REPARATIONS BLOG: "ADVOCATES ONLY!"
Cross-posted at www.francislholland.blogspot.com
Recently, Matt Stoller of MyDD opened a compelling dialogue by asking whether it was necessary for Blacks and whites (and I would add women and other sociological minorities) to frequent the same websites in order for the Democratic Party to maximize Party chances for electoral success. The short answer is: "Yes, blog apartheid within the Democratic Party does reduce Democrats' chances for electoral success."
Matt said,
Now first I'm going to address this community about our culture. Most MyDD readers are comfortable within what I call 'Jewish political culture', which is a very individualistic, progressive style of argumentative discourse . . . There are lots of other cultures out there, and lots of other ways of thinking about the world. These represent themselves online, but they don't necessarily represent themselves here. Does it matter that they don't? Maybe. Maybe not. http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/12/123712/293#commenttop
Reading this, I began to wonder how whites would respond if Blacks began a "Blacks Only" blog movement. If I decided to start a “No Whites Allowed†blog within the Democratic Party, I know precisely how I would enforce the “no-whites†restriction without acknowledging this intention explicitly. I would state clearly in my Reparations Blog FAQ that, although the blog was a Democratic blog, it was devoted to promoting reparations for slavery. Although whites, of course, would be permitted to visit and participate freely in this blog, any comments that were not supportive of reparations would have to be “troll ratedâ€, leading to expulsion for repeat offenders.
This need not be perceived as an “anti-white†restriction per se; rather, the utter lack of whites would follow naturally from the official purpose of the group, a purpose that would be arguably “color-blindâ€. Anyone who had suffered financial harm because of the enslavement of their forbears could join this group, regardless of their skin-color.
From the stated purpose of the blog, it would follow logically and inexorably that anyone not sufficiently supportive of reparations slavery is a “slavery troll†– “an argumentative person whose every protestation against reparations would inevitably cause a “flame war†that would disrupt the flow of pro-reparations advocacy efforts.†It is for that reason alone, (and not because of a desire to exclude all whites), that all those who persistently expressed opposition to reparations would have to be permanently excluded from the blog.
With all policy enforcers acting anonymously against other anonymous group members, it would be impossible to effectively argue that this rule disproportionately affected whites. After all, there would be no evidence whatsoever to support that assertion, beyond the “merely coincidental†fact of the near total absence of white participation at my Reparations Blog..
Some few whites might support reparations, and so it would be necessary to have an additional exclusive blog premise, an even more stringent restriction that most whites certainly would not support:
A private right of action, enforceable in federal court, state court, and small claims court, against any property owner whose property (of any kind) could be proven to have been built, bought or otherwise derived from the proceeds of forced unpaid labor, regardless of when in America the unpaid labor might have occurred. This, too, is arguably “color-blind†since all those whose forbears had been slaves could benefit, regardless of their skin color.
In effect, there is no white person in America who will accept the premise that I can come and retrieve from a white person’s house the bricks that my grandfather made and laid while he was a slave. And so this “color-blind†blog premise would effectively exclude virtually all whites from participation.
Meanwhile, most Blacks would happily accept a check for the work their grandfathers were forced to do for free. It follows from the premise of the group that those (whites) who do not support this new legal regime are “slavery trolls†and they have no business participating at my Reparations Blog.
“Plausible deniability is the most important consideration when starting a blog that will exclude all people of a particular color. At some point, people who are excluded will point to the utter homogeneity of the blog and insist that such homogeneity can only be the result of intentional or tacit “racismâ€. A wise apartheid blogger will prepare excuses in advance for this eventuality. So, the Reparations Blog has two answers to that:
(1) “Racism†does not exist, since the concept of “race†has no basis in science. Therefore, it is not for anyone to act out of “racismâ€.
(2) Everyone should support Reparations and those who don’t must be excluded regardless of their color.
(3) It’s my blog, my ball and bat, and I decide who plays and who doesn’t. No court of law, no Constitution, no Civil Rights Act and no anti-discrimination commission can force me to change the essential nature of my blog, which is its zealous and scrupulous advocacy and defense of the concept of reparations.
(4) Reparations are for everyone who can prove he was a slave, not just Black people.
Once it was concluded that a poster was a “slavery trollâ€, it would be appropriate and indeed laudable to remove any comments that person might post, now and in the future. People who persisted in posting comments opposing or not sufficiently supporting reparations would obviously have to be banned from all participation, in order to preserve the purity of the political ideas which the blog for which the blog was founded.
