In the Feb. 11 Wauwatosa Patch, Noelle Loraine posted a blog titled: The Republican Party – Myths and Misunderstandings. Ms Loraine’s blog piece became the ignition source for a wide response by representatives of the political right and the political left.
Although her blog was a rather weak attempt at disproving the Republicans and conservatives as disserving of the racist label, the comments it evoked became most telling concerning the current state of race in politics.
However, the intent of my piece is not to directly confront Ms. Loraine’s piece, but some of the claims put forth by the right wing comments. In particular, I want to address the issue of racism in contemporary politics.
This nation has had a long and ugly history concerning the treatment of its non-white populations, including Native Americans, hispanics of color, and obviously African Americans. As white Europeans grabbed land, the Native Americans were systematically reduced to near extinction through the processes of war, disease and relocation, only to become permanent wards of the U.S. Federal Government. Hispanics were in place in North America long before other white Europeans, yet lost their lands in the 19th century through land purchase and war with Mexico.
The black populations of our nation are a completely different story, they were neither indigenous nor proceeded the white Europeans onto the continent. The black populations were purposely brought to this continent to be a source of cheap manual enslaved labor, primarily to work in the plantation fields in the agricultural Southern Colonies.
During the period of sanctioned slavery, most slaves were treated as chattel and had value to the owners. When slavery ended, the problems for America’s black population became even bleaker. No longer were they of value for their labor potential, but they became the pawns in the struggle of the Reconstruction Era and beyond.
With Lincoln’s untimely death, due to an assassin’s bullet, it created the conditions that directly led to the unjust conditions that quickly developed in the defeated South. At the end of the Civil War the Union was divided into two camps. The moderate Lincoln wanted to rebuild the South and reestablish honorable order and universal suffrage. The other camp was the “Radical Republicans” that controlled Congress, they wanted to punish the South and seek retribution for the failed rebellion. The loss of Lincoln, left the “Radical Republicans” in charge and unchecked. The period known as the “Reconstruction Era” became the nursery for the dysfunctional Southern social structure. What developed was the political enfranchisement of the “solid Democratic” South and penury for the freedmen population.
The Southern States found themselves in control of a devastated economy, which was dependent on agriculture, but without the labor to make the land productive.
Thus, the greatest ruse of the 19th and 20th centuries was created; the share cropping system and the resulting penury. The system was designed to keep the freed slaves on the land and indebted. Further reinforcing the system, laws were legislated to keep the black agricultural population subject to Jim Crow, loss of voting rights and in fear for their very lives and lives of their families. Under this system they were in as bad or worse position as when they were enslaved. Not only had institutional racism been established, but flourished under this system well into the 1970s.
In 1915 the Great Migration began with the black share croppers of the Southern US escaping penury and seeking economic opportunities in the factories of the North and West. Officially the Great Migration did not end until 1972. The migrants arrived to closed racially divided communities, but with the advantage of working and escaping the penury of their past.
As with all new migrant groups of low skill and little formal education, they began in the lowest ranks of employment. Although their culture continued to reflect the Southern Experience, many began the rise from poverty into the working middle classes. However, whenever pressures were applied to the economy, it was the members of the lowest working classes, primarily African Americans, who suffered the worst, necessitating a certain level of dependence on the social safety net. It was not out of choice but out of necessity.
LBJ was the first President and advocate to finally end structural and institutional racism. He accurately understood that long term poverty and dependency was a result of a system that was stacked against the poorest and most vulnerable of the citizens. What FDR began, which was not directed at African Americans, Harry Truman continued, LBJ was determined to finish the New Deal with the Great Society. His commitment was to social justice and to finally complete the task of reconstruction that was cut short by 19th century politics. “The War on Poverty” begun in the mid 1960s and would only last less than ten years but would have significant impact on American Society, raising awareness and creating a significant backlash from the Right with charges of “Reverse Discrimination”.
What many didn’t understand was that Affirmative Action and other O.E.O. programs were a form of long overdue reparations to make right what had been so wrong for so long. The reaction of institutional racism to the civil rights legislation and programs was for the “Dixiecrats” to switch from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party making the South a Republican stronghold from that moment on. Not only did the Republican Party gain new numerical support, but the Dixiecrats’ infected the Party of Lincoln with not only the disease of extreme social conservancy, but endemic structural and institutional racism as well.
