“Barack the Magic Negro”
It’s one thing for an African American columnist to write a column entitled “Obama the Magic Negro,” as David Ehrenstein did in the L.A. Times in 2007, commenting that Barack Obama wasn’t really “black,” just pandering to a black image so whites could ease their guilty consciences.
It’s another thing for a white candidate running to chair the Republican National Committee to make a Christmas mix for his buddies with a song titled “Barack the Magic Negro,” set to the music of “Puff the Magic Dragon,” and then dismiss concerns about racism by saying it was “light-hearted,” as the candidate Chip Saltsman did this holiday. Part of the song, which aired on Rush Limbaugh’s show, goes,
See, real black men, like Snoop Dogg, or me, or Farrakhan, have talked the talk, and walked the walk, not come in late and won.
Some say Barack’s articulate, bright, and clean…but when you vote for President watch out and don’t be fooled. Don’t vote the Magic Negro in…
The press got all over it. The current chair of the GOP up for reelection, Mike Duncan, said he was “appalled” by the song, saying it was not appropriate. What is surprising is that several GOP chairs across the country, with a couple exceptions, told reporters that they didn’t see a problem with the song.
The Alabama GOP chair said it “didn’t bother me one bit.”
The Maine GOP chair: “I had to ask, ‘boy, what’s the big deal here?’ because there wasn’t any.”
These responses are not surprising if you consider the Republican party’s failure among minorities in this year’s election – but you would also think that this election might have taught the GOP elite a thing or two about race. Though many minorities are on the GOP side of certain values issues like marriage, they are for other reasons (see “Barack the Magic Negro” above) alienated from the party.
Saltsman also included songs on the mix titled “The Star Spanglish Banner” and “Ivory and Ebony.”














Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top214 Comments to ““Barack the Magic Negro””
Nergo? Do people actually use this word now-a-days? I don’t think it’s a really big deal, it’s just more divisiveness, more of the same. Negro… hummmm. Pitiful is the word that comes to mind.
Report comment to moderator
Other than the word Negro how is this any worse than what has been said about other candidates?
Report comment to moderator
After the 2008 election came alarmed articles looking at the way young people and growing minority groups overwhelmingly voted Democratic, making the future of the Republican party look pretty bleak.
But apparently not bleak enough for these clueless morons.
Report comment to moderator
United Negro College Fund
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
Report comment to moderator
Also does this say anything that the SNL skit where Sharpton and Jackson rated Obama on a blackness scale isn’t saying. I tried to find the skit but couldn’t
Report comment to moderator
Jesse Jackson said a whole lot worse than this…
Report comment to moderator
For those who take the time to read the linked LA Times article, the derivation of the term, “Magic Negro” will make obvious its meaning. The flip side of the old Stepin Fetchet stereotype, the all-wise, beneficient black mentor without a past is every bit as much a caricature.
In exposing the foolishness of the messianic adulation of Obama as the great healer and profound prophetic leader of “Our time is now!”, insofar as it is based on his African heritage, as racist, the promoters of the song, however clumsy and politically tin-eared, are not nearly as clueless as its detractors.
Report comment to moderator
This is foolish, and will hurt the Republican party further among black people. I don’t know whether the song is horrid or just dumb, but it’s foolish to go there.
Report comment to moderator
So, if someone like AL Sharpton or Jesse Jackson use race baiting, it is fine, since they are black. But if a white guy does the same thing, it is not okay? Can you say d-o-u-b-l-e-s-t-a-n-d-a-r-d?
Report comment to moderator
I love the story (this really happened) of the Negro gentleman who walked into the department store and said to the salesgirl, “Hey, they make clothes for my race! The tag on this black shirt says Negro!” She explained that it meant “black” in Spanish. We’d all do well to get over our political correctness and remember that.
Report comment to moderator
JJF: But apparently not bleak enough for these clueless morons.
Followed by comments 4,5,6,7,9 and 10.
Irony is not dead!
Let me see if I can swing a clue-by-four for you guys … the point of the song is to hone on in Obama’s race. It is not to criticize him for his policy positions, or his ethical character or anything else that’s actually relevant. It’s just about his race and deliberately uses an outmoded and now borderline-offensive term.
Do you get it now?
Didn’t think so.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D.
I’m thinking it was just plain dumb.
But speaking of dumb, I have a friend who is a naturalized American citizen. He is white but from Africa. So he puts African-American when asked on a form and doesn’t get it when people tell him that’s wrong.
Report comment to moderator
There is a double standard. Knowing that, this is red meat for anyone who enjoys skewering Republicans.
It’s smart humor, but at a very high price for the whole party.
I’m guessing that if this guy didn’t realize this would blow up in his face, he might misjudge more important matters, too.
Report comment to moderator
12 – Amen! He needs to stand firm and not be moved. Whites born in Africa living in America are African-Americans.
Report comment to moderator
All of those parodies used by Rush are something that liberals have said at one time or another. Like the time Ted Kennedy got confused and said, “Osama Obama”. The “Magic Negro” phrase came from the LA Times.
“But it’s clear that Obama also is running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination — the “Magic Negro.”
The Magic Negro is a figure of postmodern folk culture, coined by snarky 20th century sociologists, to explain a cultural figure who emerged in the wake of Brown vs. Board of Education. “He has no past, he simply appears one day to help the white protagonist,” reads the description on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia”
One of the best way of exposing liberalism is by using the things they say about themselves. There is nothing in the song that isn’t true.
Report comment to moderator
It is the kind of snickering-behind-the-hand racism that a certain type of Republican finds very funny, but usually doesn’t admit to outside of a small circle of like-minded people. This is the type of person who will start a sentence with “I’ve got nothing against the black people, but … ” and then decent people cringe, knowing something awful is about to follow.
It is the type of person who thinks insisting that “Some of my best friends are black,” absolves him of any guilt for harboring racist sentiments. (And funny how the alleged black best friends don’t seem to ever be on the scene.)
The Republican party is not doing poorly just among black voters because of this; it is increasingly losing white voters who are repulsed by the alleged humor.
Report comment to moderator
This situation reminds me of the 100th birthday party for Strom Thurmond when Trent Lott intended to honor his friend, and instead ended his political career.
In the meantime, Senator Robert Byrd, a former KKK member, is highly esteemed by the press and by his collegues. But he’s got a (D) instead of an (R) behind his name.
The media is WAY too powerful in these petty matters, but the Republicans need to conduct themselves according to what is, rather than what should be.
Report comment to moderator
Oh Steve,
We get it alright, and probably better than you do. It’s just that we decry the double standard. As Chas pointed out (probably at the same time you posted), these are all things LIBERALS have said.
Lemme ask you a question: How is the fact that Jesse Jackson wanted to castrate Obama any less offensive than calling him a “magic negro”?
Report comment to moderator
Don Rickles and I had a good laugh over this.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, there’s a double standard, but two wrongs don’t make a right. The next time the Republican Party calls me for a contribution (and I can’t tell you how often that has been since the election, I guess to pay off their debt), they will be told what I think of this. It really is time for this guy to not only grow up but to also stop being so ignorant.
Report comment to moderator
NJL nails it.
From the left in MI, I will note that not all Republicans thought this was a good idea, including Mike Duncan, Saul Anuzis, and Newt Gingrich. The country needs a national conservative party, and it is hard to see how this ditty advances them in that direction, if anything it only confirms a popular (mis?)conception that the GOP is racist.
Report comment to moderator
ADIOS,
Caucasians born in Africa are still Caucasians, not Africans. Africans are people whose ancestors are Africans. If you have Caucasian ancestry and are descended from ancestors from the Caucasus, you are a Caucasian, no matter how many generations your families have lived in Africa. Just because you are born in Africa does not make you an African; just because you are born in Asia does not make you an Asian; just because you are born in America does not make you a Native American. These are racial identities, not regional identities.
Report comment to moderator
I guess conservatives Republicans haven’t gotten it through their heads that while Democrats can do or say anything they want, Republicans must be perfect in every way. The good thing is that in a few years anyone who can actually stay in office as a Republican will eventually qualify for canonization. This also shows why conservative humor is often so lame. The only thing allowed is making fun of ourselves.
Report comment to moderator
George Wallace was a democrat and he used the word “Negro” all the time.
Report comment to moderator
You can often hear far worse stuff said about blacks by black comedians. Let a white guy say the same material used by Martin Lawrence, Eddy Murphy or the late Richard Pryor and you are an automatic Michael Richards, Don Imus or George C Wallace.
Am I the only one who understands this rule? White comedians wisely target whites (”You might be a redneck if..”) and black comedians wisely work only their side of the street.
C’mon now folks.. it really isnt a hard concept to grasp, ya know??
Report comment to moderator
SteveG– It’s just about his race and deliberately uses an outmoded and now borderline-offensive term.
Do you get it now?
I think I do, or at least I’m trying. So, the United Negro College Fund is a racist organization, and decent people don’t support it, but rather, they cringe at its mention. Got it.
Report comment to moderator
Make it Man,
Jesse Jackson called NYC “Hymey Town”.
He’s fathered a child out of wedlock.
He’s a notorious shake down artist.
Yet he still retains the fraudulent annointing as a black spokesman or civil rights leader.
The media double standard is quite disturbing to say the least.
Report comment to moderator
25. Actually anyone is allowed to make fun of Red necks.
24. Speaking as an Alabamian, George Wallace was an idiot.
Report comment to moderator
29 – Speaking as a non Alabaman, I loved him. I still do.
Report comment to moderator
I’m still at a loss to see the humor in someone’s skin color, whether the target is black or white. Didn’t everybody sing that song in Sunday School: Jesus loves the little children. There was a point to that song — red or yellow, black or white, they are precious in his sight. Remember?
I have often railed against Dems mocking Bush’s speech impediment. That’s ignorant, too. The way they treated Sarah Palin (even on this board) was appalling. But when either side does it, the point behind it is to demean and dehumanize the person because the person has succeeded where the jokester has not and the person needs to be “destroyed.” Neither side should be proud of that behavior.
If you are dealing with the public, and the Republican Party is, you don’t go out of your way to offend it — and that’s what this guy did. If the purpose of politics is to get one’s message out and get elected, how many votes did this guy attract? None. All he did was provide ammunition to the other side. Why do you think the Dems tried to play up to church people? Because they know they went too far in offending them.
Report comment to moderator
The question seems to not be whether you should make comments directed at someone’s skin color of not – It’s about whether those people are ok with it or not. That’s why black people are ok with the black comedians making fun of them. They like to be joked with like anybody else.
The same with rednecks – Except they don’t care if anybody makes fun of them.
Report comment to moderator
Wow, the cluelessness is thick with this crowd.
MomOf5: This situation reminds me of the 100th birthday party for Strom Thurmond when Trent Lott intended to honor his friend, and instead ended his political career.
In the meantime, Senator Robert Byrd, a former KKK member, is highly esteemed by the press and by his collegues. But he’s got a (D) instead of an (R) behind his name.
Byrd has repudiated his distant past KKK membership and has shown no sign of agreeing them for many decades now. Lott said that if Thurmond’s segregationism had won out, we “wouldn’t have the problems” we have now … in other words, Lott made a contemporary racist statement, Byrd belonged to an organization decades ago that he long ago turned his back on.
You can’t see the difference?
Make It Man: Lemme ask you a question: How is the fact that Jesse Jackson wanted to castrate Obama any less offensive than calling him a “magic negro”?
It isn’t. Who said it was? You seem to assume that “liberals” as a group endorse and like anything Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton say. That’s not even close to true. They appeal to a slice of the liberal side, but nowhere close to all of us.
Bianca: George Wallace was a democrat and he used the word “Negro” all the time.
George Wallace was a segregationist and a racist. Had nothing to do with party affiliation. Although I’m not really sure what point you think you’re making anyway.
Ree: I think I do, or at least I’m trying. So, the United Negro College Fund is a racist organization, and decent people don’t support it, but rather, they cringe at its mention.
The United Negro College Fund was named in a very different era when the word had a different connotation. For whatever reason, they have chosen not to change the name.
That’s no excuse for people to use the word pejoratively today.
And then let’s add KBells oh-poor-put-upon-us in #23. Dependable as the sunrise.
Report comment to moderator
Well the important thing is that Steve G’s got it right. Someone should hire you since you know it all, Sir.
Report comment to moderator
Bianca- was that sarcastic? Or am I reading into your comment too much?
Report comment to moderator
No, you’re not reading into it too much!
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, “know it all” is normally used in a sarcastic sense.
Report comment to moderator
Now that all the usual self righteous apologists feel really good about themselves, it’s time to go to the source. If you actually care to know the truth, read . . . all of it.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/estack_12_13_06/BarackSection/Barack_the_Magic_Negro__Explained.guest.html
It’s Al Sharpton is singing through his bullhorn and complaining about BO.