The invidious beauty of such a policy is that I could achieve a virtually all-Black blog AND torment whatever whites might visit the site, all the while disclaiming any conscious color-aroused animus against whites. “If whites are banned from the site more often then Blacks, it is “not a race thingâ€, but results from a color-blind policy applied without regard to the color of its victims.
Of course, it would be difficult for one person alone to read all comments. So, I would have to delegate culling responsibilities to a zealous group of reparations supporters, who would indefatigably read all comments, twenty four hour per day, and demand to know whether each poster was a supporter of reparations or not. With the diligence of those who sought out and persecuted Jews in Nazi Germany, my “slavery troll†police would cull all those who did not support reparations, “even if†all whites were culled from the participants list.
This is not unlike a blog formed by partisans of the Democratic Party for the purpose of electing John Edwards or Al Gore for President, in a race against Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Such a group cannot be proven to be an intentionally “Whites Only†blog , even the effect of ejecting all supporters of Clinton and Obama is to eject all of the Black Democrats who arrive their to express their pro-Clinton or pro-Obama positions. The all-whiteness of the group follows from (1) its purpose of electing a Democratic ticket that, coincidentally, does not include any of the candidates whom Black people prefer, (2) the blog’s policy of expelling all those who openly disagree with the groups stated purpose.
If I decided to start a monochromatic “ONLY†blog, but did not want to be called a “Black Separatistâ€, then I know exactly how I would achieve the “plausible deniability†that DailyKos achieves when it excludes all Blacks by ejecting all supporters of Hillary Rodham Clinton and all those who do not worship at the feet of John Edwards and Al Gore, membership requirements that, “coincidentally†exclude all Black people.
Authors Note: This concept is only being actively considered to the same degree that Matt Stoller is actively http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/12/1237">considering whether "separate but equal" blogs are appropriate in the context of Democratic Party advocacy.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Press Releases | Democrats | Pro
My father was from South
Submitted by Soylent Green (not verified) on 14 March 2007 - 5:13pm.
My father was from South Carolina, and he used to use the expression, "a crock of shit". As with many of my father's expressions, it was never quite clear to me as a child why anyone would fill a crock with shit.
When I grew up I realized that, metaphorically, some people regularly do fill crocks with shit. It's a shame but it happens all too often.
The Primary
Submitted by francislholland on 19 February 2007 - 12:18am.
I'm pleasantly surprised, as I said, to see the enthuriasm that people in the netroots are showing for Barack Obama. I have already endorsed the Clinton/Obama ticket (which I hope to nurture into being by speaking about it as such). Gloria Steinem wrote a great Op-Ed in the New York Times in which she urged us not to wrapped up in a woman vs. Black man thing and instead realize that we have a chance for a great broad-based coalition in the Democratic Party.
http://francislholland.blogspot.com/2007/02/i-black-man-endorse-clintono...
www.francislholland.blogspot.com
francislholland@yahoo.com
There are no "tickets"
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 19 February 2007 - 12:14pm.
...and there won't be any until May of 2008 at the earliest. If Barack Obama sells himself to the empowerment of The Dynasty, he'll see his support wither. This because he is presently - in a way comparable to RFK's candidacy - seen as a change agent, and a vessel into which people are placing their hopes for renewal. If he goes, in some form during the primaries, with the candidate of legacies and the status quo, he'll damage his appeal beyond repair.
By contrast, if he were to become Edwards' running mate - or himself be the nominee with, say, Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas - he would credibly represent the change, and the principled leadership, America wants and needs. That was one of the lessons of November: people want leaders perceived as genuine, not triangulating double-talkers, cough Hillary cough.
But Ms. Thing was the same one who
Submitted by liza on 19 February 2007 - 7:45pm.
lobbed the word "Muslim" as a pejorative to Hugh Hefner in order to criticize his polygamous life.
You can read about it on my post, Gloria Steinem is wrong. She has yet to apologize for the quote, by the way.
I'd love to read the Op-Ed because, if anything, she is much to blame for how black feminists have been marginalized from the mainstream discourse of the feminist movement, with many women like Steinem pointing to colored feminists as radical and in the fringes.
Sounds familiar?
Steinem shouldn't have said "moslem"
Submitted by francislholland on 19 February 2007 - 10:58pm.
Men of all cultures are perfectly capable of wanting more than one woman without needing to rely on Muslims for inspiration. Although it's true that there are certain countries where men can legally marry more than one woman, Hugh Hefner is not commiting to or marrying those women, so the comparison really is inapt. What's worse about the comment is that it attacks an out-group and seeks to rally opposition to Hefner by likening him to a group that is currently getting a lot of heat. That's beneath Steinem.
