Life in a Brown Nation
Bush is having some trouble with his base:
A very spirited and provocative debate took place among right-wing bloggers over the past week. The question under consideration: Should George W. Bush be impeached for his failure to stop the “Mexican invasion” and protect our nation’s borders?
Several prominent conservative bloggers argued vehemently in favor of Bush’s impeachment. Leading the charge was LaShawn Barber, who actually drafted articles of impeachment and supported them with this argument:
Some of his base are now using the Nazis as an example of just what can be done by a determined country:
“Not only will it work, but one can easily estimate how long it would take. If it took the Germans less than four years to rid themselves of 6 million Jews, many of whom spoke German and were fully integrated into German society, it couldn’t possibly take more than eight years to deport 12 million illegal aliens, many of whom don’t speak English and are not integrated into American society”
And we have already seen an increase in the “kill all the Muslims and let Allah sort them out” sentiment on the right:
But compassionate conservatism, whatever you think of the concept domestically, clearly shouldn’t extend to war—and there are times when the international equivalent of Sherman’s march through the South would, in the long run, save American soldier’s lives and foreshorten the conflict.
Which is why there are times when we really should turn off the “smart” bombs and show our seriousness by putting the world on notice that, when we believe the situation calls for it, we are willing to ignore the inevitable bad press and the howls of protest from human rights groups, and exhibit a show of strength and military professionalism that is politically disinterested and tactically thorough and lethal.
Of course, no one wishes to see innocent civilians die (only the unserious make the claim that those who support what they consider to be a necessary war somehow luxuriate in collateral deaths). But at the same time, from a practical standpoint, there is nothing wrong with fighting a war as if it is a war—and sometimes the only way to disabuse the enemy of the notion that we are constrained by a moral calculus that makes little sense in urban combat situations is to refuse to show the kind of restraint they have come to anticipate and count on.
Much of this is the direct result of a browning America and the Southern Strategy. After the Civil War, the Democratic party choose to embrace the worst kinds of racism and racial superiority, partly in reaction to the more liberal views of the Radical Republicans, partly in an attempt to restore themselves electorally. It led to almost a hundred years of shameful and un-American behavior. Some of the worst excesses of paternalistic foreign policy came form the explicit acceptance of racists and racism by the Democratic Party and the moral superiority such feelings inspired in Americans.
The Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s gave the Democratic Party an opportunity to reclaim their soul. Led by the Kennedy’s and Johnson, the Democrats seized that opportunity. The Democrats courage presented the very real possibility that racism as a political force could be quashed in this country. Unfortunately, the Republicans under Richard Nixon decided to embrace the racists that the Democrats had ostracized. The Southern Strategy was born. Nixon used code words; Reagan used symbolic trips to the murder site of three civil rights workers to discuss the joys of one of Nixon’s code words — states rights — and fictitious welfare queens to the same affect. The Southern Strategy was real and accepted by all the major players of the GOP.
But the country is changing. It is becoming browner by the minute. My two boys will live in a country where whites are not an absolute majority. That fact is tearing the GOP apart. While Ken Melhman apologizes for the Southern Strategy, people the GOP has told for two generations that non-whites were to blame for their problems are now demanding that the GOP Congress and the GOP President act as if that assertion were true. Bush, to his credit, has resisted that demand. The GOP as a whole, however, has not. The House GOP has pushed punitive anti-immigrant bills, one House Member seems to be preparing to run on an anti-Mexican immigrant platform, and now the right wing base is demanding their pound of flesh in the form of a militarized border and war against the “invasion” of Mexicans across the border. Brown people are still the enemy to some on the right, and they intend to make sure Bush is enlisted in their war.
That is disappointing but not unexpected. It is very hard to stop dancing with the devil. What is disturbing, and the cause of Bush’s problems, is that so, so many on the right had the devil on their dance card.
Kevin says: The Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s gave the Democratic Party an opportunity to reclaim their soul.
