The Candidates
Featured Archives
I never cease to be amazed at the sheer stupidity of so many fellow republicans, especially those that hold or have held office after campaigns based on conservative principles, that lack the courage of their convictions to aggressively advocate their beliefs to the unconvinced.
The disgraceful refusal of the top tier in polls of our would be champions for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination to attend a debate targeting minority issues is a case in point.
Given our party’s undeserved low vote percentages from Blacks, and the supposed difficulty of getting our message to break thru the MSM lib-dem din, one would think that when the msm offers TV air time, specifically to let us get our message to Blacks, that we would leap at the opportunity to speak to a captive audience.
Not Giuliani, Thompson, Romney and McCain.
Three of the four leading Republican presidential candidates turned down invitations to a PBS debate this month at a historically black college in Baltimore, leading moderator Tavis Smiley on Thursday to accuse them of ignoring minority voters.
But at least some of our guys will show up:
The four leading contenders, Rudolph W. Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson, have each said they will not participate in the forum focusing on issues facing minority voters. Their absence has drawn the ire of Tavis Smiley, the talk-show host who is moderating and organizing the debate at Morgan State University; he said the candidates are making a mistake in not reaching out to black voters.
A list of confirmed participants released yesterday also omits Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, a staunch opponent of current immigration policy. Confirmed are Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Alan L. Keyes of Maryland, Rep. Duncan Hunter of California and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, organizers said./blockquote>
I join President Bush, Newt Gingrich, and other prominent republicans in strongly urging the no-shows to attend and take on PC liberal condescension the democrats showed when they appeared at a similar forum weeks ago.
If for no other reason, they should show up just to promise they won’t do a “Joe Biden” tour of black neighborhoods purporting to teach them that wearing a condom is not manly!
And while they are there, they might even consider treating blacks as equals and advocate policies that treat them as equals and ask them how long they are going to sit silently as white liberal democrats treat them like children.
I have rightly lambasted the dems for refusing to debate on Fox News Channel as evidence they fear Brit Hume.
Do we fear Tavis Smiley?
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008
http://www.win-the-war.com/
September 23rd, 2007 at 5:17 pm
I agree.
September 23rd, 2007 at 5:22 pm
I don’t thinkm there should be any debates that cater to one group.
The top candiadtes are being consistent.
They didn’t show up at the univision debate, the gay debate, the NAACP, the black debate, etc…
Should we have a white issues debate, a jewish issues debate, a catholic issues debate, an asian debate, etc…
I’m against these specialized debates
That said, the top GOP candidates are clearly ducking it becuae they know the moderators will be out to get them and they have plenty of things to be gotten on.
I doubt Rudy wants to be pounded for 90 minutes over Amadou Diallo and Abner Louima
I doubt Mitt wants to hear about the racism of the Mormon Church
I don’t know what McCain’s deal is but he probably has something
As for Fred, qithout the other guys, he wasn’t going to show up anyway
September 23rd, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Well, to me, “Minority issues” sounds a lot like people who are going to be looking for entitlements, affirmative action, and “woe-be-the-blacks” – all of which run contrary to Republican principles. Now, we have had the same message for a while, and, if we haven’t convinced blacks by now, I don’t think we are going to do so in one debate. And, as much as I like the idea of presenting ourselves to the public, showing up to a debate with the options of telling people the last thing they want to hear, or lying, is not appealing.
September 23rd, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Although like I stated above, I agree that it’s not wise to skip this debate, I can see jim’s point. It does go both ways. Sharpton and co. will all be there, waiting for the opportunity to bash whatever they say. I don’t see a lot of plusses in going, but at the same time, they should make the effort.
September 23rd, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Jim, I think we should show up precisely to make the point that thier are no minority issues. There are only american issues and that conservative policies produce the best results.
We need to persuade those that don’t agree with us.
September 23rd, 2007 at 5:28 pm
ACT, no matter how many debates it takes, it starts with the first.
September 23rd, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Labeling them as different types of voters only reinforces the charges of racism.
September 23rd, 2007 at 5:35 pm
“Jim, I think we should show up precisely to make the point that thier are no minority issues. There are only american issues and that conservative policies produce the best results.”
While true, I don’t think it is a good idea to show up to a debate that will do nothing but alienate many Blacks further, and draw negative reviews.
September 23rd, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Leave it to the southerners to think they should participate.
September 23rd, 2007 at 5:39 pm
“ACT, no matter how many debates it takes, it starts with the first.”
I don’t think it starts with debates – I think it starts with change within the Black community. Until the African American community stops being beholden to, and blind followers of, people like the Revs. Sharpton and Jackson, I don’t think there is much we can do.
I also think you have to consider the options:
1) Attend a Debate that is likely to receive low viewership, and is designed for people you are not likely to convince, most of whom are not even in your party.
2) Spend the day campaigning in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, or Michigan – states that will be critical to deciding the nomination.
September 23rd, 2007 at 5:45 pm
I think that there is enough pandering within politics already. Debates hosted by special interest groups really show this problem.
Can’t we all just be Americans?
September 23rd, 2007 at 5:52 pm
#8ACT, Blacks can’t be more alienated. And I don’t concede that we can’t win over some of the aleinated that watch the debate if we confidently, unapologetically and aggresively sell the Reagan message. We can point to record black homeownership under Bush, judges that will restore the right of their children to celebrate Christmas at school, and decry the Biden like white man’s burden crap.
September 23rd, 2007 at 5:53 pm
cwpete,
I agree with you. However, how can we call a person’s color a special interest group? Even if it is a special interest group sponsoring it, not showing up when the middle tier guys do is not the way to handle it.
September 23rd, 2007 at 5:53 pm
#11 Attending is not pandering. Pandering is pandering, and that depends on what comes out of one’s mouth.
September 23rd, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Tommy, its we that know blacks personally and know they can be won over.
September 23rd, 2007 at 6:03 pm
They are not going because this is the last month of the 3rd quarter and they are busy raising money.
Plus these debates are turning into traps for some candidates. The last one on fox news was clearly unfair. Some candidates only get softball questions while others have to deal with disgruntled fathers on national tv. The moderators have complete control; The candidates can’t talk to each other; Ron Paul and his anti war crap always gets a disproportionate amount of attention. Oh, and did Duncan Hunter mention that he built the fence and it’s not the one they show on CNN? The only debate worth watching was the first one. Every other seemed like a replay.
September 23rd, 2007 at 6:06 pm
#16 The fair comes in October, and the President has to deal with the real unfair world everyday.
September 23rd, 2007 at 6:11 pm
hmm then there is another debate next week that they are also skipping. Newt was saying they should go but I doubt they will. And republicans will have no chance with blacks next year. With Hillary they’ll have a chance to get the first black first lady.
September 23rd, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Tommy & Gamecock:
I don’t necessarily consider minorities special interest groups. Activists regardless ethnicity, skin pigmentation or lack thereof, I would consider special interests.
I agree with #15, It will take generations to win over blacks, assuming that it can be done.
September 23rd, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Argamenon,
You’re right. But the difference having 10% of the black vote and 15% of the black vote could decide the election in close states. By shunning black voters, they are reinforcing the stereotype that the GOP is the party for racists.
September 23rd, 2007 at 6:29 pm
What could be covered in a “black debate†that couldn’t be covered in any other debate?
September 23rd, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Tommy, if we get 15%, we win the presidency and congress, and if we break 20%, the Dem Party whigs out.
We could do it if we shed our fear of being called racist. We get called it anyway, so why not speak truth to power!
September 23rd, 2007 at 6:32 pm
#21 We would get to refute the assumptions in their questions and make the case for color blind government.
September 23rd, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Tommy,
You make a good point in #20. I for one am very concerned about traps as mentioned earlier by Argamenon. I hate to completely write off any group, but chances are these debates are so rigged that any Republican candidate participating would lose the 10% black vote (and more white vote) that they already have. Perhaps if there was some assurance of fairness to some of these debates then I can see going along with them. Take for example the gay issue, the gay debates did not offer any time to the other side. It was all one-sided therefore I’m concluding any participant going along with it was just pandering.
I’ll be the first to admit that things are not perfect and that racism exists in may quarters, but I also think that things have never been better for certain minority groups. If that last statement is true, I can’t fathom how some of these groups are so polarized. It appears that many have been manipulated and exploited by demagogues.
