Culture War

Behold the Democratic Future, Boasts Jonathan Chait, Because Suspicion of Government Is Racist


Jonathan Chait

Over at New York Magazine, which today suffered a website crash that temporarily lowered Internet smug levels by a measurable degree, Jonathan Chait makes the bold claim that the Democratic Party is entering a period of dominance. His argument is partially rooted in favorable ethnic and generational trends that have much to do with the relative skills of the two major parties in enticing new voters—something that can confer a very real, but hardly permanent advantage. But Chait also proclaims victory for the donkey party because, he says, "America's unique brand of ideological anti-statism is historically inseparable…from the legacy of slavery," and who wants anything to do with that?

It's tempting to say "what the fuck?" and take Chait's argument as an exercise in self-congratulatory lunacy—part of the attempt to declare an argument over, and further debate illegitimate—that has become so popular recently.

But Chait links to an earlier piece of his that is both more nuanced and very revealing of a hermetically sealed cultural and intellectual hothouse, one that can make it easy to assume a natural march to victory by his side and inevitable defeat for his opponents.

In "The Color of His Presidency," an analysis of the (alleged) racial politics undergirding support and opposition for the Obama administration, Chait acknowledged the limits of tying everything the right/Republicans (he tends to group people as "Democrat" and "Republican" and dismiss independents as really one or the other) do and believe to racism.

Yet here is the point where, for all its breadth and analytic power, the liberal racial analysis collapses onto itself. It may be true that, at the level of electoral campaign messaging, conservatism and white racial resentment are functionally identical. It would follow that any conservative argument is an appeal to white racism. That is, indeed, the all-but-explicit conclusion of the ubiquitous Atwater Rosetta-stone confession: Republican politics is fundamentally racist, and even its use of the most abstract economic appeal is a sinister, coded missive.

Impressive though the historical, sociological, and psychological evidence undergirding this analysis may be, it also happens to be completely insane. Whatever Lee Atwater said, or meant to say, advocating tax cuts is not in any meaningful sense racist.

Chait then documents some of the more thoroughly dishonest attempts to attribute racist motives to conservatives, especially by MSNBC, whose commentators apparently see hidden hoods in every elephant lapel pin. He also discusses that network's special ability to get under thin GOP skin.

And it's here that we go back off the rails, as we discover that the Republican Party is somehow no longer mainstream and part of American culture.

It exposed a sense in which their entire party is being written out of the American civic religion. The inscription of the civil-rights story into the fabric of American history—the elevation of Rosa Parks to a new Paul Revere, Martin Luther King to the pantheon of the Founding Fathers­—has, by implication, cast Barack Obama as the contemporary protagonist and Republicans as the villains.

He later adds:

The unresolved tension here concerns the very legitimacy of the contemporary Republican Party. It resembles, in milder form, the sorts of aftershocks that follow a democratic revolution, when the allies of the deposed junta—or ex-Communists in post–Iron Curtain Eastern Europe, or, closer to the bone, white conservatives in post-apartheid South Africa—attempt to reenter a newly democratized polity.

Chait then goes on to pseudo-scientifically do what he seemed to criticize just paragraphs earlier: link support for not just Republicans but also for small goverrnment ideas to America's history of slavery. He does this based on one study of political habits and history in counties of the Old South.

And here we are again: No need for debate, it's all about internalized racism.

What does this have to say about conservatives in New Hampshire or libertarians in Arizona? Who the hell knows.

Chait is very much a Red Team vs Blue Team thinker—deep down, you're one, or you're the other. He marinates at New York Magazine, among like-minded thinkers, for whom small government ideas and the Republican Party have largely been "written out of the American civic religion." Everybody who disagrees is tainted by slavery in Mississippi.

Never mind that the president's approval ratings are kind of crappy and below average compared to his predecessors, or that both major parties are viewed unfavorably by a majority of Americans. That civic religion may not have quite the saints or shrines that Chait assumes.

This is not to say that Republicans are incapable of their own very real bouts of stupidity. When it comes to nominating cringe-worthy candidates, the GOP is perfectly capable of fulfilling MSNBC's fever dreams. It often does seem firmly fixed in an unattractive authoritarian past, even as younger Americans are receptive to arguments about the size of government, the unworkability of Obamacare, and the superiority of private charity to government spending.

Coupled with their tolerant social views, millennials would appear to be pointing more toward a libertarian future than a liberal or conservative one. If only one or both of the major parties would make a real play for that constituency.

Which is to say, if Republicans are capable of bouts of stupidity, so are liberal pundits.

NEXT: David Cameron Was Right When He Called the U.K. a 'Christian Country'

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Jonathan Chait makes the bold claim that the Democratic Party is entering a period of dominance.

    So far so good…

  2. What we’ve been seeing the last few years from the left is not very different from the early years of fascism or communism. Fuck that shit.

    1. Hatred of their opponents, self-congratulatory fantasies about their inevitable final victory because History is on their side…I don’t see anything to worry about, do you?

      1. Listen, the camps are going to be much better provisioned this time. Nobody needs to worry about starving to death. And they’re only going to work you 14 hours a day, 362 days a year.

        1. Which three days do we get off?

          1. May Day, American Labor Day, and, most cynically of all, Washington’s Birthday.

            1. Ah, I see, Washington will be merged with Lenin and Obama.

              I’d better brush up on my King Rat, I guess. And Hogan’s Heroes.

          2. Which three days do we get off?

            MLK Day, Presidents Who Are Not MLK Day, and A Racist Explorer Who Discovered An Already Settled Continent and Then Murdered All the Inhabitants Day.

          3. MLK Day, Obama Day, and Earth Day. The fact that you even ask proves what a racist you are.

            1. Shows what you know, because they’re merging Obama with King and Jesus.

            2. And, Obama Day will be held on Dec. 25th, to get rid of that other pesky celebration.

        2. They’d better fucking have Netflix in the camps.

          1. What’s odd to me is that the rhetoric and tactics being used seem to only work in countries that have a truly oppressed class, like Russian serfs or people in a totally wrecked economy. As fucked up as things are getting, that isn’t true here. And if it becomes true, these people have gone to great lengths to be viewed as the cause of the collapse.

