about racism and those conservative principles

The South does not want to deprive the Negro of a vote for the sake of depriving him of the vote. Political scientists assert that minorities do not vote as a unit. Women do not vote as a bloc, they contend; nor do Jews, or Catholics, or laborers, or nudists--nor do Negroes; nor will the enfranchised Negroes of the South.

If that is true, the South will not hinder the Negro from voting--why should it, if the Negro vote, like the women's, merely swells the volume, but does not affect the ratio, of the vote? In some parts of the South, the White community merely intends to prevail on any issue on which there is corporate disagreement between Negro and White. The White community will take whatever measures are necessary to make certain that it has its way.

What are the issues? Is school integration one? The NAACP and others insist that the Negroes as a unit want integrated schools. Others disagree, contending that most Negroes approve the social sepaation of the races. What if the NAACP is correct, and the matter comes to a vote in a community in which Negroes predominate? The Negroes would, according to democratic processes, win the election; but that is the kind of situation the White community will not permit. The White community will not count the marginal Negro vote. The man who didn't count it will be hauled up before a jury, he will plead not guilty, and the jury, upon deliberation, will find him not guilty. A federal judge, in a similar situation, might find the defendant guilty, a judgment which would affirm the law and conform with the relevant political abstractions, but whose consequences might be violent and anarchistic.

The central question that emerges--and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by meerely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal--is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes--the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced ace. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the median cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists. The question, as far as the White community is concerned, is whether the claims of civilization supersede those of universal suffrage.

...National Review believes that the South's premises are correct. If the majority wills what is socially atavistic, then to thwart the majority may be, though undemocratic, enlightened. It is more important for any community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority.

...The South confronts one grave moral challenge. It must not exploit the fact of Negro backwardness to preserve the Negro as a servile class. It is tempting and convenient to block the progress of a minority whose services, as menials, are economically useful. Let the South never permit itself to do this. So long as it is merely asserting the right to impose superior mores for whatever period it takes to effect a genuine cultural equality between the races, and so long as it does so by humane and charitable means, the South is in step with civilization, as is the Congress that permits it to function.

No.

the modern conservative movement very much has its roots -- both politically and ideologically -- in the "states' rights" camp of the segregation battle

The modern conservative movement has its roots after the 1860s?

Let's forget about the fact the anti-slavery movement was started by the Clapham sect in England, who were so right-wing extreme they tried to persecute enlightenment leaders as well.

Hence "modern." I'm talking about the Buckley strain of conservatism currently running the country. And this isn't ancient history, these people are still with us and they and their immediate heirs are still the intellectual leaders of conservatism. Just trying to keep things in perspective.

ranked by how much power they think they have
1. weekly standard
2. nro
3. focus on the family
4. southern partisan

ranked by how much power they have
1. focus on the family
2. southern partisan
3. nro
4. weekly standard

http://www.crystalinks.com/stigmatageorgio.jpg

There's a vision. Who'd he nominate to the court, anyway?

"And take those crazy-ass stripes off!"

So I just mean that "conservative principles" might sound attractive until you have to actually start listing them.

It's all about where I live.

That makes no sense.

The segregation states-rights issues are actually more vexed than we like to think, really. It was one thing to strike down Jim Crow, actual official laws and acts that denied people rights they'd been guaranteed by the federal government; no state has the right to do that. What got more touchy was the way that a lot of the inequalities of Jim Crow couldn't be corrected just by changing rules -- they involved taking active steps toward correcting a whole social infrastruction, which gave the south every chance to bitch and holler that it was basically being meddled with by an overbearing federal government. (Which it was, but, you know, tough.) Folks in the north would do the same thing, as soon as they were told that they had de facto segregation and were going to need to start, say, busing.

Yeah, which is why where you stand on "states' rights" is less telling than which exact rights you're trying to defend.

xpo

i certainly wouldn't say that. but i don't automatically agree with the majority of black folks in america on every issue, nor do i believe that the Democratic party should cater to all of the issue preferences of all of its constituencies (white northeastern liberals included).

also, my ramble above explains pretty well (to the extent it's coherent) why Northerners are "condescending" rather than "racist" respecting black people. aside from the deep-fried-chip-on-shoulder angle respecting Southerners writ large.

LBJ is a slightly more complicated matter. he held views and voted for bills that would strike us as being racist (and they probably were). on the other hand, his racism wasn't based on a belief in some sort of biological inferiority of non-whites -- he believed that a lot of what he considered negative traits and behaviors by blacks and latinos were based upon the environments in which they were raised and lived. the guy was a schoolteacher among poor mexican children before he became a politician (and by all accounts, LBJ was quite sincere in wanting his mexican students to learn). then you also have to separate LBJ's political mechinations from his actual views.

As for the black upper-middle-class and I think there's much more likelihood to find conservatism there, usually bred during whatever collegiate period led to that class status; for the regular middle class and and lower middle class, which is still particularly urban, they're pretty much in line with the white Democratic base.

