I got a lot of notes about Pat Buchanan's rantings last night on MSNBC. I think the most revealing portion of his blathering is the that contention that no black people died at Vicksburg. My favorite comment on those mythical black soldiers who didn't die during the Vicksburg campaign comes from Southern diarist Kate Stone. She's reporting on the battle of Milliken's Bend:
It is hard to believe that Southern soldiers--and Texans at that--have been whipped by a mongrel crew of white and black Yankees. There must be some mistake.What a great line--There must be some mistake. It says so much about the racist mind. And about Buchananism. Seeing him say that, for me, just confirmed that I am on the right path with all of this reading.
You can read up more on Milliken's Bend here. The picture above is a monument to black soldiers that now sits in Vicksburg National Military Park.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Buchanan is sort of useful because you get the full array of racist (and antisemitic) tropes from him-- just in case your own list didn't happen to be complete. I wouldn't call his appearances a public service, exactly... but there really is a need to be aware of the various codes and dog whistles, and to note exactly who comes running when they hear the whistle.
Actually, I think Buchanan's utility might be that he doesn't really resort to codes - just lays it out there full throttle. I think he's a fascinating figure in American politics - he was there with Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan...and I guess to his credit as a nutcase was willing to throw away his GOP credentials and stump against his own guys when they started weaving crazy shit like "compassion" into the con (pun intended) message. He's a walking encyclopedia of American right-wing ideology and id. I think he's welcomed among some of the more liberal MSM as a contrarian because as a paleo-con he stumbles on the occasional perceptive critique of establishment ideology that has become bi-partisan, like globalization and interventionism, which most journalists have been too chickenshit to challenge - Also because he exudes an absolute enthusiasm for raw politics that makes for good "roundtable" bullshit.
I was about to say that I think it's unfair to lump Goldwater in there, on the same list with Buchanan, but then I realized that you merely said that he was "there with" those other conservatives, which is true. I agree that Buchanan is an interesting figure, and you are probably right about why his colleagues value him as a contrarian. I don't agree with that judgement, i.e. I think they could find a contrarian who wasn't so doggone WRONG about so much, but hey, it is interesting to watch, so it brings in the ratings. And his 'absolute enthusiasm for raw politics' is probably what just really clinches it for him with them. Seems like that Chris Matthews-style love for politics itself is almost a requirement for this game. I don't hate it as much as i once did; it has its place. But, I can't actually watch more than a couple minutes of it, either.
I have a soft spot for Goldwater based on his outspokenness on various "anti-religious right" issues later in his life, but he voted against the Civil Rights Bill on "Constitutional" grounds. I don't think the guy was racist but he was totally tone deaf and clueless...also more than a bit scary with the bellicose shit.
I was stunned at the blatant racism (and for that matter, sexism, since there have only been two women on the bench) of Buchanan's remarks last night. While I rarely agree with the guy, he's generally a bit more rational in his arguments. Words fail me.
Maybe all of the network execs will take a look/listen to his rant and realize it's time for him to retire.
and for that matter, sexism, since there have only been two women on the bench
I have not heard of any sexist things that he said (I have not seen the appearance in question but all of the things that have been reported have been race related.) But it looks like you are actually saying that because she is a woman that any critisism of her is automatically sexist. That sort of attitude is exactly what makes people like me just stop caring about your complaints at all.
But it looks like you are actually saying that because she is a woman that any critisism of her is automatically sexist.
I am not sure why it looks that way to you because it is not a reasonable interpretation of the words she actually wrote.
You might want to actually see or hear it before you criticize the analysis of someone who did see it. That sort of attitude is exactly what makes people like me stop caring about your comments at all.
I call bulls*t. You never cared at all. People like you with your "I'm taking my marbles and running off the moment anyone says anything I might find scary about men and privilege line were never allies for the causes you disparage without even listening to what's going on.
I'm almost afraid to watch that clip because I know how angry it will make me. That being said, I'm taking a kind of satisfaction watching people like Buchanan, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, and the other GOP clowns at the confirmation hearings becoming so unhinged. They're scared, honestly terrified that the country is changing and becoming more diverse. I'm not sure yet if they think they can stop the flood, or if they've realized that they have already lost. It's like they're having some kind of existential crisis.
And Coates, as someone who has a great interest in the history of the Civil War, I'm finding your recent musings and reading recommendations absolutely fascinating. Keep them coming.
