Ferguson

Why Obama Can't Lead on Racial Justice

Ferguson has exposed the bankruptcy of his pro-government views

|

Ferguson.Protest
Bing Public Use

Barack Obama's presidency was supposed to usher in America's post-racial era. But Ferguson, Mo., shows that hope was perhaps too audacious.

The cause of racial justice might need not a black Democrat but a white Republican—just as normalization with China required not a liberal peacenik but a security hawk like Richard Nixon.

Ferguson has been up in arms since Michael Brown's killing. The police officer may have been justified in shooting an unarmed teenager six times at close range—or maybe he wasn't. But communities can overlook an unjustified killing if it isn't reflective of a larger trend—just as they can overreact to a justified killing if it is.

And in Ferguson, as in America, there is certainly a trend of black targeting.

Ferguson's 67 percent black population has long reviled the city's 90 percent white police force. And with good reason: Blacks are not only more likely to be stopped while driving, but twice more likely to be arrested when stopped than whites, usually for minor infractions.

Nor is Ferguson an outlier.

Whites are twice as likely to have used drugs than blacks, but blacks are arrested for drug possession three times more often than whites. Blacks serve virtually as much time in prison for drug offenses as whites for violent crimes. What's more, the ACLU found that 42 percent of those impacted by military-style SWAT raids are blacks.

Perhaps blacks are targeted for being black—or perhaps they are less able to fight the system. Either way, as columnist Steve Chapman notes, blacks live in a different America from whites.

Obama has sent more staffers to attend Brown's funeral than Margaret Thatcher's. But when it comes to actual words, he's offered nothing but the most anodyne statements. Why? There are three reasons (beyond simply acting presidential):

One: There's a huge gulf between black and white perceptions about the fairness of America's criminal justice system. Eighty percent of black respondents in a Pew poll said that the Ferguson shooting raised "important issues about race." But only 37 percent of whites did. Given this divide, a black president who inveighs against police discrimination risks looking like he's special pleading, not promoting justice. This would only alienate the majority population whose buy-in is needed for reform.

Two: The problem is not just that Obama is black, but that he's black and from a party with a reputation for coddling criminals rather than fighting crime. When the country was suffering a crime wave in the 1970s and '80s, Democrats were seen as AWOL. Hammering Democratic squishiness allowed Republicans to win many elections, including the presidency in 1989 when George H.W. Bush ran the infamous Willie Horton ad. (Horton, a black convict, brutally raped and assaulted a woman during a weekend "furlough," thanks to a program that Michael Dukakis, Bush's opponent, supported as Massachusetts governor.)

But now that crime rates have dropped, Republicans are better positioned to dismantle the police state they erected.

Three: Columnist Walter Russell Mead has observed that America's relations with blacks today are governed by the "1977 political compromise" that allowed Democrats to use Big Government to open economic opportunities for blacks and Republicans to use it for the "stern and unrelenting repression of inner-city lawlessness and crime."

Since then, the libertarian wing in the GOP has forced a systematic rethinking among Republicans about the excesses of Big Government. For example, as Ferguson authorities used armored vehicles and sound cannons to quell the riots, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., boldly condemned Washington not only for incentivizing the "militarization of local police precincts" but also the disparate impact this was having on vulnerable minorities.

But there is no comparable rethinking among Democrats. To the contrary, Obama has condemned folks like Paul as anti-government yahoos. "If the people cannot trust their government to do the job for which it exists—to protect them and to promote their common welfare—all else is lost," Obama said in a speech in 2006.

Such categorical declarations make it hard for him to admit that the government is the problem in Ferguson.

Obama's biography and party affiliation had already hamstrung him in championing racial justice. But his paeans to the wonderfulness of government have rendered him intellectually bankrupt and hamstrung him further. What minorities really need is not Obama but an anti-Obama: an outspoken white, limited-government Republican who cares.

 This column originally appeared in the Washington Examiner.

NEXT: Inmates Allege Jailer Put Pepper Spray on Pizza

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.

  1. “Racial justice” is just another form of “social justice,” a concept demolished by Hayek. A libertarian should know this.

    And here’s what I think of when I hear “Hands up, don’t shoot.”

    1. “Racial justice” means different things to different people, I’m sure.