            1. They’re doing their best to make sure people hate them, that’s for sure.

          2. You will only be able to watch the approved of documentaries

            1. So Koch-funded NOVA is right out?

        3. Hey, these camps will be all about improving our health. We’re all a bunch of fat asses and require a Biggest Loser type camp. IT’S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD BECAUSE THEY LOVE YOU!

  3. Has he been picked up for Vox yet? Or his too old for the juiceboxers? Because this toady would fit right in over there.

  4. “America’s unique brand of ideological anti-statism is historically inseparable…from the legacy of slavery,” and who wants anything to do with that?

    Well, I have it on good authority that any criticism of Detroit’s naked corruption is something only Hitler would do… or something.

    1. Really. Who enforced the Fugitive Slave Act then?

      1. He doesn’t care about the history. Even though he probably knows the truth.

        People like Chait think so little of minorities that he thinks he can rile them up and forever earn their allegiance by simply lying and lying and lying as long as it calls his enemy a racist.

        It is truly the most contemptible form of racism, short of actual lynchings.

        1. I agree completely. I’m still surprised that different groups buy into this crap, as it’s so obviously manipulative and full of contempt for the groups being manipulated.

          1. groups buy in because emoting is easier than thinking. When you appeal to someone’s worst instincts by invoking the most horrible caricature of someone who is perceived as an enemy, crap is easier to sell.

      2. Bush and Cheney? No? Yes?

  5. I cordially request that all Chait alt-text hereafter read merely: backpfeifengesicht

    1. Also, in the same way that any painfully stretched allusion to Hitler is Godwinning, I nominate that any painfully stretched attempted to paint your ideological enemies as segregationists, slavery apologists, or full on white nationalists be referred to as “master-chaiting.”

      1. I second this motion.

        1. The motion passes

          1. Sunshine! Jonathan Chait is a two faced bitch.

      2. brilliant, sir

      3. I thought it was already called Joan Walshing.

  6. , one that can make it easy to assume a natural march to victory by his side and inevitable defeat for his opponents.

    You know who else?

    1. Nietzsche during his tertiary syphilis phase?

    2. Alexander the Great?

    3. Peyton Manning (erroneously, it has turned out on more than one occasion….)?

      1. Watching Peyton Manning choke is one of the reliable highlights of my life.

        43-8! Ha!

  7. “America’s unique brand of ideological anti-statism is historically inseparable…from the legacy of slavery,” and who wants anything to do with that?

    So will Reason stop with the “social tolerance” bullshit now?

      1. Why does Reason go on about “social tolerance” when the arbiters of “social tolerance” think that libertarianism is ipso facto racist?

        1. Ah, I see where you are going now.

        2. Because your reasoning is a giant ad-hominem? Kind of like people who supported the draft because the commies opposed it?

          1. No I think it’s stupid to support an Orwellian bullshit term that your enemies have coined to justify repressing you.

            1. I happen to think it is a fine term which applies much more to libertarians than to progressives.

              1. Just like how libertarians are the real socialists?

                1. Social tolerance has a meaning that isn’t some random term made up to refer to some invented concept or ideology. It’s a combination of words that has a pretty clear meaning. The fact that some people misuse this term to advance their ideology doesn’t change that.

  8. Atwater Rosetta-stone confession: Republican politics is fundamentally racist, and even its use of the most abstract economic appeal is a sinister, coded missive.

    Jesus, I just figured out Jonathan Chait’s online handle.

  9. Chait apparently is incapable of rational thinking. The lynch pin of his argument is a study that found that the higher the percentage of slave ownership in a county in the old South, the more conservative and pro small government that county is today. That is to Chait what passes for conclusive proof that support of small government is “racist”.

    Chait is actually so stupid that it never occurs to him that his argument assumes the connection between the two views and does nothing to prove it. It could be there is something uniquely racist about supporting small government. Why that would be Chait never bothers to explain. It could also be that the two views have nothing whatsoever to do with one another. That people who liked small government also happened to also like slavery and thanks to 150 years of trying they have now lost their racist views but kept their small government ones because one has nothing to do with the other. It could also be that in a mobile society the political views of the people in an area 150+ years ago has nothing to do with the political views of the people there now.

    There is no sugar coating it. Chait is a profoundly stupid human being.

    1. Or it could be that both then and now, those counties were far more rural and have never developed the “need” of government.

      1. Or maybe the utter and complete disdain and contempt that the urban liberal elite holds both the South and rural America has caused those people to turn away from government? Perhaps Chait should ask why these people he hates so much hate him back.

        1. Say, I’m from the South. Huh.

      2. Or, what is more likely is the researcher just made this up, like most of the other stuff that the left makes up. Social research is just puffed up opinions most of the time.

    2. No John. As everyone knows, any white person south of the Mason-Dixon Line is a racist teabagging small government lunatic. And we luv us sum tracter pullz 2!

      1. First, it is the duty of black men to judge the South discriminatingly. The present generation of Southerners are not responsible for the past, and they should not be blindly hated or blamed for it. Furthermore, to no class is the indiscriminate endorsement of the recent course of the South toward Negroes more nauseating than to the best thought of the South. The South is not “solid”; it is a land in the ferment of social change, wherein forces of all kinds are fighting for supremacy; and to praise the ill the South is today perpetrating is just as wrong as to condemn the good. Discriminating and broad-minded criticism is what the South needs, — needs it for the sake of her own white sons and daughters, and for the insurance of robust, healthy mental and moral development.