And please don’t miss the fact that David Ehrenstein is black.
Report comment to moderator
It’s okay! Usually people tell teenagers that someone should hire them while they know it all. I was saying the same thing to Steve G.
Report comment to moderator
What George Wallace could get away with saying 40 years ago is pretty irrelevant. The Democratic party he was a member of has changed, and standards of what is and isn’t acceptable to say have changed.
When Republican leaders leave themselves open to charges of racism, it doesn’t matter whether the charges are reasonable or not, they’ll lose in popular opinion.
Momof5 said it well: “Republicans need to conduct themselves according to what is, rather than what should be.”
Report comment to moderator
In her campaign, Sarah Palin resurrected Barry Goldwater – the original and precursor to Nixon’s southern strategy. Even in defeat, the Republican party endorses the same strategy.
They’ve ditched the Whigs and Free Soil portions of the party leaving only the Know-Nothings. Only three generations later, the Know-Nothings in the north are minuscule and so they’ve asked the Dixiecrats to join.
Beyond the Magic Negro, the Star Spanglish Banner pretty much tells you the Republicans have thrown in the towel in a large part of the US. No 50 state strategy here.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG–The United Negro College Fund was named in a very different era when the word had a different connotation. For whatever reason, they have chosen not to change the name.
That’s no excuse for people to use the word pejoratively today.
I’m not defending the song that aired on the Rush Limbaugh show. If nothing else, it was a stupid move politically. But I would still argue that politically incorrect vocabulary is a crock. It’s just an arbitrary method cooked up by left wingers to brand their opponents as insensitive at best and “haters” at worst. I admire the people in charge of the United Negro College Fund for not changing the name. It seems to indicate that they’re not interested in victimhood identity politics.
The “Magic Negro” song looks to me like political satire, not racist “hate speech” or whatever it is people are insinuating about it. And yes, it’s about his race, but it’s not pejorative towards black people per se. It’s pejorative towards contemporary liberal black politics.
Report comment to moderator
“Byrd has repudiated his distant past KKK membership…”
Except when he dropped a few ‘n-words’ in a Meet the Press interview a few years ago.
I guess old habits die hard.
Report comment to moderator
Some of you should call Dr. Walter Williams tomorrow and ask him about it.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
Let me see if I can swing a clue-by-four for you guys … the point of the song is to hone on in Obama’s race. It is not to criticize him for his policy positions, or his ethical character or anything else that’s actually relevant. It’s just about his race and deliberately uses an outmoded and now borderline-offensive term.
Here, let me have a go. I think you could use a couple of thumps, too. You are half right. The song doesn’t criticize Obama’s policies, character, etc. Here’s where you go wrong: It’s not about his race, either.
Wait.. What? Just listen.
The song makes no sense as a criticism of Obama’s race. It makes all the sense in the world as a satire of the kind of racial politics presented in the LA Times article that inspired the whole thing.
Was it unwise to write a song that called Obama a magic Negro? Definitely. People were bound to react strongly to it without thinking, even otherwise intelligent people like you. But was it racist? Almost certainly not.
Report comment to moderator
Here are the rules straight from the Speech Patrol (and a few contributors here):
1. Whites are always racist. They just don’t always admit it.
2. Blacks can’t be racist.
3. Racism is whatever a black person says it is.
4. White people born in Africa aren’t African-American.
5. Affirmative Action isn’t racist.
6. If every person in America were black except for one white guy, he would still be the racist majority.
And so on …
Report comment to moderator
HRW, the southern strategy was invented my FDR.
Report comment to moderator
Guys, think about it. World Magazine is vey careful about tolerance. There’s no way had it been racist, WMB would have a phrase wih the word “Negro” at the top of the Personal Blogs page. So I think we can all relax, okay?
Report comment to moderator
It seems to me the lyrics of this song are rooted in resentment and envy of an astute and skilled politician who, despite his reported lack of experience or qualifications, managed to capture the highest office in our nation. It appears this resentment and envy is not limited to some Republicans. So far this “parody” hasn’t been viewed in light of Scripture. The following verses may shed some light on whether these lyrics should meet with a Believer’s approval:
“But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. … For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice.” James 3:14,16.
And,
“Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.” Philippians 2:3.
Now, I certainly wouldn’t hold a non-believer to these standards, but is there a God-honoring reason why I should find these lyrics to be kind, or funny, or accurate, and approve of them?
Report comment to moderator
After further discussion with a friend (not a WMBer), I want to clarify a few things about my position.
First, claiming that this song is a satire is apparently already a GOP talking point. But, believe it or not, I arrived at this conclusion completely independently. Point being, it isn’t just spin. There’s enough there that looks like a satire that even the likes of me can see it without priming.
Second, I doubt most people who’ve gotten a chuckle out of this song have appreciated it as satire. If SteveG didn’t get it, probably lots of people are in the same boat. They just think it’s funny that someone has the audacity to call Obama a negro in public, or, like SteveG says, they’re racist.
Third, maybe Saltsman doesn’t understand the song. Maybe SteveG is right about him. The fact that he called it “light-hearted” instead of “satire” lends itself to that interpretation. I don’t have any strong feelings about that, either way. But I stick by the idea that whoever *wrote* the thing intended to be a satire.
Report comment to moderator
They just think it’s funny that someone has the audacity to call Obama a negro in public
Exactly. I’d like to see the word make a comeback. It’s not a curse word, and I’m tired of people treating it like one – especially when Hispanics use it in Spanish and when Blacks use it in English. If it’s good enough for those folks, it’s good enough for me. I’m old-fashioned, and I like old timey no nonsense speech. I hate all this hyphenated politically correct talk.
Report comment to moderator
All this discussion reminds me of a joke I heard once:
“Q: What do you call a black man flying an airplane?”
.
.
.
.
.
.
(wait for the person to stammer and look sheepish)
.
.
.
.
.
.
“A: ‘Pilot’ you racist.”
Report comment to moderator
Amen.
Report comment to moderator
There’s nothing inherently racist about the word “negro,” although it is outdated. You might as well talk about how your beau took you to the talkies last Friday night, and then you went for ice cream and he got into an argument with the soda jerk.
The “Magic Negro” song is satire, agreed, and I do get it, but you aren’t getting the racism. The point of the song is that Obama is far too inexperienced and unaccomplished to warrant the adulation that (rightwingers imagine) he gets. But again, the key element that the lyricist chooses to highlight is race.
So whether it’s intentional or not, the message of the song is NOT “this inexperienced, unaccomplished politician doesn’t merit the praise he gets.” It is instead, “This NEGRO doesn’t merit the praise he gets.”
So again, clearly: The word “negro” isn’t the problem. The focus on race rather than inexperience as something to mock is the problem.
But please, do keep on defending it. The rationalizations are kind of entertaining.
Report comment to moderator
HRW: Beyond the Magic Negro, the Star Spanglish Banner pretty much tells you the Republicans have thrown in the towel in a large part of the US. No 50 state strategy here.
At the rate they’re going, they’ll be lucky to pull off a 5-state strategy.
Report comment to moderator
Doesn’t this say pretty much the same thing? Is it racist?
http://video.aol.com/partner/hulu/saturday-night-live-tv-funhouse-the-obama-files/LqUD1FwmdcXlas_0tISETLZeXRbp4Cl1
Report comment to moderator
#54 No. The song isn’t saying “This NEGRO doesn’t merit the praise he gets.”
The song is agreeing with the LA times parody that the election was not about merit but white guilt. The outrage is simply because a Republican said it.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, Carter, Clinton and Obama all won by winning some Southern States. Does that make them more Racist than Kerry and Gore who didn’t win any southern states.
Report comment to moderator
For the moment, let’s think about timing:
The ditty was composed in 2007, when Obama was just barely out of the blocks, and looking like he was going to get his clock cleaned by Hillary. But what about now, as we stand at the brink of Obama’s inauguration?
The best we can say, is that the satire (such as it is) has long passed its freshness date. As a historical document, it simply reveals how utterly inept the conservative movement has been in dealing with Obama.
Clinging to this satire, is like laughing at jokes you told in the locker room in high school. They were bad then and stale now.
Report comment to moderator
Can we at least read the LA Times piece before declaring it “satire”? It wasn’t, and saying so only reinforces impressions that conservatives are sloppy in their thinking.
Report comment to moderator
Emily:
I’m rather surprised that this is news. This RNC guy sent his friends Paul Shanklin’s parody CD, which is fairly conservative. This CD has been promoted endlessly on Rush, has existed for years. Has anyone complained? Does it advocate racism, or simply mock liberalism? Shanklin is unapologetic about his political viewpoint, and is a satirist mocking Obama…not unlike SNL, for that matter. Last I checked, he’s not a racist.
Apparently, someone at AP decided this becomes news, since a Republican is acting like (gasp!) a Republican.
While I’ll not the biggest fan of Michelle Malkin, she made a good point on this: after eight years of people bleeping Bush’s name on bumper stickers, why does a song making fun of Obama become a scandal?
I guess I’m just not willing to play the media’s game on this anymore.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t think the average person will do research to find out whether or not this is some sort of satire, bad or stale. They’ll hear or read the words “magic negro” and make their conclusions rather quickly. This was stupid for someone in national politics to do. It’s as bad as Howard Dean’s nasty comments about Christians, which was covered up.
Report comment to moderator
Ok, so a bunch of upper-middle-class white Protestant Republicans don’t think the song’s racist. Ill-advised, perhaps. Untimely, maybe. Politically incorrect. (There’s a great word — it placates the critics at the same time it gives a little wink to your compatriots that you consider all this uproar to be so much B.S. by the usual crowd of sniveling whiners.)
That’s great for you that you can justify to your own white bosom why it’s not racist to call the first black president of the United States a “Negro” — not just a Negro, but a Magic Negro, suggesting that he really doesn’t belong in the office and his placement there is a fine bit of razzle-dazzle. And it’s not racist. You’ve convinced yourself of that. And all your white friends, too.
But that’s really not the point.
The Republican party is hemorrhaging black votes, Hispanic votes, and youth votes. And they still pull these stupid stunts. Then loudly and defensively justify them. Even if the song is not racist (which I’m not at all willing to grant, except for the sake of argument), race is still a sensitive issue for non-white Americans, and tasteless jokes about it do not help your credibility with them.
Report comment to moderator
“He’s [Obama] there to assuage white “guilt” (i.e., the minimal discomfort they feel) over the role of slavery and racial segregation in American history, while replacing stereotypes of a dangerous, highly sexualized black man with a benign figure for whom interracial sexual congress holds no interest.” — David Ehrenstein, March 19, 2007
What was happening March 19, 2007? It was the midst of the Democratic Primary klatch where BHO was showing unexpected strength, Hillary supporters were becoming slightly rattled, and Joe Biden was finding him “clean” and “articulate”. In short, the Democrats were eating their own in their little game of last man/woman standing.
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/19/opinion/oe-ehrenstein19
Ehrenstein’s article was directed at Democratic party apologists aplenty, who never will be able to see, or judge from, what is below the surface of someone’s skin—i.e., their character. To them it seems skin is impenetrable and nothing else inside matters anyway. These same people, some of whom populate this thread, are the ones who are in such a huff over this obvious satire which Limbaugh clearly admited last March on his show—for those of you who are comprehension challenged.
Limbaugh and Shanklin have worked together for years. Just the other day Limbaugh admitted commissioning Shanklin, with some personal input, for his latest tune played exclusively on Limbaugh’s show. The history of the satirical lyrics in most, if not all, of Shanklin’s pieces is to poke very sharp sticks at the Democrat’s obvious—yet mostly ignored—hypocrisy which often find precisely their intended target—eventually.
I do wonder why this one took so long to surface.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
you aren’t getting the racism
You’ve got me there. I still don’t see how it’s racist.
The point of the song is that Obama is far too inexperienced and unaccomplished to warrant the adulation that (rightwingers imagine) he gets.
I think that’s part of it.. Instead of confusing things, let’s just leave it at that and move on.
But again, the key element that the lyricist chooses to highlight is race.
And here is where you really go off the tracks. That observation is correct so far as it goes.. the song is about race. But I don’t see why you leap from that to accusations of racism.
Kindly and carefully re-read the LA Times article for further clarification. If anyone was saying, “Obama shouldn’t be president because he’s black,” or, as you volunteer, “This NEGRO doesn’t merit the praise he gets,” we’d have a clear and definite example of racism. But that’s not what the song or the article are about at all. Rather, the claim is, Obama’s success can be partly attributed to whites seeking to assuage their consciences, coupled with Obama’s ability to present himself to whites in a non-threatening way. That might make the white people in question racists, but the claim itself is certainly not racist.
Report comment to moderator
The LA Times article explains what is meant by “Magic Negro” and refers to the wiki page here
According to that definition, the LA Times is wrong. The Magic Negro is the “token black” in films who remains subordinate to whites as a servant of some sort, but helps the white protagonist with mysterious power or insight.