Now, I hope no one notices that I accused Kos of "jihading" against Hillary Clinton. I think I was on firmer ground when I called DK a "fiery furnace of Hillary haters". That metaphor alludes to Christian bible stories, but only in a positive way, making Kos's enemies the good Christians, which makes Kos like the people who wanted Chadrack and Neichrack to disavow their God.
Anybody who grew up in a Black church will know exactly what I'm talking about.
Hillary's not my good, but ending the 43-term exclusively white male monopoly of the Presidency is pretty much a religious principle for me. It's a principle that I won't disavow even if the "progressives" throw me into a fiery furnace.
www.francislholland.blogspot.com
francislholland@yahoo.com
What?
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 20 February 2007 - 12:59am.
That metaphor alludes to Christian bible stories, but only in a positive way, making Kos's enemies the good Christians, which makes Kos like the people who wanted Chadrack and Neichrack to disavow their God.
So now the people who aren't on board with the dynasty aren't just haters and crypto-racists, but enemies of Jesus himself? Implying that Hillary is a divine figure?
Dude, I can't decide who's more fucked up, you or your theology. You're spewing blasphemy to get someone an advantage in a primary. If 'thou shalt not use my name in vain' has any meaning, you're going to hell just for that.
Politically, you should be sent to whatever political hell is for comparing Kos to terrorists. That's just sick, and you're a deeply disturbed individual. Take your repug talking points to freerepublic.com, Alan Keyes.
Heh.
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 20 February 2007 - 9:20am.
I've been down this road before with the reichwing commenters on my private blog. Some people have this disturbing tendency to think that god can't but be a partisan of whatever crap animates them on a given screaming day; and to that I always throw out the first commandment. No, god doesn't vote in primaries. That's rank blasphemy.
So yeah, if someone thinks they're Jesus or acting for him or they're talking about why Jesus would support their candidate, they're going directly to hell under christian doctrine, do not pass go, do not collect $200. That's not even optional or a matter of interpretation.
And once they get there, they can hang out with Jerry Falwell. HillaryBots especially should be comfortable with that, cnsidering some of the repug talking points I've seen from them.
Yeah but...
Submitted by mole333 on 20 February 2007 - 3:50pm.
To some of us that whole "son of god" thing and the whole "trinity" thing is pretty blasphemous. Then again, we weren't all that into sending people to hell. We were more concerned about getting smote...smited?...smitten? What IS the past tense of "smite?"
Smoted?
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 20 February 2007 - 10:38pm.
The point is that if someone makes an argument in what is described as a christian context, even a Jewish context, it's a good idea not to violate the using the lord's name in vain business, because that's pretty much bedrock. I'm still appalled that this kind of verbiage even pops up here; and Mr. Holland is not doubt still wondering why he got kicked off Daily Kos.
"Hey Kos, you remind me of the people who persecuted the christians!"
Surprising, really, I agree.
Martin Luther King also refernced religion
Submitted by francislholland on 21 February 2007 - 10:35am.
I'm sure that in the Jim Crow South of the 1960's whites found it just as offensive when Martin Luther King, a minister, used Christian references to advocate for an end to Jim Crow. How dare he?!
I can see that you are working yourself up into a banning lather because I compared those who would ban me from a blog for expressing my ideas to Biblical king who would put people in a fiery furnace for expressing THEIR ideas. The principal is sound: When you try to shut people up, you're being tyrannical.
Well let me tell you something, Michael Bouldwin. Religious people LIKE to have religious principles referenced in public debate - principles like standing up for what one believes to be true. If this offends you, then EVERYTHING that religious people say will offend you and your blog will become areligious and politically irrelevant to the majority of Americans who consider themselves to be religious.
Recent studies by PEW on religion say that the public believes that Democrats are 25% more averse to religion than are Republicans. Your response to my referencing a Christian frame shows that the public's view of Democrats is not merely a perception. There IS hostility toward religious frames in the "progessive" whitosphere. The fact that I just mention the bible and you start talking about banning me proves that.
Stop looking for a reason to ban me. Why do "progressives" think that the banning practice that characterized Apartheid South Africa is appropriate at "progressive" blogs.
OJ was not guilty! There, I said it! Most of white America disagrees and most of Black America agrees. If you ban everyone who believes that OJ was not guilty, then you will ban a disproportionately large number of Black people. And if you get your panties in a bunch and ban everyone who mentions the bible, you'll ban a disproportionate number of Christians.
If it is inappropriate to mention the Bible at this website, then why don't you post a notice to that effect? Isn't it inevitable that whenever anyone references the Bible, there will be conflicting views about whether the analogy is apt or not? And so the only way to stay on the good side of the thought police is to refrain from mentioning the Bible at all, right? Or to only mention it in a way that EVERYONE APPROVES OF (which is effectively no way at all).