      If it means equal protection and that our government’s job is also to protect the rights of black people from the police, too? Then, as far as I’m concerned, it’s as libertarian a concept as anything needs to be.

      If anybody wants to oppose the expansion of the government and oppose the Drug War–because it disproportionately and unfairly targets black people? That’s as good a place to start on the road to libertarianism as any.

      There are a million ways to approach libertarianism, and you don’t go from initiate-novice to Hayek level warlock-assassin overnight. If pushing railing against “racial injustice” is what’s necessary to get to a more libertarian world, then that’s alright with me.

      1. I totally disagree. It refuses to acknowledge the structural flaws in our justice system that say the cops can arbitrarily enforce laws.

        And there are a lot of proponents of racial justice that want everyone tombs treated equally…like shit. Well that might be racial justice but it’s a far cry from true justice…and it’s a far, far cry from what libertarians consider “just”.

        1. Justice doesn’t need adjectives. In fact, adjectives are just the 1,000 cuts that bleed it to death.

          1. Dingdingding!

            We have a winner!

        2. “It refuses to acknowledge the structural flaws in our justice system that say the cops can arbitrarily enforce laws.”

          How does insisting on equal protection do this?

          And, again, what we’re talking about here is a pitch to the people. …not a constitutional amendment.

          “And there are a lot of proponents of racial justice that want everyone tombs treated equally…like shit.”

          I don’t agree with everybody that supports the Second Amendment on every other issue, either.

          Honestly, I think we’ve let the issue of racism become a partisan issue to the point that people think you have to be a progressive style socialist to even talk about it–and that’s just not so.

          We need to reclaim this issue from the progressive bastards. We never should have conceded that part of the battlefield without a fight.

          1. What I’m saying, ken, is that “racial justice” means that everybody might be treated equally….equally like shit.

            What we need to do is stop the fundamentally bad practices that are occurring in the justice system to fix the system for everybody, not merely seek for equality.

            Make it just for the sake of justice, not equal for the sake of equality.

            1. And what I’m saying is that we need to sell what people are buying.

              What’s the difference between bait and sushi?

              I’d say a big one is that people want to eat sushi but they don’t want to eat bait.

              We don’t have to fundamentally change anything. We just talk about it differently, emphasize things that people care about…

              Don’t we defend ourselves when somebody comes here and says there’s something fundamentally racist about libertarianism? Don’t we say that institutional racism is fundamentally incompatible with libertarianism?

              If that’s what people want to hear, whey can’t we emphasize that angle for a while? Again, I’m not talking about compromising any principle, here. But there are a whole list of libertarian issues–starting with police brutality and the Drug War–that are especially pertinent to minorities.

              If that’s what voters are buying right now, let’s sell them that for a while!

              Meanwhile, when we tell the average person that we’re against “racial justice”, they don’t interpret that in any way we want them to. You understand that, right?

              I’d rather qualify my support for “racial justice” as being equal protection and opposition to racist things like the Drug War than tell people I’m against “racial justice” and have to qualify that as…anything. It just isn’t selling right now. Maybe someday parachute pants will come back, but in the meantime, let’s sell the market what it wants.

              1. The problem with your analogy, and frankly with your proposals, is that equality is bait and justice is sushi.

                1. Equal protection and justice are the same thing.

                  I’ve been saying that over and over.

                  Other people use “racial justice” to mean other things. So what?

                  Let’s thank them for the branding effort. Now we can use it for our own ends.

                  1. I want Rand Paul to be the President of the United States.

                    Like for reals.

                    I don’t want Hillary Clinton or the next Bush in line.

                    To make Rand Paul the President of the United States, we’re going to have to make him appealing to a certain segment of swing voters who voted for Obama last time–and still don’t regret it.

                    That’s what you have to do to be president. You tell me how we do that.

                    1. That’s what you have to do to be president. You tell me how we do that.

                      By example and by making things BETTER for everybody, not equally,shitty.

                    2. “by making things BETTER for everybody, not equally,shitty.”

                      No one thinks libertarians and libertarians running for president on the Republican ticket are all about trying to make things equally shitty for everybody.

                      There are swing voters out there who suspect libertarians and libertarians running for president on the Republican ticket are racists, and that–by itself–makes them reluctant to vote for someone like Rand Paul.

