Thinking About November - Krugman
Thinking About November - New York Times
The fight for the Democratic nomination seems to be winding down. It’s not completely over, but the odds now overwhelmingly favor Barack Obama.Assuming that Mr. Obama is the nominee, he’ll lead a party that, judging by the usual indicators, should be poised for an easy victory — perhaps even a landslide. . .
There’s just one thing that should give Democrats pause — but it’s a big one: the fight for the nomination has divided the party along class and race lines in a way that I believe is unprecedented, at least in modern times.
Ironically, much of Mr. Obama’s initial appeal was the hope that he could transcend these divisions. At first, voting patterns seemed consistent with this hope. In February, for example, he received the support of half of Virginia’s white voters as well as that of a huge majority of African-Americans.
But this week, Mr. Obama, while continuing to win huge African-American majorities, lost North Carolina whites by 23 points, Indiana whites by 22 points. Mr. Obama’s white support continues to be concentrated among the highly educated; there was little in Tuesday’s results to suggest that his problems with working-class whites have significantly diminished.
Comments
I thought Krugman made a pretty fair point, regardless of where his bias might lie. It does need to be figured out how Obama can win over the working class. From my experience there's a lot of people who vote with their 'gut', and McCain is a lot more gut friendly I think to a lot of people.
Yes sir, on the Hillary vs. Obama contest, there has been no fairer or more balanced voice than that of Mr. Paul Krugman.
;)
[PS- Isn't Krugman one of those elitist economists that Hillary won't be throwing her lot in with?]
One issue that turns be away from Clinton is the fact that her voters tend to be less educated than Obama voters.
I realize the correlation between intelligence and education is dubious, however, it would seem to me that this statistic implies that Clinton supporters are the "dumber" of the two groups.
Please note: this is not a rip on OGM readers. I think OGM readers of any political persuasion are smarter than the average bear, which is why I like this site.
Two questions for anyone with the ability to answer:
1) Is the average education of a politician's supporters a legitimate concern?
2) How educated were the Bush voters in '04? Did the higher educated sway Kerry?
Honestly, I'm not trying to pick a fight. I myself GED'd after dropping out of High School, so I'm not ripping on the uneducated here. However, in all fairness, I ended up going back for my degree, while most of my fellow drop-out friends did not. These days, I tend to have a more informed opinion of politics. Is that a gross generalization from self, or a common trend?
Krugman is right, these divisions are obviously there. And all the more since Pennsylvania and Indiana/North Carolina.
The reason I changed from Hillary to Obama is that she did everything she could to deepen these divisions. And I still haven't heard a thing she'd do to heal them. The "bitter" ad was the culmination of this strategy. It made me bitter, too. Bitter towards her.
Because I was and still am a Clinton fan. Of both of them. I think they are two of the smartest, toughest, most engaged (and engaging) political beings this country ever had. Seeing her putting up Bin Laden ads against Obama was a real disappointment.
So, Krugman says: there are divisions, I say: duh..! Yes, many Obama fans are snotty elitists, latte sipping, volvo driving red wine drinkers, who make fun of "bitter heartlanders". But most of them are not. And I think it's time to quit these dumb stereotypes (and on this site, too!) What is needed right now is an effort from the other side. If Clinton really has some clout with the "white working class" she has to deliver.
There still is a role for her to play. And as Gore has shown second place can be a promising start.
Zaphod wrote:
In the case where an individual either has no preference or lacks the time or desire to "do the work", I suppose this is a reasonably good criterion. If I were undecided, and someone more intelligent than I am gave me advice, I would certainly heed it. (This is entirely theoretical, of course, since there is no one in that group.)
On the other hand, educated people tend to make more money than uneducated people, and it is possible that they are only voting for their own best interests. So perhaps following their lead would be counterproductive for an uneducated person.
Interesting question.
The divisions in the Democratic Party are the result of the Clinton campaign.
End of story.
Zaphod wrote:
No. Why should it? Your concern should be said politician's issues and programs and plans, not who is supporting him. Would you really drop your support for someone you agree with just because his other supporters are less educated than you (think you) are?