Yeah, it's exactly this sense of loss that's so fascinating. There's so much faulty history underlying Buchanan's rhetoric (as TNC points out). Even as he was talking about how white men built this country my black history flash cards kicked in and I immediately began to think of how much of a lie is present in his understanding of the history of America. But to the bigot's mind, the lie is truth, and the dispelling of the lie brings about this sense of loss so explicitly displayed by Buchanan. Fascinating.
Crashman06 wrote:
I'm almost afraid to watch that clip because I know how angry it will make me.
Watch it. Uncle Pat's so over-the-top, you'll be laughing by the end. He's a farce and doesn't know it.
Buchanan was actually a pivotal person in Maddow's political awakening almost twenty years ago. Props to her for being smart enough to use him now to make her point. I don't know if she follows boxing, but she's got rope-a-dope down, um, Pat.
It's like they're having some kind of existential crisis.
Yes. Good. Couldn't happen to a better bunch of folks.
Just watched the clip. Yeah, sorry Pat. You are a sad, old tool. It ain't 1950 anymore, so go quietly into that good night, please.
They should stop worrying so much. 2040 is the current target date that demographic experts are predicting the country will no longer have a white majority. They will all be dead by then. Alone in their graves where they can't be bothered by anyone who isn't exactly like them.
They're raising children and grandchildren to continue the worry and the fuss. These fools won't win many more elections, but we've already seen that they lose sorely, with tea parties and birth certificate petitions and calls for Bin Laden to attack. They'll go on embarrassing me and the country right up to 2040 and long past. What a tiresome bunch of rocks to have to haul around with us while we're trying to do stuff worth doing.
Buchanan fails to enrage me any more. He's what I'd write if I were writing a cartoon parody of a racist windbag on TV. He doesn't enrage me any more than Fred Phelps' homophobia enrages me.
What got me was his unceasing insistence that racism was the correct policy for the GOP. All I can think in response is "Go, lemmings, go!" as they hurl themselves off the cliff into irrelevancy.
One only need to check the website for PB's "American Conservative" mag to know that Pat is still an old-line mid-19th century style "Nativist" - He would gladly have joined Bill the Butcher in helping to find, fight, maim, kill and disadvantage Irish immigrants to the Five Points in NYC.
Oh wait, sorry, Pat would have BEEN on Bill's nativist hitlist.
There seems to be a broader problem at work here in the idea that the media's job is to be inclusive, "fair and balanced", versus being context providers and fact checkers. The shows that have reporters with deep knowledge/understanding of issues doing the interviewing are so much better than these kind of free-for-all exchanges. How many times can a person report factual errors on a news network and still have a job? Not sure how to "police" this but perhaps organizing consumer boycotts of advertisers is one avenue.
dmf wrote:
There seems to be a broader problem at work here in the idea that the media's job is to be inclusive, "fair and balanced". . . .
Generally, I agree with that. But in this case, Maddow and her producers knew exactly what they were doing. She played him like a fiddle, and the only one who didn't realize it was Uncle Pat himself.
sure, I was trying to gesture towards the broader phenomena of folks like Buchanan being on news shows in the 1st place. I think that we have to swallow a lot of bitter/slanted interpretations of facts as part of a vibrant democracy but perpetrating lies seems beyond the pale. Also to TNC's point about his own growing knowledge (or Sorn's earlier insights into the workings of revivals) see how much better we are served by having public intellectuals/reporters who have done their homework. This is why I watch CSPAN's Newsmakers but don't watch shows like Hardball. Hope that's clearer.
Personally, I like the 'White men built this country' line better. It is perhaps the most awesomely ironic thing to say in the context of the debate. What an imbecile.
Breaker you disappoint. Where is your counter-intuitive take on Maddow and Uncle Pat? Where's the fire??? Where's the argument???? Do I need to start up another abortion thread??!!
Give me a second. I'll come up with something. I'm just back from vacation. It's going to take me a while.
"There must be some mistake"
That was Baron Harkonen's reaction when he heard a band of Fremen wiped out a a contingent of Sardaukar.
Nice reference. Took me a second, must re-read. (And/or get some coffee in me...)
You know, I'm really starting to dislike this Pat Buchanan character.
All that Buchanan is missing is a hood and a burning cross. Was Roger Taney Supreme Court material?
