Rand Paul

Joan Walsh Racism-baits You Anti-Government Monsters

|

Joan Walsh, the Salon columnist who has made a career out of calling just about every white non-Democrat (including me) either a racist or a panderer to racists, has a new piece of linkbait out headlined "The real story of the shutdown: 50 years of GOP race-baiting." Here is how it is illustrated:

So you may ask yourself, I wonder what Walsh is going to say about Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky)? Nothing, it turns out. Instead, we hear of the Southern Strategy, Kevin Phillips, Pat Buchanan, Lee Atwater, birthers, and how "the election of our first black president riled up the racists and launched the Tea Party." In short, it is the same kind of column that flooded the nation's newspapers and websites in the race-war-freakout summer of 2009; now updated to incorporate noted Caucasian Ted Cruz. Walsh's claim:

Today, the entire government has been taken hostage by leaders elected by this crazed minority, who see in the face of Barack Obama everything they've been taught to fear for 50 years. Start with miscegenation

Actually, if you start with miscegenation, you'll quickly discover at least three salient facts:

1) According to a 2012 Pew Research poll, both the incidence and acceptance of interracial marriage in America has increased sharply since the Reagan administration:

About 15% of all new marriages in the United States in 2010 were between spouses of a different race or ethnicity from one another, more than double the share in 1980 (6.7%). Among all newlyweds in 2010, 9% of whites, 17% of blacks, 26% of Hispanics and 28% of Asians married out. Looking at all married couples in 2010, regardless of when they married, the share of intermarriages reached an all-time high of 8.4%. In 1980, that share was just 3.2%. […]

[N]early two-thirds of Americans (63%) say it "would be fine" with them if a member of their own family were to marry someone outside their own racial or ethnic group. In 1986, the public was divided about this. 

That bottom figure is still too low for my tastes, but it does suggest that building a politics around appealing to those revolted by race-mixing is a losing enterprise with zero future.

2) Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 Supreme Court case that legalized interracial marriage, is one of the favorite high-court decisions among libertarians, the group that is more likely than elected Republicans to advocate limiting government and complain about its abuses. I found out that Mildred Loving died from a prominent libertarian (nameless for the moment since the communication was private), who wrote, "Mildred Loving was a champion of liberty.  She helped America move closer to the goal of recognizing equality of rights for all citizens."

If libertarians are asked to grapple with the fact that some state's rights champions were racist yahoos, and that even some modern libertarians can go around the Confederate bend—and we are more than game to confront these issues head on—then intellectual honesty among our adversaries would suggest acknowledging that we aren't always or even frequently motivated by the desire to keep the black man down.

3) Anti-miscegenation laws were particularly notorious because they were laws, i.e., examples of the state abusing its police powers to prohibit peacable private transactions. Libertarian animus toward this is perfectly consistent with libertarian animus toward everything from the Drug War to the surveillance state to public sector unions to the Department of Commerce. Some of those targets can be seen as being more friendly to minorities; many (especially though not only those having to do with the criminal justice system) have arguably done more material harm to black people than every libertarian on earth combined. Perhaps race isn't the proper lens with which to principally interpret this philosophy.

In the event, Rand Paul, deployed here as an illustration of self-evident Tea Party racism, has been spending this summer lamenting the disproportionate effect of incarceration on minorities, proposing mandatory-minimum sentencing reform, saying "we went crazy on the war on drugs," pushing ex-felon re-enfrachisement, and casting school choice in explicitly civil-rights terms. That I'm confident Joan Walsh will figure out a way to find the racism behind these activities says more about her than the people she aims to write out of decent conversation.

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.

53 responses to “Joan Walsh Racism-baits You Anti-Government Monsters

  1. [N]early two-thirds of Americans (63%) say it “would be fine” with them if a member of their own family were to marry someone outside their own racial or ethnic group. In 1986, the public was divided about this.

    That bottom figure is still too low for my tastes, but it does suggest that building a politics around appealing to those revolted by race-mixing is a losing enterprise with zero future.

    I concur…I confess though I would be greatly disturbed if a family member married an asshole….like Joan Walsh. This applies equally to male and female family members.

    1. I wonder what percentage of that 37% is white.

      1. (Not race-baiting btw) I’m genuinely curious. In my personal experience of working with a pretty diverse range of people, black males are the most casually racist demographic I’ve come across. It makes me wonder if they are highly represented in not wanting family members to marry outside their racial group.

        1. Precisely. I’m guessing the majority of the 37% is not white. Other ethnic groups/races really try to keep it “in house”. It’s why you see white people adopting asian, black, and latino kids. Ever see a black couple with a white or asian kid? Just saying…

          1. I linked to the survey data below

            1. Thanks. And thanks for your notes. It looks like age is really the big factor. White people over 50 are less accepting of interracial marriage. Joan Walsh is a white 55 year old, therefore she is racist. And here I thought the Baby Boomers were living out a Sly & the Family Stone interracial love fest.

