Skip to main content

View Diary: Pat Buchanan, Caught Making Sense! (331 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  C'mon, Pat Buchanan is all about race (11+ / 0-)

    He thinks that Western civilization equals white civilization.  He's constantly talking about how horrible it is that Obama gets 85% of the black vote and never seems to realize that any Democratic presidential candidate gets 85% of the black vote.  He's worried about the Mexicans taking back the Southwest, if not the whole country.  He's about as obsessed as Lou Dobbs when it comes to immigration.

    The sleep of reason brings forth monsters. --Goya

    by MadScientist on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:06:38 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Way to cut out of context w/r/t Obama (0+ / 0-)

      The comment was about Obama getting 90% black support WITHIN the Democratic party in the contest with Clinton in the context of the media spin that the white voters of WV, KY, OH, PN were "racists" because they didn't support Obama. Whereas 90% of black voters voting for Obama, the black candidate, because he was black is...what? Roots based solidarity? The point was valid.

      •  not necessarily (5+ / 0-)

        lots of us non-blacks thought Clinton was using under the radar cues to white people (e.g. "hardworking white americans")

        If I could catch on to it, i'm sure it was even more stark to blacks, who live withit freaking every day

        SO..in the end...the primary showed that race based politics was factor...but not just b/c he was black.

        Remembre, Clinton was getting 60 percent of the black vote until late december

        and then bigdawg had to open his stupid mouth (and my sig should clue you in that i'm not an Obama partisan)

        Obama lied. The 4th amendment died.

        by daddy4mak on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:54:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Wow. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rockhound, csquared, bperk

        If you don't see the fundamental difference between Obama having 90% of the black vote and voters in appalchia refusing to support the black candidate, then I don't know why you are even on a progressive blog.

        "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

        by PixyStyx on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:55:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But that's an assumption on your part (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          politicalget

          that the voting of Appalachia or Pennsylvania or Ohio. There was this current of reverse racism encouraged by Obama's campaign where because he was black, the mere act of voting for someone other than him could only have racist reasons. The very suggestion that on the basis of merit, Obama was a weaker political candidate for presidency than Clinton was framed, unfortunately with a great deal of success, as "closet racism." The great success, sophistry wise, of the Obama campaign was promoting the idea that holding Obama to the same merit based standards as any white candidate or using the same campaign tactics that would be perfectly acceptable against any white candidate is "racist."

          •  There is no such thing as reverse racism (0+ / 0-)

            and you are clearly a moron if you think that there is.  I clearly understand your defense of Buchanan now.  You are cut from the same cloth.

            •  True... (0+ / 0-)

              There is only racism. If anyone assumes that they are superior to another based solely on that collection of phenotypic traits that we have called "race", things likes skin tone, eye shape, etc...

              Then they are a racist. Period. Full stop.

              It matters not one bit which traits they have, or which ones they assume make others inferior.

              David Duke is a racist. So is Louis Farrakhan. So was General Togo.

              Mormonism was a racist religion. As were Rastafarianism and Shinto.

              It's the arrow that matters, not who's holding the bow or where they're aiming.

              Racism is racism. It's also completely obliterated by an understanding of modern evolutionary biology and the human genome.

              There is, however, a difference imbedded in this conversation that we might want to talk about separately from Pat Buchannan... The underlying question I'm seeing here is this:

              Is there a middle ground between racism and total cultural relativism? Because I've got little patience for either extreme. Presented with a black man in a suit and tie and a white kid dressed hood-rat style, on the same dark street, I know who I'll be keeping an eye on.  But that doesn't stop me from saying, for example, that human sacrifice is wrong, and that cultures who do not practice it are morally superior to those that do.

              --Shannon

              •  You are describing bigotry. (0+ / 0-)

                Racism is a cultural phenomenon that individuals reinforce with their bigotry.  White people in this country never suffer from racism.  You can see racism play out in studies where white man with a felony and a black man have equal rates of getting hired - even if none of those individual people doing the hiring believes they are racist.  

                •  If you are defining "racism" (0+ / 0-)

                  as "The idea that white people are superior, and all the actions that result from that belief," then of course, you are correct.