The track team metaphor was they key to that rant. Not only does it describe Buchanan's ideas about the proper role of race, it also explains why he's so exercised about Ricci. He actually sees a standardized test (which Ricci himself couldn't pass without spending hundreds of dollars) as analogous to atime trial in the 200.
Yeah, that was un-f*ing believable. And I think black hockey players should be outraged, too.
That's why, as brucds said above, Buchanan is often useful. He doesn't use dog whistles or codes, he just outs the subtexts of the other slightly savvier Republicans' comments about race, affirmative action, white-man privilege, etc. I mean, didn't you know that just as black men dominate track because they're naturally faster, white men dominate the Supreme Court because they're naturally smarter? Just as god intended!
I thought he was going into full Jimmy-the-Greek mode there for a second.
That's why the stakes of this nomination seem so much higher for Buchanan than the actual policy stakes are. Replacing Souter with a smart, prudent center-left justice isn't going to change many rulings. But it's going to put the lie to Buchanan's whole world view.
Buachanan's racism isn't just antipathy to the Other. It's an entire private world, a kind of delusional universe he shares with Sessions and others of their ilk. That's why he's so fact free. He doesn't build his world up from what he sees. He makes what he sees fit into his world. It's clinical. But since it's social rather than biochemical, pharmaceuticals don't dispel it.
He can't cope with Sotomayor's stellar record at Princeton and Yale because he just has no room for those things. They invalidate his world. There must be some mistake.
I have heard people say, and read a similar opinion on The Root, that it's good to have Buchanan saying all this mess out loud, in the MSM, because then we at least know where he/the conservative really truly stands. At least he's honest, goes the thinking.
But I don't know. I mean, I would honestly just like him to shut the fuck up! Do I know that there are people who feel this way? Yes. But I think that they're losing relevance with every passing day, and I feel like I would much rather just wait it out than have to actively listen to them.
On the other hand, I suppose the "better out than in" approach might apply here. Hearing it fires the likes of us up to keep fighting it, getting it out into the public discourse allows people who are waffling to see how insane it is and come over to the light, and hearing other white folks say "Damn I hate Pat Buchanan!" has got to be good for race relations, right...? idk.
I would be inclined to agree that it's good to have him out there in the open if people actually called him on his bullshit on the air. But for the most part, that never happens.
People call him on it, on air. Those people just happen to be comedians, since the journalists seem to be on vacation. Something to be said for that, though; his kind of nonsense really ought to be an object of mockery.
This particular incident just tipped me over the to the "he needs to be off TV" side. Putting him on air legitimizes his views ... why should he get a platform to spew this crap? I am disappointed in Rachel Maddow for continuing to treat him like a kind of wacky uncle. Her doing that actually made me feel like that about him for a while, and I think it can have a similar affect on other white people who are familiar with racist relatives, which is not good. PB is not a kindly, sadly mistaken uncle. He is an out and out bigot who longs for the days when the country was 90% white, and he truly believes that only white men built and defended this country. He needs to retire.
I certainly agree on the "Uncle Pat" front. If the racist asshole is really your uncle, ok, you deal with it. If he's not, please stop distracting from the poison of his ideology with cutesy nick-names! The dude's not cute -- he's a sick fuck!
Haven't read all of Kate Stone's diary, but bits and pieces from it. She wasn't as oblivious as the quote above suggests- the biggest impression I got from the excerpts I read was how terrified she was of black people, both during and immediately after the civil war, and perhaps not unreasonably so. There was a line to the effect of "what are they going to do to me given all that we have done to them?" It made me suspect that the root of a lot of the truly crazy racism of the time was not really contempt, but legitimate fear. The "happy slave" myth, as well as segregation, make a lot of sense in the context of scared plantation owners trying to make themselves and their families feel better in the face of fear that their slaves/ former slaves are going to come in at night and slit their throats.
Lee wrote:
There was a line to the effect of "what are they going to do to me given all that we have done to them?"
That line of thought, conscious or otherwise, underlies a lot of the right-wing crazies' rants right now.
It's a recurrent trope with totalitarian regimes -- ordinary citizens become so enmeshed with their leaders' brutality that they can only dig themselves in deeper.
As TNC noted the other day, Buchanan's continued employment says a lot more about his employers than it does for him. MSNBC wants a punching bag for Maddow; they won't let Olbermann near him most of the time because they'd both just lose it on each other. And Matthews, well, part of him likes the good ol' white boy system, and he pretty much sees Buchanan as entertaining.
