything, so they insist that anyone who disagrees must be mentally ill, immature, acting under duress, or some combination thereof. It's almost as though they didn't have any real arguments.

    Okay, sorry to burden you with this, there's a term for it and it's been scratching at my brain for the last day or two. My brain can't recall if it's an recent behavioral science term or a classical Greek term about the nature of discourse.

    But it's a term that describes a word or label that immediately invalidates all rational thought and/or ends any discourse on the subject. Essentially, a word that induces or enhances cognitive dissonance and obliterates the idea of reaching a mutual, rational resolution. The prototypes given were 'heretic', 'infidel', 'commie', and it was asserted that 'racist' is now (or still) one of those terms.

    You or anybody heard of this term? It's been bugging me.

  • Gene Poole||

    "mentally ill, immature, acting under duress, or some combination thereof"

    No, just privileged. And, usually, white.

  • RonnieNM||

    "It's almost as though they didn't have any real arguments"

    They don't. Just last night I made a man mad when I continuously asked him what principles are behind prog ideology. He deflected a lot and was really uncomfortable and eventually just said "well we're never going to agree anyway!" I suspect his discomfort was because, as I'm a black lesbian with education that he already self-admittidely knows is "just as good as [his]", arguing against progressivism, he couldn't actually use divisive trump cards....it was all quite enjoyable for me.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    No small part of the first controversy was black women upset that the guy had a white wife in the commercial. I wonder if MSNBC considers such people to be right wing or just ignored that bit.

  • John||

    Mentioning the animosity of black women towards black men who marry white women in liberal circles is like mentioning Voldamort by name at Hogwarts. It is just not done in polite company.

  • Mike M.||

    Redskins quarterback Robert Griffin III has personally experienced this particular hatred. His white then-fiancée (now wife) was the main reason why that jerk on ESPN asked if he's a "cornball brother".

  • DarrenM||

    My definition of racism: If you think an individual or group should behave or believe in a certain way because of their race.

  • Zeb||

    That is certainly a good example of racism. Not much of a definition, though.

  • DarrenM||

    It could have stood to be worded better, but any example of racism can be traced back to what I said above. It's a matter of thinking members of one race should "know their place" or should behave/believe the way you think they should: "Uncle Tom", "race traitor", "ni**er", etc. (Note: Whether specific words or phrases are 'racist' also depends on context.)

  • Dweebston||

    I thought The Love That Dares Not Speak Its Name refers to something else entirely.

  • Calidissident||

    Wasn't the controversy pretty much limited to Youtube, where there were a bunch of offensive comments that caused Cheerios to disable comments on the video? From what I recall reading about it, I believe it was mostly white people angry that a black guy was with a white woman, but I'm sure there were probably some angry black people too. Either way, Youtube comments are pretty much bottom of the barrel on the Internet, and using them to make a larger point about society is asinine.

  • RBS||

    I mean really, youtube you just go ahead disable the comments function for the whole website.

  • John||

    I believe it was mostly white people angry that a black guy was with a white woman

    How do you know they were white? There really are mobies out there who spend their time posting various offensive things over the internet in the name of their opponents. I suspect at least some of those comments were that.

    Sort of like how nearly every comment thread on a gun control story contains a comment by a "life time gun owner who has finally had enough of the NRA."

  • Calidissident||

    I don't. But those people do exist in real life and Youtube is pretty well known for being a popular outlet for them. So sure, John, maybe all those people posting youtube comments about a white woman disgracing her race were all black. It's also possible that all the "black women" angry at a traitorous black man were really white men. I'm going with Occam's Razor on this one, that most of the people were what you would predict based on their comments.

  • John||

    All I can do is judge it on my own experience. My experience is that black animosity about interracial marriage is about two to three times white animosity about the subject. I say this having known multiple interracial couples who all said that they encountered many more hassles, nasty stares and hostility from blacks than from whites.

  • Calidissident||

    I'm not going to say your personal experience isn't true, but it doesn't necessarily reflect on the entire country. Polling has consistently shown for decades that blacks are more accepting than whites of interracial marriage. However, it's possible that that is true, and at the same time, you friends' experiences are true of most interracial couples. It's possible that, for whatever reason, blacks opposed to interracial marriage are more likely to voice their opposition publicly than whites opposed to it are. I think a lot of racist white people in this country don't have the balls to express their beliefs publicly, which is why they tend to congregate on the Internet.

    Furthermore, Youtube comments aren't a good sample of the country at large. Even if blacks are more opposed than whites, that doesn't mean that most of those people on YT weren't white (after all, there are 5x as many whites as blacks in the US). Again, I'm going to go with Occam's Razor instead of assuming that it must have been deceptive black people that made all those comments.

  • John||

    The polls show that acceptance is nearly universal, though higher among blacks, around 95%, than whites, around 87%.

    The question is who would feel more comfortable vocalizing their objection in public, the 5% or so of blacks or the 13% of whites? I would argue that in our culture there may be more whites who object such that they are willing to say so to a pollster. But, there are a lot more blacks who not only object but also feel comfortable vocalizing their objection in public and that explains the experiences of at least a few interracial couples.

    You are right that Youtube comments are indicative of nothing other than there are generally a bunch of nuts who comment on the internet. But, that means the Youtube comments don't mean much of anything.

  • Calidissident||

    "The question is who would feel more comfortable vocalizing their objection in public, the 5% or so of blacks or the 13% of whites? I would argue that in our culture there may be more whites who object such that they are willing to say so to a pollster. But, there are a lot more blacks who not only object but also feel comfortable vocalizing their objection in public and that explains the experiences of at least a few interracial couples."

    I pretty much said exactly this. I agree it very well may be true. Probably varies from place to place. However, the Internet provides anonymity for people to say things they wouldn't say in public.

    "But, that means the Youtube comments don't mean much of anything."

    I agree with this

  • Tony||

    Anyone who brings up progressives of the early 20th century in discussing race is basically admitting guilt. It doesn't matter who was racist 100 years ago. It matters who is racist now. And that's Republicans. Why are Republicans almost uniformly white? Either it's because minorities are inexplicably uniform in their leftwing thinking, or it's because the GOP's very explicit, admitted-to, and long-running strategy of demonizing minorities in order to buttress the southern white vote is a real thing. Racism is the only reason immigration reform is struggling in their party. Any tea party message board is brimming with anti-black vitriol so vile I can barely believe it exists in this century.

  • waffles||

    Now it's a party. Isn't it a bit simplistic to say that because R's are mostly white they must support policies to the detriment of minorities while the D's with their superior diversity are fighting the endemic racism of our system.

    Who is racist now is also a complicated question. And a pointless one. It's astounding how much more race politics we have to suffer in recent times. Who is using identity politics and demonizing people of a certain race? I think the racist white south is a bogeyman used by your ilk.

  • Tony||

    I'm not saying they support policies detrimental to minorities because they're mostly white, I'm saying they're mostly white because they have been demonizing minorities for the purpose of shoring up the white vote for decades, and they've admitted to it, and it's a part of history, and it's still going on.

  • waffles||

    Outside of rural local elections I really doubt demonizing minorities can win any elections. Democrats have won national elections by castigating the right as white, male, wealthy and beholden to corporate interests. Both strategies can die in a fire for all I care, but only one of them wins elections.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    And I'd like to see the figures on those rural local elections. Maybe they're a bunch of Klanspeople, but I'd really like to see the evidence.

  • waffles||

    Well I just don't think you need to appeal to a minority vote if your region is 90%+ white. Maybe a rural Arizona town where antipathy towards illegal immigrants gets you into office? That I must stretch for an example means it cannot be too common.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    I see your overall point, but even as to rural local elections, I'm skeptical, though I can always be enlightened. I'm open to the possibility that they're more likely to demonize minorities, but I simply don't know, and I have no reason to think they're worse than the enlightened big-city masses.

  • OneOut||

    You guys are wasting you time.

    In Tony's world coming out against any prog position is demonizing minorities.

    If you are against expanding the free cell phone government program you are demonizing minorities.

    If you are against expanding unemployment benefits you are demonizing minorities.

    Was. Rinse. Repeat.

  • Banjos||

    "Maybe a rural Arizona town where antipathy towards illegal immigrants gets you into office?"

    Even rural AZ towns have a high percentage of Hispanics living there.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    They pick on other minorities like the Chinese or the Irish.

  • Square||

    The Southern Strategy thing is old news. It's dying out precisely because it stopped being effective.

    When the Democrats embraced the Civil Rights Movement and tried to rehabilitate their reputation as the party of imperialism and slavery (the 19th centery Democratic Party), the Republicans, who took for granted their image as the Party of Lincoln, lost the minority vote and (short-sightedly) tried to pick up the southern white votes by complaining about minority entitlements and such.

    I seem to remember that strategy ebbing significantly over the course of the 90s as the Republicans realized it was a losing strategy at the same time that all the old racist southern whites died and their grandchildren swore them off.

    There are still white racists who are not going to support the Democrats under any circumstances, and Democrats latch on to that to routinely accuse non-Democrats of racism, but it sticks less as less well as time goes on.

  • ||

    "I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years."

    -L. B. J.

    Pretty obviously, neither side has made a priority of getting minorities ahead of majorities. That's how democracy works.

  • fish||

    I'm not saying they support policies detrimental to minorities because they're mostly white, I'm saying they're mostly white because they have been demonizing minorities for the purpose of shoring up the white vote for decades, and they've admitted to it, and it's a part of history, and it's still going on.

    FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP......

    If not for this website wherever would you go to get your proglodyte position porn?

  • JohnD||

    Having lived in several states both North and South, I can assure you racism is actually worse in the North. They just don't talk about it.

  • Jerryskids||

    The way I've heard it put - Down South they don't care how close you get as long as you don't get too big; up North they don't care how big you get as long as you don't get too close. Racism in Birmingham ain't got nothin' on racism in Boston.

    But if you think the talk of racism is bad now, wait until the wife of our First Black President runs in 2016 and re-ignites the 'you only oppose Hillary because you're threatened by a strong woman' meme. That's a two-fer; racism and misogyny.

  • Curtisls87||

    Having also lived in both, and traveled extensively, my take on it was that it was more overt in the South and more covert in the North.

  • Gene Poole||

    "because R's are mostly white "

    White and _privileged_

  • ThomasD||

    Right, because older progressive theory never comes back around to affect the present.