If you decide to ban me for mentioning the Bible in a way that you disapprove of, please exercise some transparency and send me an e-mail informing me that that is the basis for your action. Then, I can release your e-mail as an addendum to my press release: "Culture Kitchen Bans Black Man for Mentioning the Bible".
"Only after we change that which seemed essential do we realize how natural the "new normal" really is and how inevitable it always was."
www.francislholland.blogspot.com
francislholland@yahoo.com
Bwahahaha!
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 21 February 2007 - 11:42am.
Oh, so now you're Martin Luther King?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
How about Daniel in the lions' den - is that appropriately grandiose for you?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!
You know, far be it from me to intrude into anyone else's massively disproportionate ego-trip/martyrdom fantasies, but I would just point out, again, that you're shilling for the uber-establishment candidate and calling it a revolution. Your Hillary has the united support of Wall Street, Rupert Murdoch, the entire power structure of the Democratic Party. You're quoting repug commentators.
Is there something perhaps less than Progressive about that? And you just can't see it? Or are you just your run-of-the-mill pharisee?
Please, take your time.
Name 1 president who won without Wall Street!
Submitted by francislholland on 21 February 2007 - 11:49am.
There's a big phallacy in your argument, Michael. You condemn Hillary for having the support of Wall Street, but you can't name a single American President who has been elected WITHOUT the support of Wall Street.
You might as well condemn Hillary for not being a nudist. Has America EVER knowingly elected a nudist president? If not, then not being a nudist is an obvious asset, no matter WHAT you and I think about it.
Now, you and I might be nudists and that is fine. But to insist that Hillary become a nudist to win our support is counter-productive lunacy!
"Only after we change that which seemed essential do we realize how natural the "new normal" really is and how inevitable it always was."
www.francislholland.blogspot.com
francislholland@yahoo.com
Bingo.
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 21 February 2007 - 1:32pm.
You're getting the core message, which is that Hillary, the incidence of gender aside, is more of the same. Bingo. Congratulations.
No. More. Dynasties. No. More. Money. Whoring. It's enough. Time to move on from the Bushes and the Clintons.
"Progressives" Demand That People Disavow Their Beliefs
Submitted by francislholland on 21 February 2007 - 9:47am.
I believe that Hillary Clinton will make an excelent President of the United States. Some people, "progressive" and Republican, disagree with me. That's fine. That's why I we have elections.
Now, I have reasons why I want to see Hillary Clinton elected. Many "progressives" and Republicans disagree with these reasons, if only because agreeing with them would logically compel the election of a candidate whom they do not support. So, these naysayers argue against my reasons. That's fine. That's what normally occurs in a democracy.
However, when progressives demand that I renounce my candidate or stop explaining the reasons why I support her, then "progressives" are doing the same thing that Kin Nebbakanuzzar (sp.) did in the bible - King Nebakannezzar demanded that Shadrack and Neishrack disavow the things that they believed in, even to the extent of throwing them into a fire furnace to compel this disavow.
It doesn't matter what closely held belief you want me to stop avowing and disavow. Threatening to ban someone from a site is just another version of the fiery furnace. It's extortion.
Actually, my belief is a political one: That Hillary Clinton will make an excellent president and that, moreover, demonstrably disavowing sexism will make American a better country for all of us. This is not symbolism, because the presidency is not a symbolic or token job. This is about empowerment, and electing a woman President empowers all women to aspire to the presidency, the US Senate, and the night shift of their local police force.
That's my belief and I'm sticking to it, even if all of you get very angry at me and try to throw me into the fiery furnace of bannisment. If you do that, you only convince me that you "protest too much" against an idea that seems obvious to me, for reasons that I can't quite fathom.
I hope CultureKitchen never throws me into the fiery furnace of of pseudo Apartheid-like banishment to quiet my advocacy for the ideas I believe in, which in this case involve electing a liberal Democratic woman as president to end the 43-term exclusively white male monopoly of the presidency (which is not a Republican goal, to my knowledge.) But, if I am every banned from CultureKitchen for advocating for Hillary Clinton, then I will wear my banishment as a badge, "dancing among the flames" of those who would try to quiet my advocacy.
www.francislholland.blogspot.com
francislholland@yahoo.com
But you see...
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 21 February 2007 - 10:42am.
...you're the one who's throwing around rhetoric basically implying that Hillary is the good christian choice, and that's effing offensive.