Fred: LOL Where do you get your historical infomation? How could the Democratic Party “reclaim” their soul regarding civil rights when it historically had been fully behind slavery? If you can, please tell us when the democrats were in favor of civil rights for blacks before the War Between the States.
Fred:
Way to pick a nit and miss the larger point. Kevin probably should have used the word “redeem” rather than “reclaim,” but most honest, intelligent readers would know what he meant. It’s obvious that he’s not defending — and indeed, is condemning — the behavior of the Democrats up until the civil rights movement. What you seem to be afraid to talk about honestly is who picked up that racist mantle when the Democratic party dropped it.
Kevin,
A higher percentage of Republicans supported civil rights legislation than did Democrats. There happened to be more Democrats at the time (Yes Democrats did hold the majority at one time).
Kevin is branding an entire group of people as racist. We have already demonstrated that name calling by liberals is their number one argument. Here we show them using an unfounded argument as a basis to call an entire group of people names!
I am amused that Kevin is pushing so hard for illegal immigration.
tg said: Kevin probably should have used the word “redeem” rather than “reclaim,” but most honest, intelligent readers would know what he meant. It’s obvious that he’s not defending — and indeed, is condemning — the behavior of the Democrats up until the civil rights movement.
Fred: It is not nitpicking to take someone’s words as they are written. Words have meanings. It is not up to the reader to guess at what a writer is saying. It is not dishonest or unintelligent to take a writer at his word.
If you want to talk about implication, try this: “After the Civil War, the Democratic party chose to embrace the worst kinds of racism and racial superiority,”
The Democrat Party didn’t need to embrace the worst kinds of racism and racial superiority. They had already embraced it fully and openly before the War Between the States.
I appreciate your defense of your fellow leftist, but he said what he said.
Kevin said with a straight face: “Republicans under Richard Nixon decided to embrace the racists that the Democrats had ostracized.”
Fred: This is one of the funniest comments you have ever made. Tell us how the democrats ostracized the leading democrat opponents to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Tell us how the party ostracized the leader of the opposition, Al Gore, Sr. Next tell us how the party ostracized the former KKK leader who filibustered the Civil Rights Act. Surely, the party kicked him out or did he remain in the Senate and was appointed to powerful committee posts? If I’m not mistaken, he is still in the Senate and the democrats still support him. Tell us about how Sam Ervin was ostracized so badly that he had to leave the Senate and was not around for the Watergate hearings. I’m sure you remember how Fulbright from Arkansas was shunned by the senate and a young man named Bill Clinton. Wait a minute. I believe Clinton called the racist Fulbright his mentor.
Ostracize? Don’t make me laugh.
Interesting stats: Civil Rights Act votes — Senate – Democrats “yes” – 66%; Republicans “yes” – 80% House — Dems 66% Republicans 78%
The read question is who comes out on top of this GOP fratricide? The corprate wing who want lots of illegal immigrants who work for less than minimum wage, work under the table, don’t require any benefits, and have no rights to sue, unionize or do much else in their own self-intrest, the honest nativists who want the law respected and worry about the economic impact on the working class, and the fairness factor toward people who wish to live here legalally, or the smallest group who really dislike brown people. I’m betting the speech last night from W was about quieting down the last two groups with a symbolic gesture (funded by more loans from China) and then hoping the issue will go away so the GOP can turn to issues that please the base without offending the corporations (Gay marriage anyone?)
and by “read” I meant “real” in the first sentence (Do’h!)
Fred and Tgirsch
No, I think reclaim works, as the democrats before the Civil War were the party of open democracy and expanded franchise and oppurtunity for citizens. They were also racist, but no more than any other party of the day. the nationla Dmeocratic Party was split by the question of slavery right beofre the war, but no party advocated equality. It was only after the Civil War that, when forced to choose between embracing the Radical Republicans notions of more equality (the rads were much farther ahead of the rest of the nation on equality, but I don’t think they would constitute what modern readers would consider non-racists) that they rejected their traditonal defense of the “little guy” and defined themselves as protecting one group agaisnt the democratic aspirations of another group. So I think reclaim works, though, obviously, so does redeem.