And Ethan dincha watch the news after the last election? Apparently we don't vote based on economic principles! We vote based on "values!" You're actually like the reverse of Tom Frank -- he says heartland conservatives would benefit more from Democratic policy, you say economically-aspirant blacks would benefit more from conservative ones. (Though given the massive number of economically-aspirant blacks who are, like, employed by the government, I'm not sure small-gov thinking would appeal!)

It's not any color of voters, it's non-voters! For fuck's sake!

xpost gabbneb I don't think it's just about attention and respect; it's also about culture. Not culture in the sense of "values" so much as culture in the sense of "which of these guys is like me and my people and understands us."

yeah, i should have added the explicit reference to culture, but that's what I meant

um, bill clinton and al gore are BOTH southerners.

This whole "small-gov thinking" bit!! How has that been a conservative principle in the past quarter of a century? Can we have a reality-based debate or am I just missing some huge point? Is this thread about Republicans or who?

In a conservative dreamworld of actually getting these things done (and having them work), the half of government that offers social services would shrink to a weird enfeebled wisp that mostly just puts out press releases about stuff. (The power of the other half, though...) The agenda got a little rocked this time around, and the vibe shifted to government power bloating up, but don't imagine for a second that wasn't the original plan -- remember how Bush was going to be the "CEO president" who cut the fat and got everything running like an efficient machine?

They wouldn't and this was covered in a lot of detail on the other thread. When somebody says that a black small business owner shouldn't vote republican because it's not in his best interest -- that's not condescending to black people, it's condescending to Republicans. I say middle class and lower middle class white people are also voting against their own best interests when they vote Republican.

theres something unsettling about the left assuming that black people are always on welfare and poverty stricken so theyre fighting racism on that front and no others

on what other front should we be fighting racism that we are not? are you saying that Republicans are better than Democrats at ensuring that there is less discrimination in awarding business contracts, for instance?

Edwards didn't get the nom because voters chose him second on the basis of the paper - Kerry's age, military service, and political resume beat him hands-down. and when Edwards had a big opportunity to be a fighter, in his debate with Cheney, he didn't exactly distinguish himself compared to Kerry.

you could also use local governments to oppose federal drug or obscenity laws and allow an honorable right to die- its almost as if localized government is only as good or bad as you use it for!!

yes nabisco I watched the advertisements too, but the very existence of my nearly six-figure job on a project that has 95% turnover due to the fact that a couple miles to the west they are paying $30K more than my company's HR policies even ALLOW for the same positions on DHS bullshit, the no-bid contracts to KBR for anything involving a crane or a bulldozer, etc etc, huge giveaways to marathon et al. to go look for oil that's like really ultra deep in the ocean or some such shit, THE TRANSPORT BILL FFS

this is my problem with the whole fucking idea behind this thread! Yes, there are ostensibly a set of principles which political science professors and Publius fanboys like to banter about with regards to both parties. No, they don't have very much in common with what modern conservatives and liberals actually DO. Is it okay to admit this, and discuss things based on the actions of elected representatives, instead of pretending what they claim to stand for means something?

Tom you surely know the military is the one exception to the small-government program! And I already listed concrete small-gov actions of the current administration, back before they were distracted -- starting with signature massive assmungous tax cut! It's the Reagan-era start: "We have money! Taxpayers, have your money back! Whee!" Then, eight years later: "Look, folks, we need to do something about this deficit. We need discipline and tough choices. It's time to cut all those social programs you like."

Ha, Ethan, it's that George Lakoff mom-vs-dad thing: Dems are culturally permissive like yr mom (makes effort to support your homosexuality but doesn't like all the cursing), Repubs are all "just get a job and move out of my damn house."

The question is can "faith based" programs actually provide the services that we rely on federal social programs to provide. The answer is an obvious no and the ideology behind the shift from government programs to private charities has less to do with "faith" and more to do with finding a covert way to eliminate popular and successful social programs while pretending to offer an alternative.

Ethan I think there are faith-based organizations that would be more effective at providing certain small-scale services to their communities than the government would ever be, but that doesn't change the fact that using them means pooling our public money and giving them to not-very-accountable organizations that can (a) use our money to hire people based on restrictions about their religious faith, and (b) offer their services with religious restrictions or indoctrination attached. If churches want to be businesses and contract with the government to provide services, good for them, but they have to remain accountable to public standards.

Yeah, it drives me crazy personally. At first I thought it was a smart tactic for Democrats to try to tell Republicans that the current administration is not really conservative but the problem is that it implies that there is a gentler, better form of conservative out there that is worthy of our support. The Republicans didn't get where they are by saying that Clinton wasn't a good liberal and didn't truly stand for the principals of liberalism. They succeeded by demonizing the word liberal and taking the worst elements of Clinton along with gross caricatures of Democratic positions and making those the definition of liberal.

Yes.