    "Blackmun explicitly rejected the argument that "one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases." Instead, in Roe, Blackmun cited, with approval, Buck v. Bell, a 1927 case that approved of compulsory sterilization."

    http://articles.chicagotribune.....ice-burger

  • Dweebston||

    That or leftists tend to court pressure-group minorities much more effectively than the stodgy party of middle-class conservatives.

    Racism is the only reason immigration reform is struggling in their party.

    That or ignorance of the economics of immigration, (erroneous) concerns that immigrants will overwhelm welfare programs, or that immigrant voters will form a permanent Democrat majority until it bankrupts the country.

    But yeah, no, obviously it's racism.

    Christ, you're tepid.

  • Tony||

    Do you guys ever venture out to a real right-wing message board? Or anything linked by Drudge? People not talking about watermelons and nose bones are the exception.

  • JohnD||

    I was wondering when the village idiot would chime in. Tony, you're a racist moron.

  • waffles||

    At least you finally admit we're not right wingers.

  • Tony||

    Reason censors the racists, I gather.

  • wareagle||

    reason doesn't censor anyone. The proof is you and shriek and a few others, like American, who's about as racist as it gets.

  • kbolino||

    American's post do in fact get censored, but before they disappear everyone here pretty much destroys the racist arguments.

    Plus, American advocates socialism for white people, he's not "conservative" in the context of our polity.

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    Do you guys ever venture out to a real right-wing message board? Or anything linked by Drudge? People not talking about watermelons and nose bones are the exception.

    I venture out to socialist democrat boards all the time.

    The prevailing theme is whining about cheap immigrant labor, having nervous fits that autonomous systems will replace labor, being anti free trade (regardless of how much it screws over relatively poorer people in other countries for some perceived benefit of relatively richer people here), and waiting around for the government to create jobs.

    Enjoy the wait.

  • Tony||

    So you're saying the left actually talks about issues.

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    So you're saying the left actually talks about issues.

    In the way that a creationist who hates gay marriage is talking about an issue.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    So you're saying the left actually talks about issues.

    Yes, the Jewish Question* is an "issue" worthy of much debate!

    *Fuck you, Marx used the phrase decades before his disciple Hitler was born.

  • Gene Poole||

    "being anti free trade (regardless of how much it screws over relatively poorer people in other countries for some perceived benefit of relatively richer people here),"

    I agree 100% that so-called "free trade" and the "level playing field" screws over poorer people in other countries for the benefit of relatively richer people here. But I'd remove the qualifiers. ;O)

  • Dweebston||

    Nowhere in my post did I suggest that racism does not exist among conservatives, nor that it's not a prominent feature on certain conservative-leaning sites, nor did I deny that minorities tend to disdain conservatism due to the perception of racism.

    I took issue with the point of the article, the point you elided, that liberals only too happily broadbrush conservatism as a racist movement, or (as you helpfully demonstrated) generalize anti-immigrationism as primarily motivated by racism rather than stupid autarkic thinking and demographic concerns, and thereby betray their own prejudices.

    Frankly, I’m not concerned by fringe racism whether it’s the unquantifiable screeds of anonymous internet posters, a residual (and inconsequential) mistrust of foreigners among the elderly, or atavistic supremacism manifesting among the disaffected. I’m concerned with the parallel drives toward progressivism and autarky characterizing both parties.

  • Gene Poole||

    I do, and in actual fact the "people" there sound like many of the people here - just less educated. In any case they use the same talking points and buzzwords:

    thug
    low-information voter
    useful fool
    the race card

    etc.

  • tarran||

    Tony, sweetie,

    My work-wife at a previous job was a black, lesbian, former Army sergeant with a nice pattern of shrapnel wounds on her chest and throat from an ambush and a degree from Harvard Divinity School.

    One day she and I went out for a drink, and she was moaning about how on everything but gay rights she agreed with the Republicans. She cried in her beer about being politically homeless.

    Fed up, I said, "so join the log Cabin Republicans, and quit kvetching".

    1) She didn't know the Log Cabin Republicans existed.

    2) She thought I was joking.

    3) During beer number 2, she said her family would kill her if she became a Republican, especially since they were just now coming round to accepting her lesbianism.

    The only other black people I closely interact with were either apolitical (N=1), or cheerfully cops to voting for whomever her pastor says is the Godly choice (N=1).

    So I suspect, it's not so much the hostility of Republicans (after all the Republicans were trying to get the Civil Rights Act passed throughout the 50's, and it was only when the Democrats stopped opposing it that it became law), but rather the polarization between urban and country and the spoils system created by the Great Society that are behind the seemingly monolithic behavior of blacks.

  • ||

    This capital N was brought to you by the word...

  • Tony||

    You're seriously not seeing the racism in this argument? If blacks are acting in a monolithic way, there are a bunch of racist possible explanations, and there is one nonracist explanation.

    Racist explanations include: they all do whatever their pastor says, sheeplike. Or they are more prone to being addicted to the welfare state. Or they're all too dumb to realize they're being hoodwinked.

    Once you eliminate these (and nobody's saying you have to--but I get to call you a racist if you don't), you're left with the fact that the Southern Strategy is a real thing and there is only one non-hostile political home for blacks.

  • Jordan||

    The king of false dichotomies strikes again. Blacks do have a lot of shared experiences, like a high poverty rate, high dropout rate, high incarceration rate, low educational attainment, etc. And they tend to cluster in urban areas. But in your world, none of that could possibly affect voting patterns.

  • kbolino||

    Blacks do have a lot of shared experiences, like a high poverty rate, high dropout rate, high incarceration rate, low educational attainment, etc.

    Every measure that blacks as a demographic group do poorly on was being improved for a century after the abolition of slavery.

    Then in the late 1960s and early 1970s, they started voting for Democrats en masse (thanks to Lyndon "we'll have the niggers voting for us for 50 years" Johnson), and since then every measure of blacks as a demographic group has tanked.

    Except the crime rate, which is because half of them end up incarcerated. There is just as much if not more crime than before, most of it just happens in jail now.

    Poor black people are literally voting themselves into a self-imposed apartheid.

  • wareagle||

    blacks did and do act in monolithic ways, be those supporting Obama or general support of Dems. No race involved in black folks voting for a guy who looks like them?

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    If blacks are acting in a monolithic way, there are a bunch of racist possible explanations, and there is one nonracist explanation. ...Once you eliminate these (and nobody's saying you have to--but I get to call you a racist if you don't)...

    Since you don't eliminate race when talking about white non-democrats, then, by your own standards, you are calling yourself a racist.

  • Jeff||

    There are cultural, non-racial explanations for conformity, you fucking nitwit.

    And the Democratic party is a non-hostile home in the much same way that a relationship where one partner threatens the other if she ever leaves him is a non-hostile relationship.

  • Tony||

    You guys can't even reject racism without sounding racist. Cultural conformity? You're still essentially saying blacks aren't as rational in their approach to politics as whites.

  • Jeff||

    Erm, that's because minorities are more compact communities than majority, Dr. Derp. It's the very nature of being a minority.

  • Gene Poole||

    "more compact communities"

    Damn nice euphemism!

  • Calidissident||

    It's not that blacks are less rational, just more homogeneous. If you look at white subcommunities (evangelical Protestants, many rural areas, many urban areas, atheists, etc.) you can find similarly high rates of voting either Republican or Democrat. But, to elaborate on what Jeff said, due to fewer numbers and historical reasons, the black community in this country is more compact and homogeneous than the white community is.

  • Zeb||

    Who is arguing that whites are rational in their approach to politics? White people are just as stupid in their political loyalties as anyone else. But white people are also the most numerous and culturally diverse racial category in the country. I bet if you looked at some subcategories of white people, you woudl see that many vote just as monolithically as black people tend to.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    One obvious example is the Irish.

  • montana mike||

    You fucking moron, you argue that socon baptists are a monolithic bloc yet black churches aren't a bloc. STOOPID.

  • Jordan||

    Fallacy count:

    Assertion without evidence: 3
    False dichotomy: 1
    Appeal to motive: 1

  • John||

    Yeah all racism is white to black. There is no racism from Hispanics towards blacks or blacks towards whites, Hispanics or Asians.

    And not all blacks vote Democrat. Around 10% or so vote Republican. Are those blacks race traitors? Funny how we are all racists, yet you seem to think that at least 10% of black voters are traitors and apparently unworthy of the vote.

    I guess the black people who live in the inner cities and live in neighborhoods that offer no economic opportunity and send their kids to some of the worst schools in the developed world, should be happy that their government and schools are run entirely by Progessives like you. I mean, imagine how bad it would be if those racist Republicans ran things.

    It isn't Republicans who run the schools and the cities where most black people live. It is you and your ilk who run those. But whatever you do don't take any responsibility for the incredible harm these things have done to the black community. Just call Republicans racist and tell black people that they should be thankful for their unemployment and failing schools. It could be worse, the Republicans might run things.

  • Tony||

    So 90% of blacks are delusional and voting against their own interests? Gee what could possibly explain that.

    Nobody said only white racism exists. But white people have most of the power and money, so it's the form of racism that matters since it exacerbates the socioeconomic problems of minorities.

  • waffles||

    People do a lot of things against their own interests. I really doubt white racism exacerbates anyone's problems. What problems? Poverty? I cannot honestly believe racism is in any way responsible for poverty today.

  • John||

    So 90% of blacks are delusional and voting against their own interests? Gee what could possibly explain that.

    No, 90% of blacks have been convinced by people like you that their problems are due to racism not socialism.

    They are not delusional. They have just been lied to by people like you and various crooks within their communities who have a vested interest in their continued failure. They are no more delusional that middle class white people who voted for Obama thinking Obamacare was going to help people with someone else' money.

    You people own the culture and are very tenacious and effective liars. But the results are what they are. Generations of black kids have grown up terrible schools and with little economic prospects thanks to people like you. And worse still, you and your side benefit from that failure. If black people ever did catch up in this country, you and your ilk would lose a lot of political power. It isn't Republicans who have a vested interest in black failure. It is Progressives.

    Now that doesn't mean that Progs want blacks to fail. Progs are way too stupid to think that strategically. It just means that they are not bothered by the harm their policies inflict on blacks because that harm never translates into harm to Progressives.

  • Tony||

    No, 90% of blacks have been convinced by people like you that their problems are due to racism not socialism.