It's an insult to my, and their other viewers intelligence. I remember watching Olbermann and being really happy that someone was finally just calling Bush out on everything he was doing. It's gone over the top now. Because Buchanan is not just a punching bag, he's also a symbol of what dumb liberals think conservatism is all about. Now, I'm no conservative, but I tend to think better of my counterparts than to see them as agreeing with Buchanan. In essence, it's pretty clear to anyone whose in touch with reality that the future of the GOP is a lot closer to Pawlenty or ever Paul than Buchanan.
I called Buchanan MSNBC's Alan Colmes the other day; I do standby that, but I'd add they are more than just tokens. Colmes was the embodiment of the weak-minded, skinny, geeky liberal that the dumb conservatives that watch Fox see most liberals as; conversely Buchanan is the blow-hard, old racist white guy who dumb liberals see as the embodiment of conservatism.
This is a long-winded version of me saying the obvious: Cable news doesn't elevate the dialogue.
One more point--I think there's another reason he's on MSNBC and not Fox; while Hannity's bad, he's more careful about what he says. I don't know if Fox could handle having someone quite as unabashedly racist on their network. Plus, they have to keep the ratio of 2 blonde women for every white man up.
Paul and Buchanan are pretty close...Paul's as racist as Pat and as prone to lay out his extreme views with no sugar-coating. As for Pawlenty, and such - those guys are arguably worse than Pat because they hem and haw when confronted with their party's "base" instincts. Won't confront that shit head on, because they've still got political ambitions within a shrinking, increasingly resentful shell of a political party. As long as Pawlenty is looking at the primaries and doesn't want to go the way of the nearly extinct northeaster GOPers, he's gonna suck up to the same crowd that hails Palin. At least Buchanan has already proven that he's more than happy to be a sort of Ralph Nader of the Right. He's totally about his own belief system, not party politics. He's actually inviting the GOP to become nothing more than nasty gadflys with his advice. But, aside from his isolationism and willingness to criticize Israel (which is the piece that overlaps with the Paul crowd), his extreme philosophy is largely shared by a large cohort of the GOP base that a Pawlenty has to suck up to .
The thing is though, you used to be able to win on playing to that base. I really doubt that's going to be true for much longer for a variety of reasons. They are going to need to shift their demographics to have a chance in the future.
Of course that is what they need to do. The question is whether they can successfully do so. Your original comment seems to rely on the assumption that the future will involve a viable Republican party that has somehow shaken off the racist rump of its base and the Pat Buchanan's of the world. Indeed, you argue that its delusional and "stupid" to think otherwise. But how exactly do you envision a party essentially jettisoning what amounts to, conservatively, 20-25 percent of its voting base and competing with a much wider Democratic coalition? More importantly, what evidence do you see that the party is seriously attempting to do so? Are they out there denouncing Limbaugh or Hannity or are they kissing their rings and pleading for their acceptance? When do you expect this transition to begin exactly?
Now, I'm no conservative, but I tend to think better of my counterparts than to see them as agreeing with Buchanan. In essence, it's pretty clear to anyone whose in touch with reality that the future of the GOP is a lot closer to Pawlenty or ever Paul than Buchanan.
I think I am in pretty close touch with reality and what I see is a party that is still very much torn by the contradiction between the Southern Strategy that has defined it for several decades and its need to change as the country becomes more demographically diverse. Setting aside whether Pawlenty or Paul represent some sort of significant break from this tradition, you seem to be saying that the resolution of this in favor of a party that survives with a less race resentment based approach is some sort of a foregone conclusion. Perhaps you are correct and I am simply delusional but I don't see much real evidence of anything of the sort. In fact, I see quite a lot of evidence to the contrary and in that context, the argument that Pat Buchanan is some sort of caricature or outsider in modern conservative thought, is highly unpersuasive to me.
Again, look at the demographics.
There's a entire generation of voters who, if you believe the theory that your politics are decided by your 18th birthday, came of age under 8 years of Bush and are currently experiencing the farce that is the GOP today. The country is also becoming a lot more Hispanic, a demographic which Obama won 66-30ish. Having Buchanan et al out front for the GOP would only widen that margin.
Look at Palin's favorability; not popularity, not media coverage, but favorability. If may be true that 70% of the GOP currently would vote for her as President; however, only something like 21% of people are identifying themselves as members of the GOP. That is not sustainable.