Wes Clark is a robot, I find. I don't know what people see in him. Great on paper and in theory, but in reality, not a good campaigner, distant and creepy! Very creepy! And how would he govern with no experience? I thought the whole Clark craze was just dot-connecting, ie "people think Dems is weak on defense, I know, let's nominate a GENERAL! That'll solve everything!" Sure, just like nominating guys who served in the miltary helped change that perception vs dudes with five deferments etc.

Even if he had nothing to do with Iraq? Could be the selling piont, in fact.

I understand what you're saying Nabisco about public education, it burns me up, having gone to a fairly shit public high school b/c of no money at my end of the state, and hearing stories about kids from home who went off to decent colleges suddenly discovering they had to relearn basic writing skills and couldn't keep up in math and science courses. Meanwhile Montgomery County school system is wallowing in $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, magnet schools, AP classes, video production, tons of clubs and programs. It's not right.

That's simply not true.

A report comparing drug prices under Medicare's temporary prescription discount card with those charged by the Department of Veterans Affairs has reignited a debate over whether the Medicare prescription benefit that takes effect Jan. 1 favors big pharmaceutical companies.

Families USA, a Washington healthcare advocacy group that has repeatedly sparred with the government on issues related to the new drug benefit, said it found that 49 of 50 common prescription drugs could be obtained at lower prices from the VA department than through the discount card.

For example, it said the VA provides the cholesterol drug Lipitor for $498.84 a year, compared to $730.56 under the Medicare discount.

The drug discount card program, which expires in January, was a stopgap measure designed to provide price relief for seniors.

It began in 2004 after the federal government passed the Medicare Modernization Act, which contains the permanent drug benefit.

The Modernization Act was criticized by some because it prevents the government from negotiating bulk prices with manufacturers. Instead, each individual provider, such as health plans and pharmacy benefits companies, must negotiate separately.

WTF

The NEA is the largest union in America (maybe the world??) and votes 95% Democrat. The Dems never vote for school choice because they won't betray the NEA and its members and break up the public school monopoly. We've tripled spending for schools since 1960 (adjusted for inflation too) and they've just gotten worse. I see no evidence that the problem is funding and that throwing money at it fixes it. To say government schooling is a conservative dream right now is like saying the military is a liberal utopia.

Public schools are locally controlled, by locally elected boards, who can try and teach bizarre community-standards bullshit if they like

In the 1980s I remember reading that there are/were federal guidelines for how many cheerleaders teams should have. The personnel may change but the actual policies can be tied in red tape in Washington.

WTF? where? which Administration would actually have that in place?

hahaha. somebody else wanna take this one?

Of course. As it should, since it's a major client. But this bill is a huge influx of new public money into the system, specifically into paying for prescription drugs -- making the federal government one of the biggest, if not the biggest purchaser of drugs -- and the law explicitly prevents Medicare for negotiating discounts. Why? Because the drug industry wants the money, but it doesn't want to have to deal with a behemoth with that much purchasing power. Why? Because they think they can get paid more by forcing each plan to negotiate separately. I don't know if that'll work out to be true, but the point is that the drug industry rode shotgun on this bill and shaped it to their liking. That's nice for them, not so nice for taxpayers. And it also serves the conservative interest of curbing the power of the public sector.

dude, the military IS a liberal utopia

Another thing to consider is that "negotiating" in that environment is kind of a misnomer given that all drugs aren't created equal. How does one "negotiate" the price of Lipitor when there's only one Lipitor? My experience is that the negotiation in this environment is akin to negotiating with Wal-Mart: there is none. You set the price and tell your vendors that's what it is. As a vendor, you either take the business or you don't. But as I noted, you can achieve the same ends by simply apply pressure on the reimbursement side, which frequently forces the private insurers to pick up the slack.

You are absolutely right that the influx of public money into this scheme is ultimately a disaste. Very bad for taxpayers, and probably not that great for non taxpayers either.

My college roommate wrote this.

The gist (at least as it pertains to patents): big pharma "invents" new diseases that can be treated NOT with brand-new drugs they've developed but with existing drugs that are -- coincidentally -- nearing the end of their patent. Once cleared for treatment of a new! exciting! disease, however, that patent is re-upped and they can continue charging full-whack for drugs that SHOULD be generic. Repeat ad infinitum.

And it's not like the pharmaceutical companies are paying for all of that R&D themselves without any help from government-funded research.

Also, it's not only patent protection that allegedly drives up prices; For the biggest drug companies, marketing is a huge cost. The whole marketing environment is an absolute shitstorm for the drug companies right now, and it's going to get much, much worse. You can have an awesome pipeline but your products can fall flat without significant market penetration.

anyway, is there no truth to the idea that the price of healthcare would go down if the government became the national insurer? does gypsy just have the wrong end of the stick here, don?

True!

-- _ (...), October 10th, 2005. (later)

:-)

yes, that's entirely why people were pissed off about the suspension of the Davis-Bacon Act, tossing around the no-bid contracts to whatever friends they had, or trying to kill off all the environmental rules & monitoring. There can be no other possible reasoning.