September 23rd, 2007 at 6:33 pm
full agreement with you, gamecock!
September 23rd, 2007 at 6:35 pm
My view is that in order for Republicans to win the black vote they need to enlist for example top black motivational speakers like Les Brown and Willie Jolley who are living, flesh and blood examples of the success of Republican ideals and principles.
September 23rd, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Still no one in here giving any credit to Mike Huckabee. He participated in the Values Voter Debate that the top tiers missed and he won hands down. And for you people to dissmiss that debate must forget that it was the evangelicals who reelected George Bush in 2004, and Huckabee shined in the debate. And Mike Huckabee is showing up for this black debate, although i’m sure it will be close between he and Alan Keyes, i’m sure he will still do well and get even more good publicity, we all keep ignoring Huckabee, but he will just keep climbing in momemtum the more opportunity’s like these arise, Kudos to Mike Huckabee, a truly good man…
September 23rd, 2007 at 6:36 pm
They have been manipulated. That’s why even a little effort would go a little ways further than we are now. Going into “Sharpton’s house” and showing that our candidates aren’t going to be to scarred to stand up to him for fear of being called racist anymore would win some points, in my view.
September 23rd, 2007 at 6:38 pm
agree Bryan. Well, except for the part that it would be close between Keyes and Huck…
September 23rd, 2007 at 6:42 pm
#27 Bryan, I do give great credit to Huck and the rest. Moreover, I want to mention, for those that don’t know, I was a dem party activist, incl delegate and SC party official, for 20 years until my conversion in 2000. I was even a delegate for Jesse in 1984! Ironically, I nearly converted even earlier in 1999 to back Keyes! (I think we could convince himto make that tax cut reparation color blind!)
Honestly, I am so upset by the top 4 (As of last week I was leaning to Fred after a year leaning to Mitt, and sometimes lean to Rudy late at night) that I won’t rule out backing one of the guys that show up. I have always said that I think Hunter is the best anyway.
September 23rd, 2007 at 6:44 pm
-5- Gamecock -5-
Right on.
September 23rd, 2007 at 6:47 pm
One other reason not to go into Sharpton’s House is that by doing so, Sharpton is legitimized to a large extent. This has similar effect to paying ransom money.
I’m all for taking these guys on when the playing field is level and fair. Going into Sharpton’s House for such a thing would be something like a sheep going to the slaughter.
Perhaps there is some truth to some being afraid to taking these guys on at their debates. If there is, it is because the deck is stacked way against them.
We need more JC Watts, for Cosby types. Someone needs to tell them the things they don’t want to hear. It won’t come from a demagogue like Sharpton or Jackson, this sort of thing has to come from one of their own.
September 23rd, 2007 at 6:49 pm
“I have always said that I think Hunter is the best anyway.”
I can almost second that statement. I do like Hunter very much.
September 23rd, 2007 at 6:51 pm
“… I think we should show up precisely to make the point that thier are no minority issues.”
Well, this is the conundrum.
Republicans really are tone-deaf to the concerns of a significant consituency.
One could attribute it to racism – the view that blacks are not worthy of being recognized equally – i.e. to have their concerns taken seriously, or perhaps there is a different reason.
In any case, the disinclination of GOP candidates to face a black group is probably totally rational, rather than being simply fear-based. An honest explanation of GOP ideology really wont be convincing to any more blacks than the small percentage who are in your camp already.
The GOP will find more traction in the black community the day that y’all take black people, and their concerns, seriously. Just like with any other group. And clearly, very few in your party are prepared to do that.
September 23rd, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Tano,
For sure racism exists and where it does exist, it is the difference. I don’t think Republicans by and large, are racists. If they were, I would not be one. Of course, this all depends on how the word racism is defined. The term racism has morphed into disagreement over things like quotas and reparations in some circles. He who controls the meaning of the words usually wins the debate.
Republicans as I see them, treat blacks the same as whites. Many of us, myself included, do not distinguish a person if the person happens to be of color. Since a few still do, the whole bushel gets labeled which is patently unfair to the rest.
September 23rd, 2007 at 7:06 pm
One of the main reasons I left the Dem party was that so many of its members were increasingly becoming what they purported to hate. Many libs started to act much like racists I knew in the 70s, albeit without the N word. They look on blacks as diasabled children that they have to take care of.
made me sick
September 23rd, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Gamecock: ‘Tommy, if we get 15%, we win the presidency and congress, and if we break 20%, the Dem Party whigs out.’
What is it you’re on? Did you know that Republican Congressional candidates got 20% of the black vote? If the Democrats have whigged out, I have missed it.
Maybe you’re talking about the presidential race. But blacks only make up about 10% of the entire country. Getting 15% of the black vote would mean a net 1% loss for the Democrats, which is not enough to ensure defeat.
September 23rd, 2007 at 7:08 pm
cwpete: ‘For sure racism exists and where it does exist, it is the difference. I don’t think Republicans by and large, are racists.’
They’re definitely not racist in Colorado, but what about a state like Alabama? Did you know that 40% of the voters of Alabama voted against repealing a constitutional ban on interracial marriage? Now I don’t have the exit poll data, but I suspect that those 40% generally aren’t members of the affirmative action-promoting and predominantly black Democratic Party of Alabama.
September 23rd, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Awakened,
In a closely contested race like Florida or Ohio, 1-3% could decide a hell of a lot of electoral votes.
September 23rd, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Tommy Oliver: ‘In a closely contested race like Florida or Ohio, 1-3% could decide a hell of a lot of electoral votes.’
Sure, I didn’t deny that. But the notion that getting 15% of the black vote would ensure that the Republicans win the presidency and the Congress is absolute nonsense. It does help, though.
September 23rd, 2007 at 7:15 pm
#37
A chair on Planet Earth.
A 15% take in the presidential race would be accompanied by a proportional increase down the ticket.
September 23rd, 2007 at 7:16 pm
#38 Most of those voting against were black women.
September 23rd, 2007 at 7:16 pm
I agree they should all show up.
Even though the questioning they should expect would be mostly accusatory.
I disagree that it would make an iota of difference in the GOP’s attempt to get minority votes.
September 23rd, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Gamecock: ‘A 15% take in the presidential race would be accompanied by a proportional increase down the ticket.’
Not necessarily. If we assume that in a particular district, 90% of blacks voted for John Kerry and 80% voted for the Democratic Congressional candidate, it would be far more likely that any black voters who would join the ranks of the next Republican nominee, would be among those most receptive to Republicans – the 20% that is already voting for Republican Congressional candidates. It would be unreasonable to assume that the only newly Republican black voters ones who would vote for the Republican nominee would have been straight-ticket Democrats, instead of people who split their tickets.
‘Most of those voting against were black women.’
Either this is one of your ‘jokes’, or you just made this up. Black female voters in Alabama make up only 17% of the population. Even if we assume that 100% voted aganst allowing interracial marriage (an unreasonable assumption), that would still mean that MOST of those voting against weren’t black women.
September 23rd, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Awakened:
“They’re definitely not racist in Colorado, but what about a state like Alabama? Did you know that 40% of the voters of Alabama voted against repealing a constitutional ban on interracial marriage? Now I don’t have the exit poll data, but I suspect that those 40% generally aren’t members of the affirmative action-promoting and predominantly black Democratic Party of Alabama.”
Agreed, I’ve stated in #24 “I’ll be the first to admit that things are not perfect and that racism exists in may quarters,” and also in #35 that “I don’t think Republicans by and large, are racists.”
I lament that because of a few real or perceived situations, the baby gets tossed out with the bathwater.
September 23rd, 2007 at 7:32 pm
“‘Most of those voting against were black women.’”
I’d really like to see crosstabs or exit polling data on that one. I think some blacks can be against marrying out of their race just as much as some whites can.
September 23rd, 2007 at 7:36 pm
#44 The highest % of any racial demographic group.
#38 re colorado
not necessarily
September 23rd, 2007 at 7:40 pm
No offense, but this is one of the dumbest threads Race42008 has ever had. This isn’t the general, this is the primary. Our candidates are trying to win the nomination, and in order to do that they need to convince people who can vote for them to vote for them. Democrats can’t vote for them. Do duck hunters go hunting where there aren’t any ducks? Why fish in a pond where it is well known that there aren’t any fish? The time to reach out to Democrats is during the general, when they CAN vote for you, or in nonelection years when nothing else is going on.