                    3. The bad news is you won’t get what you want.

                      The good news is that you won’t get what you don’t want.

                      The shit news is that you’ll get Elizabeth Warren.

                    4. No one outside of Massachusetts is voting for Liz Warren.

                      She’ll raise a lot of money–she’s going nowhere.

                      If Liz Warren wins the nomination, Darth Cheney might be able to beat her.

                    5. You sure don’t do it by explicitly arguing against “equal justice”, or by advancing the libertopian withering away of the state. Sure, about half of libertarians may understand what you mean, and won’t think you’re kook or racist because they understand the context. But about 90% of non-libertarians will think you are a kook or a racist.

                      Much better to argue for “equal protection under the law”.

                  2. Equal protection and justice are the same thing.

                    I’ve been saying that over and over.

                    People living in a non-discriminating police state would tend to disagree with you.

                    Equal protection might mean the boot is on everyone’s neck. Justice means it is on nobody’s neck. You can have equality without justice but justice requires equality.

                    I hope you can see the difference, Ken.

                    1. Well that’s a different issue, isn’t it?

                      You’re not against the government treating everyone the same regardless of race.

                      I know that.

                      Why can’t you vocally be in favor of treating everyone the same regardless of race?

                      Equal protection isn’t the only issue libertarians are pushing either. Everybody knows that. But why can’t it be one that we put front and center for a while?

                      Honestly, I think that racial issues have been abandoned to the left for so long, that some of my fellow libertarians have forgotten or never learned how to talk about them in a libertarian way. I think it’s getting to the point that you can’t talk about it without some people thinking you’re actually on the left.

                      That’s bad, it’s unnecessary, and it helps us lose.

                    2. Ken, the people talking about “racial justice” or “social justice” are not in favor of “equal protection” or “treating everyone the same regardless of race.” They want to herd individuals into various groups, and then give preferences to “oppressed” groups, at the expense of everyone in “oppressor” groups. As Hayek (and Heroic Mulatto above) said, all “social justice” comes at the expense of individual justice (the real kind).

                    3. “Ken, the people talking about “racial justice” or “social justice” are not in favor of “equal protection”

                      I know what those people want.

                      I don’t give a shit what they want.

                      I can use the same language and mean something else entirely. And if that kind of branding can be used for the benefit of the libertarian cause, then why wouldn’t we use it?

                      I don’t care what the progressive scumbags who use that term want–I care about using their term to get what we want.

                      And by the way? I really do want equal protection for everybody regardless of race. Why not? And I want the filthy progressives to defend their disgusting Drug War against the charge of racism, too.

                      They can’t.

                      Let them defend the militarization of local police in terms of racism, too.

                      When we reclaim the race issue from them, using it against us won’t be as effective as it used to be. So…we should totally do that.

                  3. “Equal protection and justice are the same thing.”

                    No, equal protection is a requirement for justice, but it can exist without it. If the laws are unjust, but equally enforced, you have equal protection but not justice. At any rate, racial justice doesn’t even suggest equal protection, because it doesn’t address the issue of blue supremacists.

              2. What I like about Ken’s position is it turns the progressives tactics against them: the manipulation of language and superb branding of issues. The one percenters, war on women, racial justice! Getting inside their branding and selling racial justice as equality under the law, ending the drug war, opposition to stop and frisk, etc, is fine strategy, One need not take someone from equality under the law to Hayek, one can sell ideas incrementally.

                Sadly, most people will never make the ethical calculus or delve into reasoning an issue, have to sell them liberty in creative ways. Don’t shoot the messenger,

  2. What minorities really need is not Obama but an anti-Obama: an outspoken white, limited-government Republican who cares.

    Chris Christie 2016!

    *barf*

    1. Well, he is outspoken and white.

    2. Lets start a barfing bucket and we can gift it to whoever really thinks a mainstream Republican will solve any issues related to liberty.

  3. The problem is not just that Obama is black,

    Michelle or Barack?

  4. IF you want to go down the road of “racial justice” how about some justice for the various white people who are victimized by blacks every year? What about that? Or are only brown people entitled to justice?

    How about we just do justice regardless of race? How about that idea? I really don’t think you are going to like the racial kind of justice very much. But that is just me.