Well, that is simply a statement about the inherent racism of Hollywood and does not in any way refer to Obama. No one would call the President of the United States a negro servant (except Al Qaeda).
On the other hand blacks and liberals had no trouble calling Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice “Oreo” and “Uncle Tom” and “House Slave”. But when Colin Powell endorsed Obama he became born again in a sense in the liberal mind. Now he is honorable.
Report comment to moderator
If the point that Shanklin is trying to make concerns Obama’s inexperience and the adulation he has garnered is undeserved, why say “Puff the Magic Negro” why not “Puff the Magic ‘bama” I dropped the O to make it fit the tune. By using Negro he highlighted race when it wasn’t necessary.
Using “Negro”, an outdated term, suggests an outdated attitude. I know that Puff the Magic African American wouldn’t work but using race to talk about inexperience doesn’t make sense.
kbells
Clinton and Carter both came from the south which is why they won — by nominating southern democrats they countered the southern strategy. The Bush presidency has seen the disintegration of the Republican strategy and coalition. The New England Republicans (Whigs, Federalists) are too socially progressive and hence have been unwanted by other Republicans (RINOS) and the small town values or silent majority that Nixon tried to combine with the southern strategy no longer exists in large enough numbers — rural areas are depopulating or not keeping up to urban growth. And small town values in the Midwest no longer match Dixiecrat values. The Free Soils are far more economically and socially pragmatic than the Know-Nothings. The Know Nothing-Dixiecrat alliance is numerically too small.
The Know Nothings were based in upstate New York, western Pennsylvania and southern Ohio whereas the Free Soil part originated in the Upper Midwest. IF you look at a county by county electoral map you will see the Know-Nothing areas are red whereas the Free Soilers are both red and blue.
North Carolina and Virginia switched to Obama because they no longer have the same values as the Old South. The technology and health care boom in the university towns in NC and suburban Washington DC is where Obama derived his votes, both areas have seen an influx of new residents and are no longer demographically aligned to the southern strategy.
Report comment to moderator
Xion
Colin Powell was well respected by the left until he gave the presentation at the UN. At that time, he became known as an Uncle Tom.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
Most of the song lyrics are lifted directly from the LA Times article. Google for the lyrics and compare for yourself. The title of the article is “Obama the ‘Magic Negro’”
And pardon my French, but for Pete’s sake, it was necessary for race to be mentioned. Race is like.. the point of the song and article, ok? It’s just not the point that you and SteveG seem to think it is, which is, “Obama shouldn’t be president because he’s black.” Read the dad gum LA Times article or read my post (#65) if you don’t understand the difference.
Report comment to moderator
NJL [62]: agree with you entirely on this one.
Rond: you’re off by a year. In March 2007, the teams were just lining up, and the big topic was that of the War and forthcoming surge.
And Xion: yes, C Powell was supposed to be some sort of “Magic Negro” able to help the white guys on top succeed. And I think that’s how many were inclined to think of him. Powell was safe, and he might even help the new guys succeed. Instead they followed a slightly different script, the one where the smart kids set up kind old Mr. P. to take the fall (”Man! are we ever sorry about that, didn’t see it coming…” You’ve seen this in all kind of shows).
Report comment to moderator
#68 Hrw “Colin Powell was well respected by the left until he gave the presentation at the UN. At that time, he became known as an Uncle Tom.”
Uh huh! Anybody else see the double standard here?
Report comment to moderator
HRW, so basically if a Southern votes Republican it is because he is a raciest and if Republican wins the South it is because he is a Racist. However if a Democrats wins the South it is because the South not Racist any more. I will buy this round robin bull if you do one thing. Tell me one policy or bill or law put through by the the Republican party that is racist.
Report comment to moderator
My version of “Romney the Monogamous Mormon” is sung to the tune of Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer.
And amazingly, in 2000 my song “Lieberman the Magic Jew” was both light-hearted and not a bit anti-semitic. It wasn’t to the tune of Puff the Magic Dragon though. It was based on the Who’s epic “Magic Bus”. Kicks some serious Old Testament butt.
Report comment to moderator
Harris #70 — “Rond: you’re off by a year.”
Sorry Harris, I’m not. Note the date.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/31/biden.obama/
HRW #67 — “If the point that Shanklin is trying to make concerns Obama’s inexperience and the adulation he has garnered is undeserved, why say “Puff the Magic Negro” why not “Puff the Magic ‘bama”
Shanklin was satirizing Ehrenstein’s article by using Sharpton’s voice because he was a Hillary supporter along with a lot of other black clergy. Ehrenstein used the term “Negro”—it’s his term, not Shanklin’s.
As Limbaugh said about the song: “We illustrate absurdity by being absurd, and the other element of this is that Sharpton has been quoted in the New York Post as being jealous that Obama is getting all this support as a black presidential candidate. Remember, Joe Biden said, “Hey, we got the first clean, articulate, intelligent black guy running for president.” How do you think this makes Sharpton feel? He’s run for president twice. How do you think it’s going to make the Reverend Jackson feel? So the story was that there’s a little jealousy out there.”
This jealousy is what is causing Sharpton to complain about Obama’s lack of blackness in the song.
Report comment to moderator
kbells
I’m not talking about racism — Goldwater, Nixon, Palin etc exemplify a dying poltical stance — anti-gov’t, state rigths, etc. Its not necessarily racist but its a position that had been used to defy integration etc. Virginia and North Carolina no longer a state rights or anti-authoritarian streak to it ( or at least the majority)
Report comment to moderator
I thought Mark Ellis, Maine’s GOP chairman was a probably a black man when I saw him last March at the Republican caucus in Belfast Maine. He’s obviously not white. Yes Maine is a very white state and not just because its covered with snow this time of year. But I assumed that many blog reader would assume that the GOP chair from Maine must be a white person and that that would color readers opinions. Mark’s Philipino, I believe and I would be very very surprised to find Him racist. Perhaps the best way to defend him is to let him speak for him self. This is from his blog.
“I thought I had successfully cloistered myself away from political news for the holidays when my attention was drawn to the Chip Saltsman controversy by a friend’s Facebook status that said he was “embarrassed by Chip Saltsman.” That was enough to yank me out of my yuletide stupor and, to satisfy my curiosity, I googled Saltsman for the story.
A quick scan of the headlines had me believing that Saltsman had pulled a Mel Gibson in an intoxicated racist rant. But, no, it was all about a CD he had mailed to Republican National Committee members. As a candidate for RNC chairman, Saltsman sent a holiday greeting to members along with a copy of Paul Shanklin’s “We Hate the USA.”
I had forgotten about the CD that was sitting in a pile of political stuff I had mentally marked “don’t look at until after New Years.” With the controversy blossoming, I fished it out of the pile and slid it into my CD ROM drive. I wanted to hear with my own ears what the fuss was all about.
I listened to the entire CD and, aside from fueling my growing disdain for “conservative” talk radio (many of these tracks have found their way onto Rush Limbaugh’s show), I didn’t find anything offensive. In fact, Shanklin strikes me as a gifted parodist. The title track for example, “We Hate the USA,” turns the Lee Greenwood standard on its head with clever lines like, “I’d be proud to be a Canadian ‘cause at least their healthcare’s free.”
The epicenter of the controversy is a tune titled “Barack the Magic Negro” which is a parody of “Puff the Magic Dragon” that echoes David Ehrenstein’s column, “Obama the Magic Negro.” Ehrenstein, an African-American entertainment journalist, is nearly bitter in his criticism of Obama in his 2007 L.A. Times piece. In it, he accuses Obama of hypnotizing Caucasians out of their “white guilt” with a fake demeanor that is contrary to the stereotypical view of the “dangerous, highly sexualized black man.”
Shanklin uses an imitation of Rev. Al Sharpton replete with telephonic static to relay Ehrenstein’s message:
“Barack the Magic Negro lives in D.C.
The L.A. Times, they called him that
‘Cause he’s not authentic like me.
Yeah, the guy from the L.A. paper
Said he makes guilty whites feel good
They’ll vote for him, and not for me
‘Cause he’s not from the hood.”
Most of the outrage is contrived and some of it is, well, outrageous. Blogger/journalist Tommy Christopher calls Saltsman a “turd” for distributing the CD. You’ll get no apology from me for believing that anyone who uses that word personifies it.
Saltsman is also drawing heat from inside of the GOP. Another candidate for RNC Chairman, Saul Anuzis, said “this isn’t funny, and it’s in bad taste.” Current RNC Chairman, Mike Duncan, was “shocked and appalled” by Saltsman’s actions. The only candidate who is making any sense on this issue is Ken Blackwell.
In an interview with the Washington Post, Blackwell said, “I don’t think any of the concerns that have been expressed in the media about any of the other candidates for RNC chairman should disqualify them. When looked at in the proper context, these concerns are minimal. All of my competitors for this leadership post are fine people.”
Blackwell points to the “hypersensitivity” of the press on racial issues as the cause of the controversy and I agree. Relative to experiences with racism, I’ll go toe to toe with anyone who wishes to engage in the game of one-upmanship; I’ve got five decades of personal experience with the beast and this ain’t it. There isn’t even a hint of it here.”
Report comment to moderator
Lets see: Based on the below offerings, I would say it was the use of the word “negro” that caused the trouble. Somehow, over the years, journalists have dictated to the general public that “negro” is not pc and thus taboo to use publicly? You might argue a couple of the statements below are derogatory but the strongest jolter of our emotions tends to be the last one, agree?
1. Barak the Magic African American
2. Barak the Magic Mulatto
3. Barak the Magic politician
4. Barak the Magic Chicago rep.
5. Barak the Magic Harvard grad.
6. Barak the Magic President elect
7. Barak the Magic Hawaiian
8. Barak the Magic father of two
9. Barak the Magic Baptist
10. Barak the Magic Indonesian
11. Barak the Magic thin man
12. Barak the Magic dark man
13. Barak the Magic black man
14. Barak the Magic negro
Report comment to moderator
Xion: On the other hand blacks and liberals had no trouble calling Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice “Oreo” and “Uncle Tom” and “House Slave”.
Apart from Harry Belafonte, who said anything like this?
You’ve really got to stop looking for the most extreme lunatic fringe and presenting it as if it were the mainstream. It’s causing you to break the ninth commandment over and over again.
On the larger issue, having studied up some more, I’m less inclined to think the song is racist. It’s not, and the point it makes is, while idiotic (and so was Ehrenstein’s original column), not about race.
So I stand corrected on that point.
Report comment to moderator
Rond — oh THAT story. I had read you to refer to the full bore primary of the following year. I had forgotten that that was when Biden stuck his foot in mouth.
Report comment to moderator
#78 I am pleased to see you distancing yourself from the pack Steve. Right on!
Report comment to moderator
SteveG.–On the larger issue, having studied up some more, I’m less inclined to think the song is racist. It’s not, and the point it makes is, while idiotic (and so was Ehrenstein’s original column), not about race.
So I stand corrected on that point.
Great start. Now I’m waiting for the rest where you say, “I’m sincerely sorry for accusing so many of you of racism and for agreeing with another poster who called you all “clueless morons.”
Report comment to moderator
Two of the more celebrated African American celebrities, BHO and the actress Halle Berry, are similar in their upbringing. Ea was in fact raised by a white mom after their black dads had bailed or perhaps been run off by the wife. (The more I learn about Stanley Dunham, BHO’s mom, the weirder she seems to be)
I wish we had a gifted writer like Twain (he of “Puddinhead Wilson”) to attack all the pigment based absurdity which even now still plagues our culture.
Let me say it once again: What’s wrong with a color-blind legal system where folks are judged only by their character?
Answer: We dont want to be judgmental.
Report comment to moderator
My estimation of SteveG just went up a notch.
I’m sure Saltsman isn’t racist, and the song probably isn’t either. At least, the point isn’t racist. I also agree with #13 that there is a double standard.
But I also agree that this is foolish. Saltsman should drop out of the running for chairman. The GOP needs someone smart enough to know that something like this would blow up in his face, no matter what his intentions were.
Kudos to Victoria for post #30, NJL for #31, and rogergoldleader for #49. Good posts.
Now as for the other candidates, I don’t want Katon Dawson, who was a longtime member of an all-white country club in South Carolina. Now I don’t think he’s racist, as I’ve read that he tried to reform the policy before he dropped out in August. He also made progress in reaching out to minorities in his time as chairman of the S.C. Republican party. But unfornately, the MSM would put a negative spin on things.
Saul Anuzis of Michigan doesn’t impress me. What has he done to recommend him for the chairmanship? The Michigan state GOP should have done much better in 2006 than it did.
That leaves Ken Blackwell or Michael Steele. Either one would be fine with me.
Report comment to moderator
#52: Ha ha, good one.