September 23rd, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Huck recieved 48% of the african american vote in his reelection bid for Gov in the state of arkansas…name another republican that has done that…
September 23rd, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Hey Dave, how about naming two of the dumbest other threads and I’ll do a thread that will let R4′08 vote on which is the dumbest. I’m not content to be just one of the dumbest.
September 23rd, 2007 at 7:52 pm
cwpete: ‘I lament that because of a few real or perceived situations, the baby gets tossed out with the bathwater.’
That is true. I firmly believe that in at least 40 out of 50 states, the Republican Party leadership and members don’t have a racist bone in their body. However, in the South, the situation is truly deplorable. MS-Gov. and former RNC Chairman Haley Barbour has ties to Council of Conservative Citizens, a racist organisation. It’s nice to see that politicians are still using racism to win in the South, as they have done since the Civil War.
‘I’d really like to see crosstabs or exit polling data on that one. I think some blacks can be against marrying out of their race just as much as some whites can.’
Certainly. But these measures are anti-black in origin. After all, anyone with even one drop of black blood would be considered ‘black’ by racist whites. If they were to allow interracial marriage, the ‘black’ population would increase greatly. That’s why I found it so hard to believe Gamecock’s claim.
September 23rd, 2007 at 7:52 pm
The candidates should go even though there is no upside to going. Every Republican candidate knows that attenting the NAACP event will not get one more black to vote for any Republican candidate. They know that the risk of a stupid remark is huge, that pandering to blacks will be seen by white Republicans is huge, and that the black hosts will play the race card and the victim card to the maximum.
The absolute best any Democratic candidate can hope for is to not embarass themselves. That is what they have to achieve if they want to be President.
September 23rd, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Gamecock: ‘#44 The highest % of any racial demographic group.’
Now, you’re from South Carolina (which repealed its interracial marriage ban by 62-38), so please do tell me where you got this from. It sounds like an attempt to say: see. they’re racist too (by whoever told you this).
‘re colorado
not necessarily’
Definitely. If you venture outside the South, you’ll see that racism is not very prevalent here. I’m not saying that you’re one of them, but it’s a fact that many Southerners still don’t like blacks.
September 23rd, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Gamecock: ‘The highest of any racial demographic group.’
Now, you’re from South Carolina (which repealed its interracial marriage ban by 62 38), so please do tell me where you got this from. It sounds like an attempt to say: see. they’re racist too (by whoever told you this).
‘re colorado
not necessarily’
Definitely. If you venture outside the South, you’ll see that racism is not very prevalent here. I’m not saying that you’re one of them, but it’s a fact that many Southerners still don’t like blacks.
September 23rd, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Gamecock: ‘The highest of any racial demographic group.’
Now, you’re from South Carolina (which repealed its interracial marriage ban by 62 38), so please do tell me where you got this from. It sounds like an attempt to say: see. they’re racist too (by whoever told you this).
September 23rd, 2007 at 7:57 pm
‘re colorado
not necessarily’
Definitely. If you venture outside the South, you’ll see that racism is not very prevalent here. I’m not saying that you’re one of them, but it’s a fact that many Southerners still don’t like blacks.
September 23rd, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Actually this thread is very relevant. We want to know which candidate is not afraid of these issues, so we don’t get hammered by Hillary next year.
September 23rd, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Rett: ‘Huck recieved 48% of the african american vote in his reelection bid for Gov in the state of arkansas…name another republican that has done that…’
I wonder why supporters of the Huckster have this pathological urge to talk about nothing but their joke of a candidate (literally). I don’t spend all my time posting propaganda about Giuliani, so wy do you? I guess that if you get ‘Hucked’, you’ll never be normal again.
Regardless, the Huckster is the ideal candidate for African-American voters: socially conservative and fiscally liberal. And that’s exactly what makes him unfit to be the Republican nominee.
September 23rd, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Gamecock,
Did you catch the part where I said “no offense”? I should have started it out with “No offense, and nothing personal, but…”
September 23rd, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Alright, I’m not reading fifty-six comments to see if something to this effect has been said, but –
I think the top four should attend.
Should they have to? Absolutely not. We are totally correct in saying that there shouldn’t be specialized debates and that it makes a mockery of the fight for equality and such, but…
Politics is perception. Politics is the only arena in which pragmatism is honorable. We’re after votes here. We’re after a good reputation. This doesn’t help. The goodwill earned by showing up to a black debate — being willing to face black voters face-to-face — is worth far more than any one fundraiser. I think it’s foolish for the top four not to show up.
Who cares if we’re right on principle? Votes are what matters here. I’ve always been baffled by those who think that it’s great to lose on principle and get 0% of what we wanted — yet retain our principles! — than get 80% of what we wanted but compromise a little. Is it really worth it, people? It’s like the people who think that we should nominate a Brownback instead of a Giuliani. It’s like casting a vote for Hillary. Sure, with Brownback, you’d get your principles, so-cons, but you wouldn’t get any judges on the Supreme Court! Hillary and her cohorts would!
Why don’t you people have any sense of pragmatism?
September 23rd, 2007 at 8:25 pm
I think regardless of whether they have much to gain, the Republican candidates would have benefited from attending this debate. There’s alot to be said for having the courage to go behind enemy lines and honestly and unabashedly make your case. I agree with others that blacks simply aren’t likely to, by and large, become GOP voters anytime soon. If we break 10% in the next election I’d absolutely astonished. With Rudy as the nominee, we’ll be lucky to pass 5%.
And the difference between an extraordinary take of 15%, and a good take of 10%, is even less then you might imagine. Because while blacks make up 10% of the population, they vote in significantly lower proportions. South Carolina would be a purple state in blacks voted in the same proportion that whites do. Increasing our percentage of the black vote by 5%, wouldn’t increase our total percentage by even half a percent. But, still the GOP needs to reinvigorate it’s image, without reinventing it’s principles. And that means acting like different types of Republicans, even if you’re still promoting substantively similar policies, in the broad strokes at least.
September 23rd, 2007 at 8:27 pm
“Alright, I’m not reading fifty-six comments to see if something to this effect has been said, but –
I think the top four should attend.
Should they have to? Absolutely not. We are totally correct in saying that there shouldn’t be specialized debates and that it makes a mockery of the fight for equality and such, but…
Politics is perception. Politics is the only arena in which pragmatism is honorable. We’re after votes here. We’re after a good reputation. This doesn’t help. The goodwill earned by showing up to a black debate — being willing to face black voters face-to-face — is worth far more than any one fundraiser. I think it’s foolish for the top four not to show up.
Who cares if we’re right on principle? Votes are what matters here. I’ve always been baffled by those who think that it’s great to lose on principle and get 0% of what we wanted — yet retain our principles! — than get 80% of what we wanted but compromise a little. Is it really worth it, people? It’s like the people who think that we should nominate a Brownback instead of a Giuliani. It’s like casting a vote for Hillary. Sure, with Brownback, you’d get your principles, so-cons, but you wouldn’t get any judges on the Supreme Court! Hillary and her cohorts would!
Why don’t you people have any sense of pragmatism?”
How’s the principle of not voting for Romney in the general election working out for you? The pragmatism?
September 23rd, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Matt,
The risk of “going behind enemylines” is that the candidates risk saying something stupid that will be replayed endlessly on The Daily Show, PBS, NPR, etc and the candidate ends up losing the moderate, swing suburban white voters because they just are not going to vote for a candidate that they feel is a redneck or a racist.
The other risk is that the candidate risks that their speech will be interpreted as pandering to blacks and conservative voters become angry with the candidate. Ask President Bush about what happens when Republicans pander to minority groups in search of vote as the immigration bill demonstrates.
September 23rd, 2007 at 8:33 pm
i agree with gamecock. very disappointing.
September 23rd, 2007 at 8:33 pm
I agree with other posters that none of them should attend. There will just be a lot of gothcha questions, and believe me they will all look bad. Especially Mitt. Guliani too. Dave in an earlier thread…….No, you didn’t leave anything out. But you can argue with Metro until you’re blue in the face. He’s unobjectve.