You're also - and I am wondering, BTW, where our other HillaryBot is on this - throwing around geseous rhetoric that exacly implies that supporting this woman is required for symbolic reasons. Yeah, let's send the message that we're better people - that'll show President Giuliani when he appoints people to SCOTUS with his new republican Congress after Hillary leads us to a spectacular defeat. But at least, again, we'll have demonstrated superior consciousness, woohoo!
And you're making the threadbare case that voting for the dynastic Clinton monarchy, for the candidate of the big-money establishment, is somehow a revolutionary act. That's right, the road to freedom requires that we install a new dynasty to replace the Bush family. This new dynasty will do wonderful things, fersure, and it's just an accident that the new queen is supported by Murdoch and Wall Street.
No more. If we're going to have hereditary rulers, I say go with Elizabeth II. Clearly, this small-R republican experiment has failed, if you have people screaming at the top of their lungs for the return to dynastic rule. Since you want to sell our democrcy down the river, let's just bring back the House of Windsor.
Besides, Liz has more class than Hillary and Jeb. So I say, since you want to destroy our republican form of government, let's reverse the revolution. Bring back Lords and Dukes and the Order of the Garter. America is obviously ready for the hereditary principle, so let's do it in style.
ROTFL
Submitted by liza on 19 February 2007 - 7:40pm.
I am laughing my head off and I think, honestly, that it's a black thing.
If I were to have the pasty white father of my children read this blog, even with his 20 years of "once you go black you never go back", honestly, I don't think he would get much of the humor.
But this is not funny because it is so true :
The invidious beauty of such a policy is that I could achieve a virtually all-Black blog AND torment whatever whites might visit the site, all the while disclaiming any conscious color-aroused animus against whites. “If whites are banned from the site more often then Blacks, it is “not a race thingâ€, but results from a color-blind policy applied without regard to the color of its victims.
This pattern is unfortunately true at certain blogs that ... ahem ... are supposed to be the "people-powered politics" of the big tent Democrats.
Urgh.
Laugh to keep from crying!
Submitted by francislholland on 19 February 2007 - 11:04pm.
I'm glad you got some good rueful laughs out of that, because that means they were laughs of recognition.
I tried to write that piece with as complete fidelity as possible to what I actually see happening, and how.
Please visit my piece at MyDD in which I say that "You can't oppose the monarchy by supporting the queen, and you can't end the disenfranchisement of women and minorities (the poor) by electing another in an unbroken string of 43 exclusively white male presidents. So, having been convinced that it is important to end poverty, I am equally convinced that electing another white male president is a solution diametrically opposed to the problem it is supposed to solve.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/19/17503/6262#28
www.francislholland.blogspot.com
francislholland@yahoo.com
Har.
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 20 February 2007 - 12:47am.
You can't end the monarchy by supporting the king, and you can't end the political, economic and social disenfranchisement of women and Blacks ("the poor") by electing another wealthy white male as President of the United States.
Rather, you should end monarchy by voting for the king's wife, Hillary Lancaster Clinton, because after eight years of the house of York Bush, we need to go back to a dynasty we've had before.
Sorry, no. The 'end monarchy' argument isn't one I'd advise in shilling for Lady Bourbon er Lancaster er Clinton. And let me again advise that these 'the crazy Bolshevik nutroots are racist for not supporting my white candidate' arguments are going to fall on very unfriendly ground here. I'd suggest that the editorial team won't look too kindly on these, because CultureKitchen is very much a part of the netroots.
Phallacy!
Submitted by JJ Ross on 21 February 2007 - 1:05pm.
Let's hear it, cultural creatives!
This serendipitous mash-up of English words appears upthread -- as in, it's a "phallacy" to argue that a woman who buys into existing power structures and is subsumed like the Borg, has forfeited any claim to feminist outsider status. How perfect a term . . .
ROTFL indeed! I'm adding this cleverly muddled visual pun to my feminist lexicon immediately, and suggest we all do the same! Credit Mr. Holland as the macho discoverer, of course. I'm just the subversive female curator who wants to put it on display! 
Har.
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 21 February 2007 - 1:55pm.
I noticed that too, but it seemed inappropriate to riff on. What is a "phallacy"?
Thinking with one's d**k, perhaps? Being stuck in the penis-tentiary of outmoded ways of thinking?
Such as thinking female neocons are an improvement, when we need to do away with the neocons entirely?
A "phallacy" is:
Submitted by francislholland on 21 February 2007 - 2:26pm.
A "phallacy" is: "A demonstrably incorrect assertion or belief that, in addition to being wrong, also has the self-serving feature of perpetuating the 43-term exclusively male monopoly of the US presidency, while seeking to preclude the election of the first woman after an unbroken string of 43 (often really bad) male presidents."
That, my dear friend, is a "phallacy".