    1. Never happens the other way around, John.

      The four were terrorized, robbed, sexually assaulted and kidnapped before finally being gunned down execution-style after being forced to kneel in a frozen soccer field near 29th Street North and Greenwich.

      http://www.kansas.com/news/spe…..29860.html

      1. Are we going to get a shitty Nick Gillespie piece on why these two animals shouldn’t fry?

        1. Is there a reason why the cops who murdered Eric Garner shouldn’t fry?

          1. I’d have to look at the NYPD’s collective bargaining agreement to,give an answer to that.
            -union-supporting progressive

      2. There was a fifth victim. The execution bullet bounced off her hair pin and she survived. As Spock would say, “Fascinating.” She ran naked through the snow to get help.

    2. “IF you want to go down the road of “racial justice” how about some justice for the various white people who are victimized by blacks every year?”

      Because that doesn’t play well with the swing voters, who voted for Barack Obama last time–because doing so gave them a warm feeling like they were striking a blow for racial justice.

      This is why those people voted for Barack Obama:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ib-Qiyklq-Q

      You want to sell them someone like Rand Paul? That’s how you do it.

      Rand Paul even understands this! Has anyone on the Republican side tried harder to connect with minorities?

      We should be cheering racial justice on. Do libertarians believe in racial justice? Of course we do! We just call it equal protection. The Democrats don’t even believe in justice. If they did, they wouldn’t support their racist Drug War.

      1. This is why those people voted for Barack Obama:

        Free Coke?

    3. ” I really don’t think you are going to like the racial kind of justice very much.”

      I’m gonna take a guess and say you are white. I’m also gonna guess the idea of being brought before justice, make that RACIAL justice, is terrifying to you.

      Kibertarians! You won’t get beyond your corner of the rightwing if you don’t get beyond your phobias concerning race.

      1. What you’ve just said… is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever seen. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone here is now dumber for having seen it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul…

        1. “What you’ve just said… is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever seen.”

          Very kind of you to point that out. Of course fear is irrational. Didn’t you smell the fear rising from John’s post? I think I even heard the sound of his knees knocking together as I read it.

          I still say that until Libertarians can get beyond their fear of the blacks, they won’t have anything of interest to contribute to this issue.

  5. “Racial Justice”, Miss Dalmia? How about “Justice”, period? Because equal,protection should be the goal, not justice predicated on skin color.

    We have fundamental problem with our justice system, and there are some races that are disproportionately impacted by different components of those problems (like the WOD as it relates to black incarceration rates, etc). But don’t make the mistake that it’s not the fundamentals and foundations of the system that are broken. And that’s something we should all be concerned with, not just blacks or Hispanics.

  6. But now that crime rates have dropped, Republicans are better positioned to dismantle the police state they erected.

    Well, you’re half right.

    Seriously, is there an editor that signed off on this idiocy? The Democrats are just as responsible for creating the police state as the Republicans. They were totally on board with the WOD and they tend to govern more major cities where drug crimes are vigorously prosecuted. Just look at the incarceration rates in Chicago, New York and Los Angeles and the daily evidence we see if cops using marijuana possession as a pretext to destroy communities and prevent people from exercising their 2A rights routinely in those places.

    For the love of God. This bullshit is all but too much for me to take.

    1. Seriously, is there an editor that signed off on this idiocy?

      At the leading journal of cosmotarianism everyone is an editor.

  7. But now that crime rates have dropped, Republicans are better positioned to dismantle the police state they erected.

    Well, you’re half right.

    Seriously, is there an editor that signed off on this idiocy? The Democrats are just as responsible for creating the police state as the Republicans. They were totally on board with the WOD and they tend to govern more major cities where drug crimes are vigorously prosecuted. Just look at the incarceration rates in Chicago, New York and Los Angeles and the daily evidence we see if cops using marijuana possession as a pretext to destroy communities and prevent people from exercising their 2A rights routinely in those places.

    For the love of God. This bullshit is all but too much for me to take.

    1. Half?

      I count three positions taken by Miss Dalmia:

      (1) crime rates down;
      (2) republicans created the police state; and, by implication,
      (3) Democrats did not

      Why do so many here buy the “crime rates are down” line? The source, almost invariably relied upon, is the USSA’s “justice department” or one of its organs, like the FBI.