I know where you're going with this question, of course. But it is not as simple as you might think. Obama has both highly educated and poorly educated supporters. As had George Bush, by the way: rich academics and poor rednecks.
Of course, like you I don't like these "bitter" heartlanders who think bashing gays and shooting guns is somehow going to pay their bills. But I don't despise Bush because of his supporters but because of his politics. That some despicable rednecks voted for him somehow comes with his program. But there are millions of decent poorly educated people - who didn't vote for Dubya but for Kerry.
And they will vote for Obama, too.
I agree. The longer she holds out, especially in the manner she has been doing, the more she resembles a craven spectacle of the morally bankrupt "Win At Any Cost" ethics of the conservative right.
We get it already! She can beat the Republicans at their own game. She's good enough, she's tough enough, and dog-gone it, people...respect her.
But does she get it? The problem is, winning that way validates that game itself, and that game is no less dysfunctional than the rest of the moral malaise that pervades our corrupt government.
The sad thing is, it's very true that more Obama supporters would vote for her than the reverse - largely because she has the brazen audacity to use her clout that way!
She has become like a dark, Bizarro version of the myth of Samson (who, himself, was kind of dark and Bizarro-esque by modern reckoning). I can see a great graphic novel here.
Consider:
Samson was so powerful, he slayed an entire army with the jawbone of a donkey. (A couple possible parallels there.) Yet because of a critical character flaw, he lost his strength and was ultimately defeated. (That one's pretty obvious.) After he was captured, he was blinded and imprisoned, and made to grind grain. (She does seem blind to certain realities right now. Like the fact that she is defeated. Continuing on to WV, Kentucky, Oregon, etc. is less like warfare & more like grinding grain at this point, even if she succeeds.) Finally, he is brought into a temple for a ceremony related to his capture, so that he may entertain his captors. (Concession speech?) Asking to rest between the central pillars of the temple, he prays for one last surge of strength and heaves the two pillars (the two halves of the Democratic party) apart, bringing down the entire temple upon himself and everybody else within it.
I'm glad I'm not superstitious, or those parallels would really bug me. Plus, it would make me a Philistine.
"But this week, Mr. Obama, while continuing to win huge African-American majorities, lost North Carolina whites by 23 points, Indiana whites by 22 points. Mr. Obama’s white support continues to be concentrated among the highly educated; there was little in Tuesday’s results to suggest that his problems with working-class whites have significantly diminished."
A couple of comments about this:
Talking about Obama's support in the context of a primary commits a common fallacy that the HRC campaign has somehow convinced us to ignore. Obama doesn't have supporters per se. He has people who have perferred him to Hillary. HRC has voters who have preffered her to Obama. This seems like a problem to some people because Hillary keeps getting votes for go long into the primary season. But this is easily explained by the fact that she is a big name and was a solid frontrunner for a year, not by the fact that Obama will never get these voters in any contest. These are not just working class whites, they're Democratic primary voters! Party ID is the biggest single predictor of general election voting behavior; so Krugman and Hillary need to give some evidence that these Democrats would defect in November. The fact that they supported someone else in a close primary race is not even close to counting as evidence of this.
In the same breath that Hillary says that the difference between her and Obama is minimal compared the difference between the two of them and McCain, she flatly contradicts herself by telling us to worry that Obama is losing support among certain Democratic groups. Is she saying that she can see the obvious differences between Republicans and Democrats, but that her white supporters can't be counted on to see this? When you actually think about the logic of her claims, it does seem that they are, as Bob Herbert has said, a slur against whites. She seems to be saying that they're blinded by race and can't see the affinity between Hillary's values and Obama's values that is obvious to her.
Finally, Obama's not losing ground with whites. He moving into states like Indiana that have more of the Hillary-type Democratic white voters than there were in Virginia. Krugman is a very good social scientist and should know better how to analyze data.
"Is the average education of a politician's supporters a legitimate concern?"