I may be the first person to use the word with this particular meaning and spelling, but I doubt I'll be the last.
Cross-posted at http://francislholland.blogspot.com
"Only after we change that which seemed essential do we realize how natural the "new normal" really is and how inevitable it always was."
www.francislholland.blogspot.com
francislholland@yahoo.com
Here's a "Phallacy" graphic
Submitted by francislholland on 21 February 2007 - 2:31pm.
"Only after we change that which seemed essential do we realize how natural the "new normal" really is and how inevitable it always was."
www.francislholland.blogspot.com
francislholland@yahoo.com
Its a question of stature
Submitted by rwallnerny2007 on 21 February 2007 - 7:51pm.
Its a question of stature. The Clintons have enormous stature in the democratic party. They've been in the national spotlight for a long time, they are perceived as leaders of the party. Who are Hillary's opponents? An obscure one term senator from North Carolina who never did anything in the senate and was the losing vp candidate four years ago and another senator who nobody had ever heard of back when the Clintons were in the White House.
Face it, in most democrats eyes, and certainly casual voters' eyes, you are talking midgets against giants here. The general public does not yet see Edwards or Obama as being on the level of the Clintons. Obama has great star power and that might make him the one candidate (unless Gore runs of course) who could be a credible opponent for Hillary, but he has a lot of work to do. Voters want stars. The Clintons are stars.
There are a lot of mainstream democrats who saw the press tear apart Howard Dean in the 2004 primaries, and John Kerry in the general and thereafter, and they badly want a candidate who can hold up under the heat better than they did. A candidate who has the stature and experience in public so that one withering attack or another won't take them down. You nominate an Edwards or an Obama and you are taking a big chance that they won't blow up when the pressure is on, that people won't start questioning who they are, "do I really know this person?" With Hillary they know what they are getting, they know that there is nothing out there the press can throw at her or her family that hasn't already been thrown a dozen times over. They know they'll have a candidate with stature, one they can be certain will be there at the end of the race. Its a big consideration when you talk about "electability" The Democrats want as big a star for their nominee as the republicans can possibly nominate. The biggest star they have is, and by a fair margin, Hillary. The second biggest star they have is Gore who is not running. The third biggest star is Obama.
Would That Same Argument
Submitted by JJ Ross on 21 February 2007 - 8:47pm.
then, conclude that the Republicans should run Jeb this time around as their best shot? (If not, why not?)
He has the dynastic star power and the experience on the ground, coming off eight years as large state governor, etc and the party loves the big-media stands he's taken. . .he's Catholic, not to mention his Mexican wife and Mexican-American kids who are a potential fourth generation coming into the political sphere too now which fits the need for personal minority cred --
The GOP would love Jeb to run
Submitted by rwallnerny2007 on 22 February 2007 - 11:58am.
I'm sure there are many in the GOP who would *love* for Jeb to run. In case you haven't noticed it yet, there is decided unenthusiasm among GOP party line faithful over the current crop of candidates. They know they don't have a winner this time around. The only two *stars* running are McCain and Guiliani, and the right doesn't trust McCain and Guiliani is a moderate blue state pro-choice, pro gay rights republican. Neither one of them is going to set the party on fire. Therefore if Jeb ran, I think he'd be nominated. He has had no interest though, and I think it might well be *because* of his mexican wife and his mixed-race kids. Jeb no doubt remembers Phil Gramm, the Texas Senator who ran for President back in 1996 and had the big oil money behind him. The Gramm campaign was undone in Louisiana and Iowa by backers of Pat Buchanan, who floated tons of racist lit about Gramm's asian-american wife. Buchanan's backers knew full well that there were plenty of GOP party line faithful, particularly down in places like Louisiana, who are racist and don't like mixed race marriages. By simply reminding all these racist republicans that Gramm had an asian wife, it helped sink his campaign. I bet Jeb remembers this and doesn't want to put his mexican-wife wife through a whispering campaign by anti-immigration hardline right wingers.
This closet racism/sexism in certain corners of the country is a reason why I think we finally need a president who isn't a white male. It would be refreshing just to see the leader of the free world for once not be a WASP male from a southern state. There's a picture in today's New York Times of yesterday's joint candidates appearance in Nevada. Obama isn't there but you can see all the other presidential candidates, a whole line of old wasp males and younger wasp male Edwards, and down at the end of the line, Hillary. There's finally a woman in the picture! Even if you don't like Hillary's politics, you can't look at a picture like that, seeing a woman standing along side the typical lineup of the kind of people who have always been president, WASP males in grey suits, and not go, "hillary, you go girl!"
Of course...
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 22 February 2007 - 12:31pm.