Hey Awakened………you’re walking on thin ice with that comment in #56. Ha, ha
September 23rd, 2007 at 8:36 pm
#54 That must be why Blacks have been migrating to the South in droves for over two decades.
Awakened, wake up.
September 23rd, 2007 at 8:38 pm
#57 Dave, we cool, and you actually made the best points re why they shouldn’t attend that I have heard.
no offense taken bro
September 23rd, 2007 at 8:43 pm
And Dave, I don’t even take offense at baseless and bigoted anti-Southern comments by the un-Awakened.
The fact is that Southerners are the least bigoted in America thanks to our unique trial by fire in overcoming same and the fact that we have always lived together side by side.
September 23rd, 2007 at 8:43 pm
superdestroyer,
What something stupid are they going to say? Is one of them going to suddenly blurt out “I hate blacks and want them interned at Guantanamo”? What is that like, Part Q, sub-section 23 of the secret Republican Party handbook? Are conservatives just prone to blurting out their true racist intentions when they get nervous? Or when they see some brown folks live and, pardon the pun, in color? If Republican candidates really are prone to racially offensive statements, then they deserve to be punished for their blunders. If this is some sort of deep-seated hatred, then they ought to lose, not only the black vote, but everyone’s vote.
But, I frankly I think it’s simply of conservatism’s lack of confidence in itself. When we have Republican voters secretly worrying that their candidates will say something racist when confronted with minorities, then our movement has proven itself incapable of asserting itself as a “real” good. If you’re afraid you can’t win the war of ideas, then, well, you won’t win the war of ideas. And if you’re secretly afraid that the opposing side is right about all your candidates, then, well, it will no longer matter if the opposing side is right about all your candidates. Because you’ll have already lost.
September 23rd, 2007 at 8:43 pm
#61 As long as they don’t pander, they’ll be ok.
September 23rd, 2007 at 8:44 pm
#67 MATT, YOU MADE MY DAY!! That is it precisely. lack of confidence. Fear of the MSM.
September 23rd, 2007 at 8:46 pm
#58 If we agree, it MUST be right!
September 23rd, 2007 at 8:47 pm
I agree with the comment, somewhere above, that spoke to how the word “racism” has a meaning that shifts around, such that it is hard to know exactly what is meant by it.
Racism, in its original meaning, refers to an attitude of inherint racial superiority, and the political implications that flow from that. It does not mean simply being aware of racial differences, or speaking to, or even pandering to a racial constituency.
If you want an example of a common racist attitude, found even on this page, it is the implied notion that black people, unlike any other constituency, are too stupid to understand their own interests, and are voting for Democrats despite the fact that Dems are “treating them like children”. Blacks, appraently, would be too dumb to realize this. And they are too dumb to rationally assess which party is really the best at addressing the issues they feel important. And of course, to stupid to understand which issues should be important to them.
September 23rd, 2007 at 8:52 pm
The upshot of the comments above are: if you want to increase your share of the black vote, then do what you do with other constituencies whose votes you crave. Listen to their concerns, and try to address them seriously. Rather than expecting them to simply agree with your perspective, someday, maybe when they get smarter.
It is interesting that Gamecock comes to the right conclusion (about going to the debates) even though he comes at it from a very strange place. Yes, you need to start the dialog, and it is never too early or too late to start.
Just dont expect it to be a one-way conversation, not if you hope to get anywhere..
September 23rd, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Matt — I live in Maryland. It’s going to go for Hillary anyway.
Besides, even if I was hypocritical, why would that invalidate my point?
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Tano — It’s not blacks. Most people are too stupid to realize when they’re being swindled.
I have a general hatred for the general electorate. Common people are willfully ignorant — sometimes even proud of it.
I don’t know if blacks or Southerners or any other particular group is stupider than another overall, but…damn, people are stupid. Yes, because blacks are people and people are easily swindled, blacks do vote for Democrats because Democrats baby them and promise them nice goody bags from the federal government.
Anyone who thinks the average voter is “rational” or cares as much about the issues as we political elites seriously needs to try to talk with their friends and family about the issues and see how far they get. Chances are, you’re not gonna have much success.
We need to stop using people at Race42008 as a representation of the average voter. The average voter is politically stupid.
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:03 pm
TLG,
It doesn’t invalidate your point. Other things entirely invalidate your point. I just thought it was amusing watching a lonely of paragon of truth, justice, and anti-fraudishness, even in the face of the Hildebeast, lecture others on pragmatism.
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Matt, but I live in Maryland. If I lived in, say, Ohio…yeah, I’d consider voting for Mitt. But in Maryland? Pfft. No way.
What are those “other things,” by the way? Do you think the top four are justified politically in skipping the debate?
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:08 pm
#71 Tano, I converted to the GOP like millions of other democrats, black and white, when I finally saw the light and found the courage to make the switch. Its hard to do. Its hard to admit you were wrong so many years. I was in denial for many years. I know many white dems that are still in denial. In saying that, I harbor no feelings that whites are inferior.
Blacks are no different from whites, its just that a higher percentage are in denial or wrong. Sometimes its easier to see how one is being treated when one hears it from someone else.
I voted against “my interests” for years, in my opinion, modern day liberalism is an evil that serves no one’s interest.
Luckily, I had friends that didn’t cop your attitude that it would be insulting to suggest to me that I as wrong and set out to persuade me with data and logic.
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:09 pm
#73 BINGO again TLG!
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Gamecock: ‘Awakened, wake up.’
Haven’t heard that before…
‘And Dave, I don’t even take offense at baseless and bigoted anti-Southern comments by the un-Awakened.’
Let’s assume that you didn’t take offense. In that case, why are you calling me ‘un-Awakened’? It seems that there would be no reason to try to insult me, if you didn’t take offense.
‘The fact is that Southerners are the least bigoted in America thanks to our unique trial by fire in overcoming same and the fact that we have always lived together side by side.’
Least bigoted? Where but in a Southern state would a ban on interracial marriage get 40%? Not in the Northeast.
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Matt: ‘But, I frankly I think it’s simply of conservatism’s lack of confidence in itself. When we have Republican voters secretly worrying that their candidates will say something racist when confronted with minorities, then our movement has proven itself incapable of asserting itself as a “real†good.’
I don’t think they fear saying something racist. It just has to be something that Sharpton/Jackson don’t like. They’ll use it to fire up black Democrats, just like the Bill Bennett dustup was used for that purpose.
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Let me address the moving definitions of racism, and suggest the kinds that should matter to voters.
Racism is, technically,the belief that, ON AVERAGE, Blacks are inferior to whites with respect to mental capacity.
A person that beleives this, may or may not pre-judge INDIVIDUAL blacks and wrongfully discriminate.
A person that uses the N word may or may not discriminate against blacks just as people who would never use the word may well consider Blacks inferior and discriminate.
We elect people to make laws.
What matters then is whether the laws they pass discriminate, and not what they belive or say.
The racism that matters to me are whether one favors race based laws.
Democrats favor race based and other group based laws that violate the constitution, reduce the individual to part of a group and harm America, esp Blacks.
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Gamecock, actually, it is true that on average, blacks have lower IQ’s and score lower on standardized tests, etc –
But this is for evolutionary reasons. It has nothing to do with the color of their skin. It has to do with genetics and their ancestry. And to a degree, it is thanks to the way whites treated them in the past — they never had the same opportunity to learn and pass on what they had to their children, which couldn’t pass on those traits, etc, etc — But blacks have been catching up with whites for a while now and they’re expected to break even in the near future.
It’s not a reason to discriminate. But it is true, and it shouldn’t be taboo to say so. It’s not their fault, and it’s not a reason to treat them as inferior — they’re not, in any way.
But denying evolutionary reality is silly.
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:21 pm
TLG how can you assume people are irrational and that somehow the market magically causes people to act rationally?
I see this in some Austrian economists and in some Neo-Classical holdouts who can’t make it at good universities.
Just look at _any_ empirical study of individual behavior in markets. Only a minority or people are consistently rational and they do not receive consistent benefits for their clear thinking. I’m for fixing markets as opposed to socialism (always the Democratic answer). However let’s not pretend that if we left irrational people to their own devices the markets would somehow work as they should. We don’t have Walrasian auctioneers, perfect information or unlimited resources.