The positive impact of “Racial Awareness Raising” was the decline of overt displays of racism. Over time overt racism was no longer socially acceptable and exited the common language, only to be replaced with a coded language; racism now was covert and more difficult to identify. The absence of overt racism gave rise by the political right’s opinion that racism was no longer a problem in American society and everyone shared in equal opportunity. Of course, this was and is a complete mythological fantasy.
The conditions for the members of the communities of color haven’t changed and if anything have become decidedly worse. Everything about their communities is under attack; “too many on government assistance, substandard educational performance, too many addicted to drugs and alcohol, too many unemployed with no desire to work, too much crime, and too many unwed mothers and teen pregnancies”; it goes on and on reminding one of the detrimental language of the racial South and the dehumanization of African Americans and other people of color. To cap it off is the political right’s cynical claims that the political left is manipulating race and government dependency for political gains.
As outlandish as these claims are, it has found traction with many of those on the right. These claims are based on the following logic:
Since widespread racism no longer exists and those who are on assistance or entitlements remain so because of a desire to avoid work and personay responsibility, then they will support the liberal left who not only supports the continuation of assistance and entitlements, but the growth therein. Furthermore, it is in the best interest of the liberal left to maintain dependency so as to avoid erosion of the left’s political power.
Of course the political left continues to support the existence of the social safety net, but also supports the effort to permanently help people rise out of the conditions and culture of poverty. The political right’s tactics of false claims are nothing more than to undercut the effectiveness and support of social action. They are using disguised messages and language to communicate messages of covert racism and to maintain the social strata of social injustice.
Inherent racism, in the political right, is again being used for their political gain branding those seeking justice as nothing more than sociopathic power manipulators and those receiving such, as nothing more than powerless pawns of the left.
Let it go and move on.
All of us who blog on patch have an agenda. Whether it be liberal, conservative, the football guy, the people that blog about health issues, people who blog about movies and ect. I enjoy reading Lyle's blog. It provides great knowledge into the mind of political enemy.
Here we go. African American's For Obama http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-plays-race-card-calls-on-churches-to-support-campaign.html This is what drives the racism in this country. It is the constant in your face expectation that their will be racism. Obama does nothing in that clip to heal racial wounds or bring people together. Instead, he draws a line in the sand saying that black people are some how different then others. They require special attention. Not to mention the 'everyone does their fair share' where he proclaims that he will fix the disparity between the rich and poor. We all know that means redistribution of wealth. This is exactly my point when I made my post in Noelle's blog. He is not appealing to their ability to succeed as individuals in American society. He is appealing to their wants. He claiming that if they saddle themselves with government dependency, their dreams will come true. While he is not entrapping them outright, the mindset is such that he does not believe a Black person could succeed without his help. Beyond that he is making the assumption that they should be voting for him because he is black. While I agree that racist individuals call both political parties home, you never see this attention to differences within republican circles. Republicans tend to see only Americans, not (pick your ethnic prefix) Americans.
Those are the points that I've been making here on Patch for a long time now. Thanks for the reinforcement!
Your conclusions about Lyle are highly illogical and your personal attacks against him are disgraceful. Lyle is a highly respected member of the Patch community and a personal friend. Remember - small weak minds talk about other people, while large strong minds talk about ideas. Please grow up and get a life!
I didn't hear or see Obama playing the "race card" as much as appealing to a group of base supporters, who he desperately needs during this election cycle. It is well known that he must overwhelming garner the support of African-Americans and Hispanics if he is to overcome the fall in support from students that he enjoyed during the 2008 campaign. Hope and Change is no longer an effective appeal. I don't share the perspective of the "melting pot" as a valid description of the American experience for a number of minority groups. it turns out to be an invalid myth. Where most white Americans see themselves as Americans first and a member of an ethnic group second, certain minorities think of themselves and identify with the minority first and nation second. My perspective on this is heavily influenced by my own minority status. It is difficult when you are a member of an overwhelming majority to understand the minority experience. (continued)
Your, sources are right in pointing out this is a specific appeal to the minority, but I don't draw the same conclusions as you and they do. I didn't hear or see a promise of wealth distribution from the majority to the minority, unlike ole Huey Long's appeal of a chicken in every pot and two on Sunday. So, is it playing the "race card" when the president differentiates because of his race; the answer to that is only answerable from perspective. I think, it is desirable to appeal to being an American fist, but until the prefix can be legitimately dropped, it will remain a myth and a convenient counter argument for minority identity and experience.