Report comment to moderator
NJLAWYER (20): … The next time the Republican Party calls me for a contribution (and I can’t tell you how often that has been since the election, I guess to pay off their debt), they will be told what I think of this. …
Frank: I can think of a hundred reasons not to support the party financially. (And when I get the inevitable election-season fund-raising calls, I share 2 or 3 of them.)
This hullaballoo wouldn’t be one of them.
Report comment to moderator
Just out of curiosity, why is the word “negro” unacceptable? As opposed to, say, “black,” especially when, with each passing generation, more and more “black” Americans are getting closer to “tan”?
Who decided that “negro” was an insult and when?
Report comment to moderator
I am so sorry that there are so many stupid people in the world. What do they teach in schools these days? How can people accuse the songwriter of racism for quoting somebody else? How can they blame the parodist but not the original author of the phrase?
The song itself says that it was the “guy from the LA Times” who called him that. What is wrong with people’s minds? How can they be so thick?
It reminds me of the man who objected to the word “niggardly” and the man who objected to the phrase “black hole.” I would die of embarrassment to make such mistakes.
I think that somebody could write a song that said, “Don’t call people N—–s, because it’s not very nice,” and some people would call the song racist because it had the N-word in it.
The point of the song in question is the exact opposite of racism–it’s making fun of racism. It’s throwing liberals’ words back at them. The idiotic reaction by liberals to the song proves that the major point of the song is absolutely correct–that it is the liberals who are inherently racist, because they chalk everything up to race.
It is David Ehrenstein who questioned Obama’s blackness and called him “The Magic Negro.” Who doesn’t remember that? Who can’t figure it out from what the song says?
Shame, shame, on the people who are smart enough to understand the point of the satirical song and still jumped on the “racism” bandwagon. Your true colors have shown, as they often do under stress.
Report comment to moderator
Come on NJL, I usually agree with you but has groveling and apologizing for every little slip of the tongue or hurt feeling ever got us any bit of respect from the other side. When the shoe is on the other foot they tell us to stop whining or call us drama queens. This PC nonsense is nothing but an attempt at censorship. They are not offended by this as much as they are delighted to be able to use it to brand conservatives as bigots. As someone who will be dealing with this issue for the rest of my life in my own family I plan to deal with it with the same honesty and humor I deal with everything else.
Report comment to moderator
It is delightful to watch conservativss who appear to completely fail to understand what is happening.
The conservative brand is tremendously tarnished.
The country has moved beyond traditional partisanship.
Obama was decisively elected.
Obama has perhaps a 70 percent approval rating.
The Republican party is becoming a regional party of the deep South.
And conservatives believe that such sophmoric humor will rebuild their movement?
Keep it up! I am looking forward to a durable liberal majority!
Report comment to moderator
Ree: Great start. Now I’m waiting for the rest where you say, “I’m sincerely sorry for accusing so many of you of racism and for agreeing with another poster who called you all “clueless morons.”
Well, JJF called the people defending the song’s use out in the world “clueless morons,” not anyone here. I then noted that the same kind of cluelessness was playing out here. I will stand by that because the point was that defending the song wasn’t politically astute, even if there is a defense.
I don’t think I directly accused anyone here of racism, but I did erroneously see racism in the song itself until I looked more closely at the lyrics. I apologize if I did.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, Steve, at least one of the posts you pointed out as representing cluelessness specifically noted that the song was a bad move politically. Ken said, “the promoters of the song, however clumsy and politically tin-eared, are not nearly as clueless as its detractors.” And there’s no reason to assume that the ones who didn’t specifically say that didn’t recognize it as well. People were mostly pointing out the double standard where Democrats can say whatever they want, but Republicans are constantly branded as bigots not for what they say, but for ignorant misinterpretations of what they say.
Ken’s statement quoted above, in fact, summed up the situation perfectly.
Anyway, I commend you for retracting and apologizing to the extent that you did, even though I don’t think it went far enough.
Report comment to moderator
Steve,
I’d go easy on the cluelessness charge until you show that you understand the reason the song was produced in the first place. Try to take off the blinders, lose the guardrails and jump the tracks to realize the song is parodying the people who are the real racists that you should demonize. They live politically and monetarily on “racism”—it’s their bread ‘n butter and without it they have no seat at the table because they have nothing else to offer.
Without them, perhaps this nation could become the one my black brothers and sisters and I sought, and actually thought might happen, back in 1968 as we mourned Dr. King at the only fully integrated high school in our metropolitan area. Things were changing then and we thought his death might be the catalyst to bring it around. Unfortunately, we didn’t anticipate the race-baiters who would make lucrative political careers out of the guilt that needs to be forgiven and forgotten before this nation can heal.
Every mindless “clueless” charge made merely perpetuates their careers and delays the day.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not asking anyone to grovel or apologize for every slip of tongue. I find that as offensive as anyone else. It’s beyond annoying, and the people who do that often ascribe an intent on the part of the speaker that just wasn’t there. And having read RonD’s comment to SteveG at 92, I understand his point, too.
What we need is for BOTH sides of the political spectrum, whether Republican or Democrat to use discretion and common sense when these things happen. They don’t. On the Republican side, why was it even necessary for this GOP candidate to produce something like this? It does show an inability to realize that the GOP needs to address the needs of people who are not white. I agree that the Dems, bolstered by the MSM, have a tendency to harp on misspeaks with an intensity that is beyond offensive. (Indeed, I saw a Letterman clip that had Obama saying he would say the word “nuclear” properly if he were president, and I thought that offensive because Bush isn’t the only person from Texas who says the word the way he does.) Should Caroline Kennedy say “you know” every other phrase? No, but golly gee whiz, bring it to her attention and give her a chance to remedy the problem. Frankly, it surprised me that she does that. Not that I’m saying she should get Hillary’s seat. Honestly, Sarah Palin has more governmental experience, and I don’t see how Caroline can say 9/11 has inspired her to serve — it’s been more than seven years since the event. But her “you know” and “um” problems shouldn’t be the reason she is rejected.
What’s lacking is civility in our society, all the way around. Watch a tv program and it’s all about getting a laugh at someone else’s expense or putting people down. Our whole society should get it together (including Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton).
Report comment to moderator
89. Then what have we got to lose? Running our most moderate candidate didn’t work. Trying to work with you didn’t work. Maybe it’s time to fight fire with fire.
My husband says that the way Carter and Bush pronounce “nuclear” is the way real nuclear engineers pronounce it.
Report comment to moderator
89 – we don’t want the republicans down here! They were the start to all our troubles in the first place!
Report comment to moderator
“Our whole society should get it together . . .” That’s close, though dated, NJL, but take it a step further.
Why can’t we just ignore these trumped up “sensitivities” that all politico’s create and apply to chosen segments of the population that they wish/hope to exploit? They use them to show need for their existence to correct the “wrongs” we suffer. By doing this, they play us all like a bunch of saps too stupid to deal with life as it normally is between any two people—two people who, before they really get to know each other, may have no problem with each other unless these sensitivities are considered, exposed and brought into play. Since we only superficially know most people, it seems that great relational improvement might be made generally were we all far less sensitive and suspicious about each other.
You say the “needs of people who are not white” but even this is divisive. The words don’t look past skin color to see just people as God’s children who, just like all of God’s children, have needs that are mostly similar.
So what if Caroline repeatedly says “you know” every other phrase? It’s part of her, it’s what she says, and is what comes out when she presents herself publicly. She doesn’t need correction, as someone defines it, she needs grace.
If it were possible, I think we need to redefine/correct the notion of “civility” to remove all the divisive labels creating these sensitivities, as well as the corrective expectations deemed appropriate and necessary to “improve” the vile “insensitive” individuals among us. If we did this and regrouped as just people trying to survive in this fallen world we might finally make some progress as a society.
Unfortunately, it’s the fallen part that causes our problem in the first place and makes all this impossible.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer–I’m not asking anyone to grovel or apologize for every slip of tongue.
I’m assuming this is a reference to me. I don’t need Steve or anyone else to “grovel,” and I’m certainly not concerned about any personal offense he may have caused to me as if I can’t bear to have my widdle feelings hurt.
What I was hoping to accomplish was for Steve to realize his tendency to jump to conclusions about the words, motives, and actions of conservatives based on the distorted lenses he tends to wear. I didn’t think that his retraction really reflected that, but it’s only because SteveG does show some willingness to be self reflective that I even bothered to say anything.
Sorry for annoying you, though.
Report comment to moderator
From the original post:
The press got all over it.
Everyone should just get over it.
Report comment to moderator
kbells post 94,
yes, McCain was arguably the most moderate Republican candidate, who then was enchained with Sarah Palin as part of being captured by the right.
But you do seem to grasp that this path forward is in general a path for failure.
The conservative movement needs to:
- recognize that alienating minorities is unlikily to be a winning strategy
- recognize that no new taxes and social conservative issues does not seem to be a message to which the independents are responding
If the conservative movement seriously inbtends to be other that a minority party with a regional base, then they need to start acting like a national party with the message which appeals to wide swaths of the nation.
By the way, I am a nuclear engineer by training, and Bush’s pronunciation is not how we pronounced it in college.
Report comment to moderator
Bianca post 95,
see:
Maps of electoral shifts
Looks like the South is the prime strong hold of and prime area of growth for the Republican party.
Report comment to moderator
rond post 96,
so does this mean you will wear orange on St. Patrick’s day and toast the success of the Battle of the Boyne? I suggest perhaps doing this in an Irish bar, perhaps in South Boston.
Report comment to moderator
99. So you want them to act like Democrats? Why have a two party system?
I’m just passing on what I was told by my husband’s brother-in-law the rocket scientist who was offered a spot in the space program.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah, KBells questions in #102 are good ones. It looks like Musing’s analysis in #99 is that the losing party should just do whatever it was the winning party did. We should just say that about every loser in every contest ever held in the history of everything.
But anyway…both parties blow.
Report comment to moderator
Ree: What I was hoping to accomplish was for Steve to realize his tendency to jump to conclusions about the words, motives, and actions of conservatives based on the distorted lenses he tends to wear.
I was mistaken on this one, and I apologize to anyone I wrongly accused. But I think it’s important to note that many, many people here do this often. Anytime the conservatives here attempts to diagnose the “real” motives of a liberal position, they’re almost always wrong, very often insulting, and never, ever willing to admit it.
At least I do admit it when I believe I was wrong about something, even if it is not enough to satisfy you. (I realize you will very often thing I am wrong about something and I won’t agree, but when I do see an error on my part, I say so.)
Report comment to moderator
kbells post 101,
peculiarly enough, I have a belief that political competition is a good thing.
But there will only be competition from the conservatives if they choose to be competitive.
If you read your post, it suggests that it is more important to be different from Democrats (whatever this may in fact actually mean) than it is to be politically viable.
And if conservatism is not politically viable, what is its point?
Report comment to moderator
kbells,
and I am just saying what the pronounciation was in my nuclear engineering classes.
Report comment to moderator
“The conservative brand is tremendously tarnished.”
Yes, but not in the way that you mean. Sure, archliberals hate President Bush and, by extension, Republicans in general. But that would have been true no matter what. The way that conservatism has been tarnished is that so-called conservatives, such as George W. Bush and John McCain abandoned conservative principles and betrayed their constinuents.
“The country has moved beyond traditional partisanship.”
By electing a Democrat???????????
“Obama was decisively elected.”
Yes, but you make it sound like he garnered a landslide. Not exactly. Look at a county-by-county map to see the real story. In almost every rural county, the folks went for McCain.
“Obama has perhaps a 70 percent approval rating.”
He hasn’t been sworn in yet. What’s really odd is that his most dedicated support base actually disagrees with most of his platform. As a group, African Americans want school vouchers and capital punishment. They oppose abortion and same-sex marriage. But race-baiting keeps the majority of them loyal to the Democratic Party. Bizarre!
“The Republican party is becoming a regional party of the deep South.”
I refer again to the county-by-county results. In every state the votes for Obama are concentrated in the metropolitan areas. Most rural areas, even in the northeast and northwest, and especially in the midwest, went for McCain.
“And conservatives believe that such sophmoric humor will rebuild their movement?”
I don’t consider a parody of a racist article “sophomoric”. The fact that people could not get the point says more about the state of our intellectual skills in America than it does about the songwriter’s level of humor. Again, why blame the parodist but not the original author?
Report comment to moderator
Kyle: Again, why blame the parodist but not the original author?
It’s a good bet that a lot more people heard the song than read the original column. Having now read the column, I think it’s as moronic as the song.
The idea that whites voted for Obama because of “white guilt” or some desire for a healing, helping “Negro,” as Ehrenstein asserts, is unsupported by any evidence and seems more like the sour-grapes rationalization of one who can’t bear to accept that Obama is popular because of his ideas, leadership skills and charisma.
The column was written when it was far from certain that Obama would win even the Democratic nomination, let alone the election. As tenuous as the “white guilt” explanation was then, it’s completely untenable now.
