The following is a previously published column about Martin Luther King, Jr., and the liberal elites who taint his idea of character over color. I’ve heard the stories and rumors about King’s infidelities (and other things), but this post is about the purity of the vision of equal opportunity and equality before the law, as opposed to equal results.
I’ll save the stories and rumors for another time. Focus on the ideas today and not the man:
****
August 2003
In 1963, many blacks still could not vote or use the same restaurants, hotels, public toilets or water fountains as whites. On August 28, 1963, 250,000 people descended on the National Mall to demand an end to government-sanctioned discrimination. Freedom was the platform from which Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. made his famous “I Have A Dream” speech. He demanded that the United States make good on its promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all citizens.
Few people today are aware of the phenomenal progress made by black Americans while still under segregation. In 1963, King could only imagine how far blacks could go once discrimination was dismantled.
The 40th anniversary of the March on Washington was commemorated on the Mall on August 23-24, 2003. Despite 40 years of civil rights legislation and significant gains made by blacks, liberal elites still see phantom “Whites Only” signs in the distance. The rallying cry for freedom to pursue happiness is now a demand for a guarantee of happiness. This is not what King envisioned.
The U.S. Constitution is the most astounding document ever conceived, but guaranteeing happiness is not its purpose. Its function is to secure the unalienable, God-given rights of American citizens. The Constitution was drafted to ensure freedom from government interference in the pursuit of happiness. In 1776, the “divine right of kings” was formally rejected and replaced by the will of the people. Consequently, America became the freest, most powerful and wealthiest nation on the planet. And every citizen may participate.
In light of such principles, the end of human bondage was inevitable, although it took a civil war and the loss of 600,000 lives to do it. America didn’t invent slavery, but American democracy ended it.
A little less than a century after slavery’s end, King rose from obscurity proposing a radical idea — a colorblind society. While he knew he’d never see it in his lifetime, he gave his life for equal justice. King would surely be disappointed by liberal elites and career politicians who exploit his vision for their own gain. He’d be alarmed that his so-called successors consistently fail to address urgent matters in the black community, such as the cycle of poverty associated with black illegitimacy and the high rate of black-on-black crime. King would be dismayed to know that:
70% of black children are born out of wedlock.
85% of black children living in poverty are raised in single parent households.
94% of all black homicide victims are slain by other blacks.
Low-income black children are condemned to failing government-run schools because black politicians are beholden to teachers’ unions.
King would be distressed by the perverting of his vision. In the aftermath of the Civil Rights movement, race preference proponents have essentially redefined “civil rights” to now mean special rights for certain groups instead of those rights belonging to all individuals, including due process, equal protection under the law and freedom from discrimination. Race preferences bestow upon blacks special rights, setting them apart from the rest. This is not what King envisioned.
Try telling that to liberal elites like Jesse Jackson, D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton and Kweisi Mfume, who believe blacks are still “struggling” for their constitutional rights. King’s own son, Martin Luther King III, claims that, “people of color are still being denied a fair share of…education opportunities in our society.” No kidding? How about supporting school voucher programs so that low-income children can get the skills they need to be competitive in today’s society? Jesse Jackson said that King’s dream has not been fulfilled because “crippling poverty” still exists for many blacks. Really? Then how about turning your attention from entitlements, set-aside programs and TV cameras and focus on reducing the rate of illegitimacy, the most accurate predictor of child poverty? I also have a dream!
Dr. King dared a segregated nation to embrace an idea that was extreme 40 years ago, the notion that individuals should be judged by their character and not by the color of their skin. Liberal elites are right about one thing: King’s dream remains unfulfilled.
****
Links: Michelle Malkin’s MLK-Blogging, Baldilocks, The Baron…
Interesting discussing going on at In the Agora. Also see Sounding the Trumpet on Ward Connerly.
I rushed downstairs to tell my mother who was sitting in the den at a round table, playing canasta with several friends. I told her: “Martin Luther King has been assassinated!” She turned pale and her eyes brimmed up. She and her friends sat in shock for a few seconds; it had only been 5 years earlier that we had lost our beloved President John F. Kennedy. Oh, no…not again!