                  I'm using the word in a larger context, to describe any differentiation of people based on "race". In this context, nobody gets a pass, and nobody gets automatic guilt. It is solely one's individual actions and thoughts that define whether one does or does not deserve the title of "racist."

                  Ultimately, it is only my own moral choices that I can be held responsible for, because that is the limit of my control.

                  --Shannon

                  •  Sure, but when people are screaming (0+ / 0-)

                    about racism that white people suffer in this country, it is disingenuous.  It ignores all the privilege that comes with being white.  Further, the common stereotypes that are depicted about white people don't even remotely compare with the common stereotypes about black people.  We aren't working from a level playing field here.

                    •  No argument about playing feilds was being made.. (0+ / 0-)

                      at least not by me.

                      We also have a nasty tendency to use race as a proxy for discussions of class.

                      I've never been black, but I've been poor. And I'm pretty confident that I'd be better off, overall, as a rich black man than as a poor white man. But we don't talk about that part of it, because it would contradict our most important social myth, that we have created a classless society.

                      This cripples us in so many ways. For example, what if we moved the college admissions affirmative action stuff from a race-based system to an income-based system? This would still benefit minorities, as they're statistically more likely to be poor, but it puts the poor white people's interests where they should be... with the poor black and brown people. Instead, the (predominately but not exclusively white) rich folks set the poor black people against the poor white and brown people, and vice-versa, and verce-visa, and every permutation you can imagine.... while they make off with all the fucking money.

                      If you have been, as I was, homeless and poor in a mixed-race environment, you will immediately recognize what I'm talking about. The Whites hate the blacks and the Latinos, the blacks hate the whites and the Latinos, the Latinos hate the whites and the blacks, the whites and the blacks hate the Jews, everybody hates the Asians... and around and around it goes.

                      I've also noticed that, in the circles of wealth, they are much better at aligning their interests in the way that works best for themselves. In other words, the rich black and Latino folks that I have known have been much closer to the rich white folks, at least in their disdain for the poor... regardless of color.

                      In general terms, rich folks are more likely to define "us" and "them" in terms of class, while poor folks tend more to do it in racial terms. Granted, this is a generalization, but it's based on years of observations in both worlds, some of them simultaneous.

                      --Shannon

                      •  A zero sum game? (0+ / 0-)

                        The problem is that among poor blacks, whites, and Latinos, there is an assumption that it is a zero sum game.  A job for a black person is one less job for a white person.  A job for a Latino is one less job for a black person.  No one unites to look around and wonder why there are not enough good jobs for everyone.  Race/ethnicity is used to divide and conquer.  The same goes for college admissions. You want to move affirmative action to consider class instead.  I want to know why we don't do both.  Why do we have to choose between those two?  Because once again it is considered to be a zero-sum game between poor whites, blacks, and Latinos.  It shouldn't be. More spots are filled by legacy candidates than by affirmative action candidates.

                        A rich black person may be better off than a poor white person.  But anytime we are talking about equal classes (or relatively equal classes), white is better.  That is where you see racism coming through.  This is why I find it problematic that a white person would complain about some minor discrimination that they suffered at the hands of a black person, and calling it racism.

                        I'm not sure I agree that what happens about the alignment of rich people together though.  The only black people I know who have money (I wouldn't call them rich though) are the first ones in their family to ever have money, so their families are still struggling.  Perhaps it is different after you are several generation removed by poverty, but that is a rarity in the black community.

              •  I agree with you that this is the more (0+ / 0-)

                central point. There is a big difference between rejecting cultural relativism, being proud of your culture or civilization and defending it AND racism. This is where I feel people are missing the point on Mr. Buchanan.

      •  mad is that. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        politicalget, gzodik, beijingbetty

        buchanan is a civil man with whom I disagree about half the time. He's not a racist, he's a merit-ist. He's sometimes amazingly illuminating with his deep draw on history-- my god, why is he the only elder speaking on 20th century events?

        today he's calling out US imperialism, guys, listen up.

        "Don't push the river but don't pull no punches." Van Morrison

        by bob zimway on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:57:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Of course it helps if you ignore (0+ / 0-)

        all the other times when black people supported one candidate in Dem primaries in large numbers.  You know like with Gore.  Obviously, black people must have mistaken him for black.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site