I'm not sure what you mean by concern, but there are political differences between more and less educated voters. On the whole more educated voters are more wealthy and more conservative than less educated voters (though they get more liberal at the very top end of education: PhDs, MDs and JDs). Less educated voters are also less engaged in politics, less informed, and feel less "efficacy"--the subjective sense that they can make a difference. Finally, contrary to the belief of many liberals, less educated voters actually base their vote on economic issues more than more educated voters do. Obama had this backwards, but he's actually helped by this fact, since working class voters will likely not care so much about the cultural issues surrounding his campaign and they'll vote, as they usually do, their economic interest.
"Isn't Krugman one of those elitist economists that Hillary won't be throwing her lot in with?"
Someone like Krugman has to be pretty well invested in his preference between the two candidates not to be pretty annoyed by that kind of comment from a candidate who actually understands ecnomics and should know much better.
dendeblogger's right on.
of course the racist subtext of much of the clinton campaign's message these last few weeks hurt obama. lookit the states of indiana and west va. they're not exactly populated by high-achievers or wellinformed folks.
"The divisions in the Democratic Party are the result of the Clinton campaign.
End of story."
Therein lies the power of convincing your support base you are the uniter, all others are seen as dividers.
Frenchfries:
I totally agree with you that a politicians stance on the issue, specifically, their voting record, is the key to making good decisions as a voter.
I was born and raised in the midwest, so I have a soft spot for those bitter gun totin' Jesus lovers.
I'll take the point away from Clinton v. Obama as to defuse any potential trolling. Ron Paul supporters were described by many pundits as some of the best educated, and most informed. I've always wondered if that is true. Like any campaign, some fellow supporters were very brilliant people. And, most of them were/are semi-retarded, forever regurgitating the talking points of the Alex Jones conspiracy hour, unable to answer any criticism without sounding like a fool.
I've Googled around for a bit, and I've seen all sorts of political humor and thinly disguised partisan trolling, but I'm truly curious- has anyone correlated intelligence or education with voting style? Are there any correlations? Any interesting trends? Any OBJECTIVE data? If anyone has any links, please share.
If forced to guess, I would wager that the "wacko, can't win, loser-filled, third-parties" contain the most informed, best educated, "intelligencia" of this country. It would interesting to know for sure.
"Ron Paul supporters were described by many pundits as some of the best educated, and most informed."
The key is not to interpret "informed" and "educated" in very normative ways. Educated is referring to degrees (not your grades in your politics courses); informed is talking about how much you know about the news, the political system, etc.
Ron Paul voters are almost definitely highly informed, on average: you have to watch a lot of news, relatively speaking, just to hear that he exists let alone support the guy. You have to be a politically savvy, engaged person to support a marginal candidate that isn't backed by traditional institutions like churches, unions, the mainstream parties, etc.
That doesn't mean that they have good interpretations of constitutional law, etc.
The major candidates, especially Democrats, are always going to have less-educated supporters, on average, because a big chunk those people are voting based on cues and shortcuts (not because they're dumb, but because they're not engaged), and because the Dems have a lot of non-college gradauates on board who know very well where their interests lie. Any major political movement in a democracy has to find a way to get the support of those non interested in politics and not well-educated. But Ron Paul doesn't need to do that because he's a boutique candidate.
I like dende blogger's point. Sure it's interesting (though not entirely surprising) how Obama/Clinton split their votes but it's a leap to assume it tells us much about November.
Frenchfries:
You assume that because I support Senator Obama, I do not believe anyone else can be a uniter. Your assumption was incorrect.
I believe Senator Clinton still has a chance to be a uniter -- if she bows out gracefully and uses these next two weeks to heal the wounds her campaign has inflicted on the party since Pennsylvania.
But her campaign will most likely take the low road.
Are these the words of a uniter?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article3907239.ece
Last Thursday, Senator Clinton – dazed from a brutal setback in last Tuesday’s primaries – went even further. She told USA Today to consult an Associated Press story “that found how Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me”.
What's amazing is that she has LOST yet she still feels the need to hurt the party.
dende blogger, I think you nailed it. Good post.
Krugman, strikes me more and more as a whiny hypocrat.