Unrelated Links: David Limbaugh links to Star Parker’s latest:
In their view, liberalism is coded into black DNA. It is a genetic impossibility for a black to actually believe that government should be limited and that every person, regardless of circumstance, must take personal responsibility for his or her own life. A black espousing such views, according to liberal thinking, commits an act against nature and betrays heritage and family…
This is exactly what non-liberal blacks have to deal with, and hearing this same junk coming from white liberals is nausea-inducing.
Update (1/17): For your edification, see The Immorality of Race Preferences.
MLK-BLOGGING
What others are saying around the ’sphere in commemoration of Martin Luther King Day… Juliette Ochieng says “Thank you” Casey Lartigue tackles Dr. King’s legacy and the school-choice angle. Dawn Eden highlights MLK’s niece Alveda, an outspoken o…
Trackback by Michelle Malkin — 01.17.05 @ 12:05 pm
Henderson v. Sander, The Future of Affirmative Action
“…readers may be familiar with the story of Richard Sander, Professor of Law at UCLA. Recently, he used empirical analysis to mount a broad criticism of affirmative action in American law schools.”
“Professor William Henderson of the Indiana Un…
Trackback by The Baron — 01.17.05 @ 12:23 pm
Somebody hit me, please!
I really am starting to lean right-wing! I used to think that everything La Shawn Barber said was totally incorrect… but now I’m agreeing with her: King would be distressed by the perverting of his vision. In the aftermath of…
Trackback by Andrew Quinn's "Verité" — 01.17.05 @ 12:26 pm
Martin Luther King Jr. Day
Here in the States it’s Martin Luther King Jr. Day. While it’s partially set aside to remember Michael King, better known as Martin Luther King, Jr., the main point of the day is to remember all that he stood for….
Trackback by In the Agora — 01.17.05 @ 12:28 pm
“Race preferences bestow upon blacks special rights, setting them apart from the rest. This is not what King envisioned.”
What did King envision when he wrote:
“Whenever this issue of compensatory or preferential treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask for nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man is entering the starting line in a race 300 years after another man, the first would have to perform some impossible feat in order to catch up with his fellow runner.”
Comment by actus — 01.17.05 @ 12:31 pm
comment by actus — 01.17.05 @ 12:31 pm
What he said.
Comment by Russell Tupper — 01.17.05 @ 1:12 pm
Positive Discrimination
Found in La shawn Barber’s Corner: “Whenever this issue of compensatory or preferential treatment…”
Trackback by connexions — 01.17.05 @ 1:13 pm
I’ve read that Black families were in fact demographically very solid, though legally oppressed. prior to the Civil Rights Acts being passed leaving the odd correlation between formulas to correct ‘poverty’ and the substantial worsening of that poverty unexplained.
Do you have thoughts on the subject?
Comment by DANEgerus — 01.17.05 @ 1:22 pm
Dr. King was on record as supporting quotas. So it would seem that some conservatives are distorting his stance by invoking his name to oppose affirmative action when it is very clear that he supported leveling the playing field.
Comment by Joel Thomas — 01.17.05 @ 1:27 pm
I definitely respect Dr. King and have always celebrated his birthday, but I’m not thrilled about his plagiarism. See an example at: http://chem-gharbison.unl.edu/mlk/whose_dream.html. There is also info at various sites, including one at Stanford, about his plagiarism when he was in school, and in other speeches and writings.
Comment by mj — 01.17.05 @ 1:36 pm
Comment by DANEgerus — 01.17.05 @ 1:22 pm
I think the blame lies with the passage of the great society,(welfare) not voting rights.
Prior to the welfare state, blacks had a higher rate of business ownership than they enjoy now, and a smaller out of wedlock birth rate than whites.
Comment by Tom — 01.17.05 @ 1:39 pm
Dr. King was on record as supporting quotas.
He definitely didn’t support them indefinitely, though.
Comment by Joshua Claybourn — 01.17.05 @ 1:46 pm
He definitely didn’t support them indefinitely, though.
Comment by Joshua Claybourn
How the heck can you say that? HE WAS SHOT BY AN ASSASIN. He didn’t get a chance to weigh in on Affirmative Action on 2005. Additionally, it’s only been 40 years since the passage of the Civil Rights Act…after 300 years of slavery and oppression in this country. And only about 25-30 since the Afirm. Action you so despise has been law. How do you undo 300 years in 30 or 40 years?