Report comment to moderator
kyle post 107,
well lets see:
1) you do agree that the conservative brand is tarnished. And since conservatives nearly uniformly supported G W Bush (we can hold on McCain). So there is little room to hide: conservatives made GW and they earn the full credit for their efforts!
2) see the electoral change maps link I posted for bianca
- Obama was decisively elected (wording intentional)
- Republicans are in retreat everywhere except the deep south
3) yes Obama is a Democrat (is there a real way for a person not of the main parties being elected president?
), but the origianl 49/51 red/blue dichotomy has been clearly broken.
4) it is amusing that Obama’s approval rating is effectively the inverse of Bush’s (70% vs. 30% !
).
5) you don’t consider it sophmoric that the Republican’s are clearly showing that they disregard the sensibilites of the minorities which are increasingly the key votes in electoral success?
Of course if conservatvies have no intention at being competitive politically, it all makes sense.
I suggest that the “Star Spanglish Banner” may in fact be more problematic that “Barack the Magic Negro, but both clearly demonstrate that conservatvies have no intention of garnering minority votes
The real issue is not taste per se, but rather the clear statement that conservatives just don’t care. And if they don’t care, then they won’t be cared for either. Welcome to the political wilderness.
Report comment to moderator
yeah,
no actually it is that the losing party must make explciti efforts to actually win.
It is clear form the3 comments that at le3ast t his group of conservatives simply do not care about winning.
As I note, welcome to the political wilderness: the electoral maps I posted for Bianca are very telling and sho0uld worry any conservative who is interested in actually obtaining measureable electoral success.
Report comment to moderator
Right, Musing. And the solution you offer to conservatives (a dead term now, but whatever) is that they start talking like their opponents?
Or maybe they just shouldn’t put out these juvenile parodies, since minorities aren’t smart enough to figure out that said parodies aren’t actually racist, but they need us smart white folk to protect their sensibilities.
Really think it’s only conservatives who make these kinds of gaffes?
Report comment to moderator
Poor Musing
Report comment to moderator
yeah post 111,
well lets see, have I provided any details on specifically what conservatives should support?
Go nuts and produce a comprehensive position and strategy which suits you.
But if conservatives desire to be relevant to the American political process then this comprehensive position and strategymust be a position and strategy which:
1) speaks to the electorate in a way which realisitcally addresses the concerns of the electorate
2) does not explicitly demonstrate that the conservatives apparently disdain portions of the electorate whose support they require
Your and kbell’s comments suggest that the conservatives in thie blog appear to have no concern about either.
And without electoral support with a realisitic chance of electoral victory, conservatives are irrelavant to the American political dynamics.
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 112,
yup victoria, poor musing.
Lets consider:
1) my preferred candidate won the election decisively
2) my preferred candidate has at least intially been delivering all that I expected (yup – we really need to see how the new administration runs, but the present administration has apparently abdicted the field)
3) the New York Times data on electoral changes which I posted suggests that this is a broad based political phenomenon
and as a nice dessert:
4) victoria has provided, contrary to the recommendations of McDowell, the argument which effectviely diffuses and arguably dismantles any arguments for the integrity of the Biblical texts
It has been a good year, and in part I owe this to you.
Happy 2009 victoria, I look forward to to your continued assistance!
Report comment to moderator
Musing said a successful conservative strategy must be one that does not explicitly demonstrate that the conservatives apparently disdain portions of the electorate whose support they require
This is the point JJF made in his “clueless morons” post at the very top of the comment thread. Although the song is actually not racist, many people do perceive it as such. They are mistaken, but they do.
For a Republican to circulate the song (along with “Star Spanglish Banner” and others on the CD), and other Republicans to defend it, demonstrates a tin ear to the political realities.
To those here defending the propriety of the song, I ask: If it causes an appearance, even though mistaken, of a disdain for minorities, what political sense does it make to let members of your party appear connected to it?
Does it say something so important that it’s worth the votes and support you’ll lose from those who misjudge it?
Report comment to moderator
Musing:
In this thread? A little bit; in other threads, I’m sure you’ve made the suggestion that conservatives should be less conservative if they want to win. What good is “winning” if you’ve given away your distinctives?
As for conservatives disdaining portions of the electorate, how do they do that, specifically?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG:
Yes. This song was moronic. It was also parody, and not racist, as seems to be acknowledged by all now, as it shouldn’t have been hard to figure out.
It’s pathetic that “political realities” have determined we must protect witless minority masses (as some apparently believe they are) from that which is actually not an attack on them.
Anyway, there are much bigger issues out there, and both parties are essentially similar, so meh.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah: You’re right. Let’s offend as many people as necessary, as long as we can sure they shouldn’t be offended. It doesn’t matter how badly our candidates do in elections. As long as we know that the people who aren’t voting for them because we offended them are wrong to be offended, that’s all that matters.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG: I love how you make this sound like it’s so pervasive among conservatives (and conservatives only, when it happens) and it’s because of this stuff they lose!
So when you say, “Let’s offend as many people as necessary,” who is the “us” doing the offending? Didn’t we already acknowledge this song wasn’t racist?
Report comment to moderator
yeah,
no I will not tell what conservatives should support: that is their responsiblity.
I have not said they should be less conservative per se. I have said that they need to expand their tent AND if by strong conservative you mean expelling those who are less conservative that would seem tautologically to suggest a losing strategy.
Regarding disdaining portions of the electorate, I suggest that “Barrack the Magic Negro” et. al. speaks for itself.
I can say that the approach must have the potential for electoral success or conservatives are irrelevant.
Report comment to moderator
yeah,
present conservatvie policies have systematically denigrated minority groups one after another: blacks, latinos, etc.
This disdain is clear in their belief that material suych as “Barrack the Magic Negor” is harmless fun which shold not affect their electoral successes.
Observationally it does impact their successes and as a minimum it is a silly political strategy.
Report comment to moderator
yeah,
the song may or may not be racist:
“Didn’t we already acknowledge this song wasn’t racist”
but that does not mean it does not offend blacks, perhaps Obama supporters (say independents who the Republicans desparately need) etc.
But keep up your blindness: a strong liberal majority fits my preferred political environmenty.
Report comment to moderator
It is important to point out that I make no claim one way or the other reagrding any objective value assessment of “Brrack the Magic Negro”.
I am saying that it is stupid political strategy.
Report comment to moderator
Musing: I love how you make this sound like it’s so pervasive among conservatives (and conservatives only, when it happens) and it’s because of this stuff they lose!
From Musing:
Why do people type this stuff, using anonymous handles, in online forums that hold no legal authority? Why? Save the bandwidth.
I asked Musing, “As for conservatives disdaining portions of the electorate, how do they do that, specifically?” (bold added for effect).
This is his response:
Hard hitting stuff.
And here’s an ironic statement:
So to become more “relevant,” ditch the things that make you different. Become your opponent! This, was already addressed in 103.
Your smugness is wasted on me, big guy. I’m not operating under the delusion that there’s any difference between camps. But hopefully within your “preferred political environmenty,” minorities will appreciate your condescending heroism on their behalf.
Report comment to moderator
Looking over the posts, the “stupidity” argument seems to be the dominant argument against the advisablility of pursuing such “humor”.
Looking over the favorable posts, it would appear that the argument is “we have the right to be stupid” followed perhaps by the argument “we lost anyway, so it doesn’t matter”.
And we wonder why conservatism is declining at the moment?
Report comment to moderator
yeah,
actually I argue that it is pervasive among conservative posters on this blog.
If you would like to generalize further, feel free!
P.S. that we have the topic to discuss at all, perhaps, is suggestive in and of itself!
Report comment to moderator
yeah,
when you say:
“So to become more “relevant,” ditch the things that make you different. Become your opponent! This, was already addressed in 103.”
it would seem that you don’t understand the situation.
In politics, you are either relevant, or you are consigned to the political wilderness.
It would seem based on your posts that you look forward to 40 years of wandering.
I just had a thought, do you perhaps imply that what makes conservatives different is that they happily denigrate those whose political support they need?
Report comment to moderator
Musing:
You weren’t limiting your comments to only posters on this blog, unless you think posters on this blog make “present conservative policy.” I’d still be interested in which conservative policies you believe have embodied disdain toward minorities.
What do you think makes conservatives different, and of that stuff, what do suppose they should retain? And if they jettison “conservatism,” how are they still “relevant”?
Maybe you missed the first couple times I mentioned it, but I don’t have a horse in either stable. We’re destined for the wilderness regardless of which one we’re riding, so long as we’re stuck with our current choices.
Report comment to moderator
yeah,
but I have nicely let you cleaqrly make the extension.
And given the nature of the discussion, I suggest the extension follows directly.
Conservatism is at a cross roads. They can try to rebuild or become irrelevant.
You would appear to be arguing they should become irrelevant. I applaud you for advocating this position.
Report comment to moderator
yeah,
now this comment is interesting:
“Maybe you missed the first couple times I mentioned it, but I don’t have a horse in either stable. We’re destined for the wilderness regardless of which one we’re riding, so long as we’re stuck with our current choices.”
But as I noted earlier, conservatives created the present Republican party, hitched their star to it, and ensured the election of Bush.
Conservatives are now disavowing Bush in droves (much as you have and MIM has). I suggest that this is a death bed conversion, and I am more than a bit skeptical of it.
Report comment to moderator
yeah,
so when you ask:
“What do you think makes conservatives different, and of that stuff, what do suppose they should retain?”
I note that I started my political life as a Goldwater conservative.
In my world, conserrvatives meant that government did not tell me how to live my life (whether I was homosexual or not was my business for example, not the states) but did ensure that the economic and legal playing field was even.
In the seventies this seems to have morphed into conservatives telling me how to live my life and not ensuring that the economic and legal playing field was even (c.f. not inspecting Madoff).
So it would appear that conservatism is not what it used to be. Therefore the new conservatives will have to define what conservatism is AND make it clear how this is relevant to the American electorate. So far, modern conservatives seemed to have failed miserably at this.
Report comment to moderator
This is weird. Musing has made about 8 posts responding to me, but hasn’t answered any question I’ve asked.
Report comment to moderator
yeah,
I certainly answered what used to make conservatives different. and then volleyed back to you why we should copnsider the modern nominal conservatives as conservatives.
Your ball.
Report comment to moderator
It’s amusing to me how for the previous two election cycles prior to this one, Republicans were smugly telling Democrats that they were destined to be the losing party because all they seemed capable of was screeching at their opponents and talking about how evil they were. Republicans, on the other hand, were said to be the party that actually worked on solving the nation’s problems, blah, blah, blah.
Then a charismatic Democrat comes along and sweeps the election with his charisma. People were willing to ignore his complete lack of experience, his lack of accomplishments in the senate, and his socialist agenda because he seemed like such a great guy and a “good leader.”
Now people like Musing come along and act as if the election of a Democrat “proves” that the nation has gone liberal and the Republicans platform has proven to be a complete bust with the American people. What a joke.
This election has really demonstrated to me how the election goes to the more charismatic, likeable candidate and that the issues have very little to do with it. Bush was a more appealing person to more people than either Kerry or Gore, and Obama is more appealing than McCain and way, way more appealing than Hilary! It’s pretty much that simple.
In any case, I agree with Yeah that there’s little to support in either party.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah–This is weird. Musing has made about 8 posts responding to me, but hasn’t answered any question I’ve asked.
LOL Get used to it–that’s how he operates. It’s been interesting to me to see him do it with you, though, because I’ve never really followed his discussions with other people, but he’s done that with me a number of times. This discussion seemed worth following because you’ve been asking him good questions, but it’s the same old thing. Youll continue to find that he’ll respond selectively, and when he does respond to your points, he’ll generally do it by misrepresenting you.
And he never even gets embarrassed by the incoherence of his posts.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah and Ree
It’s the “merry-go-round” game, its selective and always asks multiple questions, making up a game plan that you need to follow.
Favorite phrases:
It would seem
It would appear
You seem to
I note
The merry-go-round has a permanent arm chair, which slips around as the music plays –
YES, lets not forget the misrepresentation of your posts, which are reworded to suit his/her arguments -
Last but not least all the misspelled words which don’t make sense -
Report comment to moderator
Musing: Note the bolded text here:
Sure, I’ll agree conservatives are different than they used to be. Hilarious that you threw in the homosexual thing. I remember how Goldwater campaigned on a platform of gay marriage on demand, opposition to the war in Iraq, and no taxes on internet purchases.
You’ve said conservatives must remain in touch with the electorate in order to remain relevant. Well, should they do that or not?! Are there gay marriage initiatives passing overwhelmingly all over the place that conservatives aren’t noticing?
And really, you didn’t toss the ball back into my court. You’ve made a number of vague assertions about what conservatives ought to do. When you do that, it implies you have some idea in mind about what conservatism is (and I’m only interested in the modern version of it, since that’s the entire context of this discussion, including your earlier comments). So, I’ll ask what I asked above one last time: What do you think makes conservatives different, and of that stuff, what do suppose they should retain? And if they jettison “conservatism,” how are they still “relevant”?