After being verey critical of Obama, this aricle reads like a sour grapes, "don't Blow it kid." "better shut up your supporters now."
It's not terribly remarkable that after relentless discussion of race and His black associates that the numbers would cut on racial lines. Surprise!
It's also not remarkable that people blame the clintons for that in part.
Their central argument has been that he can't win the working class whites. A point that was only true, post reverend wright.
SNL said it well http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/11/saturday-night-lives-mess_n_101177.html
I really don't know what post you are referring to. But in terms of what you're saying: I'm not sure myself if she can be a uniter. I was only saying that I think she should. It's her last role. But it would be a big role.
So the black candidate has to transcend race. What about the white candidates. Should they also "transecend race"?
Why is Obama held up to such a high standard? Do we dare vote for a black man? What about Reverend Wright?!
Oh no! Hamas Supports Obama!
We cannot vote for him unless he is willing to "transcend divisions".
Neither Hillary nor John McCain have to "transcend divisions".
Frenchfries:
I believe Brett may have mistaken my comment for yours, I shall respond based on that assumption.
Brett:
I don't believe Hillary to be a uniter but nor has she claimed to be one. The way I see it, there are two ways the democratic party can be united:
Obama sacrifices his ambition and withdraws from the race. The party would unite around Hillary and it would be Obama's doing. He would live up to his ideals, he just wouldn't be the democratic presidential nominee.
Hillary withdraws from the race. The party would unite around Obama but it would not be his doing, it would be because there is no other alternative. It would only serve to show him as ineffectual, only able to accomplish things with zero opposition.
There is the downside to being the uniter.
JoAnn:
Obama his held to a high standard because of the ideals he, for lack of a better word, preaches. Hope & Change, that he is a uniter, a different kind of politician. These are high-minded ideals and require high standards to maintain. But kudos on making it about race.
Sorry about that Frenchfries. No idea how I got so confused.
Thanks for your reply Evolution.
I agree with both of you that Hillary must be the uniter. It's her last role in this campaign. I've said so on numerous other posts, and I truly believe this should be her legacy.
Again, sorry for the confusion.
You know it's about race. Don't act all innocent and be disingenuous.
Go to Google and type: Obama, "Transcend Race" and you get 22,200 hits.
We all know when we speak of "transcending divisions", we're speaking of Obama having to "transcend race".
In fact, this post was about "race". I didn't make it about race. I responded to the fact that we're speaking about race.
So Obama has to do a better job of aattracting "white people". Could not the same be said about HIllary and McCain? Don't they have to do a better job in attacting "black people"?
Evolution, what kinda Hillary crack are you smoking today?
He has won the nomination or at least will very soon have the delegates to declare final victory. Are you saying Obama should then be unhappy that the party unites around him only because he defeated his opponents?
Hillary having the power to rip the party in half is not somehow a failing of Barack Obama.
Most Nominees only really unite the party once their opponents leave the race. Kerry lost south Carolina to ed wards and Oklahoma to Clark, then they conceded and the party united.
Obama has won every part of the party in some state or another. Having an opponent attack him repeatedly has kept him form locking up all the victories late in this contest, but if the Governor of a state won an election, but lost the last three precincts on election night, you wouldn't accuse him of being unable to unite his state.
Yeah, wow. She quotes an paragraph about race and somehow her comments were about race. JoAnn sure does love to go off topic.
I think that is exactly what she's saying. Acknowledging that some of your supporters are racist and that they may not vote for your opponent is a factual statement. If Barack said some voters will not vote for Hillary because she's a women. He would be acknowledging that there are sexists and they may not vote for her. Is he guilty of sexism if he raised the issue. I don't think so. Is she guilty of racism if she raises that issue. I think the answer is the same.
You are right, it isn't racist to point out the racism of others, but the poll numbers have not born her premise that this somehow makes it unelectable. And making the argument as a justifications of ones own candidacy is about the saddest excuse for continuing a campaign I have ever heard.
Beleiveing it would also suggest a strategy of showing that rascists will vote on racial lines is justified in the primary.