        1. Today even the attitude of the Southern whites toward the blacks is not, as so many assume, in all cases the same; the ignorant Southerner hates the Negro, the workingmen fear his competition, the money-makers wish to use him as a laborer, some of the educated see a menace in his upward development, while others — usually the sons of the masters — wish to help him to rise. National opinion has enabled this last class to maintain the Negro common schools, and to protect the Negro partially in property, life, and limb. Through the pressure of the money-makers, the Negro is in danger of being reduced to semi-slavery, especially in the country districts; the workingmen, and those of the educated who fear the Negro, have united to disfranchise him, and some have urged his deportation; while the passions of the ignorant are easily aroused to lynch and abuse any black man. To praise this intricate whirl of thought and prejudice is nonsense; to in-veigh indiscriminately against “the South” is unjust; but to use the same breath in praising Governor Aycock, exposing Senator Morgan, arguing with Mr. Thomas Nelson Page, and denouncing Senator Ben Tillman, is not only sane, but the imperative duty of thinking black men.

          1. Guess who…

    3. Or, possibly, that the inhabitants of that county are descendants of slaves and those who, as free men, endured several generations of official oppression from government. That the county has evolved a culture of distrust over allowing the men they give that monopoly on violence to having any large amount of power.

    4. It could also be that the two views have nothing whatsoever to do with one another.

      Based on the demographic of the old south… let me be clear: based on an assumption I’d be willing to make about the Demographic of the Old South, one might be able to make a thin argument that ‘small government’ views are held due to a cultural resentment over the feds’ interference with the pre-civil war southern slave economy.

      That view of small government is admittedly emotionally driven and most assuredly full of contradictions.

      But the concept of minimal interference from the state held on its own? No basis for Chait’s argument.

      1. Even if that were true, and it might be to some degree, that doesn’t make small government racist. That actually points to an even deeper idiocy in Chaits thinking. He seems to embrace some kind of original sin view of political thought. If people who he deems “racist” embrace a political position, that position must in Chait’s view also be racist because the “racists” embraced it.

        That is literally the same as thinking that building autobahns must be in some way antisemitic because the Nazis supported doing so.

        The man is a moron.

        1. Even if that were true, and it might be to some degree, that doesn’t make small government racist.

          No, that’s my point. There was a time… even in my lifetime that ‘liberals’ who were most assuredly not racist, were against the overwhelming power of the state. That time is gone.

          Chait is just using the age-old tactic of silencing his opponents by applying the ‘racist’ moniker to anyone who disagrees with him. Connections and evidence be damned.

          1. Its a liberal vs progressive difference.

            And I dont mean liberal in the classical liberal sense, but in the 20th century liberal sense.

            The left has been overtaken by progressives.

        2. He seems to embrace some kind of original sin view of political thought.

          he’s a progressive; it’s a requirement for membership in the club. Makes it so much easier to declare illegitimate any opposing point of view.

        3. The racists touched the anti-statism, therefore the anti-statism is dirty and contaminated by racist disease, and anyone who touches it is likely to contract the racism. (And probably already has.)

          We must shun people who touch anything that racists touch.

      2. There’s also the fact that lynchings were motivated by the belief in a black rape culture and that the cops and courts were corrupt and ineffective. So does that make Reason racist for attacking thug cops? And feminists racists?

        1. Most feminists are pretty damn racist, and have been since the beginning of the movement, yes.

      3. The South has a very high percentage of black people. Higher than the north. Many of them probably hate government, or at the very least distrust it.

    5. Chait apparently is incapable of rational thinking.

      Chait’s little more than an Overseer on the Democratic Party plantation.

      He’s not about to let those field hands to start thinking for themselves and getting uppity. No good comes from that and you could lose an entire crop.

    6. The higher the percentage of slave ownership, the higher the black percentage today.

      Okay, I dont know this is true, but I bet the correlation is strong.

      Which means that black resident percentage correlates well with pro small government.

      So, big government proponents are racist.

      QED bitches

    7. He hasn’t considered the possibility that the racists have deliberately adopted small-government rhetoric because of a superficial convergence of opinion on states rights. That is, the racists are trying to pass themselves off as libertarians, because they don’t want to be seen as racists.
      They pretend to be small-government individualists and couch themselves in small government rhetoric to HIDE what their motives are.

      But that is like saying that because the wolf dresses himself in sheeps clothing that all sheep are really wolves.

      1. superficial convergence of opinion on states rights

        Except there is no convergence on states rights. States have powers, individuals have rights.

        The 10th Amendment doesnt mention rights, it covers powers. The 9th mentions rights, but doesnt talk about the states, but only the people.

        1. States are groups of people, who have rights.

          Otherwise they’re just empty property.

          Honestly, your attempt at pedantry is fucking stupid.

          1. Not really. It’s a pretty important distinction.

        2. Well, whatever. There is a thing commonly called a “states rights movement”. Said movement happens to include apologists for segregation and closet racists, along with principled believers in local governance.
          Chait would like to claim that this movement is somehow the essence of the “anti-statist” current in American thought, and thereby imply that all anti-state sentiment is based on closet racism.

  10. an exercise in self-congratulatory lunacy?part of the attempt to declare an argument over, and further debate illegitimate?that has become so popular recently.

    Reason never engages in similar behavior now does it?

    1. It’s the dawning of the Age of Independents, don’t you know…

      *pinches snuff box, snuffs…*

    2. Not really, no. Sometimes foolishly optimistic about the coming libertarian moment, or whatever it is, but beyond that I don’t see it.

  11. “America’s unique brand of ideological anti-statism is historically inseparable…from the legacy of slavery,” and who wants anything to do with that?

    Fuck Jonathan Chait. That is all.

  12. Chait is very much a Red Team vs Blue Team thinker?deep down, you’re one, or you’re the other. He marinates at New York Magazine, among like-minded thinkers, for whom small government ideas and the Republican Party have largely been “written out of the American civic religion.” Everybody who disagrees is tainted by slavery in Mississippi.

    Chait is the result of the Mary’s Room thought experiment put into practice.

    1. “Epiphenomenal Qualia”, which appears in Philosophical Quarterly 32:127 (1982).

      *Narrows eyes*

      1. *Narrows eyes*

        I take it you’re anti-qualia like Daniel Dennett?

