Conservative Flotsam on the Tide of History
Posted by
KTK
The He-Man Woman Haters’ Club members were falling over themselves to display their anti-gay credentials Sunday night. Now, entering the third US presidential term of the 21st Century, only 70% of the GOP presidential candidates are creationists, but a solid 100% of them are homophobes, and fiercely proud of it. Which leads me to speculate on the bizarre fact that conservatism is not yet dead, despite being continuously moribund from birth.
Liberalism has actually been a tremendous boon to conservatives. While liberals do the heavy lifting, conservatives carp and obstruct and play their childish towel-snapping games, then unapologetically move into the new house that liberals have built and claim it as their own. Within the same generation, the conservatives who had been murdering people to block the 1964 Civil Rights Act were loudly proclaiming the “colorblind society” (mostly as a barrier to efforts to roll back entrenched racial privilege, but still). The ones who sneered at and mocked “women’s lib” now trumpet the (almost entirely illusory) “liberation” of women in Afghanistan and Iraq. They get to treat themselves to an orgy of open racism on immigration policy, every 10 years or so, knowing full well that the Democrats will give the GOP’s business backers what they want while the GOP claims credit for it. On issue after issue, they get to have it both ways: aggressively protecting the worst elements of society until the tide turns so far they can’t keep up the charade any longer, then simply declaring that the liberal policies they themselves opposed are really conservative policies that they support; on issues they can’t or don’t dare block, they put up a show of opposition to entertain their base, in the knowledge that reasonable people will work out a solution without them and then they can go along.
The gays-in-military issue is more of the same: it’s obvious that policy has to stop - not even the military wants it any more, and the direct, material impact it has had on Bush’s Endless War is obvious and measurable. But the people whose war is threatened by the lack of skilled staff caused by their own policy cannot bring themselves to change their own minds. (John Maynard Keynes once responded to the criticism that he had changed his position on some issue by saying “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” We know what conservatives do: keep repeating the same old nonsense while the water rises around them.) The GOP is letting the Democrats force them to change the anti-gay policy, and when it happens, they’ll be glad to have gotten off the hook and within a couple-three years they’ll be saying they were for it all along.
The reason they get away with this is that they are never held accountable for their positions. In that respect, gay marriage and the segregated military could be policies that, for once, eventually come back to haunt them: they fought so hard for those forms of discrimination, and went so far out on the highest limb of the crazy tree (”Man on dog action!”), that maybe, in a few years when those absurdities are done away with and the world fails to explode, somebody will remember. But maybe not. Gays are certainly less socially accepted than blacks were, even at the height of Jim Crow, and conservatives haven’t paid a price for their opposition to racial integration and civil rights. Unless we finally insist that we know they mean what they say about gays, women, immigrants, and all the rest, and refuse to allow them to sweep it under the rug when history leaves them behind again, on those issues as on so many others, and refuse to allow them to claim credit for progress that others made and they opposed while it was happening, they’ll continue to float on the current of history, never doing any work and always given a free ride into a future they fear but are happy to profit from.
conservatives haven’t paid a price for their opposition to racial integration and civil rights
Several generations of 90/10 against in the black community with no end in sight is at least a bit of a price, no? And there are whites for whom it’s a turn-off, too. Not as many as one would like, perhaps, but some.
Comment 6/6/2007
Pretty far off the topic, but as I was reading this post I couldn’t help but think of the autobiography of Bill Veeck (”Veeck as in Wreck”) that I recently finished, a great book by the way.
It is hard to argue that Veeck wasn’t the most radical Major League owner of all time, let alone during the 40’s, when the old guard was still in full control. He advocated reforming the Reserve Clause, instituting interleague play, and pushed for west coast expansion, and proposed just about every conceivable innovation the game has seen in the last fifty years. The conservative owners of the day resented him, they were disgusted with his ideas and promotions and claimed he made a mockery of the game.
One by one as all these innovations reached the point where they became necessary, or their desirability could no longer be denied, they pronounced themselves as pioneers of the changes.
You can see this in the way that Time Magazine has gone from rallying against graffiti to how it recently used graffiti as a big promotional tool. Dominant culture opposes counterculture until it is in a position to co-opt it.
The above post is just the way that phenomenon manifests itself in the political sphere.
Comment 6/6/2007
Several generations of 90/10 against in the black community with no end in sight is at least a bit of a price, no?