So is that what she just did?
Is purposely being racially divisive to prove a point racist? racially insensitive?
JoAnn:
You said: "Why is Obama held up to such a high standard? Do we dare vote for a black man?" I interpreted that as saying he is held to higher standards on a whole because he's black, which I think is BS. That's what my comment referred too, if I've misinterpreted your meaning then I apologise.
RedSeven:
"Hillary having the power to rip the party in half is not somehow a failing of Barack Obama." Yes, it is. It's a failure to unite in the face of opposition. When he decided to be the uniter it put the onus on him to unite, and to overcome the obstacles in doing so. Do you think the republicans will just lay down in a general election? Do you think the republicans will play nice with a democrat president? If he cannot unite the like-minded, it's questionable as to whether he can unite the non-like-minded. The delegate count as it currently stands, according to cnn.com: Obama 1,842 Clinton 1,686 If my math is right, that's roughly 52% to 48% (0.2% rounding in favour of Clinton). Although it's a victory by democratic standards (50%+1), it's hardly unified. If he wins the party's nomination, which looks likely, the party will unite around him but that's unification by default. I don't think that's what he had in mind.
Sorry, I've gone a bit off the original topic.
Evolution wrote:
You've not just gone off the original topic, you've gone off the original intent of primaries. Have you Clinton supporters all completely lost your mind? She has lost the state count, the delegate count, the super-delegate count, the popular vote and, if you insist, she is losing the polls again, including the ones comparing her to McCain.
Yet here you go claiming that somehow Obama hasn't won this thing. If he failed to unite the party, as you say, she failed even more. It's that thing we call democracy, you know. Mathematics, if you prefer.
Enough, already.
Evo
Again with the crack. The presidential election does not go to the person that unites the country, it goes to the individual that gets more then 50% in enough states to earn the needed delegates.
Like the primary. A primary in which Hillary Clinton has been more divisive then a uniter. Given the choice between a divisive candidate and an only moderately successful Uniter, I think the Uniter is the better choice.
Krugman's analysis is incredibly sloppy, and this whole meme about white votes is ridiculous. To whit:
There are significant differences between "working class whites" west of the Mississippi and those in Appalachia and the Rustbelt. Anyone with even a passing understanding of the regional differences here understands a basic, uncomfortable truth about the situation: "working class whites" in Appalachia and the Rustbelt are significantly more racist than the folks out West. Whatever the reasons for this (a mix of history, economics and demographics), it seems pretty clear. Obama had no problem racking up huge numbers among working class whites in the earlier primary states, particularly in the West and Midwest, before the Wright controversy and before we got to voters in the Rustbelt and Appalachia.
Obama doesn't have a problem with working class whites per se: just the ones who live in a more racist milieu. (I am of course not saying that we can chalk this up entirely to racism, that is an equally sloppy analysis.)
As for the "uniter" aspect: his alleged inability to be a uniter has not been from his lack of trying. Every speech he's delivered has been an attempt to do this. Wright's comments and the efforts to undermine Obama by the Clinton campaign and the GOP are what's undone him here, and those things are out of his control. Evolution, I really don't agree that the onus is completely on Barack to deliver here: he's done everything a "uniter" should do, and if it hasn't happened, I don't see how he can be blamed for it.
Note to all: Obama is not infallable, nor a god, nor a uniter that everyone will immediately line up behind and support. I can't believe this is where this conversation has gotten to, of "he's not Perfect!"
RedSeven said:
Yes. I'll take the man attempting to be a uniter although others are working against this.
Fierce Pika said:
Precisely. He is attempting to be a uniter and transcend race, but certain Americans just won't go there with him. So sad.
What is really sad and depressing is that this type of conversation is even taking place. Aren't we better than this? It is even more depressing that it's Democrats discussing this kind of crap. I would have expected this kind of discussion from Republicans. And yet today I listened to William Cohen (Secretary of Defense under Bill Clinton) on CNN, a Republican white man with a black wife, who is just dismayed that we Americans are having this kind of discussion. I agree whole heartedly with him.