If he were simply, "appealing to a group of base supporters, who he desperately needs during this election cycle" I would not have a problem with what he said. However, it isn't that simple. If Romney (or any other Republican) came out and asked all European American's to vote for Republican; the media and Democrats would attack him as racist. Also, my guess is that Obama would not include white south Africans that have moved to the US as part of the group he is trying to reach. Which leads me to your second point, that "certain minorities think of themselves and identify with the minority first and nation second". The president is playing into this theory, exploiting it and giving it relevance. The minorities will never integrate as long as one political party continues to claim they can't. The leader of our government is establishing the premise that minorities (specifically black) must be democratic in order to be taken care of. (cont)
As for promising wealth, he uses the progressive code words, "Everybody does their fair share." Not unlike passing the word 'revenues' off as taxes; his quote establishes that the rich are not giving enough to our society and that is what is making the black lifestyle unfair. He has this quote following the description of blacks fighting to vote after their release from slavery. As if the two share a common thread of oppression. The only solution to that is redistribution and that follows what Obama have been talking about this election season. While I agree that racism exists with respect to direct discrimination and the exclusion of a particular race in a small sample of American citizens. The true direction of racism in our current country is toward enslavement by want. If you trap someone in the dependency of government handouts based on what a politician claims a race needs to survive, that is no different then telling them to work in the cotton fields. The end result is the same. A class of people depending on another for daily bread. The only difference between today and the early 1800's is that people like Obama have convinced the minorities they can't. The true Uncle Tom is not the Herman Cains of the world who promote self dependency, but elite Democrats who promote government dependence.
Barack Hussein Obama II FKA Barry Soetoro is of two races Mr Ruble, his mother was caucasian and his father Barack Hussein Obama I was of the Luo tribe in Kenya....what race are you speaking to Mr Ruble, the Caucasian or the Luo tribe?
Very nice response! However, I believe that you're missing the overall point that J.B. was trying to make, which is that until those minority groups start identifying themselves as Americans first and foremost, then there will always be mainstream racial tensions that exist in this country, no matter how well hidden, irregardless of what the extremists are doing because they, however unfortunate, will always be there no matter what government does, as a law cannot change the heart and rational of a person, as you well know. The fact that any political party panders to a specific group based solely upon racial identification/make-up continues to promote the individual internal divide of self-identification and actually hinders unity as opposed to promoting it. And that's exactly what Obama is doing here. You can call it "appealing to a group of base supporters," as much as you want, but deep down inside, you know what's really going on here and the fact that it's not a positive as far as the overall goal of achieving a mass consensus unity under country is concerned, which is always an altruistic goal of all political affiliations.
I have a problem with the assumption that the poor want to be dependent and on assistance. They are fully human with all the desires and dreams that everyone else has. Going onto assistance is a survival strategy. The continuation of assistance is not because of lack of desire, but, in most instances, from conditions outside of their control. As strong as the "Protestant Work Ethic" (Weber) courses through our veins, anybody that doesn't work, for whatever reason, loses immediate status. Couple that with being a poor person of color, then the lower status is quite palpable. As a society we treat the poor with disdain and scorn, blaming them for their condition. It's just like when someone accused you of just sitting around all day while your wife went out to work. Those of us who know your situation find his comment to be totally out of line and most of us admire you for taking on the role of a stay at home dad. Can we separate out racial prejudice from prejudice against the poor? Maybe it's not racial at all but prejudice against lower SES status.
I didn't intend 'code words' to be interpreted in that manner. Maybe they are more twists on language. It is no secret that Obama wishes to increase taxes on the rich. However, instead he calls is 'Everybody does their fair share'. I am fairly confident he is not proposing a flat tax. I am not sure the desire to be dependent has anything to do with it. Money can be an addiction as well as anything else. If you wish to incorporate the 'survival strategy'; that plays in well with free food. What is easier for survival, working 40hrs a week or receiving your government payment? I am not claiming that all poor are there of their own desires; but we have a system that creates incentive in being poor. As for separating race from the poverty; I think Gingrich offered the best solution. Offer poor kids jobs at schools. While there are many points to argue as to how to implement something like that and still maintain child labor laws; his approach was non racial and directly at poor people. Obama is not doing that. He is and has wanted those poor to realize that the rich (typically white) people are responsible, that he can save them and provide them the money they want. Again, please tell me what else he mean in, "Everybody does their fair share." I am sure he doesn't mean making blacks work the 60 - 80 hour weeks top earning business professional do. He is enslaving them with an addiction to free money.