Subtle and explicit racism got the GOP out of a bind before, but it won't happen again. There's no Civil Rights movement this time. There's no Vietnam War protesters. White people, let alone racist white people, as a demographic are shrinking.
Many people credited Obama's handling of the economic crisis for his surge at the end of the campaign. However, all those Palin-McCain rally tapes probably weren't helping either. When Obama's playing ball in Georgia, when he's winning North Carolina, the same rules no longer apply.
Yes Dan. I am aware of the demographics and of the dynamics brought to the fore in the last election, but you are still confusing what the Republican party should do, with what it is doing and will be doing. Saying that a viable Republican party will need to free itself from Buchanan's sort of thinking is not an argument that it has done so or will be able to successfully do so.
Listen, I went to Pat Buchanan's high school. And at the time I went there it was undergoing its own demographic transition. A school that had, for decades, been a small enclave for Irish catholic republicans was, in the early 80s, becoming much more diverse ethnically and politically. But that Irish Catholic Republican clique was still very much a part of the school's identity and it was very much in the tradition of Pat Buchanan's ideology. In fact, I went to school with William Buchanan, his nephew.
I bring it up because those same cats I went to school with are out there in the world now. Some are running campaigns and holding government policy positions but most of all, they are solid voting Republicans and none of them would disagree with Pat Buchanan on too many things. The idea that Buchanan is some sort of irrelevant anomaly now just doesn't hold water with me and I don't think that is because I am a "stupid liberal."
Brent--I'm not going to take this too much further because we're probably going to get a threadjack warning. You are putting words in my mouth, misinterpreting what I'm saying, or maybe I wasn't clear. I hope it's not the last one.
First, I never said that the Republican party IS doing what they SHOULD be doing. And it WON'T be doing much of anything other than rabble-rousing if they keep this stuff up; nor do I think it's a good thing to assume what they will do. Secondly, if you really believe that conservatives are mostly in line with Buchanan, then fine, you're a stupid liberal. I tend to see conservatives a lot more in line with our own DaveinHackensack or even a conservative Dem like Heath Shuler. Remember, there are a lot of people who identify as conservatives, but not as Republicans.
Saying Buchanan isn't the voice or the center of the party doesn't make him completely irrelevant, and I never said as much. Obviously, there's still racist nationalists, and certainly they are buying books and Fox News. But again, the number is decreasing.
You are putting words in my mouth, misinterpreting what I'm saying, or maybe I wasn't clear.
Well, I interpret you as saying that Pat Buchanan doesn't really represent conservatism. That having him on MSNBC is really just more of a sop to liberals who can see thus see conservatism as a punching bag rather than as a viable and legitimate ideological framework. What I am saying is that I don't think that is correct.
That debate, what conservatism is and will be and its relationship to the GOP, is occurring right now. Not Pat so much, but the constituency/ideological framework he represents is a very important part of that discussion and it is way too early to know how it will end.
The support for the kind of white racial resentment and a particularly virulent disdain for Affirmative Action and immigrants goes well beyond the fringe of racist nationalism into some very powerful coalitions within the Republican party. You write that "there are a lot of people who identify as conservatives, but not as Republicans" but that cuts both ways. There are a lot of conservatives who don't identify with the GOP because they feel it is too liberal for not standing more unambiguously with "patriots" like Buchanan.
You are correct that the demographic realities make the political environment less and less viable for this sort of ideology to continue but I don't agree that that makes Pat any less a real conservative than any of the other people you name. On the contrary the evidence is that there is a crucial electoral block of self-identified conservatives who consider him more a real conservative than say Charlie Crist.
In the end, perhaps we are really just disagreeing about semantics but its important for me to emphasize that, even if one disagrees, there is nothing at all "stupid" about thinking that Pat Buchanan represents a very important voice in modern conservatism.
There must be some mistake.
The refrain of the defeated racist.
An all black starting 5 from Texas Western beats an all white Kentucky team in the 1965 NCAA Championship. "There must be some mistake." Black people lack the discipline to compete with white players on the basketball court. There is no way that a team of "negroes" can best a team of superior white players.
Jack Johnson knocks out a bunch of white men and becomes heavyweight champion of the world. "There must be some mistake." Black people are inferior. There is no way that a black man could best a superior white man in the ring.