It really gets to me that someone can see human irrationality in politics and not understand that it extends to every human endeavor.
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:22 pm
#79 The Northeast, where overwhelming majorities favor race based laws today and whose welfare policies LBJ’s were modeled on that kicked the black man out of the house and made Uncle Sam daddy and proprietor of the government run planation that has trapped do many blacks in with no hope except the handouts from liberal white liberal bureaucrats.
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:24 pm
#82 I agree, and I’m sure if we measured the IQs of the inhabitants of two random streets in Scotland, their collective IQs would not be identical.
It is irrelevant to what the law should be or how any particular individual is judged.
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:30 pm
econ grad stud –
I’ve been asked this before. I had a good discussion with my ex-girlfriend (also a libertarian who agrees with me about how people are stupid) once.
I believe that people are generally rational in practical matters, but not political matters, because it indirectly, not directly, affects them. Besides, the saying that the average person runs the market is just a colloquialism for saying that they drive it. Their rational choices in choosing, say, a toaster for $9 at Wal-Mart instead of $12 at Target forces Target’s price down to $9, which could force Wal-Mart’s to $8 — all of that is really done behind-the-scenes. People don’t understand how the market really works. They just know that they save money at Wal-Mart. They choose things that are practically beneficial to them, and businessmen respond. So, to sum: People are rational in practical matters that directly affect them. Politics, not so much. It requires a bit more understanding than just “12 dollars is more than 9 dollars.”
I’m also for free markets as a moral ideal, not just a business ideal. Stems from the whole non-initiation-of-force thing. Even if laissez-faire capitalism resulted in a 15% unemployment rate and a decline in real income — it doesn’t, of course, but let’s say it did — I’d be for it, because it’s the only thing moral to me.
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Oh, as far as mentioning my ex-girlfriend, I should have mentioned — otherwise that fact becomes totally irrelevant, lol — that we came to that conclusion together.
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Er, this “I believe that people are generally rational in practical matters, but not political matters, because it indirectly, not directly, affects them.” should read as –
I believe that people are generally rational in practical matters, but not political matters, because the former directly affects them, while the latter indirectly affects them in ways that they can’t comprehend in a simple way.
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Gamecock: ‘What matters then is whether the laws they pass discriminate, and not what they belive or say.’
We should vote for someone who says that blacks are inferior apes, but who wouldn’t pass discriminatory laws? Uh huh.
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Gamecock: ‘#79 The Northeast, where overwhelming majorities favor race based laws today and whose welfare policies LBJ’s were modeled on that kicked the black man out of the house and made Uncle Sam daddy and proprietor of the government run planation that has trapped do many blacks in with no hope except the handouts from liberal white liberal bureaucrats.’
Finished already? You obviously bear a lot of resentment against the Northeast, probably because we kicked the South’s ass during the Civil War. Nonetheless, that doesn’t mean that you should rant and rave against this area, nor against its people.
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:47 pm
The unmanaged free market certainly can lead to periods of 15% or greater unemployment and large declines in real income. We saw that in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s before any significant govt intervention in the economy.
Besides people make ordinary choices that show their irrationality. How many people are saving for retirement adequately?
Now remember that a majority of people _do not_ believe social security will be able to provide for them. A market can only work perfectly if its actors are rational. The empirical research on human behavior prove irrational economic behavior is as common as rational behavior. That’s why we have stock market bubbles, housing bubbles and so many losers in the markets in general.
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:47 pm
“It’s not blacks. Most people are too stupid to realize when they’re being swindled.
I have a general hatred for the general electorate. Common people are willfully ignorant — sometimes even proud of it. ”
Good to hear TLG. Maybe Dems can aspire to getting 90% of the whole population! If only your message could get out a bit more…
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Awakened, yeah, it is kind of weird. The South will still refer to the Northeast as Yankees and say asinine things like ‘The South will rise again!’ and show their pride for the Confederacy.
It’s really bizarre, like…some martyr complex or something. The Confederacy lost and was filled with racists. Why…is that something…to be proud of?
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:47 pm
First of all, there is no information as to why the debate was turned down. The top tier gets a mulitplicity of debate invitations and cannot accept them all. What I find distasteful is some one jumping on the racial victim rant, without a look at all the circumstances.
If the moderator for the debate had a reputation for being professional and it was anticipated the debate was really about issues at hand, I’m sure the top tier would attend. Some moderators do not have that reputation, and quite frankly, their debate IS a waste of time.
There are two things the top tier faces. A multiplicity of debate invitations which cannot all be accepted. They have campaign schedules, and the last month, especially the last week of any quarter is ridiculously tight.
Unprofessional debate formats, which by the end of the night, affords no one a clue, what the candidate really thinks about major issues. We just get to hear them defend their religion one more time, or their family life, or things that are not of lasting consequence. I was SO turned off by the last FOX debate. It was a waste of my time. And it was the poor format by which it was run. We need debates that are not focused on the sensationalism of embarrassment or putting people on the defensive but rather let us know where they really stand on the major issues. There is a lot that needs to be discussed.
I’m tired of the black victimhood and the way everything is automatically twisted into evidence of black victimhood. It is an unproductive place.
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Shawnie – I refer you to post 58. I think it’s important.
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:51 pm
#89 It is laws that impact citizens, not what a pol says.
#90 Me? You slandered the people of the South based on one wholly symbolic vote in Alabama, the same state that has most often rejected the presidential candidates of the party defined by racist policies while lauding states in that same party’s hip pocket.
I simply reminded you of some facts.
And btw “Hell no Aw-e won’t fergit-akened”, of course I am glad the Union was preserved (as if).
I am an American.
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:53 pm
#93 The South = Borg?
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Southern Borg?
Sorg “Y’all gonna be assimilated so don’t be puttin up no fuss”
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Resistance is futile, Gamecock.
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Haha, econ grad stud is teh winnar for tonight. Very good joke.
plz to be responding to #86 kthx.
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:00 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy: ‘It’s really bizarre, like…some martyr complex or something. The Confederacy lost and was filled with racists. Why…is that something…to be proud of?’
I don’t get it. Neither do I get their insistence on having the Confederate flag around. It’s their ‘heritage’. Fair enough. If it’s their heritage, it’s also the heritage of the citizens of those states who happen to be black. Yet, somehow, they seem to feel differently about the flag under which they were enslaved. I wonder why.
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:03 pm
I had a huge debate with my stepdad — a proud Southerner, for some ungodly reason; he’s an amiable, smart man, but totally irrational about that sort of thing — about that. I wish I’d used that argument. Nice one — it’s their heritage, too! If the fact that it represents hatred — and losing, no less — isn’t enough to toss it as a public symbol, then what is?
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Gamecock: ‘#89 It is laws that impact citizens, not what a pol says. ‘
Amazing. You wouldn’t be bothered if a politician called blacks inferior apes (as long as he doesn’t advance laws that discriminate)? Don’t you see that inflammatory languge by politicians makes it more acceptable for regular people to do the exact same thing?
‘#90 Me? You slandered the people of the South’
Excuse me, I didn’t slander the South, I merely said that there still is a lot of racism out there. And there is. Besides, if that counts as slander, what about what you said about all other places in America – you said that the South is the lone beacon of racial tolerance in America, and that all other states are somewhat racist. Now that’s slander.
‘based on one wholly symbolic vote in Alabama,’
It might have been symbolic, but that doesn’t excuse the fact that 40% voted against the repeal. What, is the racist clause in the constitution part of the Southern heritage, too?
‘the same state that has most often rejected the presidential candidates of the party defined by racist policies while lauding states in that same party’s hip pocket.’
Nice try, but no deal. The racism people hold there is directed at blacks. No wonder that they won’t appreciate it if a national party advances racism against whites. We should see what happens if a major presidential candidate advanced hatred and racism against blacks.
‘And btw “Hell no Aw-e won’t fergit-akenedâ€, of course I am glad the Union was preserved (as if).’
But the civil war was of Lincoln’s making, right?
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:11 pm
TLG,
I agree that they shouldn’t have skipped the debate. I was referring to your general comments on practicality. There are serious questions beyond “does candidate A promote more of my agenda then candidate B”. There are considerations beyond “is 50% of my agenda better then 0%”.
You must ask, does getting 50% of my agenda now hamper my ability to get 100% of my agenda later? Does it generally make it less likely that I’ll get any of my agenda later? Has such a candidate effectively eviscerated the other 50% of my agenda? Made it political suicide for future elections?
For instance, does David Cameron turning the Tory party “green” mean that green is, forevermore, the only politically viable position? Has David Cameron irrevocably ended the environmental debate? And, more generally, do I actually care about anything beyond particular successes of the moment? This is just the tip of the iceberg. “Pragmatism” is rarely pragmatic.
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:13 pm
#101 and 102
No matter how hard you try, I still respect known believer in the inferiority Abe Lincoln as our greatest President and honor the heritage of Union soldiers that fought under the American flag, even though slavery was legal in many Union States during the war and even up until the 13th amendment was ratified well after the war ended.
And I am proud of the Southern heritage of valor and values after the Civil War until we did rise, thanks to FDR. Did you know that Yankees were shocked that Southerners enlisted in greater numbers to defend the united nation in the wars of the 19th C after the Civil war? And every war since?
read Jim Webb’s Born Fighting
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:13 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy: ‘I had a huge debate with my stepdad — a proud Southerner, for some ungodly reason; he’s an amiable, smart man, but totally irrational about that sort of thing about that.’
Maybe ‘Southern Pride’ was force-fed to him. After losing all the public policy debates, the only way to keep their myths intact is by teaching them to their children. I actually don’t have that much of a problem with some of what they have to say – I agree that Robert E. Lee was a humanitarian, especially when compared to someone like Sherman. But there is no pride in a state that was formed solely to protect the ‘rights’ of slaveholders to hold slaves.
‘I wish I’d used that argument. Nice one — it’s their heritage, too! If the fact that it represents hatred — and losing, no less — isn’t enough to toss it as a public symbol, then what is?’
I’m just glad that younger generations are less likely to oppose interracial marriage. Overt racism is almost gone, and hidden racism is surely but slowly dying out in this country.
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:15 pm
#103 Show me where I said I condone racist language?
We started it at Fort Sumter. Not a good idea!
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Gamecock: ‘No matter how hard you try, I still respect known believer in the inferiority Abe Lincoln as our greatest President and honor the heritage of Union soldiers that fought under the American flag, even though slavery was legal in many Union States during the war and even up until the 13th amendment was ratified well after the war ended.’
Well, despite believing that Lincoln was our greatest president, you can’t resist sniping at him. Although you’re correct, it’s somewhat of a cheap shot, because of political and military considerations. The important thing is that the slaves were freed. You can’t blame Lincoln for not throwing away Missouri, Maryland and Kentucky, because he wanted to stand on principle, to soon.
‘And I am proud of the Southern heritage of valor and values after the Civil War until we did rise,’
That’s fine, as long as you celebrate the values AFTER the Civil War.
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Gamecock: ‘#103 Show me where I said I condone racist language?’
I didn’t accuse you of condoning racist language. But you did say that what a politician says doesn’t matter, what matters is only what he does. In that case, you would not have a problem with a politician who would use racist language against blacks while not passing discriminatory laws.
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Awakened –
Yes, it’s good to know that social tolerance — and atheistic thought — increases with each generation.
However…if trends continue, this could also mean the rise of economic liberalism. I’d rather have Christianity and capitalism than socialism and tolerance.
Guess we’ll see what happens over the next few decades…there’s no way of telling, right now.
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:30 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy: ‘However…if trends continue, this could also mean the rise of economic liberalism. I’d rather have Christianity and capitalism than socialism and tolerance.’
You’re saying that atheists and tolerant people are more likely to vote for Democrats. However, that might be because the Republican Party is such an overtly religious party. If the Republican Party would return to being the party of Goldwater, I think that it would change. Rational people aren’t very likely to favor socialism.
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Without a belief in a life where everything is better why wouldn’t most people turn to socialism’s promise of Heaven on Earth?
Most people see themselves as the losers of capitalism because they do worse than the societal ideal.
In Europe which are the most capitalist nations?
Ireland which until recently was more religious than the US and Switzerland which also was a bastion of religion until the 1970’s.
So it may be that most people become socialist as they lose their fake-christianity. If you think most people are going to care about initiating force when the promise of getting goodies beckons than look at Europe.
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:36 pm
egs is right, which is why I’m reluctant to say that I want Christianity to go.
I think we’d need a major philosophical revolution in order to have capitalism and atheism. Most people are very surprised when I tell them I’m in the GOP and that I’m not a Christian. That’s how deeply entrenched Christianity is in the GOP.
I’m still, egs, interested in your response to 86, though. You said that was a problem with the Austrian school of thought, and I gave what I thought was a pretty good answer. Thoughts?
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:38 pm
#109 I was thinking of real life examples of people I have known as well as some political examples of people that would called racists based on their language but that either supported laws that outlawed racist policies or hired blacks. As opposed to rhetorically liberal people that despise blacks and don’t associate them.
When I was a teen and young adult, I was the guy with the car. I kicked people out of my car that used racist language.
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:39 pm
The party of Goldwater never won the House.
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:40 pm
econ grad stud: ‘Without a belief in a life where everything is better why wouldn’t most people turn to socialism’s promise of Heaven on Earth?’
That makes little sense. It’s a nice turn of phrase, but it doesn’t have much substance. You might argue that the demise of religion might make people more susceptible to socialism, but not by fancy phrases.
‘In Europe which are the most capitalist nations?’
Britain.
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Indeed, EGS. Socialism has just the sort of inane simplicity that’s likely to appeal to those following the dictates of philosophical materialism. In fact, Marx essentially founded the idea of philosophical materialism, though he called it dialectical materialism. Max Weber wrote a reasonably compelling book called “Capitalism and the Protestant Work Ethic”. It essentially argued that Protestantism had propelled Capitalism, for various reasons. The focus on the hereafter played an important part in this development (according to him anyway). And, beyond this argument, I think it’s simply self-evident that when a society decides there’s no longer any ideas to work towards, it’s simply less likely to want to work.
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:42 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy: ‘egs is right, which is why I’m reluctant to say that I want Christianity to go.’
I worry about how people might behave without religion. Someone said: “If people are this wicked with religion, how would they be without it?”
Gamecock: ‘When I was a teen and young adult, I was the guy with the car. I kicked people out of my car that used racist language.’
Good for you.
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:44 pm
There’s really no capitalist-leaning nation in Europe. Australia, the United States, and especially Hong Kong are the most capitalist. Hong Kong has the freest markets.
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Matt — Not just Protestantism, but Calvinist doctrine in particular.
For those who don’t know the theory: Calvinist doctrine says that those who are going to Heaven and Hell are pre-determined (a theory that I personally believe makes sense within the confines of Christian ‘logic’). People worked hard and believed that if they were successful, that it was a sign from God that they were one of the ‘elect’ — those that would be admitted to Heaven.
Thank you, Sociology class.
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Oh, and I wasn’t meaning to correct you or anything, I’m sure you knew that.
I was just explaining it further to those that had never heard of it.
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:54 pm
TLG you’re assuming everyone knows the prices at Wal-Mart, Target and every other store and shops accordingly. In a real market it’s more complex. There could be millions of buyers and thousands of sellers of differentiated but similar goods.
Without perfect information or a Walrasian auctioneer equilibrium can be impossible to reach. There are many situations where excess supply is never sold because the equilibrium price becomes negative.
Besides the imperfection of markets there’s also the fact that consumers often respond irrationally to incentives. This is partially why my dissertation’s empirical research is likely to end up in advertising campaigns (to mess with people’s preferences in unethical ways).
Markets tend to move towards equilibrium but rarely reach it. Often markets will get into strange situations where equilibrium is impossible to reach.
On a macro scale the economy often doesn’t reach equilibrium without tinkering by monetary and fiscal authorities. Even in an optimistic examination macroeconomic equilibrium is only approached because of differing incentives along the spiral path as monetary sectors, goods sectors, and financial sectors pull in different directions.
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:58 pm
Awakened just showed he’s ignorant of Europe. Ireland has less government spending as a % of GDP than the US, UK or Australia even if you factor out each nation’s military spending.
The UK by the way has ballooning government control of GDP while Ireland and Switzerland remain much freer of govt intervention. I suppose most people forget that Thatcher left most of the Beveridge Report intact and only trimmed back British socialism.
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:59 pm
By, the way, I think Christianity is actually a religion with some fairly complex views on socialism. It’s likely to promote Capitalism, for various reasons, but there’s also a certain element of disdain towards capitalism. It argues, for instance, that man can only have salvation through God and Jesus. And it emphasizes the need for Christians to work together to be the “Body of Christ”. It calls on man to sacrifice himself for a higher cause, if necessary.
To follow Christ, even though winds buffet you; even though, you’d rather be elsewhere. These are all fairly anti-individualistic credos. Add to this Christ’s insistence that it’s “easier for a camel to pass through an eye of a needle, then for a rich man to go to heaven”, and his “give up your possessions and follow me” sort of lines, and you have a creed that, ostensibly anyway, must oppose the goals of capitalism, if not the actuality of it. I, for instance, find myself in the somewhat peculiar position of despising wealth, while valuing the freedom to keep your own wealth, if you so choose.
This is where I think many Christians come down. Because I think there’s a sense in which, the really essential thing about Christianity, is the actual acceptance of Christ. One can’t be forced to be a Christian. That’s entirely contrary to Christianity. In other words, Christianity generally values choice, even if it doesn’t ultimately value all that others choose.
But, there’s a broader sense in which Christianity is opposed to socialism, and therefore the friend of Capitalism. Socialism generally, and communism more specifically, emphasize certain historical forces that simply “had to be”. That’s why we heard so much about Godless communism. Because it really was Godless. Everything, including history, simply progressed through a sort of unstoppable determinism. And this not only eliminates free will, but makes people less likely to work for their good. Because, not only don’t they have a conception of “the good”, but they also lack any incentive to strive for it. Or, at the very least, their incentives are decreased. Etc.
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:04 pm
“And I am proud of the Southern heritage of valor and values after the Civil War until we did rise,’
That’s fine, as long as you celebrate the values AFTER the Civil War.”
Like Jim Crow?
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:06 pm
TLG,
In Western Europe, both Ireland and Switzerland have considerably freer economies than we do. So do some of the ex-Communist states in Eastern Europe. Some of the welfare states in Europe have been cutting their corporate tax rates and deregulating their economies in various ways. Countries know they have to compete and internal pressures build up politically to enact free market reforms even when left wing governments are in power. Mitt talks over and over again about how we have to face the competition from ILndia and East Asia as a way to sell our polity on the need for lower corporate tax rates and incentives for savings and investment. On net balance, there is still an on-going trend toward capitalism in the world. That’s the main reason why the cost of energy has been going up. Demand has been increasing. Since we moved into Iraq, the number of cars there has more than quadrupled. The multiple in Russia since the fall of Communism has been far greater than that, and now the cars work!
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:09 pm
econ grad stud:’Awakened just showed he’s ignorant of Europe. Ireland has less government spending as a % of GDP than the US, UK or Australia even if you factor out each nation’s military spending.’
But that isn’t really fair, is it? If you factor out ALL spending, the budgets are equal. It’s a miracle!
Seriously, though, the US would be spending more on social programs if the military budget wasn’t this huge.
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:09 pm
econ grad stud –
[Note from after I completed writing this: If this is jumbled in any way, it's because I'm having a moderately difficult time transferring the thoughts on this onto the screen from my head -- I'm not pretending to know more than you here, so bare with me as an amateur and future economics student who simply enjoys the subject, haha. So -- it may seem rambling, but I think I reach a coherent conclusion.]
I’m absolutely not assuming that everyone knows the prices at Wal-Mart and Target (let’s say it’s of the same model of toaster). I’m assuming that:
1) Some people know the varying prices between the two — enough to make a small but noticeable difference in revenue as a percentage from kitchen appliances, and enough to make Target respond, driving down the price — or at least putting the products on sale for a time so people who then go there instead of Wal-Mart will remember it as having a low price. Reputation, of course, counts. On that note…
2) That Wal-Mart has a better reputation for low prices, and that Target will have to respond in order to divert business from Wal-Mart into Target by lowering prices — to the best degree that the can — and prominently advertising them.
Other factors — such as driving distance and popularity of certain products in certain regions — are also completely rational factors in where someone would choose to shop. In such cases, paying a dollar more for a product may not be a big deal (in the former case).
Then again…I can see where you’re coming from. If someone goes to Target to buy a toaster on sale for eight dollars (a dollar cheaper than the Wal-Mart price), they’re more likely to stay and shop for other things, which are still more expensive than the Wal-Mart price, so they might lose money overall — like what you said about people responding irrationally to incentives — not thinking ahead about what else they might do at the store. Hmm…
Still, that says nothing about toasters, or business that Target may be losing from their lower prices on other things. And if the customer realizes later that they could have saved more at Wal-Mart, they may return there, and Target will again be forced to respond. But because not all of them will, no, equilibrium is not going to be reached in the prices of any one product. Other factors come into play, too, as I mentioned.
My mind is about ready to explode here.
I think, overall, that we can’t expect a defined difference in prices for the same product, because although some people are willing to fork over three dollars more for one product at Target because they don’t feel like driving father to Wal-Mart — time and gas are also resources, of course — far fewer would be willing to pay ten dollars more, so the price is driven down to a point where it will be about equal. But not perfect.
There. I think I worked that out alright in the end. :brain fizzles:
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Jim Crow laws existed in Oregon, Indiana, Illinois, Kansas and other states not considered Southern. The South simply hold on longer than the North to discriminatory laws.
Few people remember it was Brown Versus the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas.
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Tano: ‘Like Jim Crow?’
You’re right, I was mistaken.
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:11 pm
“even though slavery was legal in many Union States during the war and even up until the 13th amendment was ratified well after the war ended.”
Official end of slavery:
MA 1783
NH 1783
NY 1799
CT 1784
RI 1784
PA 1780
NJ 1804
VT 1777
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:14 pm
2007 Index of Economic Freedom:
1. Hong Kong
2. Singapore
3. Australia
4. United States
5. New Zealand
6. UK
7. Ireland
8. Luxembourg
9. Switzerland
10. Canada
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:16 pm
That’s from the Heritage Foundation, by the way.
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:18 pm
egs,
So what that legal racial discrimination existed elsewhere than the deep south?
Are you denying that it existed in the South? Or that it represents a major aspect of the political values of the South for a century after the Civil War?
I dont see much of anything that the South has to be proud of in terms of their political heritage.
Except perhaps the fact that they did not force another civil war in the 60s in order to accept the end of segregation.
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:20 pm
#131 Who knew the Union only had 8 states.
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:21 pm
TLG, the strongest critique against an entirely laissez faire system is that sometimes equilibrium is unreachable without intervention. This means willing buyers and willing sellers are unable to trade because of market imperfections. This often occurred in agricultural markets and other markets with long time lags between production and market saturation.
Also price is sometimes only weakly related to demand (unlike those fancy introductory supply&demand graphs we love). Market structure (Oligopoly, Oligopsony, Monopoly, Monopsony, Monopolistic Competition, Leader-Fringe, etc) often determine equilibriums where theoretically firms could make a profit selling to a customer but this doesn’t occur because of incentives to raise the price to the unit elasticity of demand. Often markets will provide an incentive for behavior that makes everyone collectively worse off (AKA a market failure).
Economics beyond the introductory level is fixated on why markets don’t work as well as they should. The only question is whether some type of action to correct markets can be effective/moral or whether the lost economic activity should be allowed.
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:22 pm
#134 Were it not for Southerners we wouldn’t have won the Cold War.
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:28 pm
WOW, 137 is assuming a LOT of knowledge that we don’t have.
1) What would American policy have been previously without the South?
2) Who would we have elected?
3) What would our priorities have been?
4) How would the parties have been shaped?
Etc, etc, etc…
What are you TALKING about, Gamecock?
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:28 pm
In 131 Tano is being deceptive.
Slavery didn’t end on the dates he gave. Gradual manumission began on those dates. Slaves born after those dates were free after their 21st birth day.
In reality NY and NJ had blacks still in slavery until a decade before the Civil War.
Does the historical presence of Jim Crow laws throughout the North suggest Northerners should be ashamed of their heritage?