              1. Also, based on Gallup data, it seems that approval among blacks would be even higher today. From the chart in the link, approval had been fairly stagnant among blacks for a while, and decreased slightly for a couple years in the mid 2000s. Approval of black-white marriage was 85% in 2007. It rose sharply, starting around 2009, and has been at 96% since 2011. According to the Pew data in the pdf, it fell from 86% in 2001 to 80% in 2009 (the survey data is from 2009). Honestly, it seems that a biracial president actually has probably helped reduce any remaining opposition blacks had to interracial marriage. I can’t really think of any other explanation that would plausibly explain such a sudden and drastic (about three-fourths of people who previously did not approve now do) increase that coincidentally started happening about the same time Obama was inaugurated. I guess we may have found the one good thing from his presidency.

                http://www.gallup.com/poll/163…..hites.aspx

                1. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

                  This is what I do… http://www.onlinecareer10.com

        2. In my experience black women are often vociferous in their disapproval of interracial dating, because they think the “better” black men often prefer to date white women.

          1. If you care to read the results of the study Matt and I linked to, there is a gap in interracial dating between black men and black women. 22% of black men marry outside their race these days, only 9% of black women do the same. The gender gap is reversed for Asians, with 37% of Asian women marrying out, compared to 17% of Asian men. There’s no gender gap for whites and Hispanics.

            Based on this, it wouldn’t surprise me if black women were more likely to object to interracial dating than black men. Surveys do indicate that overall, blacks are more accepting than whites, but the differences only exist among those over 50.

            Also, Virginia is #1 in % of new marriages that are black-white.

            1. If you care to read the results of the study Matt and I linked to, there is a gap in interracial dating between black men and black women. 22% of black men marry outside their race these days, only 9% of black women do the same.

              Though bizarrely enough, if you look at racialized divorce statistics, you’ll notice that black-man/white-woman marriages have a much higher divorce rate than the national divorce rate, while white-man/black-woman marriages have a much lower divorce rate than the national average.

              1. Yeah, that is true. I don’t really know why that would be. White-man/black-woman married households and white-man/Hispanic-woman married households also have higher incomes than married white households, while the reverse is true when the woman is white.

        3. Reminds me of that recording of Malik Shamir Shabazz (or whatever) ripping into that African American guy who walked by with his white GF in Philly.

      2. These two links have the data (the latter breaks it down more, the relevant pages start at page 30 of the pdf)

        http://www.pewsocialtrends.org…..ermarriage

        http://www.pewsocialtrends.org…..ng-out.pdf

        Overall, whites are less accepting than non-whites of interracial marriage, with 61% approval among whites, 72% among blacks, 63% among Hispanics, and 64% among Asians. However, as you can see in the pdf, that’s almost entirely due to the attitudes of whites over 50. There are virtually no differences by race among those under 50, but only 52% of whites 50-64 and only 36% of 65+ say they would be fine with a family member marrying someone of a different race. For blacks of the same age, those numbers are 67% and 59%. A couple more notes – these figures are for people who said they would “be fine with it” if a family member married someone of any different group (the four racial/ethnic groups asked about were white, black, Hispanic, and Asian). Other people said yes to one or two, but not all three. Also, there was another option of “be bothered by it, but accept it.” Blacks were the least accepted group by other races, and even then only 6% said they would not accept it, with another 3% unsure. 66% of non-blacks said they would be fine with it, another 25% said bothered, but accepting.

        1. More data (from the first link, for anyone who’s interested)

          By region, the % of people saying they would be fine with all other groups ranged from a low of 60% in the South to a high of 70% in the West, and by ideology, the numbers were 73% for liberals, 61% for moderates, and 60% for conservatives.

        2. I can believe the age difference as a part of the variance. I am 56, and have no problems with anyone marrying any race they want, but I remember a discussion I had with my parents in high school around this. I asked my parents what they would think if I wanted to date, or even marry a black girl (obviously, I’m white). They said they wouldn’t be in favor of it, not because they were against it per se, but because of the “stigma” we would face. And this came from parents who had been very active in the civil rights movement.

          1. Yeah, it’s tough to say exactly why the people against it are. Your parents concern, while IMO still not enough to justify being against it, was a lot more valid 40 years ago, when (according to the Gallup link in one of my above comments), the approval rating among whites of black-white marriage was only about 25%. Today, it’s 84%.

        3. What is significant: Whites, Hispanics and Asians are the roughly the same. Consequently, 75% of the population shares the same attitude. This is a mere 15% disparity between blacks and the rest of the country.

          1. How do you edit? I meant to state 85% not 75%.

  2. Fair warning to any Reason contributor: I (and I’m pretty sure many others like me) cannot stand Joan Walsh and will actively boycott any show that has or has had her on. So please, if you would like me to tune in to your appearance on any of the cable news pundit shows, please make sure that they have never had Joan Walsh as a previous or current guest.