        1. I walked out of a two hour corporate meeting loaded with so much bullshit jargon that it would have made the most oily, mealy-mouthed middle manager blush.

          Dude was in the middle of spewing forth words and I stood up, and waltzed out of the room. I could feel middle-manager gazes upon me.

          So I’m little off on jargonese today.

          1. corporate meeting loaded with so much bullshit jargon

            There are other kinds of corporate meetings?

            1. Well played, sir, well played.

          2. Qualia just means a concept so basic you can’t even describe it to someone who hasn’t experienced it. Like “red”. How would you explain red to a blind man? Some philosophers argue you can’t, some like Dennett say that’s bullshit and that you could, but it would take a really, really long time.

            1. I had never heard of the Mary’s Room thought experiment and actually enjoyed reading it. I find it relevant to something I’ve said for years when trying to explain shit to people who just aren’t getting it: “It’s like trying to describe color to a blind man”.

              And the word that set off my bells was “Epiphenomenal”– took me back to the Sokal Parody.

              1. Do the blind imagine color? Because the eye doesn’t pass the data on to the brain doesn’t mean the brain can’t put out colors . . .
                Just a thought.

          3. So, you’re not going to champion that effort?

            1. Peter Gibbons: Let me ask you something. When you come in on Monday and you’re not feeling real well, does anyone ever say to you, “Sounds like someone has a case of the Mondays?”

              Lawrence: No. No, man. Shit, no, man. I believe you’d get your ass kicked sayin’ something like that, man.

            2. Oh shit, though, that does remind me of something. During one of the last big projects I was on, when corporate was building the WAN circuits absolutely incorrectly, and I had just about given up waving my semaphores, a project manager said, “I’ll try to get sponsorship to change this circuit termination point.”


              Fuck these people.

    2. It is important to note, though, that years later, Jackson reversed his stance on the argument, explaining that the knowledge argument and Mary’s Room are deeply rooted in our intuitions about the matter, but that science can offer other explanations for the apparent discrepancy.

      Whoa… let me guess, Climate Change became a hot-topic and Jackson falls on a particular side of the argument?

  13. Chait is playing second tuba to Timothy Schenk ,who reminds us in The Nation that:

    “socialism’s founders?figures like Henri de Saint-Simon and Charles Fourier?did not intend to overthrow capitalism. Their aspirations were, if anything, grander.

    They planned to launch a new religion grounded in principles revealed by another recent discovery: social science. Each half of the formulation?the social and the scientific?mattered equally. For most of the nineteenth century, socialism’s chief opponent was individualism, not capitalism.

    According to socialism’s pioneering theorists, society was more than a collection of individuals. It was an organism, and it had a distinctive logic of its own?a singular object that could be understood, and controlled, by a singular science. Socialists claimed to have mastered this science, which entitled them to act in society’s name.”

    1. I will give Schenk credit for honestly. That is exactly what socialism is and exactly why it appealed so much to New England Puritans tired of God but still wanting a religion.

      1. You do realize that New England is not just Boston?

        1. Of course, it includes parts of Salem as well.

          1. I just get a little tired of the assumptions that all of New England is nothing but Massachusetts liberals. There is also a strong strain of no nonsense self reliance which still exists in a lot of places. Proper Yankees aren’t quite extinct yet.

            1. Hang in there. We kind of need you guys not to be extinct.

    2. At least this is an honest review of scoialism, which from Marx on down has required the shaping of a “new man” in order to overcome capitalism. h.sapiens as he bred naturally was never going to overcome the capital/labor “problem”.

      1. What problem? The New Soviet Man wipes his ass with his hands, Comrade!

        1. In Soviet Russia, ass wipes YOU!


    3. We also got phrenology from the same period. Fortunately, people actually applied empirical methods to evaluating phrenology and most of it died a long time ago. We haven’t been so fortunate with socialism, where empirical results seem to be meaningless.

      1. Socialism has an emotional appeal that phrenology lacks.

    4. According to socialism’s pioneering theorists, society was more than a collection of individuals. It was an organism, and it had a distinctive logic of its own?a singular object that could be understood, and controlled, by a singular science. Socialists claimed to have mastered this science, which entitled them to act in society’s name.”

      The Latin word for a body corpus and the word coined by the people who introduced that view that society Is an organism, or body, was? corporatism.

  14. The other really idiotic thing Chait does in this article is accuse Republicans of being obsessed with race because they are constantly out to show that they are not racists. That would be pretty dumb by itself. When Chait makes that claim after spending two pages explaining how yes, many times Progressives do unfairly accuse Republicans of racism, it becomes epically stupid. You see Republicans are often unfairly accused of racism and they are totally obsessed with race because they try to defend themselves against the charge. If they would just shut up and let Progs call them racists, we could get passed all of this race stuff in Chait’s mind.

    What is scary is that Chait and a lot of other people think this shit passes for fair minded reasonable thinking. I really don’t see how anyone is supposed to respond to this crap with anything but scorn and ridicule. Rational debate seems pointless because Chait will never understand it.

    1. I really don’t see how anyone is supposed to respond to this crap with anything but scorn and ridicule.

      When you see a monkey riding a bicycle, you don’t try to teach him how to shift gears, you laugh and throw him bananas. Same thing.

      1. Except I’ve seen monkeys successfully ride bicycles.

  15. “The inscription of the civil-rights story into the fabric of American history?the elevation of Rosa Parks to a new Paul Revere, Martin Luther King to the pantheon of the Founding Fathers??has, by implication, cast Barack Obama as the contemporary protagonist and Republicans as the villains.”

    Translation: “Because Obama is black, Republicans are villains for opposing him, and that explicitly racist comment I just made is proof that my opponents are racist.”

  16. So I imagine that Chait ignores the fact that the places that voted most heavily for Woodrow Wilson and FDR was the Jim Crow South?