Report comment to moderator
Favorite phrases:
It would seem
It would appear
You seem to
I note
And don’t forget, “I suggest that…”
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, REE and Victoria, for helping me see I wasn’t losing my mind. I was starting to wonder if I was in the right thread.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah, you’re doing just fine –
you aren’t on the wrong thread, you jumped off the merry-go-round, we’ve all been there -
Ree, I forgot that one, yep “I suggest that….” is a favorite, glad you posted that ‘worn out phrase’
Report comment to moderator
I’m happy with the controversy over this because it reinforces the American people’s understanding that the Republican Party is the party of southern, white, conservative Christians, that is clueless, indifferent, and downright hostile to those who aren’t. It helps to insure that the Republican Party will retain it’s minority status, particularly in an increasingly diverse nation.
Report comment to moderator
That’s fine, Anlir. That’s fine that you only want to go surface deep in thinking about things. Super for you.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah: So when you say, “Let’s offend as many people as necessary,” who is the “us” doing the offending? Didn’t we already acknowledge this song wasn’t racist?
You don’t get it.
I will type slowly and you read fast, and maybe it will penetrate your barriers.
1. The song is not, in my opinion, racist.
2. However, the song does call attention to race and does offend a lot of people.
3. You believe, and I mostly agree, that people who are offended on the grounds of perceived racism are mistaken. (Those who are offended on the grounds that the original idea of “white guilt” as a motive for whites to support Obama is idiotic, however, have a point.)
4. HOWEVER … and here we come to the key point, so listen closely … whether those offended are right or wrong to be offended, they’re still offended. And when the response they hear from Republican leaders is “Well I didn’t see a problem,” it reinforces their belief that Republicans disdain minorities.
5. This reduces support for the Republican party among some groups.
So I ask you … just from pragmatic political standpoint, would it not make more sense to (1) not try to offend people and (2) not arrogantly dismiss concerns when people express them?
Now I do understand that you are not taking a position of support for the R party … but if you were hired to advise a Republican candidate, what advise would you give your candidate on how to respond to the offense some people were taking, if they were people whose votes you want to win?
Report comment to moderator
ree post 134,
ah but the electoral maps in 2000 and 2004 showed a highly split 49/51 country held together by a politics of division.
Have you looked at the electoral transformation maps I posted for Bianca?
NHow the following are points I have made earlier:
1) if Obama blows it, all bets are off
2) this so far is a transformation for Obama not necessarily for Democrats
But the present conservatvie policy seems to be:
a) complain that they are nbow marginalized
b) desparately hope for a major Obama screw up
- Bush has set the bar so low that modest screw ups will look like success!
Report comment to moderator
yeah,
what is most amusing perhgaps is that you apparently cannot answer what makes modern conservatives different.
So I will answer your question since you seem so adamant. Note, that conservatives have been completely aligned with Bush for perhaps eight years, so here goes:
1) conservatives have demonstrated how to produce among the highest national deficits ever recorde3d
- and to do so with surprisingly little economic stimulus
2) conservatvies have demonstated how to funnel federal money to specific constituents needs
- and to do so with minimal real improvment of national infrastructure
3) conservatives seem to have demonstrated how to provide a lasissez faire economic system
- which demonstrate endemic fraud and mismamgnement threatening our countries and the world’s economies
4) conservatives seem to know how to eliminate our individual freedoms
- without significantly improving our security
5) conservatives seem to know how to start international conflicts
- without being able to bring them to successful conclusions for America’s benefit
6) conservatvies seem to know how to focus on abortion as an issue
- while making no progress whatever in actually reducing abortion
7) consaervatives seem to know how to focus on gay marriage
- without significantly changing the overall trajectory of gay marriage
- without actually beinbg able to effectviely resolve the economic crisis
9) conservatives appear to knbow how to be incompetent
- which is why the electorate turned against them
10) conservatives seem to have raised whining to an art form
Thats a start. You asked what makes conservatives different: I suggest the core is point 9: incompetency
Report comment to moderator
yeah post 142,
actu7ally yeah, I have raised anlir’s point with supporting materials and observations on why this occurs.
All you have done is apparently argue so what: this makes us different.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG:
Wherever would we be without you smart people??
Years from now, when people examine why this or that idea held sway, and the parties supporting them, a few magic negro songs are not going to be viewed as having had any significance at all.
But it’s neat that you think you that!
Report comment to moderator
Musing:
You haven’t substantively addressed any point I’ve raised.
But it’s neat you think you have!
Report comment to moderator
ree post 139,
as opposed ot making unqualified categorical statments which are wrong as posted?
I seem to remember your relatively unqualifed statements about the Bible and then your very rapid backpedaling.
Except that you were never really willing to fully dismiss your own statement.
Almost all categorical statements are wrong as written.
Report comment to moderator
yeah,
I haven’t specifically addressed your question regarding what makes conservatives different?
I haven’t specifically addressed your question of should you give up your differences?
Sure, yeah.
But you don’t seem to like the answers.
Report comment to moderator
yeah,
well based on this comment:
” I remember how Goldwater campaigned on a platform of gay marriage on demand, opposition to the war in Iraq, and no taxes on internet purchases.”
it would seem very clear that you have no concept of what Goldwater stood for?
Report comment to moderator
And it is worth noting that yeah has not refuted:
1) SteveG’s observations that this is dillatory to conservatives rebuilding their electroal presence
2) the New York Times data showing the marginalization of Republicans
As such, I suggest that the essence of the nagative comments on Barack the Magic Negro remain unrefuted.
And it is delightful watching certain conservatives defending their electoral incompetence with such certitude and confidence.
Keep it up team: the country needs a durable Obama majority.
Report comment to moderator
Now I suggest that Newt Gingrich has excellent conservative credentials AND masterminded the Republican capture of congress in the 90s. It would seem that based on this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/01/opinion/01thu2.html
Newt thinks this was a less than stellar idea.
We can of course continue.
Report comment to moderator
Musing:
I just noticed your post 145. I must have missed it while making my last 2 entries. I’m sorry I did, as it is a good post, and an actual response to what I’d asked. Why didn’t you just do that in the first place?
I’m with you on #s 1, 2, 4 and 5 (although that’s hardly a strictly ‘conservative’ thing). I’ll try to pop in later and address the other points and a few things about your list. Just a heads-up, though, as a disinterested observer: don’t think the same culprits who muddied up the conservative house aren’t making their way over to yours right now. They’ve been called “neo-cons” the last few years, but when they jump in your bed, you’ll have to come up with a new name.
It would also be good of you, given the thread topic, to list those conservative policies of disdain toward blacks, latinos, etc.
Report comment to moderator
And some more:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/us/politics/28rnc.html?hp
Report comment to moderator
Also, re: Goldwater’s platform. Get a sense of humor, Musing. Goldwater’s irrelevant to this discussion.
And this notion that magic negro songs, etc., is of any consequence is goofy. There’s nothing to “refute” (re: 152).
And how can you bear to keep writing things like “We can of course continue”?
Report comment to moderator
yeah,
so the policies of disdain are clearly enunciated in the impolitic distribution of “Barack the magic Negro”.
Newt seems even more emphatic than I am.
We can then continue on the actions taken to alienate the black community, the Latino community, etc.
To say that Republicans did not do this belies the statistics comparing 2000, 2004, and 2008.
And no, in some measure my comments are showing trhe carricature that conservatvies have built for themselves. This is what one sees on the outside.
To be absolutely honest, my sense is that except for abortion and gay marriage, the house seems very empty when viewed from the inside: there is no distinguishable difference between conservatives from the rest of the politicians, except that conservatives seem to be incompetent.
Report comment to moderator
Musing:
I don’t have time to check in here often. I’m off today, but, strangely, my employer expects me to work tomorrow (why not just give us Friday and take away President’s Day or something?). So you instead of asking the same thing one more time, I’m going to do a little “formatting”:
What SPECIFIC policies of disdain toward minorities have been enacted by conservatives? We may have taken different civics courses in junior high, but I wasn’t taught that magic negro songs constituted “policy”.
And I appreciate your judgment that conservatives are largely indistinguishable from the rest (if that’s how you meant it). That’s the approach to your list I would have attempted to articulate in greater detail in a future post.
Report comment to moderator
Perception and symbolism are held in great disdain by the conservative movement in America. Thus they dismiss an issue like this with a wave of the hand as a much ado about nothing. What they fail to comprehend is that it insures they will wander in the political wilderness for the foreseeable future, possibly permanently. Interestingly, their conservative brethren in England seem to have finally understood the importance of perception and symbolism, though it took quite some time.
Report comment to moderator
yeah,
what is amusing is that you have concluded that my least substantive post (everything in it is easily drawn from the headlines and requires no integration of knowledge) perhaps says much about your approach to posting.
Next it is worth noting that when I provide throw away observations which you have demanded, you then provide no substantive commentary on my observations.
Now you want me to explain to you the errors in minority relations which seem to have plagued conservatives?
The discussion on Brack the magic negro immediately exemplifies the problem. The statistics I have provided clearly show that conservatives and Republicans have a problem with minorities.
If you do not have the introspective capability to comprehend the disdain shown by conservatives and Republicans towards minorities, then you will never recapture any hope of electoral success.
But think immigration policy, economic policy, legal policy for starters.
Then perhaps when you are done you can explain to me what you have considered as the demonstrations of disdain for minorities which seems to be affecting conservatives and Republicans.
Report comment to moderator
Great. Now I’m back to wondering if I’m on the right thread. I don’t remember asking Musing to “explain to [me] the errors in minority relations which seem to have plagued conservatives.” The question I did ask is a simple one really, and included a word–”specific”–many people are familiar with. I don’t know; maybe someone here can tell me if referring to “immigration policy, economic policy, legal policy” amounts to specificity.
Musing, you wrote: “what is amusing is that you have concluded that my least substantive post … perhaps says much about your approach to posting.” I just can’t make sense of that sentence. What does it mean?
And why would I have asked you to provide “throw away observations”?
For an example of question begging par excellence, see:
This racism thing isn’t pervasive among conservatives, it doesn’t exist only in their domain or demonstrably more so there, and this hoopla over some parody is stupid.
Report comment to moderator
yeah,
I do sense that you lioke to change the subject a bit to meet your preferred needs. So you said:
“What SPECIFIC policies of disdain toward minorities have been enacted by conservatives?”
when I was discussing the basic disdain.
However, I did provide you with the raw material for looking at specific policy decisions made by conservatvies and while my list of areas was not comprehnesive, it did provide a start.
Hmmm, nope, no introspection yet.
Waiting on you yeah.
And no I have not mentioned racism, although you seem enamored of brining it up.
I don’t know why you asked for throwaway observations, but it is clear that when I provided them you apparently liked them. Again you will have to explain it, I have no answer.
Report comment to moderator
Musing:
What do you mean you were discussing “basic disdain”? Do you really not think it’s legitimate to ask for specifics when you say, “present conservatvie policies have systematically denigrated minority groups one after another: blacks, latinos, etc.”
Really, Musing. I don’t have time for this stuff. Should have taken the hint from Ree a few posts ago, and I’ll do so now. I do appreciate your participation.
Report comment to moderator
yeah,
but I have provided specifics and in fact this discussion started with specifics.
I have also provided specifics showing clearly that conservatvies and Republicans have a problem with minorities: it is interesting that you continue to avoid the discussion of this data.
So simply:
1) the Barack the magic negro and asociated songs on the CD clearly show a lack of sensitivity towards minorities on the part of measureable number of conservatives and Republicans
2) the New York Times political demographic data from this election shows a clear problem for the conservatvies and Republicans among minorities, particuyalry Latinos anbd Blacks
That you fail to accept this very clear data (or alternately fail to explore this very real data to provide an alternate explanation) makes you a strong competitor for Rachel Maddow’s “Denial is not a river in Egypt” award.
And when you try to parse the details further with “the song isn’t racist” or “what specific policies” you clearly show ythe insensitivity and lack of understanding which is at root the problem.
Had you been willing to explore the question of why these are problems and what it might take to break down these perceptions among minorities, you would have demonstrated hope for conservatives and Republicans moving forward. As you demonstrate, if there is hope for conservatives and Republicans, it will not be coming from you.
Report comment to moderator
yeah,
I will continue, this time seriously regarding the differences of modern conservatives, as least as demonstrated. Not being a modern conservative, I can’t know their internal drivers. You are apparently a modern conservrative, and based on your own posts it would appear you are unable to explain modern conservatives either.