    Why are almost all blacks so easily duped?

  • waffles||

    I don't think they're duped but rather institutionally and culturally trapped. Think about the reaction minority republicans get on a national stage and bring that to the kitchen table.

  • John||

    Why are almost all blacks so easily duped?

    Millions of white people are duped by socialism. Look in the mirror Tony. Socialism is a very virulent social poison. It has sucked the life out of many counties and like some great shadow roaming the earth, will probably never die. If you had even an ounce of self awareness, maybe you could explain to use how such a pathetic and failed ideology can continue to exert such a hold over so many people. But sadly, you don't so we living are left to guess.

  • Tony||

    How can I have a conversation with you when you insist on playing the moron and doing that lazy bullshit of conflating all failed forms of government under the name of socialism? If what the center-left Democratic party in this country is offering is the same as Stalinism, then we really can't have an intelligent conversation.

    Maybe it's the half of whites who are duped and not the entirety of blacks. Because through all your Red Scare bullshit you fail to defend the glorious successes of laissez-faire capitalism, because there have never been any.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    How can I have a conversation with you when you insist on playing the moron and doing that lazy bullshit of conflating all failed forms of government under the name of socialism?


    Because of the fact that a) they failed and b) they were all socialist.

    If what the center-left Democratic party in this country is offering is the same as Stalinism, then we really can't have an intelligent conversation.


    The reason you fail to have an intelligent conversation is because you keep deluding yourself into thinking that socialism - the political and economic system that places the state as warden for everything - is both practical and better than individual choice. 100 million dead people last century would strongly disagree with you.

  • John||

    How can I have a conversation with you when you insist on playing the moron and doing that lazy bullshit of conflating all failed forms of government under the name of socialism?

    Yes Tony you continue to believe this horseshit despite all evidence to the contrary. No amount of starving people in Zimbabwe, poverty in formally wealthy nations like Venezuela and Argentine, or hopeless unemployed in Europe and America will ever convince you otherwise. Thanks for confirming it. But we already knew that no matter how many times your ideology fails you will just claim that wasn't' really your ideology and just keep believing in the same things.

    But that begs the question why you and millions like you continue to do that and refuse to learn from experience. We the living can only guess.

  • Tony||

    If there is a lack of complexity to your explanation for why some states fail and some prosper, it's possibly because you're just dumb, rather than the explanation actually being so simple (It's socialism!)

    Because nothing I'm advocating is much different from what exists in all of the absolute most prosperous and happy countries the world has ever known. As for what you're offering, god knows, you aren't saying. All you do is say what you're against.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    If there is a lack of complexity to your explanation for why some states fail and some prosper


    Do you really think that complex explanations are better than simpler ones?

    it's possibly because you're just dumb, rather than the explanation actually being so simple (It's socialism!)


    No, it is because the answer is simple: Socialism fails. Many times everybody here has tried to explain to you why it fails but I gave up a long time ago on you, Tony, because you just don't care. For that reason, the marginal value on explaining things to you has fallen to the level of not being worth my time.

    Because nothing I'm advocating is much different from what exists in all of the absolute most prosperous and happy countries the world has ever known


    The most prosperous and happy places the world has ever known became that way after many decades of accumulated savings through free markets and trade, during the 19th Century. Only after those countries became rich that they squandered everything for a few couple of decades of happy times. You're simply too easily impressed by the level of comfort these countries enjoy that you do not see all the hard work that their ancestors had to apply to get that rich.

  • Tony||


    Do you really think that complex explanations are better than simpler ones?

    Yes! Dear lord, we may have a breakthrough here. The reasons societies succeed or fail are complex, and the definitions of success and failure are complex. We're talking about societies of millions of people--explanations for anything are going to be complex. Could it really be that the entire key to your political worldview is a misunderstanding of Occam's Razor?

    Socialism fails.

    Again, define socialism, because you can't seriously claim that the best places to live on earth are all failures. That, like, would be nonsense. Now you point to all those examples of laissez-faire societies that have outdone socialism. Oh, there aren't any? Well then it looks like you have fuckall of a point to make.

  • Jordan||

    That, like, would be nonsense. Now you point to all those examples of laissez-faire societies that have outdone socialism. Oh, there aren't any? Well then it looks like you have fuckall of a point to make.

    Point to a prosperous socialist society that was not already prosperous before embracing socialism.

  • sarcasmic||

    We're talking about societies of millions of people--explanations for anything are going to be complex.

    Which is why allowing those millions of people to solve problems in millions of individual ways is so much better than imposing top-down government solutions backed by real threats of violence.

    Libertarians understand that society is complex. That's why we support individuals making their own decisions, rather than your extremely simplistic approach of imposing decisions on them by force.

  • sarcasmic||

    That, like, would be nonsense. Now you point to all those examples of laissez-faire societies that have outdone socialism. Oh, there aren't any? Well then it looks like you have fuckall of a point to make.

    The straw man has run away with the goalposts! Look at him go!

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Yes![...] The reasons societies succeed or fail are complex, and the definitions of success and failure are complex.


    The definition of failure or success will depend entirely on what you're measuring. I am suggesting that the reasons some countries are more prosperous in capital accumulation is because those that are not are more socialist, meaning their governments have a greater control over people's property.

    define socialism


    Sure. It is an economic and political system where the state has control over individuals' decisions regarding property and trade.

    Now you point to all those examples of laissez-faire societies that have outdone socialism.


    The United States was much more laissez-faire than all European contries for better part of the 19th Century and the beginning of the 20th Century and became a world power thanks to that.

  • Tony||

    Well nobody is advocating that form of socialism. Certainly not me. Just a mixed economy that is perhaps somewhat more socialist than the people here would prefer. It's not good vs. evil, it's a spectrum of government involvement in the economy.

    The US during its more laissez-faire days was obviously worse than its post-WWII days for almost everybody. And we became a superpower pretty much entirely through massive centralized federal government actions both domestically and abroad.

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    The US during its more laissez-faire days was obviously worse than its post-WWII days for almost everybody.

    Yeah, and practically any place with any vestiges of a free market is going to be better in the present, then it was 100 years in the past. You can try to give credit for WW2, but everything you're ignoring tells us a lot about how you think.

    And we became a superpower pretty much entirely through massive centralized federal government actions both domestically and abroad.

    Since a superpower is generally defined as a "massive centralized federal government" acting "both domestically and abroad," that's a truism.

    And, again, now we're clapping for the military industrial complex and foreign military involvement? Again, you can't gut the military budget and go on killing adventures in foreign lands, simultaneously.

    Is part of "embracing complexity" mean embracing contradictions?

  • Tony||

    I could restrict defining success to being economically strong with widespread domestic material prosperity and being the most innovative economy in history, and it would still be due in huge part to massive federal government investment.

  • sarcasmic||

    Shorter Tony: You didn't build that!

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    I could restrict defining success to being economically strong with widespread domestic material prosperity


    Then, under that defined metric, socialism has failed.

    and it would still be due in huge part to massive federal government investment.


    If that were true, there would still be a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and China would still be Maoist. Neither are true, precisely because SOCIALISM FAILS.

  • Gene Poole||

    "If that were true, there would still be a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and China would still be Maoist. Neither are true, precisely because SOCIALISM FAILS."

    ...or because Capital corrupts.

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    I could restrict defining success to being economically strong with widespread domestic material prosperity and being the most innovative economy in history...

    And, since "success" != "superpower", you're changing the subject. Very wise.

    and it would still be due in huge part to massive federal government investment.

    I'm sorry, but the industrial revolution predates your massive federal government investment by about a century.

    You're still pretending that free market capitalism had nothing to do with it. Do you think the USA was ready to throw itself into WW2 because of previous, "massive federal government investment"? No, it's because the government can tax farm relatively free people in a relatively free economy.

    This country was build out of free market capitalism. The socialism you love is a luxury that you can afford, only because of it. But, go ahead: live in the fantasy land that everything we enjoy came purely out of Keynesian stimulus, i.e., bullshit that even Keynes wouldn't agree with.

  • Gene Poole||

    "This country was build out of free market capitalism. The socialism you love is a luxury that you can afford, only because of it. "

    A luxury, along with the one-wage family, the 8-hour day, job security, and affordable schooling and medical care?

  • Gene Poole||

    "want millions individuals to make their own choices based upon their own individual circumstances..."

    And with massive military power stationed all over the globe to make sure their leaders stay on the right path?

  • Gene Poole||

    "Do you think the USA was ready to throw itself into WW2 because of previous, "massive federal government investment"?

    No, and of course it didn't take any sort of massive federal-government intervention to organize the war effort either. The free market for steel - for example - just stayed wide open. And the Minutemen of the day, like my Pa, just grabbed the old flintlock off the mantlepiece, kissed their wives and families, and headed off to fight the Hun just because he was so doggone opposed to everything that's true and dear to free men...

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Well nobody is advocating that form of socialism.


    What other form could there be? In order for socialism to exist, there must be a state and there cannot be free individual choice. You can't have them both.

    Just a mixed economy that is perhaps somewhat more socialist than the people here would prefer.


    Then it is the same socialism I described, or what do you think "mixed economy" means?

    The US during its more laissez-faire days was obviously worse than its post-WWII days for almost everybody.


    A statement that tells me you're completely ignorant of American economic history. Or dishonest, but never ascribe to evil what can be ascribed to stupidity.

  • sarcasmic||

    In order for socialism to exist, there must be a state and there cannot be free individual choice. You can't have them both.

    Funny how Tony accuses libertarians of being simple minded because we embrace the complexity of society and want millions individuals to make their own choices based upon their own individual circumstances, while he advocates the simple minded approach of having the government make choices for people under threat of violence.

  • OneOut||

    And provided safe trade for all the socialist countries that no longer had to spend on defense and could increase social welfare spending.

  • John||

    If there is a lack of complexity to your explanation for why some states fail and some prosper, it's possibly because you're just dumb, rather than the explanation actually being so simple (It's socialism!)

    Yes Tony, the reason why Hong Kong, which is nothing but a rat infested rock with almost no natural resources and had a population comprised almost entirely of penniless refugees in 1946 is now exponentially more wealthy than countries with vastly more resources and geographic advantages like Argentina or Venezuela is just complex and nuanced and couldn't possibly have anything to do with Hong Kong's embrace of the free market and the latter two's embrace of socialist policies.