Comment by Russell Tupper — 01.17.05 @ 2:48 pm
He definitely didn’t support them indefinitely, though.
Comment by Joshua Claybourn
How the heck can you say that? HE WAS SHOT BY AN ASSASIN. He didn’t get a chance to weigh in on Affirmative Action on 2005. Additionally, it’s only been 40 years since the passage of the Civil Rights Act…after 300 years of slavery and oppression in this country. And only about 25-30 since the Afirm. Action you so despise has been law. How do you undo 300 years in 30 or 40 years?
Comment by Russell Tupper — 01.17.05 @ 2:49 pm
Excellent blogging La Shawn! Today I had to listen to a televised interview in which a “Race Relations Expert” focused solely on how terrible it is that the “Right to Association” which he said would allow segregation by choice and leave that choice unencumbered by governmental interference [my paraphrase] had been taken away by the civil rights movement and how it was terrible to uplift Dr. King jr. to such status as awarding him a holiday. The host never challenged this man on any of his points, and neither pointed out that all men are fallible, and this day should be remembered for what he meant to the movement and to America, not his personal life. Personal life DOES matter, but none can deny his being the focal point of a great thing.
Comment by Mark La Roi — 01.17.05 @ 3:16 pm
Sigh
So conservatives don’t also defile King’s dream? No defile is done by only mentioning “The Dream” and not the letters from the Birmingham jail? Not the planned poor peoples march? Not the opposition to Vietnam? Not the statement he made which he said that America owes Blacks more than just the civil rights act? Not the continued opposition, by some conservatives, to the day being a holiday?
Conservatives, who hated the man then, now praise the man’s name? Can you say Pat Buchannan anyone?
No defiling by conservatives who call him a socialist or communist even though he’s on tape(!) as saying that the communists were trying to get a foot hold in the civil rights activities and that people had to be wary?
Happy birthday to yah
Happy birthday to yah
Happy birrrrrrrrttttttttthhhhhhhhhhhhhhh day!
Comment by DarkStar — 01.17.05 @ 3:31 pm
Other MLK Postings
*Dean Esmay posts The Speech. If you have never read it, you should.
*Joe Gandleman remembers the day King was shot.
*The Glittering Eye has a round-up of MLK links as well.
*LaShawn Barber reprints a column from 2003 that is worth a read and…
Trackback by PoliBlog: Politics is the Master Science — 01.17.05 @ 3:33 pm
MLK Day Traffic Jam
I’ve got the day off for the King holiday. Since I’m not actually stuck in Beltway traffic as a result of this occasion, I hereby dedicate the daily linkfest accordingly:
Steven Taylor reflects on the day in light of the U.S.’ spotty history of i…
Trackback by Outside The Beltway — 01.17.05 @ 4:00 pm
Dark Star is absolutely correct. Conservatives now want to use King’s name and legacy when the great majority of them would never have been seen anywhere near him. Can you imagine a single conservative leader (besides Colin Powell) who would have marched for civil rights? Where were conservatives back then, and shortly after King’s assasination? In Barry Goldwater’s and the Dixiecrats’ segregationist camp.
Many (least of all conservatives) don’t realize that Nixon inaugurated affirmative action as we now know it. Why? Because he knew your average white middle manager wouldn’t hire a black person, qualified or not. Now every white person wants to claim that they’re colorblind enough to accept blacks without being forced to, but they’re only able to say that because they’ve lived in an integrated society civil rights workers fought for.
Why is that white conservatives (and their black allies) fight so hard for perceived “racial preferences” when they believe blacks are on the receiving end, and yet when the daily fact of white race preferences is the issue, these conservatives are nowhere to be found? How many conservatives wrote about the horror of Amadou Diallo’s murder? Of innocent black men on death row, finally exonerated by DNA testing?
LaShawn say that we liberals can only see the phantom “whites only” signs. What we liberals have always worked for is to extract the best out of soceity. We would rather continue to make America as great as it can possibly be, but that means not settling for just “OK.” Conservatives are the ones who are fine with retaining the status quo, no matter that injustice still occurs.