In any event, I consider the following as serious and not throw away differences of modern conservatvies:
1) modern conservatives have a disdain for government which it is nearly impossible for them to conceal
2) modern consrvatives have a desire for governmental power which does not appear to be based on actual intent for executing governing philosophy (see 1)
3) modern conservatvies fail to realize that the world is not a Norman Rockwell world of the 1950s
The result is both governmental and electoral incompetence whcih they have covered by the politics of division and the building of narrow coalitions. In times of crisis such as these, narrow coalitions and politics of division are unsuitable for satisfactory governing.
The electorate apparently agreed with this analysis, and the continued haranguing by conservatvies in particular suggest that they still have not gotten the message,
Report comment to moderator
yeah,
so you want specific conservatives policies and not just the clear expressions of disdaain for minorities? That you can not spell them out continues to argue for an obliviousness on your prt which is nothing short of astounding.
So how about:
1) immigration policy (duh!)
2) minimum wage policy (inordinately affects minorities)
3) health care availability (inordinately impacts minorities)
4) opposition to gay rights (another duh)
5) failure to energetically enforce equal opportunity regulations
6) environmental policy (inordinately impacts minorities)
I could go on.
I pressaged some of these in an earlietr post, but apparently you are unable to see the all too obvious policy positions on the part of conservatives and Republicans which negatively impact minorities and suggest to minorities that conservatives and Republicans dont care.
You can deny these with detailed debate all you want.
But unless and until you can alternately explain particularly the Latino data in the New York Times material, you are clearly in denial of the situation.
Report comment to moderator
yeah,
now if you look carefully at these policy positions, it is suggestive that these are more class issues than minority demographic issues.
True enough, and it is worth noting that white men with limited education appear to have been an area where McCain did well. And this group has many of the class issues of the more traditional minorities.
I suggest that one possible explanation for this is that the politics of division still resonates among this group.
If this is correct, then it is only a matter of time until this demographic also changes.
At that point the only growing demographic for conservatives and Republicans is the evangelical Christians, primarily in the deep South.
Look at the New York Times data.
Report comment to moderator
yeh,
we have a lovely litmus test here.
Comments on the Irfan family being removed from the AirTrans flight?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/01/family.grounded/index.html
Report comment to moderator
Now this is pathetic.
1) Not sure anyone else is even checking in here, but click on Musing’s link in 168 and try to tell me how it supports whatever Musing’s been saying.
2) Musing is in denial, not I. He really never did provide specific examples of policies reflecting conservative disdain toward minorities until kind of doing so in 166.
3) Using Musing’s logic, liberal tax policies demonstrate liberal “disdain” for the wealthy class. Channeling Musing, “We could continue.” Funny how Musing knows the conservative policies he lists in 166 arise from disdain for minorities, yet admits, “Not being a modern conservative, I can’t know their internal drivers.”
4) It’s hardly necessary to assume disdain as motive for the items on Musing’s list in 166. Each item can and has been argued from a substantive position of objective principle. Besides, note how Musing is now back to suggesting that a winning conservative strategy simply entails ditching conservatism! That way, conservatives remain relevant!
4) Flash to Musing: showing voting data—where conservatives lose ground in certain areas and demographics—doesn’t demonstrate conservative racism.
5) Speaking of 4), where racism exists, it does not exist exclusively or in significantly greater degree within conservative camps. The belief that it does shows only a mindless acquiescence to stereotypes.
Report comment to moderator
yeah,
so lets be simple:
- conservative policies on immigration are not specific and negatively affecting minority perception of conservatvies? sure yeah.
- it is indeed an worthy discussion of whether progressive tax rates are indeed showing disdain for the wealthy class (I argue that it does not, but it is a valid discussion): but this has not been the discussion so far, we have been discussing minorities (an additional example of attemnpts at deflection)
And while you may argue based on princples for all the policies, it does not contradict that these policies are being interpreted as disdain for minorities. That you admit that these are policies undermines your point 2.
This has, however, beeen fun yeah: you are providng clear examples of how the conservative and Republican movements are surely and steadily losing all minority support. Keep it up, it comforts me that perhaps the Obama majority is indeed going to be very durable.
And unless you can deflect the New York Times data, your debate is for nought. Convincing me or youself has no impact. You have to convince the minorities. Observationally, conservatives and Republicans are failing on this front, as Barack the Magic Negro demonstrates.
Report comment to moderator
yeah,
when you say:
“4) Flash to Musing: showing voting data—where conservatives lose ground in certain areas and demographics—doesn’t demonstrate conservative racism.
5) Speaking of 4), where racism exists, it does not exist exclusively or in significantly greater degree within conservative camps. The belief that it does shows only a mindless acquiescence to stereotypes.”
You seem hyper-focused on racism.
I have not raised racism as the issue but you seem hyper-focused on it. I suggest that the recent electoral results indicate that racism as a driver in politics is now confined to an ever smaller minority of Americans and is losing value as a specific indicator of politic action. The one possible exception, again based on the New York Times data, being the deep South.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah: Musing’s point is not about “specific policies.” It’s about actions that indicate tone deafness toward the concerns of minorities.
For example, if some says “The ‘Magic Negro’ song is racist and it offends me,” and a Republican party official’s response is “Oh lighten up, it’s just a satire,” that demonstrates the kind of problem Musing is talking about.
Musing has not alleged that Republicans are writing legislation and passing laws intended to marginalize minorities, as you keep demanding evidence of. The discussion here is about attitude and public perception, not policy-making.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
it would seem that yeah’s model is if you can not show that I have specifically taken action negative to you then you have no reason to argue that I am not for you.
And of course this is not how the transaction work. Active encouraggement and support is required,not just benign indifference.
And the demographic data from the last election is very clear and definitive, and yeah’s continued argument which never addresses the core issue demonstrates why.
Report comment to moderator
Or having seen #166, I gather Musing did have some specific policies in mind. I think the issue of tone-deafness is actually more important. You can argue the pros and cons of a tax policy or environmental stance based on objective data; but being seen as insensitive to and dismissive of the concerns of a particular group is a good way to erode whatever support you have within that group.
Report comment to moderator
Musing: So conservatives disdain minorities (as you’ve said they do), but just not in a racist way? I’m not hyper-focused on racism; I’m engaging what you’ve said in a thread dedicated, at least in part, to that very topic.
My reference to liberal tax policies was an illustration. It’s a common rhetorical device. It really is; you could look it up. You see, it isn’t necessary to assume that if a policy has a disproportionate effect on a group, that the policy maker is motivated by disdain for that group. And with most laws, it’s virtually impossible for those laws not to affect one group or another more than the rest, even when the laws are ‘disdain-free’.
You’re all over the map, Musing. See, now you’ve gone from imputing to conservatives actual disdain to discussing the mere appearance of it. I don’t deny conservatives aren’t getting the minority vote. You don’t have to keep pointing out that deficit.
And re-repeating: Your smugness about the election results isn’t effective on me. Maybe you’re hoping to jab any “conservative” onlookers. You say, “Keep it up, it comforts me that perhaps the Obama majority is indeed going to be very durable.” Oh, that’s sooooo mature.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG: Agreed. Distributing this stuff with the company letterhead is unwise. But a couple things about that:
1. It’s small potatoes. Things like this are way, way down on the list of reasons conservatives lost the election.
2. These things are not appreciably more common among conservatives than liberals. The conservative problem is that, for whatever reason, the mud sticks more to their vehicle, and seems to run off the liberals’. For what it’s worth, I don’t blame media or liberals for that phenomenon.
Report comment to moderator
yeah post 175,
you will note that I never entered racism into the discussion. This has been your contributiuon and I find it a bit quaint.
What you fail to understand it is the perception of the group which is impoirtant, not your perception. Hence my example of wearing orange on St Patrick’s day.
If you look carefully I maintain a high level of consistency: conservatives and Republicans show disdain for minorities and this is poor electoral strategy. You keep introducing racism, disdain for the wealthy, etc.
But keep arguing that the conservative and Republicans are not showing disdain for minorities, as exemplified in this case by the Barack the Magic Negro CD (I still think the Star Spanglish banner is more critical here than Brack the Magic Negro, but your mileage may and will vary: but it doesn’t change the message). The more you defend the situairton the clearer the problem is.
P.S. there is a counter argument here, but it does not involve defending the present practices. My sense is the Grand New Party contingent seem to be beginning to get it.
Report comment to moderator
Now wait a minute. I just saw SteveG’s 172. SteveG, yes, Musing has made the argument that conservative policies reflect the disdain they have for minorities.
He said,
and
The latter is from 113, as the context should be included.
Report comment to moderator
GREAT MERCIFUL GOBS OF GOO! Musing, you are impossible! Can you explain to me why I referred to taxes on the wealthy? It’s a very simple point. If you can explain why I made the allusion, you will also understand the point I was making. And your deconstruction of “disdain” is kind of lame.
Report comment to moderator
So lets explore the implications and consequences of Yeah’s approach.
Right now Obama has about 70% approval rating and a clear sense of legitimacy on the part of a significant majority of Americans.
He will put his hand on Abraham Lincoln’s Bible for the oath and Rev Rick Warren will give the invocation and Rev. Lowrey will give the bendiction. The symbolism of the very wide tent which Obama is building is plain for all to see.
And on Jan 20 or thereabouts, congress will take up and presumably pass quickly a stimulus package to help spur the economic recovery, an action which appears to have wide spread approval.
And on this canvas of broad support, we will see a small minority continue to harp and take actions which will look to the majority as quaint to unbelievable.
What better way to ensure that this political minority is increasingly marginalized?
Is it good that this conservative political minority is maginalized? For a variety of reasons, which are not part of this thread as developed so far, I argue no.
But this political miniority is making it increasingly easy for Obama to fashion his policies with his detractors clearly beeing seen as out of touch, insensitive, and unwilling to make any effort to work for the betterment of the country as a whole.
And as this becomes the consensus, the probability of this political minority becoming a permanent minority becomes increasingly probable.
Report comment to moderator
yeah,
I have no idea why you introduced taxes on the wealthy.
You did it.
It was off topic.
So don’t blame me for entering it.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
Re: 180. In other words, conservatives should drop conservatism and adopt their opponent’s platform. We covered this.
Re: 181. It’s telling that you can’t comprehend my allusion to taxes on the wealthy.
Report comment to moderator
yeah,
as I have said many times:
conservatvies should not drop their conservatism BUT they must understand how to make it relevant to the majority of the electorate.
Inherent in your statement is the assumption that conservatism is not relevant to the majority of the electorate. If you truly believe this, then you should give up now. Perhaps a cave in the Himalaya?
Report comment to moderator
yeah,
do note that I have not said that conservatism is irrelevant to the maority of the electorate, merely that conservatives seem unable to explain how it is relevant.
Report comment to moderator
The fact that this thread has gone on 10 times longer than most of the others on this conservative blog indicates that the topic touches more than Barrack, magic, and Negores, or even all three in one phrase.
I think Paul Krugman was correct to observe today that 40 years ago the GOP made the decision to identify itself as the “party of racial backlash.” Posters like KBELLS will deny that small government ideology has anything to do with African Americans other than to “liberate” them from the Democratic plantation. Nevertheless, Krugman accurately describes the political function of Republicans during this time.
Report comment to moderator
scroop moth,
and I suggest there is an even deeper issue going on if one looks at the New York Tiems data.
Peculiarrly enough one can argue that the Civil War is still being fought, and paradoxically the party of Lincoln is now the last refuge of the Southern Sessionists.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth,
I did not see what Krugman said/wrote, but if it was anything like what Musing has been asserting–that conservatives have disdain for minorities–and as you agree with them, this would be a good place to provide support for that notion. And for the argument to have any ‘punch,’ you should also show that such racism is appreciably more common among conservatives.
Believe it or not, I could be persuaded. I’m not emotionally invested in today’s conservative cause. I’m just trying to see where conservatives have been so much worse.
Report comment to moderator
And Scroop Moth, the length of this thread is a result of Musing’s participation in it; there’s no reason to read anything more into it.
Report comment to moderator
yeah,
so are you perhaps arguing that disdain is not the right word?
Is insensitivity better?
HOw about stupidity?
What word would you use for gatuitously distributing a CD which one should have known was going to be considered offensive to minorities whose support one needs simply because one thought it was funny?
What else can you say about a movemewnt which as policy does not want to address the i8llegal aliens in our country whjo are critical to our economy but instead argues for more stringent enforcement which has the effect of gathering up American citizens of certian minorities in its grasp?
We can continue.
But if you don’t like the word disdain, what word would you use for such electoral incompetence?
Report comment to moderator
Oh, why not…
Musing:
1) You used the word disdain; it’s for you to defend. Do you know what it means?
2) You’ve given the impression that this disdain is a widespread attitude among conservatives toward minorities, and you offer as support this semi-obscure distribution of a parody the intention of which is not to deride minorities.
2a) Stupidity isn’t the same thing as disdain, so I don’t know why you’re bringing it up, but,
3) This magic negro phenomenon is hardly unique to conservatives, and
4) It is hardly the cause of conservative failures with the minority demographic.