You have a point, but that’s more than just a self-inflicted wound; it’s a deliberate one. They’re losing votes in the community in which, until recently, they weren’t seriously trying to get votes. And the “no end in sight” bit is in large part due to the fact that they’re still aggressively disenfranchising blacks and opposing voter registration, at the same time that they claim they want black votes. Since, in respect of black voters, they’re getting pretty much what they asked for, it’s hard to characterize that as punishment.
Comment 6/7/2007
“they’re still aggressively disenfranchising blacks and opposing voter registration,”
That is a baldfaced lie.
Comment 6/7/2007
I think that is closer to an opinion than a lie, as I guess we all have different conceptions what it means to “aggressively disenfranchise,” in both intent and outcome.
If we try to stick to facts and figures, one could make an argument that the overzealous felony prosecution of lower-level drug arrests (especially along racial lines), and the laws surrounding them in the first place, are evidence of an aggressive disenfranchisement. The harder part is proving the outcome as a motive. I think the way that you look at the electoral effects of the prison boom, that is whether the outcome is the fruition of a plan, a fringe benefit, or just a coincidence is guided by your overarching political sensibilities. So, “lie” is probably an overly harsh characterization of KTK’s statement, even if you disagree with it.
Also, there is the inverse proportionality between the political affiliations in neighborhoods where most criminals are arrested and where prisons are constructed to house them. Red districts are given population and representative boosts by the relocation of blue district prisoners that then count towards the populations of their new district of “residence.” So, it goes even beyond taking voting rights away through incarceration; it burns the candle at both ends.
This is just the below the surface stuff, and only one example. More explicitly you have all the issues involving the voting machines, the counting and such, which has been well documented.
Basically, the blacks are still being disenfranchised. That’s pretty evident. What is more open to interpretation is whether it is by design.
Comment 6/7/2007
“Basically, the blacks are still being disenfranchised. That’s pretty evident. What is more open to interpretation is whether it is by design.”
The poster that I quoted was not referring to putting blacks in prisons for crimes and taking away their votes for their crimes. The thrust of his statement was that conservatives are trying to take away the votes of blacks because they are black. That is a lie.
“So, “lie” is probably an overly harsh characterization of KTK’s statement, even if you disagree with it.”
No, “lie” is the right word.
Comment 6/7/2007
Digg, if you spend any time here (which I encourage you to do), you’ll find that Fred is the local troll, and calls almost all disputations of fact or interpretation ‘lies’. He claims to know that this means intentional deceit on the part of the accused speaker, but he’s given no evidence of making this necessary decision. Welcome to your first example of it.
Comment 6/7/2007
Err, s/decision/distinction/
Comment 6/7/2007
“The poster that I quoted was not referring to putting blacks in prisons for crimes and taking away their votes for their crimes. The thrust of his statement was that conservatives are trying to take away the votes of blacks because they are black. That is a lie.”
Yeah. I got that. You asked for evidence. I pointed you to the prison system, as an example of how one might begin to “prove” this disenfranchisement effort exists. The disenfranchisement is easy to prove; the motive is the harder. That’s more a reflection of you experiences and political philosophies. Though, there is plenty of historical, non-anecdotal, precedent for policy designed specifically to disenfranchise minority groups.
Anyway,I got the thrust of his statement, and I fully understood yours. There’s no misunderstanding on my part.
Comment 6/8/2007
Your “proof” was about an unrelated subject. Being disenfranchised due to criminal activity is not evidence that blacks have been or are being disenfranchised because Republicans hate blacks. They are two different subjects. That’s like trying to prove that ice cream causes drownings in the summer because drownings increase as the sale of ice cream increases.
Comment 6/8/2007
If you can’t see how people can posit a relationship between the political disenfranchisement of blacks and the conception and enforcement of drug laws, you are simply intellectually unfit to discuss issues on the levels that they are discussed in (cyber?)places like this.
If you don’t agree with that interpretation and have alternative explanations, then that is fine. But, historically speaking, the idea that the two things that I mentioned as possibly related, indeed being related, is a perfectly supportable one (among other supportable interpretations).
Your analogy only holds true for people who think like you do. You say that I am trying to prove a relationship between two unrelated things. People like me, say that you are trying to disprove a relationship between two related things.
The (il)legitimacy of the argument lies in your beliefs. My argument would do just fine in an “in P then Q” form.
Comment 6/10/2007
ZZZZZZZZZ
Comment 6/11/2007
Aww, the troll doesn’t have anything to use to call you a liar, so he’s pretending not to listen. How cute.
Comment 6/11/2007