We can’t say that those were just conservatives of the past, either. Reagan openly scorned MLK, Bush I called him an agitating militant.
Guess which side MLK would be on if he were alive today?
Comment by angels in america — 01.17.05 @ 4:08 pm
Lashawn,
I love your comments and truth you have written. It is so sad to watch so many black, with so much potential to waste away in welfare slums and unproper education.
While a few make it sports, most waste away in crack, or God knows what else out there. The family unit has been destroyed but for the few that have faith in God,and go to church regularly.
Thanks for the honesty and wonderful thoughts on the subject.
Comment by ikw3804 — 01.17.05 @ 4:14 pm
Conservatives who hated the man…hmm?
You mean Senator Byrd the Democrat? And all the other Southern Democrats that JFK was trying to please when he delayed on the civil rights issue?
I love when people can only say “well he did it” and point fingers as their response to truth…
You gotta luv it
Comment by Renee — 01.17.05 @ 4:17 pm
“What we liberals have always worked for is to extract the best out of soceity. We would rather continue to make America as great as it can possibly be, but that means not settling for just “OK.†”
Ok…
I will hold my tongue on this one because it is just to funny to comment on
Comment by Renee — 01.17.05 @ 4:21 pm
It is so sad to watch so many black, with so much potential to waste away in welfare slums and unproper education.
While a few make it sports, most waste away in crack, or God knows what else out there.
Either this commentor is a liberal with a sense of humor or this is your “white folk” fan base La Shawn. If the poster was being serious, I’d like to point out that most “black folk” are hardworking, taxpaying Americans who love their country and raise their children well. “Most” do not waste away on crack or “make it” in sports.
If this poster is joking, it’s sickening that no one else here commented on it until this liberal did.
Comment by Russell Tupper — 01.17.05 @ 4:39 pm
I don’t support affirmative action indefinitely, either. But I think we are still a good ways from being able to do away with them entirely.
Comment by Joel Thomas — 01.17.05 @ 4:49 pm
MLK Day
Today we honor the memory of a man who lived and died to end segregation, by once again holding parades…
Trackback by JackLewis.net — 01.17.05 @ 4:56 pm
I love when people can only say “well he did it” and point fingers as their response to truth…
1. you missed the point, which was a lot of people, across the political spectrum, defile “king’s dream”.
2. Since you claim I’m pointing fingers instead of facing truth, I noticed you didn’t face the truth in what I wrote.
Comment by DarkStar — 01.17.05 @ 5:08 pm
Liberal elites taint the dream
Trackback by sisu — 01.17.05 @ 5:17 pm
Dr. Martin Luther King: January 15, 1929- April 4, 1968
On April 4, 1968 I was an Amity High School senior, sitting up in my room in Woodbridge, Connecticut writing a history term paper on conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. I was then, as now, a
Trackback by The Moderate Voice — 01.17.05 @ 5:19 pm
Martin Luther King Jr. Day
Not my words, but right on the mark:A little less than a century after slavery’s end, King rose from obscurity proposing a radical idea — a colorblind society. While he knew he’d never see it in his lifetime, he gave…
Trackback by Slings and Arrows — 01.17.05 @ 6:22 pm
Because we can, Because we are Americans. Nothing is impossible, only improbable
—–
That being said, there where a few comments that conservatives
What is wrong? Can’t we grow as a people? Can’t we grow as a political party? Ten years ago I wouldn’t of supported gay rights let alone gay marriage. Today I have no qualms if gays want to get married. What you are basically saying is since ten years ago I wouldn’t of supported gay rights, I am not allowed to support them now. Thats utter foolishness! Next thing you will be telling me that since I am a Republican I have to agree with everything Bush says, or I must toe every bit of the Party Line. Sorry thats just willful blindness on your part not mine.
Comment by Monster Kabasue — 01.17.05 @ 6:33 pm
Having it both ways…
La Shawn Barber on MLK:
The following is a previously published column about Martin Luther King, Jr., and the liberal elites who taint his idea of character over color.
Trackback by Russell Rants — 01.17.05 @ 6:46 pm
Because we can, Because we are Americans. Nothing is impossible, only improbable
Racial equality isn’t as easy as Democrats putting a man on the moon. Or Democrats winning WWII. Or Democrats building dams and bridges and bringing electricity to rual areas of America.