    1. I’m not sure that Chait knows that Wilson’s reputation has undergone… scrutiny in the 21st century. Sure, the guy was a racist who re-segregated the Army, but he dreamed big and governed strong!

      1. Wilson is the shitpin that manages to unite both today’s neo-cons with today’s progressives.

        A Rand Paul run that brings this fact into the media spotlight would be worth it for that alone.

        1. And Rand Paul may be the first politician capable of creating a coalition of the same sort, with the opposite ideological bent.

      2. How the fuck does anyone like Wilson? He was a racist shitbag who got us into the worst and most pointless war ever. And that’s just the stuff that people from all over the political spectrum can agree on.

        1. League of Nations! Federal Reserve! Income Tax! The New Freedom!

        2. He was universally hated at the end of his term which is why his hand picked successor James M. Cox lost to Warren G. Harding.

          Of course, Wilson’s Assistant Secretary of the Navy (and who had a hand in Wilson’s intervention in Haiti, even boasting of drafting their constitution to suit US interests) became more famous as President Franklin D. Roosevelt and needed to rehabilitate his image along with the other members of Wilson’s Administration that joined the Roosevelt Administration so Wilson got a makeover.

  17. This is hilarious. All you “libertarians” rushing to defend the GOP because some New Yorker draws a specious argument up.

    1. First, you are one of the few people that is actually dumber than Chait. So you have no standing to comment on the validity of his argument.

      Second, when people make idiotic arguments, the people on here condemn it, regardless of who that means defending. You don’t understand that since you are retarded and only make idiotic arguments and only know how to post talking points for Team Blue. If you weren’t retarded, the board and really the world at large would make a lot more sense to you.

      1. Bravo John!

        You’ve trained it to make more comments like the one you replied to!

        Being non-sentient, it doesn’t understand the concepts being bandied about; it doesn’t understand that it is being abused; all it knows is that today the wall screamed back and it mattered!

        And it will scream at the wall tomorrow in the same way so that the wall will scream back at it again!

        1. My theory is that what Shriek really lives for is people scolding other people for responding to it.

        2. Its not human, its an information warfare weapon designed to consume the computational resources of its target.

          1. Has it been sent from the future? Because if so, I weep for our descendants.

    2. When smart people refuse to point out the stupidity of others due to team politics, they lose the right to call those others stupid.

      1. Except for Shreek. Anyone at any time has the right to call Shreek stupid, no matter how stupid they themselves may be.

        1. Even tony has that right. And it will be one area that tony and I will fully agree.

          1. Hell, even Alice Bowie has that right.

            1. Dare I say that even dunphy and Tulpa have earned that right? Or is that a bridge too far?

              1. I think dunphy died. Tulpa has no rights as he is just a figment of someone’s imagination made real.

          2. I still like shreeky better…he’s a brainless dick but he exudes so much less smug than Phony!

    3. America’s unique brand of ideological anti-statism is historically inseparable…from the legacy of slavery

      Gee, I wonder why libertarians would take umbrage at that. It must be because we’re all GOP shills, of course.

      1. Well, it’s not like the state ever helped enforce slavery or racist laws or anything.

      2. The entire statement is hilarious as the KKK owned these clowns and MLK was a Republican.

    4. It wasn’t the GOP he conflated with slavery, it was “anti-statism”.

    5. You’re truly a one trick pony.

  18. being written out of the American civic religion

    Talk about question begging. What a simple fuck. I need to go bang my head against a wall now – literally, physically bang it against a wall – to get this stupid out of my head.

    Thanks a lot, Chait. And me for reading it. FUCK!

  19. “America’s unique brand of ideological anti-statism is historically inseparable…from the legacy of slavery,” and who wants anything to do with that?

    That’s right. No one is equal until ALL of us our slaves. But them some are more equal than others. I am sure that Chait (isn’t that the word for shit in some languages?) considers himself one of the latter.

  20. So let me see if I have this right: The party that imposed Jim Crow, physically interred Japanese-Americans and German-Americans, serially attacks free association and constitutionally guaranteed rights like the 2A, believes race should play a role in determining appointments, employment and college admissions and routinely creates racial and sexual division for political advantage is the party of the future?

    Well fuck me.

    1. You missed “and are NOT the racists here”….welcome.

    2. Well fuck me.

      Assume the position.

    3. Thanks for writing this. If you don’t mind, I have shamelessly stolen it for reuse in other online wars.

      1. Me, too.

  21. Oh, hey everybody! Here’s Shriek! Shriek is here to mischaracterize all our responses and make the assumption everyone’s defending TEAM RED!!! Forget that the responses are everything but that, and mostly about what a tool Chait is! It’s all TEAM work to Shriek!

    Shriek, everyone! I give you – SHRIEK!

    1. You should rename him Reek. It just fits better. GoT reference.

      1. And considering his lack of any male anatomy, an appropriate moniker indead.

  22. Hmmm, isn’t it likely that the Republicans will win more seats in the House and probably the Senate at the next election? So, Democrats are ascendant except when they aren’t? Aren’t many blue cities and states economically descendant (loosing people and resources?) while red cities and states are ascendant (gaining people and resources?)I’m sure he would argue that it’s a long term trend, but does he believe people will become more trustful of government as we march into our brave new world?

    He delusional. The only way Dems win is if they’re able to keep their More Free Shit promise which is becoming less and less likely as the economy goes into the shitter – again.

    1. Here is the thing Lady Bertrum about hacks like Chait, everything they right is a lie and contrary to reality. You have to read shit like this like you used to read Pravda. It is not what it says, it is what it fails to say and the underlying truth it is seeking to obscure.

      So when Chait spends page after page justifying how the Democrats are ascendent, that means they are anything but that and Chait is lying to keep the party faithful from knowing it.

      1. JOhn, the difference is that Pravda and the like were FUN! They were INTERESTING! It’s like watching translations of Nork TV news – so over the top adn wonderful!

        Chait is just – a dumb motherfucker. And not entertaining or interesting.