    Again Tony, we understand. There is nothing you can't rationalize. Has it ever dawned on you that you have never once in your life found a high tax, high regulation, central control policy that you admitted failed or wasn't preferable to the option of allowing freedom?

    But we are the ones who don't understand "complexity" not you, the person who has never once thinks his ideology have never been responsible for any harm of any kind.

  • KDN||

    Look John, the Peronists represent the Argentine right. They are right wingers, just like Republicans and, arguably, libertarians. That means that any failures of Argentina are solely the fault of those sympathetic to free market ideology, regardless of what policies the Argentine government actually pursues.

    It's science.

  • fish||

    And right on cue.....when you start to lose the argument just accuse your adversary of being insufficiently nuanced or that their argument is lacking in complexity......!

    I love you man.....you are so utterly and reliably predictable!

  • mplspolitics||

    And now the goal posts have moved. Again. Shocking. Still not arguing in good faith, I see.

  • Gene Poole||

    "Millions of white people are duped by socialism."

    Wait... Didn't we win the Cold War? Didn't the ideology of Capitalism, with its much higher regard for human dignity and the rights of the individual, win definitively? Isn't Coca-Cola for sale in every corner of the globe? Where are these millions of white people you're talking about? Oh! I just realized whom you're referring to: College students!

  • Zeb||

    Why are almost all blacks so easily duped?

    For the same reason most people of all races are easily duped, probably.

  • montana mike||

    RACIST

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    So 90% of blacks are delusional and voting against their own interests? Gee what could possibly explain that.

    84% of the world population has a religious faith.

    You always make these appeals to populism. So, when are you going to give up on your irrational atheism and join the herd? Who are you to say that everyone's wrong, and they have to respect your atheist opinion?

    Drop your stupid selfish atheism. You're not so smart that you're right while 84% of people are wrong. Pick a church, start going, start tithing, and quit being an immature whiner.

  • Tony||

    You're not making sense. Presumably blacks and whites approach politics with an equal amount of rationality (or irrationality). You don't have to posit a racist explanation for why a minority might vote uniformly in one way. There are perfectly understandable reasons why most members of a minority in a particular society with particular issues might vote the same way. My question is why do you insist on going with the racist explanation (they're somehow all more easily duped than white people)?

  • Brian||

    Tony,
    You're just throwing around racist accusations. Trying to figure out why 90% of black people agree on something doesn't magically become non-racist because you can think of "good" reasons, and then switches to racist when someone thinks of "bad" reasons.

    So, you think they're wisely choosing leaders who have their best interest at heart. Great, but you don't get to go around labeling people racist for thinking that they're making a mistake. Not with any intellectual credibility you don't.

    It's like you want to force people to assume that 90% of blacks can't be wrong.

    So 90% of blacks are delusional and voting against their own interests? Gee what could possibly explain that.

    When you become religious because 84% of the world is religious, and they can't be wrong, get back to us.

  • Tony||

    It's like you want to force people to assume that 90% of blacks can't be wrong.

    No I don't want to force you not to believe this, but I'm going to call you a racist if you do. Saying all of a particular race is anything other than a member of that race is the definition of racism.

    I'm not even really saying my explanation is correct, only that it's the only one that isn't inherently racist.

  • Jeff||

    I'm not even really saying my explanation is correct, only that it's the only one that isn't inherently racist.

    No, it isn't. Again, numbnuts, minority communities have a vastly greater tendency toward conformity than majority ones. This is a phenomenon that occurs among blacks in mostly non-black countries, among Jews in mostly non-Jewish countries, among homosexuals in mostly non-homosexual countries, etc. Eric Hoffer explains this quite well in The True Believer, a book you should read if only to obtain some degree of self awareness.

  • Tony||

    Fine, that's valid, but we're talking about voting for a particular party and policy platform. And it's not just blacks, but all minorities, who favor Democrats. Huge coincidence?

  • Jeff||

    Firstly, I don't think that most people who vote for a particular party are really voting for a policy platform as shown by studies where people's support for or opposition to a particular plan is entirely up to whether a fake newspaper article had the plan being presented by a Democrat or a Republican. Democrats, for instance, would support the stingier welfare plan over a more generous one if a Democratic politician was the one supposedly proposing it. And, for instance, blacks are heavily opposed to Democratic initiatives like amnesty for illegals and government recognition of gay marriage, so their overwhelming support for the party is in spite of many of the policies, not because of them.

    So, no. It's no coincidence. Partisan allegiance is more of a social marker than a truly ideological one, and there is nothing at all surprising about minorities or single women or young people avoiding a party which has been relentlessly linked to racism, misogyny, intolerance, and general uncoolness by decades of the media pushing narratives like "GOP only hates welfare because darkies" and "War on Wimminz".

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    It's like you want to force people to assume that 90% of blacks can't be wrong.
    No I don't want to force you not to believe this, but I'm going to call you a racist if you do. Saying all of a particular race is anything other than a member of that race is the definition of racism.

    Let me try to put this together for you, because you're not getting it:

    87% of African-Americans describe themselves as religious.

    So, if you're not forced to believe that they can't be wrong, but you're racist if you think they're wrong, then this implies that your atheism is racist. If you express an opinion about the religious faith of African-Americans in a non-positive light, then you are saying that they are something other than a member of a particular race, and, therefore, you are being racist. I mean, they can't all be being duped by religious people, now, right? Saying something like that is racist.

    Is this how rational thought works to you? Appeal to populism becomes awesome as long as you wrap racist accusations around it?

    Again, your ad hominems are saying much more about you than they say about anyone here. I know your political opinions aren't necessarily wrong just because you can't communicate effectively, think rationally, and avoid fallacies. But, you're not being a good socialist democrat representative.

  • Tony||

    You can say religious people are stupid without it having anything to do with race. Most white people are religious too. I'm not getting the analogy here.

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    You can say religious people are stupid without it having anything to do with race.

    By the same token, you can say that democrats are stupid without it having anything to do with race. Lots of white people are democrats, too.

    Does your claim that "religious people are stupid" become racist when one notices that this implies that 87% of blacks are stupid?

    Likewise, does the claim that democrats are stupid become racist when one notices that this implies that 87% of black are stupid?

    In your world, the first is OK, but the second is the height of racism. Why? Apparently, special pleading.

    I'm not getting the analogy here.

    At this point, willful ignorance may seem like a wise strategy, but I'm not sure anyone's going to go for it.

  • Zeb||

    I'm not even really saying my explanation is correct, only that it's the only one that isn't inherently racist.

    Is that really what you want to say? If you are not correct, does that mean that reality is racist?

  • Brian||

    Ding.

  • Tony||

    Yes. But I'm correct, thankfully.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    You don't have to posit a racist explanation for why a minority might vote uniformly in one way.


    Basic cupidity could be the better answer. When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you will surely receive support from Paul.

    There are perfectly understandable reasons why most members of a minority in a particular society with particular issues might vote the same way.


    Yes, there is one: They were bribed with entitlements.

  • Tony||

    I didn't realize we had blacks-only welfare in this country.

  • Jordan||

    The poverty rate among blacks is far higher than any other race.

  • Tony||

    Indeed, and I'd love to hear your explanation for that.

  • Jordan||

    The War on Drugs, the Fed, and the regulatory state.

  • Tony||

    ...and centuries of abject oppression.

  • Jordan||

    The effects of which would largely have abated if not for the above.

  • KDN||

    I do appreciate the irony of you excoriating posters upthread for being too simplistic but persist in grasping for a simplicity on the subject of racial voting patterns.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Tony has no reasoning behind anything he says. He's just regurgitating shit he read somewhere.

    You guys are arguing with a recorded message.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    I didn't realize we had blacks-only welfare in this country.


    Your conclusion would be wrong.

  • Calidissident||

    Huh? Not that I agree with Tony's overall point, but there are tens of millions of people in this country who are on welfare and are not black

  • kbolino||

    So 90% of blacks are delusional and voting against their own interests? Gee what could possibly explain that.

    Haven't you said you don't understand why poor people in this country vote "against their own interests" by voting Republican? I know I've heard that argument many times from lefties. So obviously it has nothing to do with being black.

    If a an election were held in North Korea today, I have no doubt Kim Jong-un would win in a landslide. There's no black people in North Korea.

    People can be convinced to vote against their own interests with the right combination of thuggery and cultural conditioning. There is no group of people truly immune to it, but there are ways to prevent it from happening.

    Like adhering to strict limitations on what a government can and cannot do.

  • Jeff||

    So 90% of blacks are delusional and voting against their own interests? Gee what could possibly explain that.

    Was "What's the Matter With Kansas?" racist against Kansans?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Tony is an ignoramus.

    I'm not saying that as a personal attack; I'm stating a fact you should know.

    When you reference things like "What's the Matter with Kansas?", he has no idea what you're talking about. The knowledge behind the stuff he says doesn't belong to him. It belongs to the people who wrote it. Arguing with Tony is like arguing with a parrot.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNmIrmEBVY4

    Yesterday, Tony suggested that Obama must know what he's doing or he wouldn't be President. He said that the Pentagon must know what they're doing in Afghanistan or they wouldn't be in charge of the Pentagon.

    These were textbook appeal to authority fallacies--and they don't phase him when you point them out. I suspect he doesn't even know what a logical fallacy is. When you're arguing with Tony, understand there's no logic or knowledge behind anything he says.

    It's a recorded message. You're arguing with a recorded message.

  • Jeff||

    He said that the Pentagon must know what they're doing in Afghanistan or they wouldn't be in charge of the Pentagon.

    This is actually dumber than when he inferred that being struck by a bus induces pregnancy in humans.

  • Tony||

    No but it possibly defined "self-interest" too narrowly. Kansans vote against what good, intelligent liberals think they should see as their self-interest, but Kansans may simply see their self-interest as cutting taxes and instituting Christian sharia.

    In my book anyone, rich or poor, white or black, who votes Republican is voting against his long-term self interest, period.

  • fish||

    Kansans vote against what good, intelligent liberals......

    Kansans vote against what good, intelligent Sasquatch.......

    Pretty sure that neither exist....and what a coincidence....you yourself provide the evidence to support my assertion.

    I really meant it when I said I loved you!