But you’re right - we should just leave it in the hands of the people with the good track record.
Comment by Russell Tupper — 01.17.05 @ 6:55 pm
Good points La Shawn. The only way forward for “disenfranchised” blacks is to hit the books, love knowledge, build & maintain families and reach for the stars.
MLK was a vehicle for change indeed. However, I heard a high schooler on the news state today that “if it wasn’t for MLK, we wouldn’t have any civil rights!”
Give me a break, change was a coming sooner or later and MLK didn’t do it single-handedly. He only gave the movement a face and verbalized the dream.
This is not to belittle his oratory skills and his dream, but for everyone that marched with MLK at one time or another, there were a few more joining in spirit. Who knows how it’d turn out today if MLK hadn’t stepped forward, but believe you me, we sure wouldn’t be seeing whites only signs in the 21st century.
Comment by Andy — 01.17.05 @ 8:30 pm
OT, La Shawn your remodelling looks good
Comment by Andy — 01.17.05 @ 8:32 pm
I prefer to interpret Dr. King within the context of his life and times. Many today are attempting to give meaning to his words beyond his wonderful but limited vision of the future. I believe he was sent by GOD for a specific purpose in history, just like Malcom X to accomplish his purpose. I cringe at some of the far-flung theories on Dr. King’s supposed views on affirmative action, gay rights and the Iraq war. Happy Birthday Dr. King!
Comment by Dejuan — 01.17.05 @ 9:01 pm
Parsing The Dream
I consider the act of bundling the cost of iPod’s into tuition by Duke University (no, they are not “giving” iPods to freshmen) to be an excellent idea, because just reading Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech…
Trackback by Belief Seeking Understanding — 01.17.05 @ 9:12 pm
Darkstar said:
Actually, DS, most of us conservatives wrote off Buchanan as a sick-minded idiot years ago. Not a good example for your point.
La Shawn, thanks for the inspiring post. To those on an anti-conservative rant, how about just letting us ALL remember Dr. King as he should be remembered, without trying to poke everyone in the eye based on your misconceptions?
Honor his dream and his legacy, don’t use it as a weapon.
Comment by Beth — 01.17.05 @ 10:50 pm
Question: Would Dr. King be a Republican if he were alive today?
Let’s see,
- He supported affirmative action
- He fought against economic inequality
- He was a proponent of low-income housing
- He supported unions
- He was an antiwar activist
Answer: No
Comment by miguel — 01.17.05 @ 11:33 pm
Beth,
Who’s poking who’s eye? Did you read the title of La Shawn’s post?
Comment by miguel — 01.17.05 @ 11:35 pm
La Shawn Barber has a dream of equality, but are Liberals distroying it for her? Read for your self, and decide…
Comment by She has a dream too — 01.17.05 @ 11:40 pm
Thanks, but no thanks, Russell these are the hands I trust, my own. Freedom and equality start with the indivdual, and not with the goverment. I think MLK is a good example of that, don’t you think?
Comment by Monster Kabasue — 01.17.05 @ 11:59 pm
Keep Hope Victimhood Alive
Speaking below the same balcony where Martin Luther King was shot in 1968, professional shakedown artist Jesse Jackson said something a little goofy about Iraq: “We call the home team the insurgents and we’re the home team… Dr. King…
Trackback by Watcher of Weasels — 01.18.05 @ 2:31 am
Russell Tupper said: “Racial equality isn’t as easy as Democrats putting a man on the moon. Or Democrats winning WWII. Or Democrats building dams and bridges and bringing electricity to rual areas of America.
But you’re right - we should just leave it in the hands of the people with the good track record.”
The whole political spectrum has changed over the years. What you credit the democrats for doing are the very things conservatives now support and the liberal democrats are trying to block. Dams…the anti World Bank group (remember Seattle?) are fighting to stop any dams from being built. Environmentalists don’t want elictricity being run, bridges being built, space exploration.
I’m not being disrespectful here, you sound like my mom who was an old Roosevelt democrat and she never realized that the party had left her. The democrats of today would not win WWII…. Or am I misunderstanding you?