It is obvious to most people that 'Everybody does their fair share' means, in part raising taxes on the wealthy. So? Obama has already adamantly declared himself on that many times. I believe the phrase also means Obama, as a moderate, is more than willing to compromise, and sees opportunities in reducing the costs of social services and is not opposed to making them more efficient and just plain cutting down on any "excesses" we can no longer afford. Nearly all successful politicians are not "in your face" and are using phrasing now that makes nice 5 second sound bites for "race card" attack ads. That is why we call them "political" , they are not perfectly frank and perfect. And nearly all politicians appeal to their traditional constituencies. And yes, race/ethnicity overlaps with issues of wealth and poverty, and people identify with their own, and that becomes political. I do compliment you on your lack of "code phases", you actually use perjoratives, like "addiction", "free food", "enslaving" and "free money". Instead of being so "race card" oriented, I suggest as a social conservative that you just also emphasize the more middle class government "entitlements" like SS, Medicare, veterans benefits, unemployment compensation, low cost student loans, etc. as well as the safety nets for the poorest, which, by the way, also includes mostly whites. Just look at Romney's victories yesterday, a closet moderate. Your losing moderates.
Between federal and state income taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes, I pay 33% of my gross income in taxes. I haven't calculated how much of my disposable income goes to taxes, but it's the majority of it. Mitt Romney, who makes $57,000 a day, an amount of money on which my family could subsist comfortably for a year, pays his flat tax of 15%. Is the majority of his disposable income going to taxes? I really doubt it.
I am in favor of a flat tax with no exemptions. 15% of what you earn (everybody from $1 per year to the billionaires).
So you would severely affect the quality of life for those who are unfortunate to be low-wage earners, so that someone earning several million dollars a year could keep more of it? Will they go hungry or unable to clothe themselves? Will they be unable to provide for themselves in old age the way a low-earner will be if s/he has even less money left over to put aside?
As I had suspected, you are not after equality. You want the rich to pay for the poor out of some morally legislated compassion. Why then don't make everyone salary $75K? Then no one would be poor and no one would be wealthy. We would be equal. Who cares for the poor, the sick, the lame, the stupid? Those that want to. There are people in our society that care for those not 'rich' out of true compassion. Not because they have their wages stolen via the IRS. There are also those that could care less about the poor. That is freedom. The ability to succeed, fail and help people do both. If you want to give to the poor, do it. Don't get up on your soap box and tell me that I must because of my success. What makes your authority of morality?
Everybody does their fair share = tax the rich more and give more to the blacks. Flat tax = In effect, tax the poor more and the rich less, without exception (according to some conservatives, but with some exceptions, according to Herman Cain) . Revenues = taxes Do I have this right? Let me know if not. Perhaps there are alternate meanings. Folks should send in their favorite code words and phrases from either side. I will send each a secret decoder ring, and "two chickens in every pot."
Compassion cannot be legislated. To compare charity to burglary is an illogical step. We have laws that protect people from others. Laws that prevent people from impeding on the freedoms of others. We don't have laws that require to care for the poor. Instead, we have a wasteful top heavy government that picks the winners and losers. If you really want to legislate compassion, then lets make a law that says any person without children under the age of 18 must take in 1 homeless person. It think that would be very compassionate. Those that instituted the progressive system also started the top rate out at about 7%. I am good with that. Your assumption is that compassion can only come from the government. If that is the case, we are all damned.
Flat tax means same percentage for all. Unless a wealthy person has total income under that of a poor person they would not pay less then the poor. While many wealth men in America have no income, their capitals gains is much higher then many in the middle class.
I of course meant that the flat tax would forces poorer people to pay more than they do today, which is little, nothing or even an EIC, and the rich would be at your 15% rate, which is lower than the progressive bracket they are in today, but they can get that low through exceptions eve today, which are now out with your plan?. In your example of a person making $1, they would be left with $0.85, and the billionaire, if that were indeed his income, with $850,000,000.00. Agree? You mentioned capital gains received by the rich. Are these in your definition of income? Are you just talking about wages, the first income line on the 1040, or all the other income items below it? What about taxes on business? What would a 1040 look like under your plan? Are you obfuscating and twisting when I just want to understand? Inquiring minds want to know more. It is a fascinating idea, which candidates are proposing a flat tax?
Steve Laufer missed the Mexican kid running around the floor using the N word and at the end of the night had the audicity to ask my grandson who punched out the Mexican kid. My grandson suggested that had he really been doing what he should have he would have known. Another day in the hate African Americans section.