Sonia Sotomayor graduates at the top of her class in high school, at Princeton, and at Yale Law School. She then goes on to a distinguished career on the bench, accumulating a level of experience superior to the white men currently on the Court. "There must be some mistake." It's not possible for anyone except a white man to graduate at the top of their class at an Ivy League institution and have it signify intelligence or accomplishment. Anyone non-white and female is surely a beneficiary of affirmative action set-asides. And they hand out academic honors like candy at those schools. If you're not white, you don't have to actually do the work. They couldn't possibly be qualified for anything.
Barack Obama graduates from Columbia and Harvard Law School, is editor of the Harvard Law Review, rises through Illinois politics to become a U.S. Sentator, and eventually President of the United States. "There must be some mistake." Well, he's been a good President so far, maybe he'll even be a great one, but his mother is white, you know. He's not really black.
And so on, and so forth. It must bring a tear to Buchanan's eyes when the monuments of white supremacy come tumbling down in such an emphatic fashion. His time has passed.
Tell it.
Agreed.
Unfortunately, species in the process of extinction seldom realize they are dying off.
Well said.
See, I think he DOES realize it. That's why he's so strident, so shrill, and so scared. But agreed, well said.
Say word.
Exactly. EXACTLY.
One of the things that struck me most about that clip was the litany that Pat embarked on near the beginning of his time, naming the victims of reverse discrimination (I'll use his terms here, not mine) as if they were actual martyrs. And that, to me, revealed a key underpinning of his method of thinking–that he equates reverse discrimination as an failure equal to the original sin, and he allows himself to believe this by rationalizing to himself that he is not supporting a status quo, a what used to be, but a platonic ideal of fairness, absolute merit, and excellence.
Holding that ideal sacrosanct, he can wail against the considerations of race and not self-identify as a bigot. One would like to ask him, by the same token, how he feels about people who got into college on legacy as opposed to affirmative action, and if everything else they subsequently do in life should also be thrown aside as fruit from a poisoned tree.
Rachel was right, Pat did date himself. And it's sad that somebody who professes to care about this country can be so shuttered to the fuller story of its history. This was certainly not a country built entirely by and for white males of European descent, and though blood never equals blood, the injustices suffered by Ricci and the rest of Pat's roll call are incomparable to those affirmative action was designed, however imperfectly, to address.
Seems like Zell Miller made a "funny" that Pat would enjoy.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0709/Gorilla_Glue_might_keep_Obama_at_desk_Zell_says.html
"I wish I was in the land of cotton........"
Wow. I'm starting to wonder how good a shot Chris Matthews is now.
Any response on the substance of the claim "White men built this nation?" I've got a hunch about the labor on the Capitol, the White House, and the University of Virginia, but I don't know how to back it up.
I know UVA, the entity, actually owned slaves.
We are in the midst of a sea change that is every bit as big as the Reagan Revolution. Maybe bigger, but that's hard to say. If those on the right such as Pat Buchanan, Jeff Sesions and James Inhofe act as though they are faced with an existential threat, that's because they are.
They might even agree that there is a threat, but not what the danger is. This is not a danger for America, just for them. They will become irrelevant soon.
They have been pushing back at this growing trend for quite some time, some time ago, I read where I think Grover Norquist said that Republicans played for keeps, while Democrats only played for lunch. This is the behavior of someone faced with an existential threat. They've talked themselves into the notion that (affirmative action, abortion, gay marriage, pick one) is going to destroy America. It isn't, but it's going to destroy them. Why?
Well, some people would literally rather die than change. Often they consider that virtue.
The obvious question for Buchanan here is, "Is any Latina qualified for the Supreme Court?" It's not controversial to say that Sotomayor is the most qualified Latina in the country (going by modern standards of judicial experience, law school pedigree, etc) for this gig. Does that mean that nominating any Latina is an unallowable affirmative action move that should be used to racebait conservative whites?
As far as Estrada goes, he had zero judicial experience... Sotomayor was and is far more qualified to sit on the Appeals and Supreme Courts. Estrada, by any measure, is much more of an "affirmative action candidate" than Sotomayor if we're going to indulge Buchanon's stupidity.
Wow. He sort of trotted out every possible racist trope he could. "White men built this nation", blacks are better at athletics and such, and implicitly not as smart as whites, and even meandered into the absurd contention that "middle class workers" were best represented as *white* middle class workers because apparently no woman or non white person could ever have failed to experience a working class reality.