And, for the umpteenth time, you do know that the dixieCrats, the ones tyour friend Trent Lott lauded, went form the Dmeocratic Party to the Republicans right? the 1960s saw a reversal of the rolls of the two parties with respect to racial equality, specifically because the GOP embraced the Southern Strategy that current GOP chairman Mehlman has apologized for. Your voting numbers from the 1960s make might sad point: the GOP and the Dems majorities wer euntited in repudiating Jim Crow, etc. Segregationists could have been relugated to the fringe. but Nixon and the GOP accepted the Dixiecrats with open arms to further their electoral goals, and the chance was missed.
You still haven’t told us how democrats ostracized Gore, Sr., Ervin, Byrd, Fulbright, etc.
Interesting how a blog concerning the future has been hijacked into a debate about the past. Let’s toss in an abortion comment and a soft on terrorism comment and the trivialization will be complete.
I admit Kevin opened himself up for this by bringing up his equivalent of abortion or soft on terrorism – Southern strategy.
Immigration seems to be one issue that Bush is out of step with the Right. His is a more moderate stance, and he made some headway yesterday with the public. Will be interesting to see if the conservatives can yank him back into line, or if he breaks ranks completely on this issue.
For ten years now, the Republicans have been foolishly sowing the winds of populist frevor. Now they’re reaping the whirlwind as they discover angry mobs can’t be controlled. I’m hoping for big losses in 2006 and 2008, since only a major failure will bring on the housecleaning the party needs to get itself backed to the principled conservatism that originally built the party.
Ted
You cannot talk about the dynamic within the GOP without talking about the legacy of the Southern Strategy. Rove and Bush, to their credit, recognize that it has to go. But their very tentative steps away from it are causing them serious issues, and it is still up in the air as to weather or not the GOP as a whole will move away form it or cling to it.
The past is not really past, unfortunately.
SD
Don’t get your hopes up — the Hous of Reps has been gerry mandered to within na inch of its life — I doubt very much that a 1994 could happen again in that chamber.
“I admit Kevin opened himself up for this by bringing up his equivalent of abortion or soft on terrorism – Southern strategy.”
Fred: He opens himself up every time he drags out the hackneyed “Souther strategy” tripe. No one denies that there have been racists in both major parties. However, to paint as racists the majority of southern republicans is plain wrong and intellectual dishonest. I was a republican long before the so-called Southern Strategy. Most of the people I know who switched from the Democrat party to the Republican party did so for principles that had nothing to do with race. It is egotistical and paranoid to think that everyone is spending his day thinking about race. Issues such as abortion, economic policies, socialism, special rights for homosexuals, and national defense policies have driven many democrats out of the left-leaning Democrat Party.
Nah. The Dems were more racist than the Republicans in 1860. By a mile.
Some of them were certainly modern non-racists. (Some of them, let’s not forget, were black.) But much more important than that, many of them were anti-racists.
The great Radical Republicans of the 1860s and 1870s were true American heroes. They were giants, and they should not be denigrated.
The path to citizenship for immigrants without papers is NOT Amnesty. Even the Pres. men say this out loud. Anyone who disobays a law, acknowledges their error, and pays the fine and meets other requirements of the law (a clean record, work towards citizenship), is discharged to become a good citizen.
LOL
Just for the record, I loooooove immigrants. Gimmie more! MORE! The only thing I demand of immigrants is that they bring their families. Can never have too much of a good thing…
An additional reason for the inconclusive nature of the Amendment’s history with respect to segregated schools is the status of public education at that time.
good job and nice way of presentation
Most of the time blogs don’t carry alot of information and just made for time pass. But I think your blog is the one where I have learned many things with your practicles and experiences. Thanks