  • Calidissident||

    You know what Tony? I actually agree with you regarding your last sentence (99% of the time)! The only thing is, I also think the same is true of anyone who votes Democrat.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Kansans vote against what good, intelligent liberals think they should see as their self-interest, but Kansans may simply see their self-interest as cutting taxes and instituting Christian sharia.

    Which shows that you're just as clueless as Thomas Frank.

    In my book anyone, rich or poor, white or black, who votes Republican is voting against his long-term self interest, period

    Maybe if leftists weren't so eager to openly disdain rural Kansans (and others of that demographic) as idiotic, cousin-humping rubes, they might get a more sympathetic ear towards progressive economic policies, at least. Most of the animus is rooted in the fact that the culture of modern leftism is seen as a divisive, community-fracturing force. In small towns, survival and goodwill is typically dependant upon high levels of homogenity, meaning that modern leftism, with its manic obsession with "diversity," has very little to offer these communities from a cultural standpoint.

    Places that were once the bastion of rural radicalism didn't turn against unions, for example out of spite or because they were tricked. They did so because unions came to be seen as bastions for malcontent labor agitated by outsiders with no personal investment in the stability of the communities in which they agitated.

  • Tony||

    They turned against unions because of a steady propaganda drive bankrolled by corporate interests. But I agree that rural and urban populations have different priorities. For example, gun laws in Bumfuck Alabama might not be what's adequate for Chicago.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    They turned against unions because of a steady propaganda drive bankrolled by corporate interests.

    Oh, horseshit. People in rural areas are interested primarily in maintaining social stability and communal order. That's pretty hard to do when organizations like the Wobblies and people like Big Bill Haywood are constantly undermining it in the name of international socialism.

    For example, gun laws in Bumfuck Alabama might not be what's adequate for Chicago.

    The problems that Chicago experiences are on a completely different scale than what a town in the sticks or even the suburbs will have to deal with. The more diverse a population, the less a sense of community will be present, and the more atomized its residents will become. The larger an urban area grows, the more it begins to resemble Calhoun's rat experiments, but urban administrative infrastructures are generally more equipped to handle these various social pressures than a small town would ever be capable of doing, at least in the short term.

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    Anyone who brings up progressives of the early 20th century in discussing race is basically admitting guilt. It doesn't matter who was racist 100 years ago. It matters who is racist now.

    Unless, of course, we're whining about libertarianism. In which case, freedom means we're one step away from 1800's sexist/racist oppression, regardless of who is and is not racist today.

  • wareagle||

    Racism is the only reason immigration reform is struggling in their party.

    must be why a not small number of both blacks and Hispanics opposes amnesty.

  • mplspolitics||

    I'm guessing this is you:

    "@fudgiethewhale - You've succeeded in crafting a plausible sounding argument; you've failed in representing the reality of the situation, one that is obviously uncomfortable for you.

    Byrd was atypical of Southern Democrats, most of whom left the party in the 60s after the civil rights laws passed. These very racist ex-Democrats did not go to the Moon; they ended up in the Republican party, thanks to the Southern Strategy, most successfully implemented by Nixon.

    Republicans were the anti-slavery party 150 years ago; they also tended to support civil rights 50 years ago. The Republican party of today is, obviously, different now then it was at either of those times."

    Fucking kill yourself.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Reinsman sustain cross fertilization big top vitreous hem crape. Persiflage umpire gonadal suprarational beggarly meadow mouse.

  • SuperNaut||

    MSNBC is engaging in classic Frankfurt School tactics. The fascinating thing to me, is the intersection of Scientism and Pop Psychology, it is like a modern day Cargo Cult.

  • NoVAHockey||

    Let me be the first to say:

    Henry Waxman in retiring. The mole-man of Capitol Hill is leaving.

  • TheZeitgeist||

    I live in Waxman's district and from what I see on the ground here, this might be a great chance for a Green party pick-up given the off-year for Clowncrats.

  • ||

    So is James P. Moron!! It's gonna be a good year!

  • montana mike||

    golf clap, one of the biggest idiots ever off to die. sadly someone more idiotic will get elected. at least there's that seniority thing to limit further damage.

  • ||

    A few of the twits cited by Twitchy apparently aren't aware that WMAF relationships don't "count", because the Asian female is actually being fetishized and oppressed.

  • ||

    A few of the twits cited by Twitchy apparently aren't aware that WMAF relationships don't "count", because the Asian female is actually being fetishized and oppressed.

    What I love about that logic is that it implies that the Asian woman had absolutely no say in partnering up with a white man. The privileged patriarchal White Man wanted to live out his fantasies, spotted some random attractive Asian woman, and claimed her. All consent is bogus.

  • Duelles||

    So if a republican loses the women's vote it is due to a "war on women". If Obama loses the white vote it is whites racism against blacks? The rational, logic thingy escapes explanation unless one is a moron.

  • steve walsh||

    Or you're just friggin' intellectually lazy. Making an argument that convinces those that disagree with you is just too darn hard for some folks.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Thanks Matt for a good and thoughtful article.

    And you are right. I have family members who are staunch Republicans, and race has nothing to do with their opposition to the President. They would happily vote for a black Conservative over a white Liberal.

    The one thing I disagree with is your comment that at MSNBC you have been treated, as a Libertarian, as part of that "otherness." In fact, just the reality of you being on means they don't. I have seen you numerous times on Chris Hayes' show and you are always treated with respect and as one having valued insight. And even in your link, and in the interview with the guy on "Young Turks," he says that those who support Ron Paul are genuine and who ask important questions (his exact words). I think you are playing into the meme of the put-upon Libertarian, and in your case it just wasn't true.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Well, I don't have much experience with MSNBC, as a viewer or otherwise. Maybe they have a genuine respect for libertarians, or maybe they like guests who seem to threaten the Republican coalition, who criticize Republican leaders on "social issues," and who tweak mainstream Republicans for hypocrisy on big government. Matt Welch can speak to this more than I can.

    I strongly suspect, however, that once someone like Rand Paul actually starts posing a threat to Democrats, it's going to be nonstop civil rights and racism until the threat is over.

    But if the Republicans nominate another Romney for Pres, then they'll denounce the nominee for "ignoring the important issues raised by Rand Paul and other libertarians."

  • Jackand Ace||

    You may be exactly right.

  • wareagle||

    I'm going with the latter- they like someone who will call out Repubs.

  • John||

    The Republicans are dying to find a black national candidate. They would have voted for Colin Powell in a heartbeat. And he is a total RINO.

    There are few more pathetic prog talking points than the "Republicans don't like Obama because they are racist" one.

  • Marshall Gill||

    Yep, imagine of Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams could be convinced to run.

    I have never been any more involved in a political race than simply voting. I would fucking go door to door in a blizzard for a Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams Presidency.

  • John||

    The Tea Party would march on Washington by the millions if someone like Williams wanted to run and had a campaign rally there.

    Wouldn't Walter Williams or Sowell running for President and giving a speech from the Lincoln Memorial to a million or so marchers be a hoot? Progs' heads would explode in rage by the millions.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    No, they'd just run a story conflating Sowell with the black guy who talked about Obama being hanged, and they would have discussed black Republicans who, for the sake of petty personal ambition, did the will of their be-monocled top-hatted white masters.

  • PACW||

    Dick Morris had me believing they would nominate Condi Rice. I was actually looking forward to that election.

  • Matt Welch||

    Oh, I think I've been treated very well over there, don't get me wrong. But the shows I have frequented aren't the only ones on that network.

  • ||

    Stop using the term "Progressive." That puts a positive spin on left-wing statism, that if you oppose Big Brother running our lives, you're against "progress." Call it what it is- leftist statism.

  • John||

    I would rather use that than let them rape the rotting corpse of the term "liberal" anymore.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Well, when people hear "Republican" or "Democrat" they no longer think representative versus direct popular rule, and don't expect the parties to live up to those names.

    And we don't associate the term "truther" with truth.

  • ||

    Doesn't matter. No reason we should aid in re-branding leftist statism to sound somehow more positive.

  • waffles||

    Well environmentals are against progress. Almost all Americans are for progress, according to the Gaia-types progress is like some sort of religion that drives it's adherents to destroy the planet. Whatever, I'm an engineer. I dig progress. I'm a progressive!

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Anyone who brings up progressives of the early 20th century in discussing race is basically admitting guilt.


    I can bring up Progressives of the 21st Century if you like, like Melissa Harris-Perry or Soledad O'Brien, two unrepentant and veyr crass racists.

    Happy?

    It matters who is racist now. And that's Republicans. Why are Republicans almost uniformly white?


    That's your argument?

    Why are the best gamers predominately Asian? Must be racism!

    Either it's because minorities are inexplicably uniform in their leftwing thinking,


    Yes, they are.

    or it's because the GOP's very explicit, admitted-to, and long-running strategy of demonizing minorities in order to buttress the southern white vote is a real thing.


    You're making shit up, Tony.

    Racism is the only reason immigration reform is struggling in their party.


    No. It's economic illiteracy, something that is shared among politicians of all spectrums, not just Republicans.

  • NL_||

    State's rights became the refuge for segregation after the Civil War, when the Radical Republicans took power. But immediately prior to the Civil War, slavery advocates took a strongly centralist tack in favor of slavery - including the fugitive slave act and other legislative acts defending or expanding slavery, and various Supreme Court cases from Dred Scott to Lemmon that increasingly nationalized slavery. Pre-1861 abolitionists supported nullification tactics such as ignoring the fugitive clause and attempting to prohibit enforcement of the fugitive slave act in their states - Wisconsin Republicans toyed with secessionist arguments.

    Note that states' rights made a better antebellum country for the condition of slaves, to the extent that before 1850 it was relatively easier to get to a state that had chosen not to enforce the fugitive clause; it also made a worse country to the extent that it allowed slavery in some states. Centralism forced slave catching on Northern states and the Lemmon case would've forced slave auctions in Northern states (at that point, the slave/free distinction would've been notional - slaves could be transited through free states, captured by free state officers, and sold in free state auctions). The question of centralizing or diffusing power is amoral; for every good thing asserted by central authority, a good thing can be protected by diffuse authority.

  • John||

    All of that and more. It should also be noted that modern Prog arguments about the Constitution and the founders being racist and such are the arguments the South made in favor of slavery pretty much word for word.

    And your history of pre civil war Southern aggression and spread of slavery onto an unwilling North is spot on. I wish the various Confederate apologists on here would ever understand that history.