        Therefore – loser. Otherwise I’d love to read him like Pravda or TASS. But he doesn’t have their skill. I haz a sad 🙁

    2. Just remember, proggies are not about being objective or logic, or even reality. They just project whatever they want to be and believe that if only enough people believe it, that it will become reality.

      About a month before the Dems lost all of those seats in the house in 2010, and all of the reliable polls were showing it was going to happen, I remember lots of progs saying that the Dems would keep the house and be a majority in all 3 branches, forever. And then they were shocked when it didn’t happen. I think you are seeing the same thing here.

      1. YARD-SIGN POLL!!!!

        Oh, wait, that was the Romney supporters…same idea.

        1. I did make that argument this morning, but it worked for the Rand Paul primary in 2010.

    3. He might be right, but only if the Democratic party flips and purges half their members.

      Its happened before. Ditch the progressives and become a party of tolerance and small government and they could clean the GOPs clock for a long period of time.

      With a 20 year period of irrelevance.

    4. Conservatives remain the largest demographic grouping in the US. He is delusional.

  23. “America’s unique brand of ideological anti-statism is historically inseparable…from the legacy of slavery,””

    We’ve now seen the Progressives toss out the, “Our Ideological Opponents = Slave-Owners” argument in more than one context now.

    Because failing to want to go full-socialist over Global Warming Panic? = Slavery!
    (“The New Abolitionism”…..olitionism)

    And the GOP is “the Party of White People” – i.e.: Slave Owners!…..ite-people

    This whole ‘Racism’ thing isn’t useful just *by iteself*. It needs to be in *everything*. So, don’t like the Healthcare Mandate? RACISM! Why not?

    Its the ultimate Go-To tactic of the left. And its mostly a message they send to *themselves*; to reiterate that “We Aren’t Racist!” repeatedly and endlessly, while they enact policies that make the poor poorer and stifle individual liberty. Projection: endless, endless projection.

    1. Its MasterChaiting all the way down.

      1. You can work “MasterChait” into “Le Freak” by Chic pretty well….

        If that wasn’t such a great song, I’d propose doing that – but I don’t wanna ruin Nile Rogers’ masterpiece like that.

        Now – how can “Afternoon Delight” be turned into MasterChaitin’ Music….

  24. Didn’t the Klan pretty much keep the Democrats alive in the Reconstruction Era? Doesn’t that mean the Democrats are a racist party? Or that Jefferson was a slave owner as was Jackson and the latter engaged in the Trail of Tears and conquered Florida? Does that pollute the Democratic party forever?

    1. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no! You’re not getting it at all, Winston!

    2. No. Nothing that happened before 1968 is relevant to anything ever, especially if it has to do with Democrats being racist.

      1. Still means that George Wallace was a Dem governor though that still doesn’t count.

        1. It’s very complicated for stupid racists to understand.

        2. Don’t forget the beloved former Klansman Senator Bryd who served as a Democratic Congressman from 1959 to 2010.

      2. Except Romney being a bully in high school. That was very important.

    3. There’s also the Battle of Liberty Place where the General James Longstreet (former Confederate general!) lead troops to defeat soldiers of the Democratic Party who depose the elected Republican government of Louisiana?

      1. Weren’t most Confederate leaders Democrats as well?

    4. I mean, it’s not as though Democrats had a sitting senator as recently as 2010 who was a former klan grand wizard or anything, is it?

    5. 100% correct. The Democrats in the south formed the power base of Jim Crow, the KK, etc.
      Folks who aligned with them were called “conservatives”, even back then.

      The “Yankee Republicans” – you know, northeast liberals and more urban folks – the same people who largely started this country in Boston, etc – fought against slavery.

      The very simple story is that when LBJ signed the Civil Right bill he remarked “We just lost the south for a generation”, He probably should have said 3 generations, because hate runs deep. So the “freedom of man” caused the south to revolt…it didn’t like that!

      Jefferson was from VA, a slave state. Him and his kind (and he was a great man otherwise) forced the compromise which caused the civil war and many of these problems. I think he even saw it coming and remarked he was glad he would die before seeing it.

      At it’s core, the slavery issue was about stealing money – vast sums of it. It’s in the trillions of dollars. Economists posit that 80 percent of lifetime wealth is accumulated from past generations. Guess who got the shaft?

      1. He wasn’t too worried about the Democratic Party losing them since he had plans on getting those “niggers to vote Democrat for 100 years”.

  25. he says, “America’s unique brand of ideological anti-statism is historically inseparable…from the legacy of slavery,”

    It took me a minute to realize what he was talking about.

    Apparently he’s making an equation that goes something like
    anti-statism = states rights = slavery.

    As if the libertarian movement begins and ends with the 10th amendment.

    Chait seems to be vastly comfused about the bredth and philosophical depth of “anti-statism”, and seems to think that it’s only adherents are patriot militia guys and confederate sympathizers. Or at least, he wants other people to think that.

    1. The most famous democracy in history was also steeped in slavery, so people voting is right out, too. In fact, a whole lot of things happened during slavery, and, really, aren’t most workers slaves in the West today?

      I guess we need to call in an asteroid strike and start over.

      1. The milky way has been trying to nuke it from orbit for many years now.

      2. Holy fuck, you’re questioning democracy?

        Points finger, hisses

      3. You Know Who Said that “Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners.”?

      4. It’s a bit like looking a a Venn Diagram, wherein there are anti-statists, and there are racists tainted by slavery. And where the overlapping region involves states rights.

        And then saying that because the anti-statists favor states rights, and the racists also favor states rights, therefore the anti-statists are forever tainted by slavery!

        Some blue things are cars. Some red things are cars. Therefore blue things are inexorably tainted by red things! QED!

        1. Stop othering me with your rudimentary logic.

        2. It also seems a bit contradictory to say that anti-statists favor states’ rights, no? If you think states have rights, you are pretty clearly a statist.

          1. My only support for states rights is as a check on federal power. The states have too much power, too, as far as individual rights are concerned.