    I really hate her.

    1. Joan Walsh, starring in, Guess Who’s Coming to Repulse You.

    2. I have never heard of this Walsh entity, and that causes me no regrets.

  3. Mildred Loving died from a prominent libertarian

    This is why people hate libertarians.

    With grammar like this, who needs enemies?

    1. Mildred Loving died from a prominent libertarian

      Goddamnit, Warty.

    2. I read it that way too, puzzling over it for a long time before making sense of it.

  4. it does suggest that building a politics around appealing to those revolted by race-mixing is a losing enterprise with zero future.

    Indeed, but that doesn’t seem to be stopping them.

    1. So *that’s* why the conservatives hate Clarence Thomas and Ward Connerly! No wonder “[e]ven the color of her skin is being used to determine the content of Clarence Thomas’s character.” No, wait, that criticism was from blacks, who cannot be racist.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..g/main.htm

      Can I criticize the interspecies marriage – monkey/weasel – between your parents?

      1. Please don’t feed the trolls.

        1. I feed you, don’t I?

          1. I feed on intelligence…so no.

            1. I know you are, but what am I?

            2. Alternate riposte – if you feed off my intelligence, you have more brains in your stomach than in your head.

    2. I don’t know thockpuppet….I don’t see race come up much in political discussions except when assholes like you want to use it as cudgel to distract from something nonsensical that you have in mind!

      1. Visit any story linked by Drudge and read the comments section.

  5. I made a personal rediscovery of a word that fits people like Joan Walsh perfectly.

    Joan Walsh is a crank. She’s a crank with a widespread newsletter, yes, but she’s still a crank. She’s on the same level as Tinfoil Hat Guy. She’d be a sputtering lunatic in any other age.

    1. She’s a progressive, yes.

  6. “Instead, we hear of the Southern Strategy, Kevin Phillips, Pat Buchanan, Lee Atwater, birthers, and how “the election of our first black president riled up the racists and launched the Tea Party.”

    How can that be?

    I have it on good authority (an NIH funded “study”) that the Tea Party was actually a creation of BIG TOBACCO as ploy to block any increased regulation of their industry!

    These nutjobs should start coordinating their fantasies with each other so they can present an easily packaged talking point for the mainstream media to helpfully regurgitate.

  7. So Tony is Joan Walsh? Fuck her.

  8. “Joan Walsh, the Salon columnist who…”

    You can stop right there.

    Every time I see one of her or Yglesias’ awful thinkpieces on Slate, all I can think about is how low the bar must be to be a contributor to their shitty site.

    It’s either Team-Blue, strawman-bludgeoning, cheerleading pieces like this or drivel like “Your making your kombucha the WRONG way”.

  9. Screw Joan Walsh, the Eagles sucked anyway.

  10. I’m pretty sure it was the bi-partisan TARP bailouts that launched the Tea Party. I was there.

    1. This was the moment that launched the Tea Party: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp-Jw-5Kx8k

    2. Didn’t the TA in TARP stand for “Troubled Assets”–things like the mortgaged homes, cars, farms, bank accounts, boats, airplanes, trucks, securities that George Waffen Bush Republicans seized and gave to the cops under faith-based, Comstock Law, asset-forfeiture prohibitionism?

  11. The left never argues in good faith. EVER.

    Hint to tony;

    If you have to decieve to make your argument, you dont have an argument worth making.

  12. Hey, does anyone remember the time that Joan Walsh’s website published an article calling Eric Holder Barack Obama’s ‘inner nigger.’

    I feel like this should be brought up every time she tries to call someone else a racist.

  13. It wouldn’t surprise me at all to read, one day, that the domestic help in the Walsh household finally tire of her antics and kill and eat her.

    1. We can only hope…first time poster, long time reader.

      Just recruited a USFS economist that I know that has insider knowledge of the foibles of the FED. He is a sharp guy and now he knows about this site, he is sympatico. Nice to have an insider on board. He had an interesting anecdote about a work related encounter with Bebe Boxer (D-ca), which made me laugh as I knew she was a dolt before, just didn’t realize how much doltishness she possesses.

    2. We can only hope…first time poster, long time reader.

      Just recruited a USFS economist that I know that has insider knowledge of the foibles of the FED. He is a sharp guy and now he knows about this site, he is sympatico. Nice to have an insider on board. He had an interesting anecdote about a work related encounter with Bebe Boxer (D-ca), which made me laugh as I knew she was a dolt before, just didn’t realize how much doltishness she possesses.

  14. double post, forgot that “tingly feeling in my leg” when I registered…

  15. If I had a son he’d look like Joan Walsh.

  16. Today Matt tells me that when the Jefferson Airplane and Jimi Hendrix were already selling records, there were laws on the books that color-coded marriage license applications. Oh wait! That was before there were Libertarian Party spoiler votes, right?

  17. “I found out that Mildred Loving died from a prominent libertarian”

    Is this a typo?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.