  • sarcasmic||

    Defending the right to secede does not equate to defending slavery.

    And you wonder why no one likes you.

  • Marshall Gill||

    Defending the right to secede does not equate to defending slavery.

    These things MUST be equated. Secession=human slavery. Amazing how the Brits ended slavery without slaughtering hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens.

    Of course, Lincoln wasn't fit to wipe William Wilberforce's ass.

  • Calidissident||

    "Defending the right to secede does not equate to defending slavery."

    I agree with that, and I also think John is overly sensitive to criticism of Lincoln, or the actions of the Northern government during the War. That said, IMO there is no right to secede to protect slavery (yes, I am aware that ending slavery was not why the North invaded the South, but that was why the southern states seceded.) And if you look at the example of South Carolina, which was the first state to secede, and where the war started, blacks were a majority of the population at the time (IIRC they were also a majority in Mississippi and close to it in a few other states). How can a vote to secede possibly be legitimate when a majority of the population is enslaved and disenfranchised?

  • John||

    What Caldissident said. There is no right to secession over slavery.

    And I am not overly sensitive to criticisms of Lincoln. I can criticize Lincoln all day. But whatever those criticisms are, they pale in comparison to the moral loathsomeness of the South.

    My objection is not to criticisms of Lincoln. My objection is to the assertion that Lincoln, and not the slave holding South, was the source of the problem. The South bears the 100% responsibility for that war and deserved every single hardship inflicted upon it because of that war.

  • Calidissident||

    "And I am not overly sensitive to criticisms of Lincoln. I can criticize Lincoln all day. But whatever those criticisms are, they pale in comparison to the moral loathsomeness of the South."

    Agreed on the last part, but IMO there have been times where you've interpreted criticism of Lincoln a defense of the Confederacy when I don't think that's what was intended.

    Regarding your second paragraph, I agree with the first part - I disagree with the second, because not everyone in the South (children being an obvious example) was responsible for slavery, and I don't think those people deserved the hardships they endured. Of course, I agree that the end result of the war was a net large increase in freedom in this country, despite the North's motivations for fighting the war.

  • John||

    True. The non slaveholders didn't deserve what they got. That was too broad of a generalization on my part.

  • John||

    And as far as Lincoln, in his situation, the moral thing to do was fight the war and end slavery. The only way to do that was the way he did it. It was the South who put Lincoln in that position by having slavery.

    Maybe Lincoln was immoral. I don't know. I never knew him personally and couldn't have read his mind even if I did. But I do know that a moral President would have fought the war and been forced by circumstances to revert to the methods Lincoln did. So, at that point Lincoln's morality really becomes irrelevant.

  • Calidissident||

    "The only way to do that was the way he did it."

    I disagree with this. He was not justified in drafting soldiers or jailing people for simply speaking out against him. I have a bigger problem with those actions than how the war was fought in the South.

  • John||

    He was not justified in drafting soldiers or jailing people for simply speaking out against him.

    Without the draft, he doesn't win the war.

  • Calidissident||

    I don't think slavery is a justified response to end slavery. Offer more money to soldiers or whatever. But forcing people to die on a battlefield is never justified IMO

  • kbolino||

    there is no right to secede to protect slavery

    Then there is no right to secede. You either have a right to secede, or you do not. Why you choose to exercise that right is beyond the scope of the right itself.

    This is true of all rights, including and perhaps especially speech and expression, which get curtailed with the exact same reasoning you're applying here. "Well, I'm fine with free speech, except when ..."

    How can a vote to secede possibly be legitimate when a majority of the population is enslaved and disenfranchised?

    There was no mechanism specified for secession in the Constitution. The state governor could have just declared the state seceded, no vote needed. This is a major oversight on the part of the Founders, but the 10th Amendment makes it pretty clear that States have all powers and rights not delegated to the Federal government.

  • Calidissident||

    "Then there is no right to secede."

    That's ludicrous. That's like saying there's no right to drive a car if you're not free to run people over.

    "There was no mechanism specified for secession in the Constitution."

    I don't care what the Constitution said or didn't say. It could have said "A state can only secede via popular vote of all the white people in the state" and it still would have been illegitimate (had they done that. I believe every state seceded via the legislature).

    "This is a major oversight on the part of the Founders, but the 10th Amendment makes it pretty clear that States have all powers and rights not delegated to the Federal government."

    There is no right, nor was there ever a right, to own slaves, nor did any government have a right to protect slavery in any way, including secession. Regardless of what the Constitution did or did not say.

  • kbolino||

    That's ludicrous. That's like saying there's no right to drive a car if you're not free to run people over.

    You have a right to drive a car. You do not have a right to kill people. The two are distinct.

    I don't care what the Constitution said or didn't say.

    What sort of nonsense is that?

    It could have said "A state can only secede via popular vote of all the white people in the state" and it still would have been illegitimate (had they done that. I believe every state seceded via the legislature).

    By the arbitrary power of calling things illegitimate, the entire U.S. government was illegitimate in 1861. Not only was slavery not illegal, it was explicitly endorsed at the Federal level by the Fugitive Slave Act and Supreme Court cases upholding it.

    There is no right, nor was there ever a right, to own slaves

    No shit.

    nor did any government have a right to protect slavery in any way, including secession.

    Well, strap up, because there's slavery going on in the world right now. If the U.S. government is duty-bound to stamp out slavery wherever it occurs, then we best get cracking.

    Slavery was a post-hoc justification for the Civil War. The war started when Fort Sumter was bombed, not when slavery began.

  • Marshall Gill||

    I wish the various Confederate apologists on here would ever understand that history.

    John, the propaganda surrounding the Civil War has completely worked on you. Nothing makes the Statist more happy than useful idiots who believe that government can force people to act in a noble fashion.

    The moral onus for Abolition did not come from government, but from individuals, largely religious people, first.

    The Civil War is much like the Eastern front in WWII. Just because Hitler was evil, it does not make Stalin good. Since you insist on describing anything other than the Sainting of Lincoln as "Confederate apologizing" I must ask, since Hitler was evil, and Stalin opposed him, is saying Stalin was evil being an apologist for Hitler? Only an imbecile would claim so.

  • sarcasmic||

    Since you insist on describing anything other than the Sainting of Lincoln as "Confederate apologizing" I must ask, since Hitler was evil, and Stalin opposed him, is saying Stalin was evil being an apologist for Hitler?

    It's the same logic. I like it. So John, what do you say?

  • John||

    Civil War has completely worked on you. Nothing makes the Statist more happy than useful idiots who believe that government can force people to act in a noble fashio

    I don't think that means what you think it does if your idea of the government making people stop enslaving each other.

    And if you think 19th Century America is in any way analogoous to Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia you are a complete moron.

    Worse still, you go to the heart of why the confederate defenders on here are so vile. I will give you credit for being honest. When you say the Civil War was like the Eastern front, you are saying that the act of preventing the South from Succeeding is the moral equivalent of the South enslaving 1/3rd of its population in race based generational slavery.

    You really think denying succession is on the same moral level as enslaving millions of people, selling them like property, raping them, breeding them like animals and so forth? Really?

    Marshall you have summed up exactly why I have so little patience for the other side in this argument. You either really are racist and are unbothered by the suffering of black slaves or you are totally without any kind of moral judgement matter.

    I think it is more the latter. Some people allow their hatred of the current government to comply skew their moral judgement of the civil war judgment.

    If states rights means leaving millions of Americans in slavery, fuck states rights or anything else that results in that.

  • Calidissident||

    As I said above, IMO there is no right to secession to protect slavery. Furthermore, I can't see how any vote to secede can possibly be legitimate when a majority of the population(and that's not even taking women into account) is disenfranchised (due to slavery), as was the case in a couple Southern states, including South Carolina, the first to secede, and the place where the war started.

    That said, I don't agree with a lot of the actions taken by Lincoln and the Northern government, and their motivation was not to end slavery, and it isn't Confederate apologia to point out either of those things.

  • John||

    That said, I don't agree with a lot of the actions taken by Lincoln and the Northern government, and their motivation was not to end slavery, and it isn't Confederate apologia to point out either of those things.

    It is funny how intentions never matter when talking about any issue but the North. Who cares what Lincoln's intentions were? They resulted in the ending of the greatest evil in American history.

    When you admit that there is no right to succeed for slavery, you admit that the Northern war effort was just, end of story. Either the South had a right to leave or it didn't. If it didn't, the North had a right to make war to stop them. The fact that the North didn't list the proper reason, doesn't give the South a pass and make an otherwise immoral and unlawful act of secession any less so.

  • Calidissident||

    "It is funny how intentions never matter when talking about any issue but the North. Who cares what Lincoln's intentions were? They resulted in the ending of the greatest evil in American history."

    I've never said intentions are meaningless. They are, obviously, less important than results, which is why I'm not bemoaning the fact that the North won. And the North's intentions were still far better than the South's.

    "When you admit that there is no right to succeed for slavery, you admit that the Northern war effort was just, end of story."

    I'm not obligated to think every aspect of that war effort, like the draft or suspension of habeas corpus, was just. Again, obviously those things were not as bad as Southern slavery. Not my point.

    BTW, you essentially proved the point I made just a couple of posts up.

  • John||

    I'm not obligated to think every aspect of that war effort, like the draft or suspension of habeas corpus, was just.

    But those issues go more to the morality of war in general. Suppose those methods were the price of winning the war? It is an interesting question which is the greater evil, losing a just war or committing unjust acts to win one. But the answer to that question doesn't reflect on the underlying morality of the war, just the methods necessary to win it.

  • Calidissident||

    I wasn't commenting on the overall morality of the war. I don't think suspending habeas corpus was necessary to win the war. I'd have to do more research to see whether the war could be won without the draft, but IMO, the draft is something that is never justified.

  • Ken Shultz||

    No one here is in favor of slavery, but there were a lot of mistakes made between then and now.

    Hell, wasn't reconstruction a total failure from a civil rights perspective? The locals resisting federal power, isn't that what brought us Jim Crow?

    And as far as people in this forum, I think they look at where we are now and trace the ascendance of federal power to the Civil War and wonder if there weren't some way we could have gotten to something better than reconstruction without giving a huge leg up to the federal power that libertarianism is all about resisting today.