      1. I think crime rates are easy to track with online records of convictions made available. I am sure there is some verification with federal and state agencies but the records are public.

        I trust those more than many other stats that deal with arrests rather than conviction rates.

        1. sloop, “online records of convictions made available” is hardly a basis upon which to measure the overall incidences of actual crime (and I mean real malum in se crime like assault, battery, breaking and entering, murder, rape, and robbery).

          We have to agree that not all real crimes are reported or otherwise entered into some statistical database, right? And I’m not talking about regret rape and the like.

          Then, don’t forget all of the crimes committed each and every day by the state’s coercive caste. You know those crimes are not included in any governmental statistical data base.

          1. Yeah, I see your point now and concede it. I just never consider anything a crime until there is an actual,conviction.

            So yeah, you’d be right when you measure it the way you are.

            1. Thank you.

              Just a dollop of a downer for your palate:

              I have attempted to make the overall point that I have just raised with you with three of my former law school clerks who have worked at my office. All of them just could not comprehend that there is a reality beyond what the government says it is.

              They did not want to entertain the possibility that the numbers published by the state were not accurate or the compilation of the numbers contained flaws. They also did not want to even think of a world where government records were not presumed to be accurate.

              1. Great,,I’m smarter than three law school clerks. That might mean I still want cake….

                1. One of them clerked for the Massachusetts Court of Appeals and has judicial ambitions.

                  Although she is very bright, she just couldn’t hang when it came time to play big boy debate.

                  Honest to god, you would eviscerate her in a debate.

              2. Presume them to be inaccurate if you wish; you don’t get to employ that presumption in the declaration of new facts.

                It’s pretty uncontroversially accepted that crime rates are significantly down the last few decades. Some suggest the fact that we have 10% of our population in jail has something to do with it.

                1. Some suggest the fact that we have 10% of our population in jail has something to do with it.

                  Tony wants us to blame the Drug War but not the government for our incarceration rates, which, once again, shows everyone how stupid he is.

                  1. Yeah, I prefer to blame bad policy, because government can do good things as well, and is not fucking going anywhere. What precisely are you accomplishing, intellectually speaking, by blaming a constant of the universe instead of focusing on the relevant, more granular causal factors?

                    1. Tony|8.26.14 @ 7:32PM|#
                      “Yeah, I prefer to blame bad policy, because government can do good things as well”…
                      Rarely, and usually by mistake.

                      …”and is not fucking going anywhere”…
                      You might be right, but the fact that it certainly should go in the trash bin, so it’s worth it to keep poking.
                      In spite of thug defenders and parasites like you.

                    2. So Tony thinks a government is like a universal constant? As if governments don’t perish on a routine basis.

                    3. I was unaware that the existence of the Leviathan state was codified into the laws of physics.

                2. the fact that we have 10% of our population in jail

                  Actually, according to Wikipedia, about 1% of the adult population is incarcerated, and about 3% of the adult population is incarcerated or on parole. Nevertheless, the rates in the US are fairly high historically and geographically.

                  1. Our incarceration rates are the highest in the world, and the Drug War has a lot to do with that.

                    But Tony’s stupid idea that the policy and not the government is to blame is absurd.

                    Which of the two major parties has been at the forefront of stopping the Drug War?

                    None of the above is the correct answer.

                    The Progressives don’t even want us drinking sugary soft drinks. Yeah, the problem isn’t the government’s ability to throw millions of people in prison–for whatever. It isn’t the police and jailer’s unions, who constantly need to be fed with the blood and tears of “thug” minorities.

                    No, no. If only we had the right politicians in office, all of that would go away. That the Democratic Party has done nothing to call off the Drug War nationally is apparently beside the point. That Barack Obama has doing nothing to call off the racist Drug War, well, we’re supposed to imagine that’s beside the point, too.

                    The point is that if only the Republicans weren’t in the way, the Drug War…well, it’s the policy that’s the problem. I know ’cause Tony told me so, and he’s an idiot.

                    1. It’s interesting how Tony can divorce the actor from the actions. Look, the killer didn’t kill, the gun killed! The kidnapper didn’t kidnap, his bad policy is to blame!

                    2. Yeah, he decries the problems, out of one side of his mouth, but out of the other, he doesn’t want us in any to decrease the size and scope of government.