            1. Yeah, it’s a useful thing in the context of the federal republic, but not a good unto itself.

              1. Oh, sure. But we lost something important when the states stopped being a serious counterpoise to the national government. We really don’t have much of a federalist system anymore.

      5. I can’t disagree. The Race to the bottom and sites like this championing for doing away with the min. wage, not having benefits, etc….certainly has won the day.

        The middle class is done for. Standing in food lines around here even when working full time.

        You see, decent wages cut into profits to the stockholders and capitalists. We can’t have that, so we’ve cast our people aside. They lose.

        1. I’ll bet most of that made sense in your head, didn’t it?

    2. Chait seems to be vastly comfused

      Could have stopped right there

    3. Forget that one of the major movements to nullify federal law were the people interfering with the enforcement of the fugitive slave laws.

      Maybe the nullifiers were secret racists, and the federal marshals were capturing blacks for their own good in a totally non-racist way.

  26. OT: Real Madrid personify everything that is bad about continental soccer leagues. They look like they’re reenacting that scene from that movie.

    1. That’s why I can’t watch the Champions League. And when the World Cup comes along, I’ll actually have to actively root for England.

    2. Everything bad about ANY soccer league. Cause – soccer.


      No homo.

  27. I guess Ben Carson has them riled up enough that they ordered a preemptive strike.

  28. “MasterChait” so must become a thing.

  29. Chait’s reasoning in linking anti-statists with slavery and racism works just as well to link progressive Democrats and socialists with communism and fascism. And in the historical death and oppression sweepstakes, communism and fascism beat slavery and racism by miles.

    1. So the only way to fight anti-state slavery love is by enslaving everyone to the state? Am I understanding this correctly?

    2. A bit hard to disentangle, considering that the worst crimes of fascism were intertwined with racism, and slavery existed in both communist and fascist societies.

    3. Yes, but communism isn’t stinky and contaminated with disease, so you can’t acquire it by touching something that communism touched.

      Racism is. You have to avoid drinking at the same water fountain as a racist to avoid picking up their disease.

  30. Because the economic practice of a small minority (and, yes, slave-owners were a small minority) over 150 years ago totally dictates the political attitudes of people who happen to live in that county today.

    Christ, what a blithering idiot.

    I’d be surprised if the percentage of current Southerners who can trace their family back to being Southerners before the Civil War is bigger than northerners with Southern ancestry. So, if this racist, anti-government attitude isn’t passed down through the family, it must be, what, in the water?

    1. “Because the economic practice of a small minority (and, yes, slave-owners were a small minority)”

      This isn’t true, if we’re just talking about the South, that is. About a third of Southern households owned slaves in 1860, and in a couple states it was about half. The rest of your point stands though.

    2. “I’d be surprised if the percentage of current Southerners who can trace their family back to being Southerners before the Civil War”

      You may be correct in raw numbers, but if you looked at the power base in local and regional politics, the large landowner and the folks of influence, the story is quite different.

      Slaveholders were a minority too….yet they made the poor folks fight and die for their “natural rights”.

      It’s ridiculous to asset that the deep South doesn’t still hold (modernized) versions of the same attitudes. I lived in three states down there for a number of years and saw it first hand. Really nice people. But different.

      1. How many years ago did you live there? I doubt it was recent. Recent…not much racism anywhere. And, by recent I mean starting big time at least 20 years ago. Only the older generation, plus 75 years of age still hold to any sort of racism. And, I’m not talking complete and utter idiots, which exist everywhere, and always find something to hate.

        1. I have family that lives in Northern Florida. Racism is rampant….only a little less so now because there simply aren’t folks of color living there anymore (chased out in various ways).

          In the Atlanta area, fights have been going on for decades by the whites who don’t want rail lines connecting up or coming through their areas – bringing the wrong people to their enclaves.

          My nephew, who was from PA, teaches in SC. He says his school is like the master/slave days. The kids are taught early in life that whitey ain’t to be messed with. He’s a liberal, but the students treat him as if he has a whip – according to him, they “know their place”.This is in a fairly developed area (near hilton head).

          I lived there in the 70’s – 10 years after the civil rights bills were signed.

          Recently read a book – My Confederacy of Silence – about a young NYC reporter who spent a year in a small town paper in MI:

          This was in the 90’s.
          He claimed things had actually gone backwards since the civil rights days and were worse than ever – and give examples in the way people deal with eachother, talk, etc.

          Most of the places he ate, drank and hung out….blacks were simply not allowed into.

          That’s a real stretch to say not much racism when Rand Pauls campaign managers posts pics of hung blacks on Facebook and says “Happy Nig***** Day” to the world on MLK’s birthday.

          Check out Confederates in the Attic. A great book which shows that the Civil War is still on the minds of many down there.

          1. Once again you provide questionable anecdotes as if they have some sort of explanatory value.

            You are the Weekly World News of these comments.

            By the way, I’ve had the misfortune of visiting your beloved north and found the rampant racism and unswerving devotion to one’s own racial identity most off-putting. Nothing, in fact, like the prevailing attitudes in the south. Therefore, my anecdote cancels yours out and you are, as usual, a liar and an idiot.

  31. I guess Chait doesn’t know that one of the reasons the southern states seceded was because of northern states asserting their States’ Rights to refuse to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act (it’s one of the reasons stated in the articles of secession for several states) and that the Confederate Constitution makes explicit that Confederate states couldn’t do that.

  32. “America’s unique brand of ideological anti-statism is historically inseparable…from the legacy of slavery,”

    If I am a white man who favors anti-statism but my wife is black…does that mean I’m subconsciously a statist? I suppose it could just support the feminist theory that marriage constitutes slavery for women in which case my wife and I need to have a serious talk about whose doing the chores around the house.

    1. “If I am a white man who favors anti-statism but my wife is black…does that mean I’m subconsciously a statist?”

      Naah. It just means Chait’s not capable of forming a logical argument.