Frenchries said:
Yes, enough of this. Enough.
Who said this?
Well, it was Paul Krugman
And yet here we have Krugman taking us there. How sad. I have always in the past had a lot of respect for Krugman, but in this regard, I feel that these comments from him are divisive.
Playing the Race Card in the 2008 Presidential Election
Why Paul Krugman is wrong
Now, Paul Krugman throws economists off the bus
Magnolia wrote:
Thank you for pointing that out. Even though nobody ever claimed such a thing. As a former Hillary supporter I really don't know why it isn't possible for some people to accept simple facts. As in: "Obama has won." That doesn't mean: "Obama is infallible." No, it doesn't, Magnolia.
Not happy? Again: I don't think Obama is a god. Period. Nor do I think he's perfect. Second period. Oh, and he's not infallible, neither.
Note to Magnolia: Nobody on this blog ever alleged that. Ever. Really. I'm totally sure about that.
Obama has been held to a higher standard over and over and over again on this blog.
It's true no regulars on this blog have claimed god like status though if calling him god meant he didn't exist I'd be okay with that. :) But there are a large number of Obama supporters who believe he is different that he is raising the standards, so it seems reasonable to me to hold him to those higher standards.
"I think that is exactly what she's saying. Acknowledging that some of your supporters are racist and that they may not vote for your opponent is a factual statement."
I find it very hard to believe that she is really trying to admit that some of her supporters are racist. First, she's going out of her way to praise them ("hard working"), and second, she's using this a reason to support her. "I can get racist votes" is not a very inspiring appeal.
If she were saying what you think she's saying, Norm, then I admit that would not make her comment racist. It would remain a "factual" (though extremely strange) statement. But I think it's factually wrong. Racism exists among working-class whites, I see no evidence that these active Democratic voters are especially infected with it. It seems like an unfounded sterotype of people who are relatively liberal. I think they genuinely like Hillary, and if a few of them do refuse to support Obama it will be out of sour grapes more than racism.
Being black is a net negative for a presidential candidate's chances, I admit. Being a woman might be a net negative, too. But neither of these facts are good reasons for a liberal not to support a black person or a woman. It seems to be a reason to suport them all the more.
I didn't make that very clear. I believe that is what she thinks which doesn't mean that the praise isn't sincere. But that is the message I got reading between the lines. I appeal to more demographics even the racists so vote for me. What's the over/under on tonight's race will she exceed 60%. I'll have to admit I haven't paid much attention, but think Obama should have spent more time there. What happens in the fall when McCain says hell he didn't even care enough about West Virginia and Kentucky to campaign seriously. I really think he may lose in the fall, and if he does I think it will be because he chose the wrong strategy thinking the new voters and traditionally republican states will carry the day. Damn I hope I'm wrong.
36 -65
Me too.
I hate to sound like an insane over dramatic lefty freak, but I really get this feeling that a McCain administration could seriously threaten the survival of the human race.
War with Iran, another decade of inaction on global warming, and growing poverty with reduced investment in healthcare?
Survive all that and we have proven our ability to overcome adversity.
"I really think he may lose in the fall, and if he does I think it will be because he chose the wrong strategy thinking the new voters and traditionally republican states will carry the day."
The real question mark for me is the marginal Obama voter. Some conservatives are racist, but that won't change anything because they're with the GOP anyway. Is the marginal Obama voter likely to be racist and change their vote based on racism? Perhaps, but the marginal McCain voter is probably anti-war and anti-GOP so I like Obama's chances, especially because Obama is the most talented pol in the field. I have no certain idea about "electability" in general, but I don't bet on the track, the jockey, or the competition, I bet on the horse, and this is a good one.
Early exit polling is often screwy, but exit polls in the WV landslide have 2 in 10 whites saying the race was a factor in their vote. However:
"...second only to Mississippi. Just 32 percent of those voters said they'd support Obama against John McCain, fewer than in other primaries where the question's been asked."
The article makes this sound bad. But WV looks like one of the most racist states in the country, and yet 1/3 of the "racist" voters would still support Obama in November. Race is apparently a factor, but not necessarily a deal-breaker.