5) It is for you to demonstrate, preferably through more than just clairvoyance, that conservative immigration policy (along with any other conservative policy) is rooted in conservative disdain for minorities, and not simply based on conscientiously considered pros and cons. You’ll recall this is why I referred to liberal tax policy, even though the simple reference went over your head, but I’ll try again: Just as it would be irresponsible for me to assume liberal tax policy arises from liberal disdain for the wealthy, it’s unnecessary for you to conclude conservative policy is a product of “disdain” for minorities.
6) I’ve never said anything about “electoral incompetence.” I’ve challenged your assertion, big fella. You said,
This disdain is clear in their belief that material suych as “Barrack the Magic Negor” is harmless fun which shold not affect their electoral successes.
Now, back up that assertion.
Report comment to moderator
yeah,
I suggest it means look down on, depreciate perhaps. If I use:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disdain
then the explicit defintion is:
dis·dain (ds-dn)
tr.v. dis·dained, dis·dain·ing, dis·dains
1. To regard or treat with haughty contempt; despise. See Synonyms at despise.
2. To consider or reject as beneath oneself.
n.
A feeling or show of contempt and aloofness; scorn.
which seems ot fit the Barack the Magic Negro and the Star Spanglish Banner nicely. Guess we will leave the word disdain. I suggest it is defended by the dictionary and the explicit examples nicely.
Actually if you look I suggest that contrary to your statement:
“2) You’ve given the impression that this disdain is a widespread attitude among conservatives toward minorities, and you offer as support this semi-obscure distribution of a parody the intention of which is not to deride minorities.”
whether it is widespread or not is in some sense immaterial: it is the main message coming from conservatives so unless the remainder of the conservatives change the message this is the one minoritiesd see. And I suggest the New York Times data supports this.
Now you state:
“3) This magic negro phenomenon is hardly unique to conservatives, and”
and I might agree with you except for two points: conservatives are raising it to an art form AND they need the support right now. In short, this is stupid.
when you say:
“4) It is hardly the cause of conservative failures with the minority demographic.”
on what do you base this fdailure then? If it is not a feeling that the conservatives don’t care for them, what is it? Particularly explain the Latino vote between say 2004 and 2008. The Colorado results are perhaps most salient.
And when you say:
“5) It is for you to demonstrate, preferably through more than just clairvoyance, that conservative immigration policy (along with any other conservative policy) is rooted in conservative disdain for minorities,”
you are delightfully misinterpreting what I said. I said that it is showing disdain, not that it is rooted in disdain (although it may be) and this specific act appears to have cost the conservatives Colorado and perhaps New Mexico as a minimum.
The demographic data is clear.
The conservative loss is clear.
The conservative failure among minorities of all types is clear.
The Barack the Magic Negro is clear.
I sense that given the weight of the evidence you would appear to be in denial.
Report comment to moderator
Musing:
No, it isn’t the main message coming from conservatives. A couple of isolated incidents doesn’t prove your point. C’mon, even you yourself have referred to conservatives who’ve disclaimed the song, which isn’t even a product of disdain in the first place. All the stories I’ve seen on it point out that, at the least, the distribution of the song was met with mixed reviews.
Why do you keep referring to the New York Times data as proof that conservatives harbor disdain for minorities?
I’ve never said anything one way or another about how “stupid” the song is. Why do you keep disputing what I’m not arguing?
You make mention of the Latino vote. Why assume it is conservative disdain that alienates voters? So if a conservative immigration policy is unpopular with Latinos, it is therefore a policy of disdain?
This quote of yours is laughable:
What’s the dif? And are you now saying you misspoke when you wrote the material I quoted above:
This disdain is clear in their belief that material suych as “Barrack the Magic Negor” is harmless fun which shold not affect their electoral successes.
I tell ya. You’re like the piece of egg shell that falls into the pan. You try to pin it down, but it keeps squirming around in the egg white.
I’m not in denial of anything, Musing. You keep referring to lack of minority support for conservatives as if that proves disdain. I’ve never denied the lack of support part. I’m asking you to prove the disdain part. Oy!
Clear about what? Argue all you want that it’s stupid, and of some great consequence. But it’s not clear that it’s indicative of conservative disdain.
I swear.
Report comment to moderator
yeah,
you seem to keep ignoring the elctoral data which suggests that this is what the minorities are hearing.
You will need to provide a clear explanation for the Latino vote between 2004 and 2008 in particular to make your point.
You have yet to demonstrate that the minorities are not hearing a message of disdain. You keep ignoring that Barack the Magic Negor and th eStar Spanglish Banner clearly shows this.
If conservatvies are projecting such a message of love to minorities, why can’t they win thier vote?
Your statistics demonstrating otherwise?
Report comment to moderator
Musing:
I looked and looked through your post 193 and didn’t see anything in there where it demonstrates your claim that conservatives harbor disdain toward minorities. Liberals lack support among evangelicals. Do liberals disdain evangelicals?
The Magic Negro and Spanglish Banner songs are isolated events; as isolated as similar incidents originating from the left.
And where’d you get the idea that I’m claiming conservatives are “projecting…a message of love to minorities”? I’ve explained this already, Musing. Conservative policies can be entirely free of disdain and still be unpopular with minorities.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah: Liberals lack support among evangelicals. Do liberals disdain evangelicals?
Evangelicals certainly believe liberals disdain them. Whether it’s true or not, they think so, and as a result, are less likely to consider listening seriously to the liberal message.
Again: Whether it’s true or not.
That is the point of this whole discussion.
Report comment to moderator
yeah,
well as I read WMB, evangelicals here clearly indicate that they believe liberals have disdain for evangelicals.
The symmetry of the observation I believe proves my point.
What is most interesting is that you continue to try to defend the undefendable and argue the unarguable.
And all I have to do is hand you another piece of rope and you tie yourself ever tighter to this hopeless cause.
And yes, I will continue to use this discussion as an example of the blindness and insensitivity which sometimes is exhibited by conservatives and which will doom their efforts at trying to regain electoral majority unless they change. You could not make the case more clearly.
Possibly you might want to read Grand New Party. It appears to offer an alternative approach to this situation.
My sense is you will need a new approach.
P.S. and you might consider Obama’s invitation to Rev. Warren for the inauguration while you are considering the steps conservatives need to take to regain their relevancy to the American electorate.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG:
That may be a point of some discussions in here, but not really the one Musing I have come to be arguing over, although with Musing, you never know from one post to the next what he’ll be focusing on. Musing has said some things about appearances, yeah, sure, and nobody’s disputing that particularly strongly. I do dispute the significance of the effect of these things. Conservatives are not getting the minority vote for various different reasons; these songs are barely a blip on the reason-radar. Again, that’s not the discussion Musing and I are having.
But what Musing has done is to say there is actual disdain on the part of conservatives toward minorities. Despite what seems like eleventy-four attempts on my part to get him to support that assertion, he responds with something completely irrelevant to that request, like he did in 196 there, right above this post. What Musing is doing would be like if an evangelical were to say that since “evangelicals certainly believe liberals disdain them,” therefore liberals actually DO disdain them. Not only is that an illogical conclusion, but wouldn’t it further be incumbent upon that evangelical to actually proffer some support for the accusation?
Come on, SteveG. I know you can see this simple point, can’t you?
Report comment to moderator
Musing: I welcome you to “use this discussion as an example of the blindness and insensitivity which sometimes is exhibited by conservatives and which will doom their efforts at trying to regain electoral majority unless they change.”
May I respectfully ask that if you do so, and you make specific reference to me and this discussion, you will also include a link to this thread? Then readers can determine for themselves whether your account of our conversation approaches anything we call “reality” in this known universe of ours.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Victoria:
I appreciate that post. Thanks for taking the time to express the thought.
SteveG’s cool, so if he wants to offer a response to my earlier post, I’ll entertain it. And if he doesn’t respond, that’s fine, and I won’t count it as any victory on my part.
Musing can keep talking to himself, only without my further interruptions.
Report comment to moderator
Ooohhhhhh….I should have claimed 200s! Darn, missed my chance.
Report comment to moderator
yeah,
I always like to let people read the material for themselves. One of the excellent aspects of the blog is that the material is wrritten and rather than taking one persons or anothers word, the reader can go read it for themselves.
Report comment to moderator
vicotria,
but of course I am a believer.
What I do try to demonstrate is where thinking is sloppy and arguments deficient.
And as I noted, people never seem to let me down.
yeah demonstrate nicely how some conservatives, and arguably the primary conservative message, is, using the word as described in freedictionary, perceived as disdaiful by minorities, and the data on minority support for conservatives clearly demonstrates this.
You have said in the past that providing references to substantiate your assertions and using logic breaks the flow of the discussion, and I suggest your posts continue to demonstrate this as well. this says much about some of the versions of the conervative Christian argument as we will see in aminute.
We have also seen anti-abortion forces unable to provide substantiation for thier assertion that conception is when the fetus should be protected (the arguments provided appear to lead to implantation not conception as the appropriate point).
We have seen creationists clearly demonstrate that they have no scientific facts to support their assertions.
And we have seen that those arguing strong Biblical inerrancy are unable to sustain thier positon in the face of many issues not the least the issue of the integrity of the texts. You have been helpful in this demonstration.
Is this anti-Christian? If you look at the position of the majority of Christians in this country, I suggest no, it is not anti-Christian. What it is is a modestly classic version of liberal Christianity, which indeed is approximately the plurality position of Christinaity in the United States (although this is discussable).
Thanks for your help victoria, you are a key to my efforts to explore these issues.
Report comment to moderator
yeah,
as I look back over the discussion, it occurs to me that perhaps yu might want to consider the following:
You appeared to have been so focused on whether the actions, positons etc. of conservatvies were justifed to fail to consider whether they were good strategy for achieving electoral success. Your comments on immigration policy seem suggestive that even you occaissionally sensed this, but again justificastion appeared to be more important than whether the approach would be successful electorally.
Report comment to moderator
I see this note at the bottom of the page:
Comments for this post will be closed on 13 January 2009.
I will do everything in my power as a sentient member of the human race to get the last word in here.
Report comment to moderator
yeah,
what an interesitng challenge!
I do sens this will be fun.
It is worth noting that you posted, but no longer seem to have any information or thoughts to rebut my basic observation that actions by conservatvies which have the effect of demonstrating disdain for minorities do not provide a reasonable model for recovery form the electoral challenge as presented by the New York Times electoral demographic data.
The 2004 – 2008 Latino vote particualry in Colorado would seem to be informative here and its relation to the consaervatvie immigration approach seems to be reasponably well established.
And the approach you are dmeonstrating is I suggest exemplary of why conservative seem unable to effectively respond to their present electoral challenge.
Report comment to moderator
You got mental problems, man.
Report comment to moderator
yeah,
no actually if you look at what you said in post 205, any independent obvserver can clearly see that you are so focused on making your point that you do not realize that it is the hyper-focyus on making your point which demonstrates the issue.
And yes yeah, post 205 is in writing, clearly shows the appraent shallowness of your debate, and I will use this for an extended time as will.
I actually gave you a chance to reconsider your somewhat amazing statement.
As I expected, you would not reconsider but instead continued your flawed approach.
Thank you for your consistency! I knew I could count on you.
Report comment to moderator
Musing:
LOL! No, please don’t tell anyone I made post 205! I’ll retract it all if you promise not to tell!
Report comment to moderator
Oh, Musing. I suppose I should mention that in 209 I was employing “sarcasm.”
Report comment to moderator
I see this note at the bottom of the page:
Comments for this post will be closed on 13 January 2009.
I will do everything in my power as a sentient member of the human race to get the last word in here.
LOL
The people who have “debated” Musing already know his tactics and they don’t need to read over this thread to dismiss whatever he says about the supposed unassailable logic of his arguments and the alleged foolishness of yours.
Anyway, the only way you’ll get the last word in on the thread is is Musing stops responding to you, because the thread won’t close on January 13th if the discussion is still going on. It will close 24 hours after the last post after the close date.
Report comment to moderator
ree,
my usual tactic is to allow people to post and let their own words define them. If one does not have a coherent thesis then it will eventually show up.
I am delighted that yeah is demonstrating his approach so nicely.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, Ree. I thought something like that might be the case.
I suggest it would appear I may have to provide delight for Musing indefinitely.
It’s funny how Musing initially said getting the last word would be a fun, interesting challenge, but somewhere it turned into an indication of “the apparent shallowness of [my] debate.”
Also, isn’t the phrasing “it *clearly* shows the *apparent* shallowness” a little convoluted?
I suggest we could continue; examples are legion.
Report comment to moderator
I was mistaken. Now that I think of it, it’s 48 hours after the last post, not 24 hours. Anyway, you get the idea.
Anyway, Musing says, “If one does not have a coherent thesis then it will eventually show up.”
Ah, the irony.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!