                      In Tony’s world, the problem isn’t that the government can throw people in prison because of their favorite intoxicant.

                      The problem is the people in charge.

                      But he wants to keep it so the government can throw people in jail because of our choice of intoxicant. Limiting the scope of government would be wrong–in his weird world.

                      It makes no sense. He’s not even trying to make sense. He just wants to defend the size and scope of government–and he doesn’t care what that does to the minorities he’d like to pretend he’s defending, here.

                    3. How do you change these things? Overthrowing government? You’re the ones not making sense. You’re dogmatically obsessed with the idea that the concept of government itself is bad, and every thought you have must be in service of that thesis.

                      Of course it matters who’s in charge. That’s all that’s ever mattered. Because nowhere in civilized society is there not a government. Nowhere in uncivilized society is there not a government of some form. Government is just a fact of human existence. By calling it always evil you’re making yourself look stupid and not proposing any realistic solution to actual problems.

          2. Yeaw, our local law enforcements budgets were severly cut a decade ago. Heard someone break into my garage to steal my nice mtn bike. Called sheriff, “ah, we’ve too many other priorities to deal with.” In my conversations folks have given up on reporting crime. Then if ‘ya booby trap your storage shed, you’re in deep doo doo if law enforcement gets word. Much criminal activity and acts of self preservation have gone under the radar.

    2. Jeebus. Looking around for police abuse articles, I see more than few coming from big cities that have been under one-party Dem rule for decades.

      How, exactly, did the Repubs create the police state in those cities?

      1. If you listed to HuffPo,,which I have been doing a lot lately,miss because cops are by their nature racist teabaggerz and only go to those cities to corrupt it with their racist brand of conservatism.

        Seriously, that’s the kind of shit I see over there.

      2. How, exactly, did the Repubs create the police state in those cities?

        The Compromise of 1977:

        Three: Columnist Walter Russell Mead has observed that America’s relations with blacks today are governed by the “1977 political compromise” that allowed Democrats to use Big Government to open economic opportunities for blacks and Republicans to use it for the “stern and unrelenting repression of inner-city lawlessness and crime.”

        Shikha made it all up and then links to something which doesn’t actually support her statement. Nick Gillespie pulls this move all the time.

      3. Jeebus. Looking around for police abuse articles, I see more than few coming from big cities that have been under one-party Dem rule for decades.

        Criminal justice policy is largely set at the state level, with the local mayor only getting a say in the Chief of Police.

        As much as I don’t think the Dems are any more caring where justice is concerned, I don’t like the lazy tactic of saying “but teh blue cities have tons of police abuse” since it ignores the reality that those cities also tend to house higher populations of criminals due to the anonymity a city affords a perp. It strikes me the same as the recent huffpo article about poverty rates in the south.

  8. Ferguson’s 67 percent black population has long reviled the city’s 90 percent white police force

    From what I’ve read the Ferguson demographics changed from 2/3 white to 2/3 black in the last 20 years, egged along by section 8 housing for blacks the other blacks were trying to get away from.

    1. Seems like the racial content of the police force is, to a great extent, influenced by the promise of getting the goodies that flow from being a member of a parasitic public sector employee union.

      Whitey sure is addicted to that communism.

  9. Just to play in the hyphenated justice sandbox:

    Adjectives are meant to distinguish what they modify. So, “racial” justice is meant to be distinguished from justice, right? Its not synonymous with justice, otherwise, why the modifier/adjective?

    If justice presupposes equality of treatment without regard for status (whether economic, social, racial, whatever), then hyphenated justice is an oxymoron, a refutation of justice that substitutes something else for it. “Racial” justice isn’t justice at all, its something else, something that involves unequal treatment based on status.

    And that, my friends, is not something a libertarian should support.

    1. Yes but you then would have to admit the same holds true for any one of a zillion applications the defense of which I am not so sure many here would undertake with zealousness, if at all.

      For example, take the right to travel. Justice requires that each and every individual is treated the same way – if the president is not subject to a “papers please” regime, then a migrant from Managua need not have to produce any identification if he decides to cross the Rio Grande.

      Justice presupposes that American justice is an oxymoron, right?