    Didn't we end up with the worst of both worlds? Reconstruction a failure with hardly any civil rights for former slaves, and a much more powerful federal government? What's to like about that outcome?

    P.S. U.S. Grant was a slaveholder. Sheridan was a terrorist and a war criminal. Lincoln was practically a tyrant. There's so much to criticize in the North, why feed into the statists' false narrative?

  • John||

    Hell, wasn't reconstruction a total failure from a civil rights perspective?

    It was a failure because the North gave up and went home in 1876. That doesn't make the Southerners who fought against it right.

    And as far as people in this forum, I think they look at where we are now and trace the ascendance of federal power to the Civil War and wonder if there weren't some way we could have gotten to something better than reconstruction without giving a huge leg up to the federal power that libertarianism is all about resisting today.

    For sure. The problem is that they are so self centered that they have convinced themselves that their suffering under this government somehow equal or equivelent too black slavery. See Marshall Gill above. The Civil War was just like the Eastern Front. That means that our current government is just as bad as one that enslaved 1/3rd of its population.

    That is fucking disgusting and pissing on the graves of the victims of slavery. It is the worst example of the kind of woe is me fart smelling that goes on in Libertarian circles.

    Whatever the harms of our current or post civil war government, ending those harms isn't worth forcing anyone to remain a slave for even one day.

  • sarcasmic||

    You are aware that had they been able to stop the South from seceding while allowing slavery to continue, that that's what they would have done?

    The purpose of the war was to establish federal dominion over the states. Ending slavery was incidental.

  • John||

    You are aware that had they been able to stop the South from seceding while allowing slavery to continue, that that's what they would have done?

    So what? If they had followed your advice they would have let them go and slavery would have continued for sure.

    The North had a moral and legal obligation to stop the South from leaving. The fact that the North in your opinion didn't have the right intentions, doesn't make their act and the resulting end of slavery any less right.

    Since when are intentions so important? You sound like Tony.

  • sarcasmic||

    If they had followed your advice they would have let them go and slavery would have continued for sure.

    Slavery ended in every other civilized society without war because, among other reasons, it's an economic loser.

    If the history of the rest of the world is any guide, slavery would have ended in the South as well. Without war.

  • John||

    Slavery ended in every other civilized society without war because, among other reasons, it's an economic loser.

    The South didn't view it as a loser. Even if it was, your position is that blacks should have remained in slavery for another generation or two to affirm the the principle of secession. You don't really believe that do you?

    Which is the greater evil, millions of people living in bondage for decades longer than they otherwise would have or a war that killed 600,000 people and the end of the idea of legal secession?

    I will admit the latter is a pretty shitty option. But, given the horror of the first, I don't see how you can say it was immoral to choose it.

  • sarcasmic||

    While counterfactuals cannot be proven, I seriously doubt we'd have anything close to the federal government we have today had that war never been fought. We very well could still be living in autonomous states with a federal government that sticks to the defined powers under the Constitution. Like I said, that cannot be proven, just as it cannot be proven that slavery would have ended on its own. Whatever. Either way I think you're an asshole for accusing anyone who doesn't pray to Saint Lincoln of being racist. Asshole.

  • Calidissident||

    "While counterfactuals cannot be proven, I seriously doubt we'd have anything close to the federal government we have today had that war never been fought."

    I'm not sure about that. The federal government was still pretty restrained for another 40 years or so. It wasn't really until the Progressive Era that it began to grow into the behemoth it is today. Furthermore, any increase in federal power immediately post-Civil War (or even all the increase since) was nowhere near as bad as slavery itself. Not even in the same universe. Furthermore, the South would have been independent. As I said below, I think war would have broken out soon for the reasons I described. If it didn't, slavery in all likelihood would have ended eventually but it probably would have been a few decades at least, and who knows how long the ensuing segregation would have lasted, or how bad it would have been.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The South didn't view it as a loser. Even if it was, your position is that blacks should have remained in slavery for another generation or two..."

    There's no ability to go back in time and do it differently.

    I think people are criticizing what happened and how things were done; the chance to do it differently? That ship's done sailed.

    But you can still talk about how they did it and criticize what they did wrong. Talking about how Sheridan treated slaveless farmers in the Shenandoah Valley isn't about trying to keep people enslaved.

    Defending the principles of federalism isn't about trying to keep people enslaved either. The slaves are free, and we're all glad for it. We have the benefit of that knowledge--we're aware of that outcome. Now can we talk about all the mistakes that were made that ended up keeping former slaves mired in oppression and poverty--and continue to hurt us all, black and white, today?

    The anti-federalist principles they used to justify what they were doing were bad in and of themselves, and wouldn't the slaves have been just as freed [sic] without those anti-federalist justifications?

  • Calidissident||

    IMO, war was inevitable once the South seceded. One of the biggest reasons they seceded was because the North was blocking its expansion in the western territories - were they suddenly going to stop caring about that territory? Border skirmishes also would have broken out all over the place as slaves tried to flee to North.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The reason UNLV's mascot is a confederate soldier (and they call themselves the Rebels) goes back to that.

    The federal government hurried up and approved Nevada as a state--because they wanted access to the Comstock load to finance the war. When they did it, they threw in a bunch of territory that used to be Arizona--what would have been a slave state, and where Las Vegas is used to be part of that.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.....y_1866.png

    It's like that up in Utah, as well. If you ever find yourself around Zion National Park (which is awesome), you'll notice a lot of places called Dixie this and Dixie that. They even have a Dixie University in the area. Anyway, in that whole area, they were trying to introduce cotton, and the locals there supported the Southern cause.

    Anyway, even still today, when you're driving around Vegas or Southern Utah, you'll see things that have Southern names attached to them--and have for a long time. I sometimes wonder if the only reason no one's gone after UNLV for calling their team the "Rebels" is becasue people just don't associate Nevada with the South.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I sometimes wonder if the only reason no one's gone after UNLV for calling their team the "Rebels" is becasue people just don't associate Nevada with the South.

    Hal Rothman noted in one of his pieces on Las Vegas history that people look on the UNLV Rebel as a proxy for Vegas culture in general.

    It might have had its roots in Confederate imagery, but it's evolved to mean something completely different now. If someone criticized a UNLV fan for being a Confederate sympathizer because of the origins of their mascot, they'd probably tell that person to go fuck themselves.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Incidentally, Redskins fans aren't really trying to scalp all the Native Americans who won't stay on their reserves, either, but people get upset about it anyway.

  • montana mike||

    You were there..doubt it. You are reaching here, let's see some information to bolster your assertions.

    I have come to a libertatrian point of view because I want less government, not to engage in tit for tat about events 150 years ago where we have limited knowledge as to the motivation of the actors.

    So your making this into a tempest in a teapot looks ridiculous to me. I'm constantly trying to get new people to look at the libertarian POV. Many are aware of the stupid shit big government does and I steer them to Reason to take a different look at public policy and hope they get the message. I can only think that reading shit like you are posting jerking off about the intentions of Lincoln's government won't result in more libertarians. Forsake the purity test and more young people might get interested in their future...we can only hope.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 "it is an assumption by Congress of powers not delegated by the Constitution, and in derogation of the rights of the States"

    Charles Sumner, "Boston Petition for the Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act," 1854

    http://bit.ly/1eaQ5kn

  • John||

    The Figitive Slave Act was the worst and most tyrannical and unconstitutional act ever passed by Congress. But Lincoln and the North were tyrants. Never forget that.

  • kbolino||

    There is no mutual exclusivity there.

    Health care prior to Obama was fucked up, but Obama's "fix" for it makes it worse.

    People can admit that slavery was an unjustified moral evil, and so were the means exercised to rid our country of it.

    Tsarist Russia was no paradise for serfs, but that doesn't mean Stalin was a murderous thug.

  • kbolino||

    but that doesn't mean Stalin wasn't a murderous thug.

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    It's unfortunate that the update was needed. Only someone with severe reading comprehension skills would think Matt was complaining about his treatment on MSNBC shows. I'm gonna guess if anyone said that, it was that MMFA guy.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    "To his credit, Barack Obama himself seems to have a more nuanced understanding of race and his own popularity than many of his supporters and interlocutors."

    In no small part because his supporters making the charge for him affords him the opportunity to take the high road. It's essentially the same game W. (and just about all skilled politicians) play. If you search his comments in the run-up to the Iraq War, you'll find very little in the way of attacking the opposition. If anything, his comments spoke in favor of the fact that the opposition was free to assert their views. He did so knowing full well that he could do so and Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or any number of others would continue telling everyone that if you opposed going to war, you were a traitor who wanted to see Al Qaeda kill lots of your countrymen.

  • wareagle||

    the Cheerios commercial is what it is. The ones that get me are the spots with the contrived PC assembly of people. There is always the token this or the token than, and sometimes a tapestry of the unreal. Unless the ad is geared specifically to a black or other minority audience; then it's monolithic.

    For the most part, people hang out with folks like themselves. Often, that means race. More often, it means social class which can cross races.

  • John||

    The Cheerios commercial didn't strike me as being contrived. In fact, the first couple of times I saw it, I didn't notice the couple was mixed race.

  • wareagle||

    like I said, that ad just is what it is. Lots of families like that. And the kid was just too cute.

    I'm talking about the ones that go out of their way to fill every conceivable demographic, because that's what everyone's home party looks like.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The popular opposition to the Administration comes largely from older whites who feel threatened, underemployed, overlooked, and disdained in a globalized economy..."

    Remnick must be wildly enthusiastic about protecting the interests of companies like Wal*Mart against unions, who really do feel threatened, underemployed, overlooked, and disdained in a globalized economy.

    It's amazing how quickly and easily some of these people can play both sides of the fence. They're denouncing the racism and ignorance of middle class America, and then, in the same breath, they claim to be fighting for the very people they disdain.

    They do it over and over again on different issues. They'll champion the cause of the working poor--saying that ObamaCare is meant to help them--and then, in the same breath, they'll demonize the working poor for not spending thousands on health insurance they can't afford.

    They claim they want to remake society so as to help the very people they hate.

  • John||

    The popular opposition to the Administration comes largely from older whites

    And just ignore Obama's abysmal approval ratings among people under 30 and the fact that even before all of this, Romney won the under 30 white vote by a pretty good margin. It is just old white people who won't get on the Hopey Changey train.

  • Ken Shultz||

    What percentage of black voters voted against Romney?