WV is one of the states responsible for george bush.
A push by the NRA and abortion issue groups shut it down for gore.
These are the bitter people.
It sure is. WV's senior senator Robert Byrd is no stranger to racism.
In the early 1940s, a politically ambitious butcher from West Virginia named Bob Byrd recruited 150 of his friends and associates to form a chapter of the Ku Klux Klan
I'm beginning to understand why Obama didn't do much campaigning in West Viriginia. :(
So all someone has to have is lower standards, and you'll support them? ;)
Interesting article from Le Monde Diplomtique re West Virginia.
Even as recently as March 2001, Bird said
Why can't he just raise them a little? We don't have to get to perfect in one presidency do we?
Byrd is a lot more complex than your selective quotes make him out to be.
Sure he is. But the fact remains that he was a racist and a member of the Klu Klux Klan in his past.
My mother is an American Indian and I have experience with racism. My mother married a man whose family are a bunch of racists. I know that people can change, but there still remains that little hub of racism in them.
And, Dar, you say "selective quotes".
They may be "selective", but these quotes of his are so outrageous. And again, he was a member of the Klan. He feels bad about it, he says, but still, he has that in his heart.
Hell, my own (recently deceased) white father is a racist. I know them quite well. I know how they think and how they speak.
And I still love my father, although he was a racist. I love him because he was my father. But his racist views are something I have and had utter disgust for.
So Dar.
Do the "selective comments" from Byrd not offend you?
Should they?
I've known many people who hold different views now than when they were younger. I'm not the type to condemn someone for something they once thought or believed which they now apologize and regret.
Racism is a product of one's environment. I did not grow up in that region or time period. So I'm not going to pass judgement on him. This country as well as Byrd has changed a lot in 90 years and I don't see him making those comments now. In fact his recent record has shown that he doesn't hold the same views as when he was younger. Actions speak louder than words IMO.
They are offensive, but I think the point Dar might be making is that Byrd has done alot to work though his racism and move past it. Some of the more recent quotes show he has had some limits to his success.
Regardless, there is something more respectable about somone determined to improve their beliefs and escape the backwards parts of the culture they were raised in. So to pin racsist on the man, doesn't tell the whole story.
That said, I think it is very telling of the community in which he was raised.
Well, Dar and RedSeven, I salute you two for understanding that someone can change.
I also realize that they can attempt to change. But I grew up in a bi-racial family and I am just all too aware of how these racist feelings never really go away. I am also aware that it has become politically incorrect to be a racist, so racist views cannot be stated anymore. Even if someone is a racist, they have to deny it.
There are people in those environments and at that time period who were not racists. It's one thing to harbor someone racist views. But to have actually worked actively to form a chapter of KKK?
Anyway, Obama has forgiven Byrd and even supports.
I'm just sayin'..
If Byrd was a Republican, he would not get away with what he did or what he said in 2001.
"White niggers"? Hell, if a Republican had used this phrase in 2001, the media would have been all over his ass.
Furthermore, I don't give a damn in what context the term "white nigger" was used. It's an ugly term and it says something about the person who uses it. It's disgusting and Byrd used this term in 2001.
Statements mean less to me than actions. One can pretend to not be racist all they want but passing legislation that contradicts claims of racism is telling IMO.
People see what they want to and it seems you've found what you were looking for. Maybe your views will also change someday.
My father grew up in a racist environment.
He has spent a significant part of his life working on civil rights issues for women and minorities of every ilk.
And one of Byrd's "actions" was to join the KKK.. To found a chapter of KKK. That is an action. If he were a Republican, he'd be toast.
It is true that he has voted for legislation which demonstrates that he's no longer a racist.
On the same note, McCain voted against having a Martin Luther King holiday. He has also changed his mind and should also be forgiven.
Was your father a former member of the KKK?
So this statement doesn't mean much to you?
Race mongrels? What an ugly, hateful term.
Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, but he never ever used the term "race mongrel" and he lived in a time period way before Byrd's time period.