    2. Not to venerate Bush, but recall his Dem opponent wanted a “Hate Crime” bill? Justice should be justice for all. This carve out a niche for this group or that group can only put justice into a spiral dive.

  10. You have to realize it’s incredibly lame that every punchline for every opinion posted here has to be, “That’s why government is to blame.” Government sucks is not a sophisticated philosophy of politics. I liked this until that obligatory tack-on. Especially the part about how white Republicans will have to be the saviors of blacks.

    Unfortunately it’s impossible to reconcile a philosophy centered on eliminating social safety nets with helping poor and marginalized minorities achieve social parity. Moving money into their pockets is the least intrusive, most dignified, and most effective means of doing this. Snooping around people’s family structures and personal habits (which presumably is the alternative) is none of these things.

    1. “Moving money into their pockets is the least intrusive, most dignified, and most effective means of doing this.”

      Do you have any evidence to back up this statement?

      1. Here’s a good article on the subject.

        What are you proposing is more effective?

        And who cares if it’s the most effective, least intrusive, and most dignified means of reducing poverty and the host of bad social problems that comes with it and that affect everyone? The greatest injustice, the most potent social harm, of course, is taxing people to accomplish it.

        1. “Here’s a good article on the subject.”

          Yeah, an article full of unsupported claims by a lefty idjit. Good one, slime-ball.

        2. bad social problems that come[] with [poverty]

          A reminder of how sociology is just socially acceptable astrology.

          If poverty was the cause, then humans would still be living in caves marveling at fires.

        3. You think that stuffing black people’s pockets with cash has been effective in helping “poor and marginalized minorities achieve social parity”?

          Do you know how much money we’ve spent on this?

          Do you really think black people have effectively achieved parity?

          How stupid are you?

          1. No, because we haven’t spent enough?

    2. “Unfortunately it’s impossible to reconcile a philosophy centered on eliminating social safety nets with helping poor and marginalized minorities achieve social parity.”

      You slimy piece of crap. Just once you ought to try posting without a lie.

    3. “Unfortunately it’s impossible to reconcile a philosophy centered on eliminating social safety nets with helping poor and marginalized minorities achieve social parity.”

      Only if you believe that poor and marginalized minorities are incapable of achievement and advancement.

    4. Only in bizarro world is it more “dignified” to receive unearned money stolen from others instead of earning it by convincing others to give it you voluntarily.

      Next up from Tony:

      – Raping people more “dignified” than asking for consent

      – Enslaving people more “dignified” than hiring employees

      – Murdering people more “dignified” than resolving differences peacefully

      1. It isn’t just stupid; it’s also racist.

        It is racist for Tony to think that black people can’t achieve social parity without money from white people.

        And racism from Tony doesn’t surprise me–he’s repeatedly proven, for instance, that he doesn’t think Rosa Parks had the right to sit in front of a public bus because the government didn’t say she did.

        Meanwhile, out of the other side of his mouth, Tony is trying, somehow, to make it seem like the racist drug war isn’t the government’s fault.

        Do you know how hard it is to get a job after a drug conviction? Somehow, that’s not the government’s fault in Tony’s world. Somehow that inequality of outcome–even in Tony’s Prog World–doesn’t justify reducing the size and scope of the state.

        1. It’s racist to think that black poverty is caused by anything other than… them not having enough money. Government does not target the black community for special motivation-draining coddling. Quite the opposite. If government coddling caused social problems then billionaires would be mainlining heroin and looting stores.

    5. Moving money into their pockets is the least intrusive, most dignified, and most effective means of doing this.

      So, you’re on board with the notion of just cutting everyone a check and calling society’s obligation to them fulfilled?

      Ha, no you’re not, because then you lose the chance to use your control over the little resources you’ve provided the poor to improve them, for their own good, you smug elitist prog fuck. And at any rate, such an idea would leave you allied with at least one faction of moderate libertarians, so it’s anathema.

      1. I’m tentatively on board for replacing welfare bureaucracies with simple check-cutting. But a few basic services like healthcare and education need to have infrastructure set up and made available (and mandatory in the case of education). The point is the core problem is poverty. Any other suggestion gets into racist assumptions.

    6. I think Tony should start by voluntarily “moving” all his money.

      The euphemisms progressives use for taking seem endless.