    Is that supposed to tell us something about racism in the black community?

    If not (and I don't think it does), then why does white people voting against Obama necessarily have to be about racism?

  • MadJayhawk||

    I love the way the liberals constantly crow about how only they support strong, brave, intelligent underpaid women, then, almost immediately say to those same people vote for us liberals, we will protect you from those mean old Republican men. It is a simple con game that has lots of gullible people buying in.

    Liberal's stance on women in general is actually disgusting and demeaning. The same goes for minorities. Neither of these helpless 'victims', in the liberal world, can live full and safe lives without government's (the liberal's) help.

  • Invisible Finger||

    This particular commercial is almost a year old, and MSNBC is just noticing it now?

    Says a lot about the observational skills of this "news" outlet.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Invisible Finger,

    This particular commercial is almost a year old, and MSNBC is just noticing it now?


    MSNBC is always late to the game, which is why nobody watches them.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I think this is a second commercial featuring this same family.

  • pob||

    Molly. I see what you mean... Russell`s st0rry is neat, I just got a top of the range Acura from having earned $5107 thiss month and just over $10k lass month. it's by-far my favourite work Ive ever had. I actually started 5 months ago and practically straight away was bringing home over $85, per-hr. look here W­ o­ r­ k­ s­ 7­ 7­ .­ C­ O­ M­

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I am not remotely complaining about my treatment on MSNBC...

    I GUESS MSNBC THROWS SOME VERY NICE COCKTAIL PARTIES.

  • ||

    It's funny, we keep asking why Nick buts up with Maher, but I read (can't remember where) that HBO treats his guests very well, flying them over, putting them up in nice hotels, etc.

    So basically, Nick and Matt are whores.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Nick and Matt's job isn't to preach to the choir.

    They're preaching to the masses. They only way we get to a more libertarian world is by getting to people who aren't libertarians now--and challenging their assumptions.

    I wish they were on television more often. I wish they spent more time on programs that are hostile to libertarianism.

  • ||

    I was being facetious. ;)

  • Ken Shultz||

    Ah, shit.

    About half of those go right over my head.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I WASN'T BEING FACETIOUS whatever that even means. Unite and declare war against the Cosmotarians, war for libertarianism's very soul!

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Indeed, and I'd love to hear your explanation for [why the poverty rate among Blacks is higher than for everybody else].


    Minimum wage laws and direct bribery (a.k.a. "welfare"), compounded by the usual impediments to growth such as regulatory burdens and licensing laws.

    That's why.

  • justno||

    When did Spike Lee become a conservative? Spike Lee quote "I give interracial couples a look. Daggers. They get uncomfortable when they see me on the street

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Well nobody is advocating that form of socialism.


    What other form could there be? In order for socialism to exist, there must be a state and there cannot be free choice. You can't have them both.

    Just a mixed economy that is perhaps somewhat more socialist than the people here would prefer.


    Then it is the same socialism I described, or what do you think "mixed economy" means? Either people are free to trade and transform their property as they see fit, or you have the state telling them how and what they can do with their property and labor. There are no gradations of slavery; either you are free or you're not.

    The US during its more laissez-faire days was obviously worse than its post-WWII days for almost everybody.


    A statement that tells me you're completely ignorant of American economic history. Or dishonest, but never ascribe to malice what can be ascribed to stupidity.

  • Tony||

    I can't help you understand the concepts of spectra or nuance. It's a journey you will have to take on your own. The fact is, all economies except for a couple weird outliers are mixed. None lack government involvement, and none lack markets. If you are selling anarchy, then you're a crank and you can't honestly expect to be taken seriously.

  • Killaz||

    older whites who feel threatened, underemployed, overlooked, and disdained in a globalized economy and in an increasingly diverse country

    I see your point, Matt, but is that really worse than Shikha Dalmia's screeds on this site that claim native Americans are less capable of enduring hardships than immigrants? Not really.

  • miriambenderpy||

    my best friend's ex-wife makes $87 an hour on the internet . She has been without a job for 6 months but last month her paycheck was $15058 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read Full Article
    http://www.cash46.com

  • Rhino||

    I wonder if Obama would list which states he thinks are too racist to allow minorities civil rights. I would argue that, if he can't name a state that he believes would stomp all over minorities if it weren't for our federal overlords, then we don't need federal supremacy where no power is granted in the constitution.

  • ||

    Hmmm.

    Being conservative I am partial to what has seemed to be working decently. Such as the right to say foolish things, as someone at this cable network apparently did. No big deal.

    As to Cheerios, I find that product rather without value, regardless of how advertised, and Mr. Blasio as well. Cute family though.

    I suppose the foolish comment has a couple grains of truth in it. For one, people do tend to be more familiar with and acceptable of folks who just LOOK like those they have been familiar with and accepting of before; most commonly, people seen as similar to themselves but not limited to those.

    For another, in establishing closer legal equality for all citizens, the State in America has among other things intruded into many sorts of things where it previously did not, at least outside the South (where of course the State was deeply intruding in the other direction until rather recently).

    State power enforcing segregation or worse is really no different that State power enforcing integration or equalization of life outcomes. So many conservatives, Republicans in particular, have always opposed things like slavery and segregation, and ethnically targeted hiring quotas and school busing as well.

    I suppose it was inevitable that some people would - such as the cable network tweeter - see the Cheerios ad as something other than a solicitation to buy Cheerios. Not very conservative to look at it as other than breakfast cereal LOL.

  • MadJayhawk||

    Yes, Harvard Law graduates can be very nuanced at times:

    "You can be somebody who, for very legitimate reasons, worries about the power of the federal government—that it's distant, that it's bureaucratic, that it's not accountable—and as a consequence you think that more power should reside in the hands of state governments."

    Fine and dandy, then he calls, "obviously", those people who believe all that racists using the usual liberal victimization dog whistles. This was from someone who the American People thought would bring the races together.

    "BUT what's also true, obviously, is that philosophy is wrapped up in the history of states' rights in the context of the civil-rights movement and the Civil War and Calhoun."

    The Civil Rights movement led by reputable civil rights leaders ended more than 30 years ago. The Civil War ended over 150 years ago. Real states rights arguments with regard to segregation and civil rights ended more than 30 years ago. The President is confusing opposition to the power of the federal government over the economy based on states rights today with arguments for racial oppression by states a long time ago. This is not 1890, 1950 or 1965. How long will race baiters, even ones from Harvard, continue to use such divisive racial language? I was shocked to read those words because I thought the President was better than that.

  • MadJayhawk||

    Yes, Harvard Law graduates can be very nuanced at times:

    "You can be somebody who, for very legitimate reasons, worries about the power of the federal government—that it's distant, that it's bureaucratic, that it's not accountable—and as a consequence you think that more power should reside in the hands of state governments."

    Fine and dandy, then he calls, "obviously", those people who believe all that racists using the usual liberal victimization dog whistles. This was from someone who the American People thought would bring the races together.

    "BUT what's also true, obviously, is that philosophy is wrapped up in the history of states' rights in the context of the civil-rights movement and the Civil War and Calhoun."

    The Civil Rights movement led by reputable civil rights leaders ended more than 30 years ago. The Civil War ended over 150 years ago. Real states rights arguments with regard to segregation and civil rights ended more than 30 years ago. The President is confusing opposition to the power of the federal government over the economy based on states rights today with arguments for racial oppression by states a long time ago. This is not 1890, 1950 or 1965. How long will race baiters, even ones from Harvard, continue to use such divisive racial language? I was shocked to read those words because I thought the President was better than that.

  • Bhdt.||

    Well written Mr. Welch. Did you just coin a new term?: "Othering". It is very descriptive.

  • MadJayhawk||

    It was a commercial. Those people were actors. Commercials are not real life. Would the brain dead people at MSNBC said that conservatives don't like puppies if there had been a bunch of puppies in it? Probably. It is one-a-day for them or they get taken to the basement and beaten or lose their WH visiting priveleges. There is a score board in the Chief of Staff's office you know.

    As for Cherrios, if you are going to have some sort of cereal for breakfast it is probably the best one for your health.

  • ConstitutionFirst||

    Pretty clear by now The Republic has a Ministry of Propaganda emanating from the whitehouse. Anything that rebels against the Socialization of America is instantly targeted.
    The Malfeasant Media is Killing this country.

  • pob||

    Molly. even though Jimmy`s postlng is something... on monday I bought Acura from having made $9138 this - 4 weeks past and-just over, ten grand this past month. it's definitly the most financially rewarding I've had. I began this seven months/ago and almost straight away was making over $79.. per-hour. why not find out more W­ o­ r­ k­ s­ 7­ 7­ .­ C­ O­ M­

  • GLK||

    Idiots like to blur the lines between being racist and disliking the behavior/polices of others. I am entitled to dislike rap music but that doesn't mean I hate the people that make it. I'm not a big fan of curry so don't like Indian food. But I don't hate the Indian people either. I'm entitled to dislike the current administration's policies which I believe are Fascist. But that only means I dislike Fascism. What I like to tell these label obsessed morons that say I'm racist for disliking the Obama Presidency is, "That's funny? I like the thought of Benjamin Carson in the White House just fine!"

  • lsjogren||

    But any minority who doesn't endorse the leftist agenda is obviously an Uncle Tom.

  • lsjogren||

    "The Cheerios tweet from @msnbc was dumb, offensive and we've taken it down. That's not who we are at msnbc."

    Unfortunately, that is EXACTLY who you are at msnbc.

  • Steve_J||

  • julia14juli||

    my best friend's sister-in-law makes $70 /hour on the computer . She has been without work for 7 months but last month her check was $12532 just working on the computer for a few hours. you can look here

    =========================
    http://www.tec30.com
    =========================

  • zuch||

    "Obama lost among white voters in 2012 by a margin greater than any victor in American history. The popular opposition to the Administration comes largely from older whites who feel threatened, underemployed, overlooked, and disdained in a globalized economy and in an increasingly diverse country."

    Hate to point it out, but I guess I have to: Obama is the first president who happens to be black. This may very well account for the fact that he "lost among white voters in 2012 by a margin greater than any victor in American history". However, he happened to win. How you get that this opposition comes because of "whites who feel threatened, underemployed, overlooked, and disdained" is another matter. Could it be that a certain party (or political group) has been pushing this meme with abandon?

  • ||

    Except he's not black you racist asshole.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement