The Role Of The Black Conservative In America
Tweet
Black conservatives, unless they come to their conservatism via religion like TD Jakes, have very limited influence over black America. Why? Because they essentially serve as painted-on black faces over conservative policies that hurt blacks either by design or coincidence. Sometimes that means a person like Thomas Sowell pretending that trickle-down economics never existed or in this case, Shelby Steele argues that the reason we haven’t nuked our enemies isn’t because that would be crazy but because the nation hasn’t gotten over “white guilt”.
Got that? Black conservatives as a political movement would best be described as “fake” or in my mind, destructive. They do not seek to uplift their own people or all people. Their goal is simple: making extreme conservative ideas acceptable by giving them the imprimateur of racial consensus. It’s shuck and jive.
>> No More Mister Nice Blog
>> Time to stop feeling guilty and start really bombing
71 Responses to “The Role Of The Black Conservative In America”
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
What Time Is Super Bowl 2012 (Super Bowl XLVI)?
Republican Senate Candidate To Run Racist Ad During Super Bowl
Latest Entries
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
C.K.: November 22, 1999 – January 7, 2012
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Where to begin… Saying that no one advocated “trickle down” economics is different from saying it never existed. I quote from your MM reference:
See? No one “advocated” it.
From your post: “They do not seem to uplift their own people or all people.”
Maybe they don’t “seem to,” but it is what they want to happen. If I don’t believe the government can “uplift people”, and I don’t, why would I waste my time talking about whether they should or they shouldn’t?
Kinda like debating whether we should have a mission to land on the Sun by 2100.
As long as you see the government as the only salvation for black people, you will never understand, let alone appreciate, the work of people like Shelby Steele, Walter Williams, or Thomas Sowell.
You show zero understanding of human nature and/or conservatism. What happened to intelligent, inquistive and free minds coming up with differing viewpoints? Does it occur to you that in your analysis you are really suggesting:
There is only one certifiable ‘black thought’ process – and it really isn’t thinking anyway. Blacks don’t need to really think, they just need to take the positions prescribed for them by the (white) Democratic Party power structure. So, basically, agree with OW and the party elite or you are not black. You are fake, destructive and ‘shucking and jiving’. But agree with OW and you are none of those things.
Dugger, Sowell is a brilliant man.
“Trickle-down” was a degrading and misleading term coined by Reagan’s opponents, the same people who coined “voodoo economics” for George HW Bush.
Whatever you want to call it, it worked spectacularly well in spurring economic growth in the 1980′s just like it is working for President Bush now.
(Sorry – didn’t mean to spoil your mood by mentioning the good economy again.)
It’s also pretty obvious that the Jackson/Mfume/Bond/Sharpton et.al. alliance with the Democratic party is concerned solely with “making extreme [liberal] ideas acceptable by giving them the imprimateur of racial consensus.”
That’s shuck and jive, too.
Actually George HW Bush is the one who called Reagan’s economic policies “voodoo economics” during the 1980 GOP primaries. I know this involves opening a history book at some point, but please try.
Black conservatives as a political movement would best be described as fake or in my mind, destructive.
This statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Black conservatives are individuals and as such cannot be described as a “political movement.” Conservatism is conservatism.
You also misrepresent Sowell when you say Sowell is “pretending that trickle-down economics never existed.” He said nobody advocated it. Even Media Matters is full of crap (as usual) when they attempt to debunk what Sowell says citing the OMB director’s comments as proof of ‘advocation.’ ‘Trickle down economics’ by itself doesn’t even truly exist as it is merely a catch phrase used by certain publications in describing the effects of supply side economics.
The other problem is that you consider any conservative idea to be extreme because you’re a left wing liberal (and don’t hand my your ace in the hole, “I support the death penalty therefore I am a moderate Democrat” bullshit. You supporting the death penalty is an anomoly to your liberalism as is Bill O’Reilly’s support for stronger environmental laws an anomoly to his conservatism. Bill Maher isn’t a ‘libertarian’ because he wants to legally smoke weed and bang hookers), so you simply make the assumption that no REAL black person could support such things.
Why don’t you stop being such a wuss and call them Uncle Toms already?
Well, Frank. Are you letting off steam, or do these postings help pay your bills?
See? No one advocated it.
Stockman advocated supply-side economics, which he equated with trickle-down. Isn’t that the same as advocating trickle-down? Supply-side, trickle-down, horse-and-sparrow: what’s the difference? Changing labels on empty bottles. What’s your point, Frank?
Hattie, do I really want to know what you’re talking about?
Isn t that the same as advocating trickle-down?
No.
Wilbur: I said what I said. That was the point. What is it with you lefties?
You’re always asking me what I really mean, or worse, telling me what I really mean.
I said what I meant. Period.
Yea it is hard to believe that black americans might actually believe Martin Luther King when he said
“I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
But no, anyone against that is just a racist.
Did it ever occur to you that other black americans might want to live in a country where they didn’t have to wonder whether or not they were successful because of their skin color?
“That most of them are shills or paid hacks of mostly white backers is not my fault but their own.”
A statement dripping with so much irony that if you’d better have an umbrella handy if you stand under it.
So if a guy gets his paycheck from a white guy, he is not to be believed?
What color is that guy that runs media matters Oliver?
Hmmm….shill, paid hack….Ollie, people that live in glass houses..you know the rest.
I consider the wholesale privatization of the government to be a pretty extreme thing, so does most of America but among conservatives it s a laudable goal.
The problem is, conservatism as a movement doesn’t advocate “the wholesale privatization of the government” so it’s basically a strawman (which people is a TRUE strawman tactic – that is building up an argument that doesn’t exist, knocking it down and claiming victory).
A movement is a group of people with a shared ideology.
That is 100% incorrect. A movement is an organized effort by supporters of a common goal. In this instance, conservatism. Therefore, there is no such thing as a “black conservative movement.”
That most of them are shills or paid hacks of mostly white backers is not my fault but their own.
No, you merely assume that because it’s not something that you agree with. You think no black person could possibly believe such things, so you label them as nothing more than money grubbing rubes. And that’s your problem as it is with so many today in politics. You’d much rather just slap a label on somebody or something because you’re scared of actually having to engage an idea. It’s intellectual cowardice on your part.
Once again, Jay, you make an assertion without backing it up. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being on the extreme left but if you think it’s me, you’re wrong. I consider the wholesale privatization of the government to be a pretty extreme thing, so does most of America but among conservatives it’s a laudable goal.
A movement is a group of people with a shared ideology. There’s not many of them but there is a black conservative movement. That most of them are shills or paid hacks of mostly white backers is not my fault but their own.
For the rest of you, as I stated in the entry black conservatives who come to their position out of religion usually tend to be more authentic both to themselves and to the people that follow them. Black America is considerably more socially conservative en masse than White America but more economically moderate. They largely are not among the rubes who get whipped up by the GOP about gay marriage etc. They may not agree with gay marriage but are much more likely to vote based on economic issues than gaybashing, which is why they vote Democratic.
I agree with Frank.
Frameone writes:
Now that we re racism free, Steele argues, it s okay for us to nuke Iran and torture the hell out of Arabs. Anybody want to sign up with this total insanity?
1. Show us where Steele argues we are “racism free.” Specifics please. Not what you deduced. Not what you claim he is implying. Please show us exactly where he argues we are racism free.
2. Where did he say it was “ok for us to nuke Iran”? Again, please be specific.
3. Where he did he say anything about “torturing the hell out of Arabs”? Again, specifics.
Is Sowell a liar, or just an ignoramus? I wonder what dildos pay him to be an ‘economist.’ To those who are parsing their asses off trying to justify his nonsense, isn’t that the same ridiculous straining of language for which Clinton was ridiculed?
Anyone who thinks the Reagan years were an economic success must have been a blood-sucking S & L operator (a la Neil Bush), a ‘defense’ contractor, or a cocaine dealer. I remember massive deficits, a gutted public sector, and $800 toilet seats. Ah, the good old days of destructive greed.
As for Shelby Steele, no thinking person should utter his name without a smirk. What a tool. “Minimalism and restraint in war”? I’ve got his minimalism right here. Yes, the Bush administration’s foreign policy blunders are all the fault of ‘white guilt.’
John Stuart Mill was right.
Hey& braintrust& .OW isn t the one who turned his blog into a poor man s version of People Magazine. You re accusing Oliver of running away from having to defend ideas? You are a joke, Jay.
And you’re a freaking idiot, Ted. What the hell does my blog have to do with what I said to Oliver? I swear, you have some kind of hard on for the fact that I don’t blog about politics anymore. What the hell do you care and why is it your concern? The fact that the blog I have now is directed at sports and pop culture is irrelevant to what I said to Oliver. And I didn’t accuse him of running away from defending ideas. I said he was scared of engaging an idea he didn’t agree with. Read for content nitwit.
>>The problem is, conservatism as a movement doesn t advocate the wholesale privatization of the government so it s basically a strawman
A spinchter says what?
When truly put to the test, all non-defense government activity would be privatized, if you and your ilk had your way. Partial privatization of SS was just one step along that path–(a step I happen to see some merit in, btw).
>>You d much rather just slap a label on somebody or something because you re scared of actually having to engage an idea. It s intellectual cowardice on your part.
Hey…braintrust….OW isn’t the one who turned his blog into a poor man’s version of “People Magazine.” You’re accusing Oliver of running away from having to defend ideas? You are a joke, Jay.
JK
Holy Crap. Has anyone here actually read Steele’speice:
“If there is still the odd white bigot out there surviving past his time, there are millions of whites who only feel goodwill toward minorities.
This is a fact that must be integrated into our public life–absorbed as new history–so that America can once again feel the moral authority to seriously tackle its most profound problems. Then, if we decide to go to war, it can be with enough ferocity to win.”
Now that we’re racism free, Steele argues, it’s okay for us to nuke Iran and torture the hell out of Arabs. Anybody want to sign up with this total insanity?
If I understand Mr. Willis correctly, white liberals think just like negroes.
I just looked at the Steele piece.
It’s not a black thing.
It’s not a white thing.
It’s an insane thing. I mean, the man has to be stark slavering bugfuck insane.
So, having abandoned the pretense of the WMD rationale, when all our government has is to implore us to stand with the noble purple-fingered Iraqi masses yearning to breathe free, apparently the only obstacle to our victory is that we haven’t created enough random mass horror. Way to win those hearts and minds!
If there were honest black conservatives in the political arena, I d feel free to engage them. But once again, I ve yet to actually see one.
Right. They’re liars and hucksters.
What a chickenshit you are.
The problem, Frank, is that what you said makes no damn sense. Try reading your own posts before you complain… to wit:
Stockman says A equal B.
Stockman advocates A.
How exactly does this not lead to the conclusion that ‘Stockman advocates B’?
And Mike,
And, just as under Reagan, that economic growth is going almost 100% into the pockets of a tiny fraction of the American public – it is demonstrably not benefiting the public at large, and damn sure not helping minorities.
I just read that Steele piece. Incredible. Just jaw-dropping. As they say, the mask is coming off.
If I were working for some sort of foundation or group that had anything to do with race, y’all might have a point. But I don’t. If I were to do something like that on the liberal side, well I don’t think the NAACP or The Urban League are exactly wholly owned subsidiaries of rich right guys like Project 21, etc are on the right.
You say there’s no black conservative movement, yet Condi Rice, Michael Steele, and a few others would disagree. They certainly aren’t a part of the black mainstream and not the conservative mainstream either (Rice, for instance, supports affirmative action as does Powell).
If there were honest black conservatives in the political arena, I’d feel free to engage them. But once again, I’ve yet to actually see one.
legion: try reading my posts before you complain.
Stockman is saying, in effect, “We couldn’t advocate “trickle – down” economics, so “the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really trickle down. ”
So he wanted a trikle -down tax policy but he couldn’t call it that, so he couldn’t advocate it.
I know it doesn’t have the same folksy ring as the Social Security “lock box”, but it’s not all that difficult to figure out.
Add to that the idea that “supply side” economics is not actually identical to a “trickle down” policy, and it’s not difficult to understand at all.
In any event, to quote Stockman is in no way making a liar out of Sowell.
And, Sowell, did not say “The trickle – down policy never existed,” in any event.
Finally, unless this “tiny fraction” of the American public — tiny fraction being, at best, an understatement — were to stuff all their “ill – gotten gains” (actually, their own untaxed income) into a mattress, someone else would have to benefit.
I hope for the day when my entire argument consists of calling someone “chickenshit”…
“A liberal gets instant, unthinking knee jerk acceptance.”
Among Republicans, a black conservative gets instant, unthinking photo ops and stage time at the national convention. Seems like easy street to me!
What I don’t get about Steele’s missive is I thought we were winning in Iraq.
The President:
“Not only can we win the war in Iraq – we are winning the war in Iraq.”
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/18/D8EJ1D100.html
And then the narrative a few weeks ago in response to the retired Generals calling for Rumsfeld’s scalp that the traitorous and seditious and mean old media was reporting the bad things in Iraq to make it seem like we were losing.
Jeff Goldstein:
“I ve noted many times now how I believe overwhelming negative US press coverage some of it ideologically driven, some of it driven by the sensationalism of our contemporary 24-hour news ethos along with the often cynical and disingenuous rhetorical excesses of the war s opponents, have created a perception of the Iraq campaign here in the US that does not match the facts on the ground in Iraq.”
Now, it seems, we are in fact losing, but because white guilt will not allow us to embrace our inner Saddam.
So which is it? Are we, according to conservatives, winning in Iraq or not winning in Iraq?
“If there were honest black conservatives in the political arena, I d feel free to engage them. But once again, I ve yet to actually see one.”
Hopefully, thats a comment on your extremely limited vision rather than some sort of bizarre socio-racial comment.
I would expect a black conservative would actually tend to be more likely to be honest than a black liberal. Why? Because the voting (and probably other) patterns indicate that it is an unpopular position in the black community. A liberal gets instant, unthinking knee jerk acceptance. A conservative is the unpopular outcast. Takes courage a liberal doesn’t have to have or show. I mean some rabid bloggers might even try to deny your identity because you simplty disagree with them.
Believe in vouchers? You aren’t black!
Dugger
Oliver, what are argument are you making? You’re not making an argument. You’re merely applying labels and then using a pathetic excuse to refuse to engage an idea. That’s intellectual cowardice.
You’re not in the realm where you could shine Thomas Sowell’s shoes (neither am I for that matter), but here you are passing judgement on a man that made it on his own (Sowell left home at the age of 17, joined the Marines, and then was graduated from Harvard and Columbia and received his PhD from the University of Chicago) to be an economist and a scholar. Yet, you have the balls to say that he’s nothing more than a paid shill for the a bunch of white guys. Seriously, where do you get off?
Hell, I’ll bet $1000 you’ve never read a single one his books. Oh, but then why should you? Sowell is just some Uncle Tom negro anyway, doing the bidding of his massas.
Jay –
1) Re-read the passage I quoted: If there is still the odd white bigot out there surviving past his time, there are millions of whites who only feel goodwill toward minorities.”
An odd white bigot out there? Give me a break.
2) I misread Steele’s paranthetical about nukes although I think you will agree that it is not clear exactly what he means: “… it is now unimaginable that we would use anything approaching the full measure of our military power (the nuclear option aside) in the wars we fight.”
Is he setting the nuclear option outside the unimaginable or is it the only unimaginable force?
3) Steele writes: “Anti-Americanism, whether in Europe or on the American left, works by the mechanism of white guilt. It stigmatizes America with all the imperialistic and racist ugliness of the white Western past so that America becomes a kind of straw man, a construct of Western sin. (The Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons were the focus of such stigmatization campaigns.)”
Steele is clearly arguing that charges of torture at Abu Ghraib etc. were leftisits anti-American fanatsies. Wrong. What happened/is happening there was/is torture and Steele is arguing in favor of it.
Fight, fight, fight. Fight the right.
Frank,
So, he didn’t advocate “trickle-down” economics, but the only way to get that effect was to call it “supply-side” and advocate that.
?!? Dude. Read your own quoted material:
“It s kind of hard to sell trickle down, so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really trickle down. Supply-side is trickle-down theory.”
Lemme foot-stomp that for you, Frank – Stockman himself says “Supply-side is trickle-down theory.”
If you’re gonna claim some semantic BS about how “is” is not the same as “is identical to”, you’re just blowing smoke.
He is a pretty good and he just got got honored
Fox s Juan Williams gets award
If Sowell can’t admit something as absurdly obvious as trickle down economics, why would anything else he said not also be taken with a grain of salt. It’s as if he were a liberal and pretended that President Clinton didn’t have an extramarital affair. Come on. I accept someone like Jakes as a conservative because he isn’t buckraking for anyone but himself, but more often than not black conservatives turn out to be just another Michael Masse or Armstrong Williams, taking it from the man in order to screw their own people over. In fact, I’d argue its tougher for a black liberal than conservative – there’s no Heritage/CATO/Etc. with a multimillion dollar “fellowship” and dorms to live in on the left.
If I were a black conservative under 30 I’d be able to get the king’s treatment.
If Sowell can t admit something as absurdly obvious as trickle down economics, why would anything else he said not also be taken with a grain of salt.
But he’s right!! Holy shit. Are you that blinded by your ideology that you cannot admit that you and Media Matters are wrong? A little quote from Reagan ‘s budget director does not equate to advocation. Show me the money for crying out loud. How much more small minded could you possibly get to discount 30 years of work the man has done because your bosses at MM decide Sowell is lying. Get real Oliver.
but more often than not black conservatives turn out to be just another Michael Masse or Armstrong Williams, taking it from the man in order to screw their own people over.
Once again, labels and attacks. Still afraid to engage ideas you don’t agree with. It’s no wonder Pattick Ruffini opened a can of whoop ass on you during your appearance on C-Span. You couldn’t just sit back and spout invective like you do here. You were forced to engage and you were left stuttering. I suspect the same would happen were you to have a one on one debate with Thomas Sowell.
In fact, I d argue its tougher for a black liberal than conservative – there s no Heritage/CATO/Etc. with a multimillion dollar fellowship and dorms to live in on the left.
So, black liberals are a dime a dozen. So what?
Our esteemed host is making a chicken-and-egg argument: how can he pay serious attention to black conservatives, because black conservatives have all become Uncle Tom for whitey, or the only way someone could be a black conservative (save through the church) is if he was already an Uncle Tom.
Unfortunately, our esteemed host (and many more like him) have simply dismissed the black conservatives as shills for whitey, and thus never have to do anything drastic, such as actually address their arguments.
Mr Willis put it like this:
It doesn’t seem to have occured to our host that perhaps, just perhaps, the policies advocated by conservatives would, in the end, help blacks.
That, of course, is what the black conservatives have argued, that the liberal policies that have been in place since the 1970s have not helped blacks, and have, in fact, actually held them back; they are policies which foster dependency. Rather, the argument is, that blacks would enjor the same economic success as whites if they followed the economic path that whites took to achieve economic success.
The fact is that, unless you happen to be Paris Hilton, economic success is earned primarily by your own efforts; it cannot be given to you. But the policies favored by, say, the Congressional Black Caucus, are policies which somehow assume that the government can give economic success to blacks.
Basically, I’d compare it to that great government program designed to help blacks, Affirmative Action. Liberals have argued for years and years that Affirmative Action is needed to help blacks catch up, and now-retired Justice O’Connor wrote, in the University of Michigan Law School Affirmative Action case that Affirmative Action might be needed for another 25 years.
But the problem isn’t getting blacks into selective colleges — even though 85% of all colleges have open admissions. The problem is getting young black men to finish high school! Address that problem, because you can’t get into college unless you’ve first finished high school.
The very first part of the civil rights struggles were about what whites could give back to blacks: the privilege to vote, equal opportunity, non-discrimination legislation. Whites could “give” these things to blacks, because these were things that whites had taken from blacks. But all of that has been done; the rest of the problem with the black community has to be addressed by blacks, in their communities.
Legion, you’re badgering the witness (me).
If it makes you feel better, you’re right. Advocating and describing something as “the same as,” are the same thing.
I surrender.
frameone: How is saying that “Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons were the focus of such stigmatization campaigns,” the same as “arguing that charges of torture at Abu Ghraib etc. were leftisits anti-American fanatsies.”
How can a fantasy be the focus of a stigmatizing campaign?
I would characterize the incident at My Lai as a similar event. It really occurred, but it became a symbol of, or “evidence of” the idea that our involvement in Viet Nam was unjustified.
“Once again, labels and attacks. Still afraid to engage ideas you don t agree with.”
Jay, what ideas, exactly, was Sowell advocating in what is ultimately a pointless article? It doesn’t read like “random thoughts” it reads like a brain flush. Before he even gets to the pasage in question he writes:
“I do not like to see the future mothers of America becoming soldiers. There are plenty of men who are capable of becoming soldiers and who are not capable of becoming mothers.”
What? Sowell doesn’t think women should be able to serve their country because they can get pregnant? I think Media Matters picked the wrong passage. This idiocy alone is enough to call into question everything the man says.
But to return to the quote in question, what “idea” was Sowell putting forth? It seems to me that he was advocating no ideas only trying to distance the preferred conservative policy, “supply side economics,” from its pejorative “trickle down economics.” The bottom line is that supply side economics does not have the magical effect that conservatives suggest it does. Would you agree that Bush has conducted a policy of supply side economics? How exactly has the middle class or the poor benefitted from Bush’s massive tax breaks and corporate giveaways? Wages have been stagnant for five years while inflation has risen and the deficit has soared. That’s some magic bullet you got there.
Shorter Goldstein: “We must burn the (Iraqi) village to save the village”…
Shelby Steele has penned an editorial for the WSJ this week which has the predictable agents of the Right wingnutterati all atwitter, and it essentially bemoans the demise ……
Another “white shill” headed for victory:
Blackwell Wins GOP Nod for Ohio Governor
So, Oliver, does it really boil down to just this? Because this is what it sounds like:
Those among you who think you know everything don’t shuck and jive and say “yes, Massa” are very annoying to those of us who do.
Any black with the temerity, the gall, to not toe the liberal line, to not bow and scrape and show their undying gratitude to The Benevolent Left is contemptible?
Any person of color who shows the least amount of initiative to better himself by education or hard work, and makes himself a success through his own effort, without giving appropriate credit to the forces who work so hard to keep him on the welfare rolls, is an Uncle Tom?
Any African-American (you know, the proper term keeps changing so quickly I just can’t keep up!) who holds an opinion different from yours is “fake?”
Tell me now, Oliver… just who is the racist here?
“Any African-American (you know, the proper term keeps changing so quickly I just can t keep up!)”
What’s the proper term for racist nowadays? You know, I just can’t keep up!
Frame, Oliver has called all Republicans “evil” and said that all Republicans are motivated by nothing but “evil.” That’s a a hundred million times more absurd than anything Thomas Sowell has written. Does it automatically put everything else he writes or says into the wastebasket of irrelevance?
As for Sowell, I wasn’t talking about this particular article he wrote. I am saying that Oliver is engaging in intellectual cowardice because by discounting anything Sowell says or writes based on one sentence.
You did the same thing:
What? Sowell doesn t think women should be able to serve their country because they can get pregnant? I think Media Matters picked the wrong passage. This idiocy alone is enough to call into question everything the man says.
First of all, Sowell said nothing about “serving their country.” He talked about women being in combat. Secondly, rather than debate the issue over whether or not women should be allowed to serve in combat roles in the military, you simply dismissed it as ‘idiocy’ and then used it as an excuse like Oliver did, to simply discount anything the man says or has said. That’s a form of intellectual cowardice. Rather than debate the merits or lack thereof of women serving in combat roles, which is the more difficult thing to do, you took the easy way out.
“He talked about women being in combat.”
Um, he said he doesn’t like it when they become “soldiers.” He didn;t say anything about combat roles. Or are there people in the armed forces who aren’t soldiers? Here’s a definition of soldier for you:
“A soldier is a person who has enlisted with, or has been conscripted into, the armed forces of a sovereign country and has undergone training and received equipment to defend that country or its interests. In most countries, the term soldier is limited to such people who serve in the land branch of the armed services (usually known as the army). Armies are strictly hierarchical societies, and within them, groups of soldiers are usually divided into military units of some kind.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soldiers
Talk about intellectual dishonesty. I assume Sowell said exactly what he meant to say and you throw in a ridiculous defense that assumes he meant other than what he said. Why the hell would I take anything you say seriously now?
Oh and Jay, again, what argument is Sowell making even if we accept your idiotic defense? He would be arguing that women shouldn’t be combat soldiers, not because of physical ability or mental apptitude or ability, but solely because they have the potential to get pregnant. Would you care to defend this line of argument? Would you care to suggest any other jobs that women shouldn’t be allowed to do because they can get pregnant? Please, your interested in debate and discussion. Have at it.
Talk about intellectual dishonesty. I assume Sowell said exactly what he meant to say and you throw in a ridiculous defense that assumes he meant other than what he said. Why the hell would I take anything you say seriously now?
Well, as I said, if you had actual READ anything that Sowell has written you would know what he has said about women serving in the armed forces and their roles with respect to serving as opposed to serving in a combat role. I have that frame of reference. You don’t. Therefore, your assumption is based on your own ignorance of Sowell’s position.
Any why should I debate you on the rest? You’ve reached your conclusion already. You didn’t wonder what Sowell meant when he wrote what he did. You took your pre-determined attitude towards the man (a black conservative) and simply assumed he’s nothing more than some misogynist who thinks women “shouldn’t be allowed” to serve in the armed forces because they can become pregnant.
Of course, he said no such thing, but then what difference does that make to you? Like I said, you’ve already reached your conclusion. Maybe, just maybe his comments were in the context of examining the importance of of mothers in society. Their role in raising those very men that go off to fight in wars. If you’d take your blinders off just for ONE SECOND, you might consider that.
You know, it may surprise you but contrary to what you think, conservative men are not knuckle-dragging cavemen. Try and step outside that cocoon of yours for once.
“… if you had actual READ anything that Sowell has written…”
Um, I’ve read something he’s written. He wrote:
I do not like to see the future mothers of America becoming soldiers. There are plenty of men who are capable of becoming soldiers and who are not capable of becoming mothers.
I read that. Now, again, I have to assume that Sowell is smart enough not to mischaracterize his own positions. Are you saying that’s what he did here?
Even if he didn’t, you say that Sowell is talking about the importance of mothers in society. Okay.
First of all, let’s keep in mind that women are human beings with free will who can choose whether or not they want to become mothers. So limiting a woman’s professional options because she simply has the potential to become a mother is to deny her some opportunities based on an option she may never want to exercise. I guess it doesn’tmater to Sowell that a woman might choose to be a soldier over being a mother. He just doesn’t think they should have that choice. Do you think that women should be allowed to enlist in the army and become soldiers, Jay?
Second, since your so widely read on Sowell what other positions would he deny women? Police officer? Fire person? Doctor? Lawyer? Scientist? I mean,if women play such an important role in raising soldiers,they must play an equally important role in raising, say, future presidents of the United States. Do you think, therefore, that women should not be allowed to be President because they are needed to raise presidents?
Third, are you and Sowell negating the roles of fathers in this equation? Do not fathers play an important role in society? Do fathers not play an important role in raising soldiers? I guess Sowell doesn’t have a problem with single mothers as long as their husbands died in combat and they are themselves raising little soldiers. What happens, btw, when all the men have gone off to war and there’s no one around to impregnate all the women left behind? I guess Sowell believes in virgin births too.
Seriously. Let’s pretend I haven’t made up my mind on this issue and that I don’t think Sowell’s position is total idiocy. What’s your answers to these questions?
As is demonstrated here, only a black person can begin to criticize the black conservative movement, and even then, it’s an uphill battle. Black conservatives are free to protest the very social dynamics which protect them from criticism.
Homer: I wasn’t aware that there were any “social dynamics that protect black conservatives from criticism.” If there are, they’re not working very well, are they?
“He offered an opinion of what he likes and what he doesn t like and you made an assumption on his position which is that he doesn t think women should have a choice as to what they do in their lives and that they shouldn t be allowed to join the military.”
I’m going to assume that as a conservative, Sowell “doesn’t like” abortion but I guess I should never, ever assume that he would deny women the right to have an abortion.
Let me ask you this, is it accurate to say that, even though Sowell dislikes it, he believes women should join the army if they want to? Does that follow from his stated dislike?
Jay, in your whole long response you never once attempted to argue in favor of the belief of that women should NOT jointhe army because they also have the ability to get pregnant. It was a brilliant dodge. So let me ask you point blank:
Do you think women should be allowed to join army?
I read that. Now, again, I have to assume that Sowell is smart enough not to mischaracterize his own positions. Are you saying that s what he did here?
It’s a broad statement. How can you possibly reach a conclusion based on something like that? You’re claiming he mischaracterized a position you assume he has which is that women “shouldn’t be allowed” to serve in the military even though there’s nothing he wrote that would justify you reaching such a conclusion except for your propensity to automatically assume the worst because he’s a conservative.
First of all, let s keep in mind that women are human beings with free will who can choose whether or not they want to become mothers.
So what? Who’s arguing otherwise?
So limiting a woman s professional options because she simply has the potential to become a mother is to deny her some opportunities based on an option she may never want to exercise. I guess it doesn tmater to Sowell that a woman might choose to be a soldier over being a mother. He just doesn t think they should have that choice.
There you go again. Show me where in that sentence you gleaned his position is that women shouldn’t have such a choice. Please. Explain to the rest of the class how you equate, “I do not like to see the future mothers of America becoming soldiers.” with, “I don’t women should have the choice of becoming a soldier over being a mother.” How could you possibly reach such a conclusion?
Do you think, therefore, that women should not be allowed to be President because they are needed to raise presidents?
There you again with the “not allowed” nonsense. Nobody said it, so therefore, it is a bogus question.
Third, are you and Sowell negating the roles of fathers in this equation? Do not fathers play an important role in society? Do fathers not play an important role in raising soldiers? I guess Sowell doesn t have a problem with single mothers as long as their husbands died in combat and they are themselves raising little soldiers. What happens, btw, when all the men have gone off to war and there s no one around to impregnate all the women left behind? I guess Sowell believes in virgin births too.
You go from asking irrelevant questions based on conclusions reached by assumptions made based upon your own biases to plain stupidity.
Seriously. Let s pretend I haven t made up my mind on this issue and that I don t think Sowell s position is total idiocy. What s your answers to these questions?
A. You don’t know Powell’s position. He offered an opinion of what he likes and what he doesn’t like and you made an assumption on his position which is that he doesn’t think women should have a choice as to what they do in their lives and that they shouldn’t be allowed to join the military. He said nothing of the sort. I don’t like that access to porn on the Internet is so easily available, especially to kids. If I wrote that, you would probably assume my position is that I’d want to ban Internet porn, and I don’t.
B. Because you reached conclusions based upon assumptions that you don’t know are true or not, your questions are pointless.
“Because you reached conclusions based upon assumptions that you don t know are true or not, your questions are pointless.”
I have a comment awaiting moderation but let me just say this. What? Sowell stated that he does not like to see women become soldiers because all women are potential mothers. That is an absolutely idiotic and mysoginistic belief because it based on the position that women’s lives should be limited by their biology. Now do you want to defend that belief or not?
Sowell stated that he does not like to see women become soldiers because all women are potential mothers. That is an absolutely idiotic and mysoginistic belief because it based on the position that women s lives should be limited by their biology. Now do you want to defend that belief or not?
Tell you what Frame, once you find out what he actually believes instead of just assuming you know what he believes, then ask me the question. Until then, the lesson I’m trying to teach you is this: Stop fucking making assumptions!
Hell, you know the old saying. Stop making assumptions because it makes an ASS of U and ME.
Again, if I wrote somewhere, “I don’t like the fact that Internet porn is so readily available.” What would you assume from that statement? Given your proclivity to assume the worst of conservatives, you’d rail that I believed we needed to do away with Internet porn and that I’m opposed to free speech.
“Tell you what Frame, once you find out what he actually believes instead of just assuming you know what he believes, then ask me the question.”
I know exactly what he believes, Jay. He doesn’t like women becoming soldiers because it somehow interferes with their being mothers. Read it again Jay:
I do not like to see the future mothers of America becoming soldiers. There are plenty of men who are capable of becoming soldiers and who are not capable of becoming mothers.
Now are you going to defend this guy’s statement or are you just going to keep dodging the issue?
For a guy who wants to “debate the issues” you’re doing a lot of peddling to keep from answering a simple question. Let me rephrase it for you: Should the fact that they can get pregnant preclude women from serving as soldiers in the military?
Jay: I didn’t stutter, and Patrick and I didn’t come to any sort of blows on CSPAN in fact we agreed on more than we disagreed about. I know being a Republican gives you carte blanche to distort reality, but being the person who lived it I can state clearly that what you said never really happened.
There is a world of difference between blacks who believe in conservatism and those who shill to make a buck. I don’t doubt people like TD Jakes have a fundamental disagreement on why we’re here and what we should do while we’re here, but the fact of the matter is – he is in the distinct minority among black conservatives. The vast majority fully understand that the bulk of conservative policies are either designed to hurt or will hurt those not among the upper rich, and disproportionately blacks. The Republican party, after the civil war, was the party of black Americans. At some point that changed, about when the Birch/Goldwater/Reagan types took over. Think the two might be connected? Think that there may be some correleation between the number of black elected officials who are Democrats versus Republicans? Just maybe (And you go right ahead investing in Lynn Swann, Ken Blackwell and Michael Steele – I know we’re supposed to be dumb, but we see right through it).
Given your proclivity to assume the worst of conservatives
2,400 bodies in Iraq; 1,000 bodies in Louisiana; Record deficits and a loss of moral leadership says that proclivity is based on factual evidence.
I know exactly what he believes, Jay. He doesn t like women becoming soldiers because it somehow interferes with their being mothers.
Stop it. For the last 5-10 entries you’ve been saying he believes “women shouldn’t be allowed” to join the military and that he believes women shouldn’t be able to choose what they want to do and that he’s a misogynist. Now all of a sudden you basically say he believes what he wrote! Well gee fucking whiz! I can read that.
What we don’t know, is WHY he wrote that. And that is where you’ve been allowing your prejudices have you writing the nonsense you’ve been writing. I really wish you would pay attention. The statement is too vague to defend or to bash. I’ve given you a perfect example which you’ve chosen to ignore twice now. “I believe that access to Internet pornography is too readily available, especially to kids. There’s better things for kids to be able to look at on the Internet.” Now, what conclusions do you reach from that statement?
2,400 bodies in Iraq; 1,000 bodies in Louisiana; Record deficits and a loss of moral leadership says that proclivity is based on factual evidence.
I’ll chalk that up to one of the dumbest things you’ve ever written. As though any of that has to do with conservatism. Cripes, what a really, really, really dumb thing to say.
I am in wholehearted agreement with brother Oliver. Steele and Sowell are the intellectual storm troopers of the right wing engaged in a racially insensitive, class-based war on working class Americans from every walk of life. It is galling to read the work of these two people who wouldn’t have been allowed to marry into the families of the same right wing movement conservatives who shower them with praise now. The egalitarian ethos of today, such as it is, is because of the courage and conviction of people like Rosa Parks, Fred Shuttlesworth, Medgar Evers and Dr. and Mrs. Coretta King. They refused to tolerate second-class citizenship and the concomitant poverty to which it consigned our people.
The freedom of Steele and Sowell to be the handkerchief head mouthpieces of a reactionary white ruling class was won by working class domestics and laborers, most of whom were black, that fought along side of Dr. and Mrs. King. Steele and Sowell will defend to the death the single largest transfer of wealth in the history of our democracy to the wealthiest among us. The rarified air up there isn’t very integrated. Ain’t but a handful of negroes in those circles. Steele, Sowell, and their kindred are beneath contempt.
Of course, one might as another question: how many black candidates for governor will our Democratic friends nominate this year? Will the party that has drawn the loyalty of about 90% of black voters elect one single black governor in 2006?
Unless memory fails me, there has been one, and only one, elected black governor since the end of Reconstruction, Douglas Wilder of Virginia. Yeah, he was a Democrat, but what he was was a moderate Democrat, not a wild-eyed liberal. I remember: I was living in Virginia at the time — and I voted for him.
But, gosh, wouldn’t you think that the great Party of Jefferson, which has laid claim to the loyalty of 90% of the black vote, and has since the Voting Rights Act, would have managed more than one single elected black governor, out of fifty separate states, each holding gubernatorial elections every four years (and, in a couple of cases, every two years)?
There have been about 380 separate gubernatorial elections since the Voting Rights Act was passed, and the Democrats have, in all of that time, elected one black governor. Of course, it’s also true that the Democrats have not even nominated many black candidates for governor. What will it say if the Republicans, who normally have the loyalty of about 10% of black voters, double or triple your record this November?
Our very esteemed but obviously frustrated host wrote:
We understand your frustration, Mr Willis: the GOP is going to nominate three reasonably conservative black candidates for governor this year, and darn if they all don’t have a decent chance of winning.
What will it say to other blacks that the ones who have actually been elected to positions of real responsibility aren’t toeing the liberal line?
Our frustrated host also asked:
Well, yeah. But perhaps you might ask yourself a question: how many of the blacks in the House Black Caucus were first elected to represent majority white districts? Of course, you already know the answer: zero. And who were the last two blacks first elected to the House to represent majority white districts? They would be J C Watts and Gary Franks, both of whom are Republicans.
The real difference that has you so frustrated is that while white Democrats only elect white candidates to represent them, white Republicans have actually been willing to elect black candidates to represent them on occasion.
“The statement is too vague to defend or to bash.”
So now your copout is that Sowell is a bad writer? Fine, Jay. If you don’t want dirty your hands defending Sowell’s misogyny I can undertsand that.
On the other hand, maybe Sowell doesn’t like abortions either but he’s perfectly willing to allow women to have them legally. Good for him.
As though any of that has to do with conservatism.
Let’s see, we select/elect the first conservative president in 8 years and all that happens. Sometimes 1+1 = 2.
Again, I’ll put the Democratic record on black politicians up against the GOP record any day.
Mr Wells, Governor Rendell does have a great record at fund-raising — but was one of only two sitting governors to get an “F” rating.
As a candidate, Mr Rendell promised to raise the state income tax, in exchange for property tax cuts. Well, he kept the first part of his promise: the state income tax rose from 2.8% to 3.07%, but property taxes, well, he came up with Act 72, an idiotic trade-off proposal which would have restricted the ability of local school districts to raise property taxes more than 1% above inflation (not a property tax cut, you’ll notice), in exchange for gambling revenues, if the school districts opted in; very few did.
The Governor, formerly the Mayor of Philadelphia, has been blatantly favorable to his home city — at the expense of other Pennsylvanians. Rather than let SEPTA, the mass transit system for the Philly metro area, do something drastic like raise fares, Mr Rendell took a distribution from federal highway money and simply a huge chunk to SEPTA, a very disproportionate share populationwise, in a state with some of the worst roads in the nation.
I’d guess right now that Mr Swann will win.
Swann and Blackwell have little chance of winning. Swann’s poll numbers are not so bad. The first barrier that Lynn must break is the barrier of not knowing what he is talking about. He is poorly versed in the issues, which is somehow not as heavy a barrier as it should be for conservatives. The second, is money. However, I don’t believe that with the Governor’s fund raising prowess, he can be successful. He is nothing more than an empty suit.
I just realized that I wrote about Mr Steele as if he was runing for governor; he’s running for a Senate seat.
The frustration of Oliver Willis…
Oliver Willis is a blogger from the Washington, DC, area, who describes himself as a liberal bomb thrower since 2000. OK, I can accept that!
However, it seems that Mr. Willis, a very partisan Democrat (who maintains a red, white and …
The Republican party, after the civil war, was the party of black Americans. At some point that changed, about when the Birch/Goldwater/Reagan types took over. Think the two might be connected?
Oliver, I think it’s your turn to crack a history book…
More disaster
Bomber Kills 17 in Iraqi Market