Anyone following the Bundy debacle today has seen the mad rush by conservatives to distance themselves from the "shocking" racism that has surface from this new conservative hero. A spectacular example was our very favorite, Morning Joe.
Mr Scarborough gave his standard exasperated outrage at Bundy, as he knew that Bundy was no conservative from the start, took a few hits at the "Socialism" of public land, and actually made a few good points before washing his hands of the whole affair.
you can watch the whole thing here: [http://www.msnbc.com/...]
But what caught my ear was his defense of conservatism, instead of listening to these "faux-conservative" racists he said that:
"…there are a lot of extraordinarily credible, conservative, small-government, Libertarian voices to go to. You could read the works of Hayek, go back and re-read William F. Buckley, you can, you can look at Rand Paul…"
Really? Really, Joe, those are your go-to guys? Lets do a 30 second web search and see what we find.
Friedrich Hayek
On who he dislikes:
HAYEK: I don’t have many strong dislikes. I admit that as a teacher—I have no racial prejudices in general—but there were certain types, and conspicuous among them the Near Eastern populations, which I still dislike because they are fundamentally dishonest. And I must say dishonesty is a thing I intensely dislike. It was a type which, in my childhood in Austria, was described as Levantine, typical of the people of the eastern Mediterranean. But I encountered it later, and I have a profound dislike for the typical Indian students at the London School of Economics, which I admit are all one type—Bengali moneylender sons. They are to me a detestable type, I admit, but not with any racial feeling. I have found a little of the same amongst the Egyptians —basically a lack of honesty in them. (Nobel Prize-Winning Economist: Friedrich A. von Hayek, Regents of the University of California, 1983. p. 490).
From [
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/...]
William F. Buckley
The famous article from 1957 called “Why the South Must Prevail"
“The central question that emerges . . . is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes-the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists.
“National Review believes that the South’s premises are correct. . . . It is more important for the community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority.”
Rand Paul
Chris Hays' Three strikes:
the three "white supremacist strikes" Paul has racked up so far.
"Strike one was in 2009 when Rand Paul's Senate campaign spokesperson was forced to resign over a horribly racist comment and historical image of a lynching -- I'm not making that up -- posted by a friend of his on his MySpace wall on Martin Luther King weekend, then allowed to remain for almost two years," Hayes said.
Strike two, Hayes added, was when Paul expressed reservations about the Civil Rights Act in an interview on the Rachel Maddow Show. (Paul later said in a statement that he supports the Civil Rights Act "because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws.")
"And now this. Southern Avenger on the Senator's staff," Hayes said. "Well, I'm sorry, Rand Paul. That's three racist strikes. You're out."
from [
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...]
I didn't even try to dig deep. These were the top links.
Joe shows his own blindness to racism and dog whistles by shouting out three racists as examples of non-racism.
The racism in conservatism isn't a disease on the leaves of the tree, it rotted the roots long ago.
UPDATE: I'm just still burning about this. How many times do we need to listen to the supposedly mainstream conservatives run to the support of someone who is obviously unhinged, then run away and pretend that it never happened? How often do we need to see examples thrown forth of the great conservative thinkers when we can just scratch the surface and find a white sheet underneath? what will it take to finally open the eyes of people to see that this is not an aberration, but the norm?