  33. The Slavery Democrats didn’t become anti-federal government until they lost control of it upon Lincoln’s election. Prior to that, the Republicans flirted with nullification and espoused federalism, particularly in response to the Fugitive Slave Act. People who espouse centralism think that their kind of people are likely to remain in charge; people who espouse decentralism think that they are unable to trust the people likely to be in charge.

    Since Americans tend to distrust the honesty and integrity of politicians, decentralism is the natural response.

  34. One can guess the mood of the country by which side has more people being outrageous versus being outraged. When Democrats are on the ropes, they are outraged at Republicans’ outrageous accusations of socialism and elitism. When Republicans are reeling, they are outraged at Democrats’ outrageous accusations of fascism and bigotry. Chait seems to be on the manic part of his cycle.

  35. The majority of the population is still white. The immigrants usually go to the same entrenched communities. Outside of presidential elections, the GOP and any limited government movement will be viable for a while.

    I predict that the whopping increases in state min wages will the sequel to the ACA. It’s going to pit a lot of progressives against their own. Cheap labor is will be hard to come by if even illegal aliens demand that kind of salary.

    Both parties will do something stupid to stall hard gained momentum. It’s a reality.

    1. The GOP is viable only because of those who believe the world is 6-10,000 years old combined with gerrymandering.

      But, that’s reality – so you are correct, the GOP is very much still in play.

      Libertarianism, however, really isn’t. The great gubment shutdown gave young people (and others) a small taste of that.

      Just because you can poll people on one issue favorably (i.e. after we spent billions attacking the ACA, do you now have questions about it?), does not mean you change them to libertarians.

      Libertarians are, by nature, unorganized so they can be co-opted by any force which comes along – like the Kochs running the show here, etc.

      It’s unfortunate – since I agree with and fight for many libertarian principles like death with dignity, responsibility, legalizing drugs, etc. – but I can’t be a member of any club which has the Kochs as it’s leaders.

        1. I can’t drink anymore !!!

  36. I’m just impressed Chait was able to write part of an article before engaging in nonstop assumption of bad faith on the part of any non progressive who disagrees with him.

  37. Progressive calls non progressives racist.


    That’s what they do. They’re race baiters. Divide and conquer. Oldest tactic in the play book. Feed white guilt and minority resentment against whites.

    Distract the Makers so that they don’t notice their real enemies are the Takers.

  38. Is this guy’s name pronounced “shite”? Incredible that he gets paid for this nonsense.

  39. No one I know even knows a racist, let alone is one. And, I have discussed this with Southerners, too. There is no white on black racism, to speak of. What is called racism now is people who don’t like black racial politics, ie a Democratic mayor is elected, he’s black, gets convicted of public corruption, goes to jail, gets out, gets elected again. That sort of stuff. There is no racism. It’s over. However…Asian racism? Yup? I still see that, and it is pretty open, but it too is rapidly waning. The only institutionalized racism right now is black on white, and black on Asian.

  40. I seem to remember reading about one president who said: “I will have those ni**ers voting Democratic for the next 200 years!”

    Three clues –

    1.) he was not a Republican;
    2.) he was not a small government guy (and got the country embroiled in a massive and destructive war in S.E. Asia); and
    3.) his comment was prompted by his championing one piece of landmark legislation that just celebrated its 50th anniversary.

    I’m sure this little historical “thing” did not factor into Chait’s research at all.

    And, just as sadly, that president’s prediction has proven true for at least the preceding 50 years.

  41. HAIL HYDRA !!!!!!

  42. Racist = socialist in the democratic dictionary, and socialism necessarily requires a policeman.

  43. And folks still wonder why the Argentinians conducted so many one way helicopter flights over the South Atlantic.

  44. So let’s do the math:
    If I want an honest responsible government that obeys the constitution and the rule of law then I must be racist? Why? Because Black people are dishonest, irresponsible, unconstitutional law-breakers? Really?
    How else am I supposed to read that accusation?
    We can always count on Progressives as being too stupid to know when to shut up.

  45. On racism:
    Like it or not, Reagan’s reference to “states rights” in Mississippi, in the context of a clear drive to bring the south into the GOP fold, was a piece of devastating, if inadvertent, symbolism which has haunted the Republican party — and any attempt to promote the constitutional basis of limited federal governance — ever since. Until the tea parties unapologetically embraced that term, it was virtually tabu in public discourse, and as we have seen, its rehabilitation is nowhere near completion.

    On the future:
    “Coupled with their tolerant social views, millennials would appear to be pointing more toward a libertarian future than a liberal or conservative one.”

    I’ve got two millennial children, and their libertarian leanings are not just “coupled” with social tolerance; the two are inextricably linked. The politics of abortion and gay marriage, alone, (and a consequent penumbra of religious fundamentalism) are absolutely key to their rejection of the Republican party — which they see as an actual sponsor of authoritarian government intrusion, not a defender of individual liberty. That’s a monumental obstacle to the advancement of conservative economic and political ideology to which they are otherwise naturally inclined — and it shows up at the ballot box.

  46. One interesting development here is the use of the term “anti-Statist”, which tacitly admits the author is himself is a “Statist”. The author may think he is still cloaked by labels like “progressive”, but the discussion (and propaganda) has taken a step against their preferred narrative.

    Things are slowly moving ahead.

  47. Oh yeah? “America’s unique brand of ideological anti-statism is historically inseparable…from the legacy of slavery…,”

    And this guy thinks that’ll be a strength for the Democratic Party?

    Republicans should bring up the topic more often, if they weren’t another branch of the same thing.

    The so-called “Democratic Party” is the very party of slavery, Jim Crow laws, segregation, and fighting all civil rights legislation.

    Left-fascists –people who love government control– (including the “Democrat Party” operatives) are the ones opposed to black parental choice in their children’s education.

    People who want more government oppose a black teenager opening her own business in her own home doing cornpone hairdos for her friends and neighbors (a true story Chuck Colson included in one of his books).

    The biggest corporations love the biggest governments because they work together to use government force monopoly to keep out competition.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.