Does anyone imagine that Buchanan yucks it up over brewskies with factory workers who all happen to be white men because they're somehow more racially suited to the task than anyone else? The moron wants to appeal to the "white middle class" as the best political strategy for the GOP. But the middle class is vanishing faster than the white majority.
We all get that he's a racist, but his call to race based class warfare is what really interests me about the man. He's part of a political structure that's about the most poisonous thing a middle class person could want. Wages have been flat for the past 8 to 10 years for the middle class, and his answer is "more capitalism!" But you can't un-see the elephant of how unrestrained capitalism gut-punched the world economy by hyper inflating worthless paper as if it was high value. The tea party conservatives Buchanan sees as the future of the conservative movement are a mob wandering around not even sure what they're angry about.
What has to be understood as the historical context of the Republican party is that their embrace of "conservatism" is simply a flag of convenience that they fly in order to manipulate an electorate. The Republicans party is no more or less than the propaganda arm of the robber baron class. They simply do not have any connection to conservative principles except as it enables them to maintain legislative dominance.
The implementation of the Republican "Southern Strategy" of the early 70's (referenced by Brent) was an entirely cynical act designed to capitalize on the fairly virulent racism of the times. Economic elites in the north knew that because of Viet Nam, Watergate, and everything else happening in that era, there was no possible appeal to THEIR beliefs that might hold any sway with even a trivial percentage of voters. But racism?, now there's a belief with legs. By cobbling together a patchwork of miscellaneous (and sometimes contradictory) beliefs and mortaring them together with racism, the Republikaaners have held political dominance for a generation.
The voters who allowed them to fullfill their southern strategy were "yellow dog Democrats" in every election since Roosevelt. They did not then and do not now share "values" with the architects of present day Republicanism. However what they were NOT willing to do was passively stand by and allow Blacks an equal place in society. By cloaking THAT sentiment with the label of "conservatism" the Buchannons of the world found the winning formula employed by virtually EVERY Republikaaner candidate since.
From Reagan's "welfare queens" to "Willie Horton", with a side trip to Bernie Epton's (Harold Washington's opponent) "before it's too late", right up to your pick of Buchannon's fulminations, the conservative label in Republican hands, has been coded racism for a generation. His (and their) act is simply the convulsions of the dying. Requiescat in pace, ....soon, please?
Nicely put.
I don't know if shocking's the right word, but it's sort of amazing that Buchanan has gotten away with this stuff for so long. Hell, here's the text of an ad he had when he ran for President in 2000:
I mean, I could see if he had guest spots on Lou Dobbs or something. I guess there's some strategy in a left-leaning news network featuring one of the most odious rightwing personalities... he's got a Midas touch for turning any policy he supports into an anachronism.
My wingnut niece posted a quote from Lincoln, circa 1864, which goes as follows:
"We all declare for liberty;but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor."
Given her politics, I suspected this was not intended as a history lesson, but some sort of analogy comparing slavery (to which Abe was clearly referring) to some current issue that gives wingers the liberty vapors (take your pick, from the presence of Obama on down to any issue he has taken up), which is of course not just a false analogy, but a brutally ingnorant one as well. I also suspected that she didn't dig up this nugget of a rhetorical device on her own, given her devotion to the heroes of right-wing punditry, and voila...a quick Google search of the quote revealed that it is being bantied about by the Levins and Hannitys of the planet as yet another misappropriation of terms in their fight against "tyranny" and "socialism" and all other nefarious titles that once had meaning and resonance until said wordsmiths started barking them out with the frequency of a dog being teased through a fence.
I bring this up since the Civil War and revisionist Confederates have been a frequent topic on TNC's blog of late, and found it to be another disappointing example of this, made all the more disappointing when it comes from a family member.
Your 21st century GOP: Now with more angry white people!
P.S. Did I mention the billboard I drove by the other day which proclaimed "Martin Luther King was Republican"?
200,000 black soldiers served in the Union army and navy. 65,000 served in the Confederate army. The Union troops fought in every single campaign in 1864-5, including the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor and the Petersburg Crater.
Buchanan is a putz.
There were also blacks at Normandy - at least a battalion of them.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/06/05/2009-06-05_allblack_battalion_that_landed_in_normandy_france_on_dday_to_be_honored_on_anniv.html