...we would at the same time be establishing the reactionary principle of hereditary, dynastic succession, which is perhaps less than enlightened and Progressive, but who cares about that? After all, the HillaryBots need a way to sell their bootlickery vis-á-vis the establishment as revolutionary.
Tools, these Hillary supporters.
That's Another Phallacy!
Submitted by francislholland on 22 February 2007 - 12:57pm.
Michael:
I strongly believe that those who claim Clinton's election will start a dynasty have run out of good arguments against her. The idea is a phallacy. Dynasties involve hereditary blood lines. Hillary Clinton is not in Bill Clinton's blood line. She's his wife, not his daughter!
Moreover, in dynasties people in the bloodline of succession have an AUTOMATIC right to succeed a deceased or incapacitated monarch. If Hillary has an automatic right to succeed Bill Clinton, then why are we having primaries and a general election?
Anyone who characterizes as "automatic" and "by right" the election of the first woman president in a string of 43 consecutive males is delusional. There has never been anything automatic or even probable about women succeeding their husbands in office after a break of four years. At the level of the presidency, far from being automatic it would actually be unprecedented.
The foremost characteristic of monarchies is predictability. Everyone knows with certainly as much as two decades in advance whom the next monarch will be. When you falsely and wantonly compare that inapposite situation with the situation of Hillary Clinton, you demean our discussion with absurdities
and engage in phallacies unworthy of good "progressives".
"Only after we change that which seemed essential do we realize how natural the "new normal" really is and how inevitable it always was."
www.francislholland.blogspot.com
francislholland@yahoo.com
Well...
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 22 February 2007 - 1:38pm.
I can understand that you don't like having your un-American, pro-dynasty arguments examined too closely; however, that's why we have what is called a 'primary', as opposed to a 'coronation'. And as things stand today, that primary is ongoing, despite the desire of deluded royal retainers to out-do each other in licking the new Queen's boots.
Yes, Francis Holland, I'm looking at you. You don't like the dynasty argument because you have no answers to it. This because there are no answers, drivel about the odiousness of Lincoln, FDR, Washington and JFK, men all, notwithstanding. Meanwhile, those of us who prefer a small-R republican form of government will continue to excoriate you Tory monarchists; and make no mistake, we will stop you from destroying the Republic. You may wish to grovel before this new dynasty, and to scream that this new form of servitude is what you require. But unlike you, I'm not going to be a willing slave.
To Me the Point Is
Submitted by JJ Ross on 22 February 2007 - 2:19pm.
that if this "dynastic star with minority cred" is the whole argument in favor of a candidate, then Jeb beats Hillary! She has eight White (very white) House years in the family, true, but Jeb has 16 if you count Dad's four as VP. PLUS he has a full eight as a gov himself, and his brother had the TX governorship, which beats Bill in Arkansas and her few years pretending to be a Senator while running for president.
Minority status? I'm a woman too and a feminist but a reasonable one -- using this thread's arguments, I'd have to give the edge to Catholic Jeb and his authentically hispanic family, over the angry white female Yalie daughter of privilege married to a man who only pretends to be black and not convincingly, and who exploits women rather than lifting them up, counts herself as a mom but apparently barely notices she HAS a daughter, who stands not by her man as much as on his neck and basically plays a man on tv.
Now if she had been a furious feminist mom during Terri Schiavo, she could've changed my picture of her bona fides but alas . . .
Dynasties
Submitted by rwallnerny2007 on 22 February 2007 - 5:26pm.
Bouldin talks about the evil of dynasties while at the same time not mentioning that last year he worked to continue a dynasty in brooklyn, that of the Owens family in the 11th district. He supported Chris Owens to take his father's seat, a seat that had been held by one family for nearly twenty five years, and he had no problem with the same family holding on to it for years to come. Yet he has a problem with electing another president from the same family? I think that is hypocritical don't you?
Chris Owens was a good candidate and it shouldn't have mattered that his dad held the seat. Similarly Hillary is a good candidate and should not be disqualified (as bouldin implies) because her husband held the seat she's running for now.
We have had many succesful dynasties. Edward Kennedy was barely in his thirties when he took his brother's seat in the senate when JFK became President. Kennedy is still serving in the same seat more than forty years later and has had a long and distinguished career, dynasty or not. How much worse off would this country have been had massachusetts voters rejected Ted Kennedy's candidacy back then because he was the former incumbent's brother? Or rejected FDR's presidential candidacy, because he and his wife were related to Teddy Roosevelt and it was somehow going to be evil if we had a Roosevelt dynasty.