    7. Moving money into their pockets is the least intrusive, most dignified, and most effective means of doing this.

      So poverty = not getting free money. Gotcha.

    8. Studies of the poor rising from poverty to middle class in scandinavian countries indicate that their kids were prone to criminality at the same rates of poverty families. Thus disputing the whether it’s money rather than set values myth.

  11. Meh. Obama’s racial justice is how he can use race for political gain. Otherwise than that, he could care less if all the plebes rot in a dungeon, no matter what their color.

  12. What a fucking farce this whole thing is, just like everything else that gets trotted out by the left. Thirty black kids are shot in Chicago every day, but do we ever hear about it? Where are the candlelight vigils and endless editorials?

    This whole Ferguson thing is so obviously manufactured by the left as a means to stir up racial hatred in an election year. Do you really think racial harmony is what these maggots are after? The left fights to keep racism alive in order to keep their failed ideology alive at the ballot box.

    Stop letting these motherfuckers lead you around by the nose, “Reason” (and everyone else)

    1. Did the left also force the cops to play stormtrooper with the protestors (while, AFAICT, ignoring the actual looters)? The conspiracy has so many levels, man!

  13. But his paeans to the wonderfulness of government have rendered him intellectually bankrupt and hamstrung him further.

    Nope. His intellectual bankruptcy causes him to make paeans to the wonderfulness of government.

    The guy is nothing but a Marxist-lite slogan generator. Yes We Can! Hope’n’Change! Forward! Like the esteemed mayor of DC said about another community organizer, Obama don’t want to run nothing but his mouth. (That was Marion Barry on Jesse Jackson, but it works just as well here. If I remember, the grammatical error was in the original quote.) The guy is enamored with his own voice, and still has legions of acolytes who feel the same way. Unfortunately, they are unable to accomplish anything constructive because of the aforementioned intellectual bankruptcy.

  14. I liek the sound of that. Wow.

    http://www.AnonCrypt.tk

  15. What’s that sign say on the bottom? “Fleht with Ferguson”? “I have a gub”?

  16. Since, as Steve Chapman has noted, at the state level Republicans all across the nation are working to make it harder for blacks to vote, it’s unlikely that the defining push for racial justice will come from the GOP, Rand Paul to the contrary notwithstanding.

    1. It’s not too hard to vote in Cali, a democratic state. In fact, I voted 3 times in the last election. Could’ve voted 30 times; piece of cake.

    2. Alan Vanneman|8.27.14 @ 8:37AM|#
      “Since, as Steve Chapman has noted, at the state level Republicans all across the nation are working to make it harder for blacks to vote,”

      Gee, Alan, did I miss the GOP ‘blacks aren’t allowed to vote’ bill, or are you just spouting bullshit again?
      Somehow, I’ll bet it’s the later.

      1. Why do you feel it necessary to defend the GOP?

  17. We’ll not make any progress toward racial justice by cutting any race some slack to commit crimes. If cops are quilty of selective justice, then they are the least quilty of the govt systems in play.

    To start, if evidence and witnesses convict a killer redundant 3Xs, then said criminal should promply cease earthly existence without the system bulking society out of millions$$$. I just retired from teaching where I saw too many innocent children harassed and sometimes badly beatened by violent kids who couldn’t be disciplined because of their “color.”

  18. The very definition of justice is ignored when quantifying it with the term “racial”. True justice is blind to everything but the facts and how they stack up against the law. (Unjust laws are a whole other subject.)

    Obama is a racist and hoped to fan the flames of black racism as he and the majority of Democrats fan the flames of a war they created that pits women against men, the young against the elderly, the worker against the sloth, the government against private ownership of property, the government against allowing one to keep the fruits of their labor because conquer and divide is the only way totalitarians end up with power. And complete power and control over every aspect of human life is the goal of Democrats.

  19. The main problem is progressives / statists profit more from racial division than racial harmony … and Obama is a progressive statist by his own admission. Divide and conquer is perhaps the oldest political maxim. While blacks are lining up against whites and vice versa, neither of them are looking at the incompetent government elephants in the room. Blacks and whites should be asking the exact same question: what is the government taking in, and what are we getting in return. In California, the government is number 1 or 2 in taxation, yet below 40 in almost every other public good measure (education, road conditions, parks, etc.).

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.