Americans accept our past history of slavery and Jim Crow and the annihilation of the American Indians with such facility... Why?
Do you also forgive Strom Thurmond?
Essie Mae Washington-Williams, who the family of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond acknowledges is his illegitimate biracial daughter, tells her story to Correspondent Dan Rather. Read a complete transcript of the interview.
And on this same note, do you also forgive Reverend Wright for feeling the way that he does?
Poor Barack Obama. He has a hell of a lot of hurdles to jump over to win over a certain portion of the American public,
There is a certain percentage of the American population who won't vote for a woman, or an American Indian, an atheist, someome who is connected to the French. Should anyone cater to these prejudices? This is what irritates me about Hillary Clinton. If she would speak up about racism, I would be supporting her. Instead, she is mining the prejudices of certain Americans. And that disgusts me.
Strom Thurman was never toast, he stayed in the senate until he was just about dead. I don't know that Thurman ever developed a progressive view on Civil Rights.
Definitely not.
JoAnn, we are not saying that Byrd hasn't clearly been a racist in the past. He has publicly denounced his actions as a mistake.
He has at times made statements that are offensive, in the present day, but has also voted for civil rights on a consistent basis.
Does he probably still harbor some prejudices? Probably. Does that make him a Racist? I don't know that that is fair.
Is West Virginia a tough place to develop an enlightened view of race? Yeah.
Keeping people as slaves is worse than talking negatively about them but that's just my opinion. Although I don't see how one can keep someone as a slave if you don't see them as inferior.
I'm no longer going to engage with you on this topic. You want to see the world the way you want but not everything is black and white so I see it as pointless to continue this topic. Hate is hate whether it's directed toward people who look different or people who just think different.
Maybe I didn't notice it before but you seem to have a very intolerant stance toward anyone who doesn't see things your way. This approach to the world didn't work well for me in the past but maybe it'll work out for you.
Thank you RedSeven for presenting here some honest and heartfelt thoughts. I appreciate it and I agree with you whole heartedly.
Dar said:
Joining the KKK is the same as keeping slaves. No difference.
So you also feel that Thomas Jefferson was a racist then? You don't want to deal with our horrible and pathetic past, do you Dar? Is this why you no longer want to speak with me? It's not easy to deal with our racist and genocidal history, is it?
Everything is not "black and white" with enlightened people. But with way too many people, it is indeed, "black and white", "male and female" etc etc
No, I don't agree with you
You're being irrational JoAnn. That's why I don't want to discuss this topic.
No, Dar, it is you who is being irrational. You are uncomfortable speaking about this topic and this is why you don't want to talk about anymore.
I am willing to discuss this topic, even if you don't agree with me.
State exactly what point you disagree with me on pertaining to this subject and I'll continue the discussion.
I disagree with you on the fact that someone who organzied to form a chapter of Klu Klux Klan and was a leader of his chapter of the KKK, the Exalted Cyclops, is any different than a slave holder. I disagree that a man who said that, "Rather I should die a thousand times, and see old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels.", is any different than someone owned slaves.
Interesting. I don't remember making those claims.
"I disagree that a man who said that, "Rather I should die a thousand times, and see old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels.", is any different than someone owned slaves."
Well I guess it could be morally equivalent though not strictly the same thing, but what's the point again? I agree that Robert Byrd has been all-in-all kind of a dirt bag but it does seem relevant that he has a strong record of support for civil rights, even though the electorate in his state is very white and apparently more racist than your typical state. The fact that individual people can change or at least be shamed into acting differently, even if they do so imperfectly, seems to be a good thing that gives us some reason to hope that we don't have to wait for the reactionaries to die off before we move forward politically.
Dende Blogger said:
The point is that racism rears its ugly head in a variety of different ways.
He had to support civil rights eventually, if he was to continue to run as a Democrat.
It's wonderful that they might "act" differently outwards, but will they vote differently?
I do hope, Dende Blogger, that we will move forward politically and ignore the minority of racists who still hold us back.
John Edwards has just endorsed Obama! :)
Post a comment