I guess we’re so historically illiterate we forget why the North had less legal racism. That’s because the North discriminated against people of the same race (immigrants).
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:31 pm
WOW. 137 is assuming a LOT of knowledge that we don’t have.
* What would American policy have been previously without the South?
* Who would we have elected?
* What would our priorities have been without social issues like racism? What would the social issues have been instead, if they’d even *be* issues?
* How would the parties have been shaped?
Etc, etc, etc…
So what are you TALKING about, Gamecock?
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Gamecock, what are you talking about in 137?
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:35 pm
egs — I guess all I can say is that I’m looking forward to economics classes in college! It’s something that I highly wish to understand fully. But just so I have a heads up — how much advanced math is in it? I’ve heard varying reports — one person has told me that it’s essentially a math major, another person told me that the math isn’t as complicated as you’d think. Thoughts?
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:36 pm
#138 not to mention that Tano
DIDN’T LIST ALL THE STATES OF THE UNION. HE CONVENIENTLY LEFT OUT THE ONES THAT WERE SLAVE STATES DURING AND AFTER THE WAR!!!! UNTIL THE 13TH AMENDMENT WAS RATIFIED
DE, MD, KY AND MO
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:36 pm
People forget the greatest opposition to racism came from within the South. In Plessy versus Ferguson, Plessy (the partially black man wanting to sit in the “white” boxcar) was encouraged to ‘break’ the law by a large association of white and black citizens of New Orleans who paid his legal expenses.
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:37 pm
#137 The south elected congressmen that made the difference in money for a strong defense and in electing Reagan.
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:44 pm
Gamecock, you’re assuming a *lot* of things we don’t know. You’re basically saying that the political environment would have been identical everywhere had the South never existed, even as much of it existed only because of the South’s history.
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:45 pm
I mean, I guess you could also say “Jimmy Carter would have never been elected had it not been for the South!” by that logic.
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:45 pm
TLG, #140.
If you want an economics degree you can do something with you need advanced statistics, at least calculus 3, linear algebra, and matrix algebra. Understanding how the economic models work and are formed require the above math.
If you just want to meet the minimum requirements for an Econ bachelors than Calculus 1 and 2 statistics courses ought to be enough.
It all depends on whether you want to go further with Economics or just get a degree that looks pretty but is too simple for practical economic uses.
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Gamecock: ‘DIDN’T LIST ALL THE STATES OF THE UNION. HE CONVENIENTLY LEFT OUT THE ONES THAT WERE SLAVE STATES DURING AND AFTER THE WAR!!!! UNTIL THE 13TH AMENDMENT WAS RATIFIED
DE, MD, KY AND MO’
Calm down already. I mentioned three of them earlier. Lincoln’s efforts to prevent them from aiding the Confederacy, doesn’t make him unprincipled or evil.
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:51 pm
#144 I’m looking at congressional votes.
#145 We corrected that mistake in 1980.
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:51 pm
econ grad stud — I don’t want to enter economics as a field, but want to have a good understanding of it as I go into the public policy sector and hopefully into political commentary one day. Math has never been my strong suit, but I very much want to understand economics, so I’m willing to put in some hard work in order to understand it. I think I’ll have an easier time with it in college, anyway, inasmuch as the main reason that I was unsuccessful in math courses in high school is the fact that the classroom environments were chaotic and the teachers were inept or foreign. I’m kind of pissed off, actually, because it hurt my SAT score. (730 Writing, 720 Critical Reading, but only 560 Math.)
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:52 pm
“as a field” — lol, weird terminology there. I don’t want to enter the field of economics, rather. As a professional economist, consultant, etc. I just want a good understanding of it that I can inject into whatever political job I go into.
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:53 pm
#149 Lincoln and MLK’s portraits rare prominently displayed on my office wall.
And I was referring to Tano.
It’s not all about you.
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:59 pm
TLG, There’s lots of math, especially if you go on to do graduate work in economics.
If economics is not your major, then you don’t have to worry so much. Though you’ll want to know your basics in calculus, econometrics (statistics for economists) and linear algebra.
September 24th, 2007 at 12:03 am
Richard P — No, I have no plans of going on to do graduate work in economics. As I was explaining to egs, I just want a good understanding of it so I can utilize it in whatever area of politics I end up in.
September 24th, 2007 at 12:04 am
Are you an economist Richard P?
September 24th, 2007 at 12:06 am
Gamecock: ‘#149 Lincoln and MLK’s portraits rare prominently displayed on my office wall.’
That’s good.
‘And I was referring to Tano.
It’s not all about you.’
Yeah, I know you were talking to Tano, I’m not blind. However, your anger and yelling was uncalled for.
September 24th, 2007 at 12:06 am
Yes
September 24th, 2007 at 12:09 am
Richard P, professor, private sector or govt?
September 24th, 2007 at 12:13 am
I’ve started in government. I’ve only been at it a couple years.
September 24th, 2007 at 12:16 am
#157 We appreciate the site hits your participation produces.
September 24th, 2007 at 12:19 am
I’ve actually been able to listen to Smiley on the radio for sustained periods and not barf all over myself, so he’s no doubt the best option to put on such a debate, but I think it’s alright for the big ones to skip this just like they skipped the Value Voters debate. By all accounts that was a circus that did no favors for the conservative movement. The big guys aren’t being racist – they’re skipping ALL the special interest debates, left or right.
September 24th, 2007 at 12:20 am
PnGrata…there was incentive to skip the Values Voter debate. See 58 for why I think they should attend.
September 24th, 2007 at 12:44 am
Gamecock: ‘We appreciate the site hits your participation produces.’
And I appreciate the laughs that your participation doesn’t produce.
September 24th, 2007 at 1:31 am
Heh, thanks TLG. I didn’t get past the first ten comments before I decided to skip to the end. An interesting point, but I think the weighing of benefits adn drawbacks to attending are about equal. Might it be framed as blatant pandering, turning off base voters? Remember, they’re still fighting for the GOP nod, not the general yet, and sadly the intended audience of the debate is not exactly a GOP hotbed. Because of that factor, if one of them skipped, they’d all skip. By the same token, if one of them had committed, they’d all have to commit, because they can’t be cast by the one who went as afraid to stand up for conservative principles with a hostile audience. Plus, although Smiley is reasonable and respectable on his own show, when he’s put in charge of interrogating the GOP for Black America, couldn’t he push things where the candidates really don’t what to go?
As I type that, however, I suddenly realized I don’t know where the big four stand on race related issues. I have no idea where any of them stand on affirmative action. I’ve got no idea of their stance or shades of nuance they have on crime laws. I don’t know their views on multiculturalism and diversity. None of them. I could guess at what Thompson might say (in his vein of repeating conservative platitudes in a folksey manner), or at the tactic Rudy likely took in office (talking the PC talk but generally hoping the issue is ignored), but they’d just be guesses, and I’m even less capable of estimating where Romney (who had few minority issues to deal with in white bread Massachusetts) and McCain (race relations doesn’t seem a flashpoint for a Senator from AZ) are on such issues. So maybe I would actually be interested in what they have to say to Smiley’s audience.
September 24th, 2007 at 1:33 am
* crime laws
September 24th, 2007 at 1:34 am
oh… nm… my parent’s computer is filtering out the first word in my attempted correction, so it’s probably still there.
September 24th, 2007 at 6:36 am
Gamecock, another thought-inducing post on your part.
After reading much of the commentary, I’m still left with the impression that it’s a very simple bottom-of-the-beermat calculation for the top-tier candidates. The debate represents a high-risk gamble with low potential winnings, not unlike the Univision or gay debate.
Yes, the top tiers would have an excellent chance to get their message out to a group historically neglected by the Republican party. And the debate would likely be ignored nationally. But chances are strong that an interest group activist could receive MSM attention for assailing earlier positions or actions of a given candidate, memorably juxtaposed against the candidate’s floundering response.
For the lower-tier candidates it’s an opportunity for welcome free publicity, which, even if negative, at least permits the candidate to run the talk-show circuit while clarifying and backpedaling.
The sad losers of the top tiers’ no-show approach are a number of potential black Republican activists who are left feeling alienated, unable to convince others in their community that the party actually gives sh!t about them.
September 24th, 2007 at 8:15 am
#164 Good answer!