Not all dynasties are bad. It is the people who serve in these seats that make government good or bad, not their last names. Or maybe Bouldin, now that he's thought through this dynasty thing a lot more given hillary's candidacy, would now say he shouldn't have supported a continuation of the Owens dynasty?
Mom's Retort
Submitted by JJ Ross on 22 February 2007 - 7:33pm.
So you're now arguing that if all the other kids are running a dynasty argument off a cliff . . .?!?
Even before I was a mom, I had encountered a LOT of juvenile rationalization and emotion driven, circular logic going nowhere but over a cliff behind the other fools and children. (There are some stunningly juvenile arguments in Favorite Daughter's college newspaper today, that I am thinking of blogging, the better to mock them, TBA)
So over the years, I've become adept at helping it see the error of its own ways and learn better thinking from it.
Wasn't expecting to see all that kid stuff here in Culture Kitchen though -- would you prefer good-natured mocking or some serious in-depth analysis to figure out the errors in this way of thinking before you hit the ground? Or maybe --like Huck Finn-- you'd rather just be left unimproved?
Har Har
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 22 February 2007 - 6:30pm.
If we're now positing an equivalency between a single House member and the Prresidency, then the HillaryBots have truly lost their way; but this happens when you defend the indefensible.
And to think, I have to put up with this bottery for another year; until the bots are finally vanquished, wiped out, destroyed. I just hope that after all this hate, they manage to support the eventual nominee.
BTW, I did run into David Yassky, Esq., last night. He's still a bit frosty, poor befuddled creature that he is.
Dynasties don't matter
Submitted by rwallnerny2007 on 22 February 2007 - 7:07pm.
Just face it, this "dynasties" argument goes nowhere because dynasties don't matter if the people are good. Whether it is a congressional seat or a presidential seat. Tell me did the country fall apart when John Quincy Adams got elected? His dad was the country's second president after all. Or when we had a second Roosevelt elected President? This dynasty argument is just weak and you know it. It is the person you are electing that matters, not what family they are from.
Hillary Clinton deserves to be considered on her own merits, and not disqualified or give the same consideration as other candidates, because she was married to a President. That just doesn't matter. If she was being coronated and not publicly elected, and would have supreme power, and not power checked by legislative and judicial branches, then maybe it would be different.
I would like to hear Bouldin to say here and now that as a good democrat, that if Hillary Clinton is the nominee of the Democratic party (as she probably will be), that you will wholeheartedly support her next year? Or will Bouldin join forces with the Republican "Stop Hillary" machine? I do find it interesting that Bouldin seems to hate Hillary just as much as Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly do. Its not every candidate who can be hated just as much on both the left and the right. Takes a special candidate to generate that kind of hate! Oh wait, Bouldin isn't really left though is he, he's libertarian, which is where the far left and the far right meet.
Because...
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 22 February 2007 - 7:17pm.
...you're in a position to make demands here? Or what?
Feh.
In practice, Hillary is attempting the dynastic takeover. She has the entire apparatus that her husband had as President, which accrues to her despite the fact that she's a mediocre legislator and a worse speaker. This candidacy shows how far a woman can go if she sleeps with the right guy; which is probably why she's unpopular with self-identified feminists, and seems to get what support she has from guys on a guilt trip about their guy-ness.
But again, there will be no Clinton dynasty, because she's still losing the general election matchup. This is just a power trip, enabled by people - you, Wallner - with historically bad judgment.
There will be no President Hillary. Whether I vote for her or not - I'm going to, if she's the nominee, be helping congressional candidates like the one I spoke to last night, who's terrified of her getting the nomination because he's in a marginal district - doesn't matter. I'm certainly not voting for her in the primary; the general, we'll see. Meanwhile, I'm working to stop the takeover of my party, and to stop the HillaryBot lemmings from driving it over a cliff just to please their queen.
A load of crock
Your example of reparations is interesting, but the comparison you're making is pure humbug.
First of all, Obama and Clinton are worlds apart in terms of blog support; he is one of two favorites of the netroots, in poll after poll, while she's mired at 4% or so, also in poll after poll. If anything, his stellar popularity refutes your thesis of white bloggers wanting to exclude blacks.
Second, re: 'blacks prefer Hillary'; in my personal experience, I don't see that, and I've seen no poll data that would verify this assumption, either. Bill Clinton is legendarily popular among blacks, but it's dubious to extrapolate that to his wife.
Lastly, the inference that there is a racial component to having a primary as opposed to a coronation is invidious. By the same token, you could infer that anyone who doesn't support Richardson is by definition a Latino-hater who secretly wants to build a wall at the Mexican border. And while there may be such people, it's fair to assume that they're not in any sense typical.