I think it is too narrow to credit the party of the President at the time of any occurance with either total blame or total credit. We are a very large nation and each party doesn’t just sit on the bench for 4 years.
I was just a little white kid when MLK gave his speech and I liked his dream. I didn’t have any political leanings then. I just wanted to love my neighbor. I’m conservative now, in this day and age, but I still love MLK.
Comment by Annie — 01.18.05 @ 3:43 am
Andy said:
Good points LaShawn. The only way forward for “disenfranchised” blacks is to hit the books, love knowledge, build & maintain families and reach for the stars.
Well, those are nice, lofty sentiments, but will all that hard work result in gainful employment for these deserving blacks? Yes, affirmative action is far from perfect (its goal of employing QUALIFIED minorities notwithstanding), but until attitudes of the majority population change, what is the alternative?
Comment by Jeff P. — 01.18.05 @ 8:02 am
RE: ikw3804
Please do yourself a favor and meet more black people. Turn the television off.
Now, I’d like to opine on Lashawn’s post. Lashawn, great job remembering the work of the man. I appreciate your point about looking at the courage of a man who, despite his foibles, marched through the deepest south and serves as a focal point and lightning rod for those opposed to desegregation.
I am disheartened by those who’d rather look at his mistakes than his courage, but this is America.
I will add this; it took more courage to sing we shall overcome in the streets of Montgomery, than it took for Malcolm to preach ‘the Ballot or the Bullet” in Harlem. That to me, is Dr. King’s legacy.
(though I love Malcolm just as much for different reasons. Republicans would have preferred his message. I suggest some of you check it out.)
Comment by stephen johnson — 01.18.05 @ 10:32 am
Regarding Annie’s point, conservatives don’t get it. They’re always late to the game, then want to say, “I was for that!” once everything has already been set in motion by liberals and progressives.
Civil Rights–no conservatives around supporting that when the fight began…
Feminism–ditto, but now, thanks to femisim, Ann Coulter can spout her ridiculous nonsense. Ann on the Iraq War: “When we were fighting communism, OK, they had mass murderers and gulags, but they were white men and they were sane. Now we’re up against absolutely insane savages.” Don’t let me get started on her defense of segregation. She’s your girl!
Job creation–job creation has ALWAYS been up with a Democrat in the office, and always awful with a Republican in the office…
And I’m tired of people who never read history. Yes the Southern Democrats were awful and racist, and guess what, they pretty much found their true party (the Republicans) and stuck with them.
The conservative elite managed to convince the poor and middle class conservative majority to spout “individualism and freedom” whenever money was being taken from their pockets, whenever their children were being killed for senseless, unjust wars (um, Iraq).
Face it. Conservatives are being duped, and twenty years from now, you’ll being doing the same thing conservatives from twenty years ago are doing today: pretending they were on the right side of history all along.
Comment by angels in america — 01.18.05 @ 10:44 am
Exactly miguel. It’s hard to take someone seriously when the say:
Honor his dream and his legacy, don’t use it as a weapon.
In a comment thread for a post entitled:
Liberal Elites Defile King’s Dream
Comment by Russell Tupper — 01.18.05 @ 11:40 am
What you credit the democrats for doing are the very things conservatives now support and the liberal democrats are trying to block…I’m not being disrespectful here, you sound like my mom who was an old Roosevelt democrat and she never realized that the party had left her. The democrats of today would not win WWII…. Or am I misunderstanding you?
You are believing the “liberal” media’s stereotype of what and who “liberals” are in this country. It’s a fallacy that’s perpetrated because the Democratic Party actually ALLOWS dissent to be expressed verbally.
The Anti-WTO: The liberals that are against the WTO are against it for SPECIFIC reasons, reasons of conscious concerning American Foreign Policy and the acceptance of countries that pay lip service to human rights while paying their work-forces slave wages. It s an understandable position. Most liberal democrats understand their valid concerns and liberal policy-makers make a real attempt to demand of these nations specific “living wage requirements†so WTO-member countries don’t rely on an economic systems based on “serfdom†to line the pockets of the kleptocrats that govern those countries.
Bridges, Dams and Electricity: I would guess that most liberal Democrats yearns for the days when these projects were PUBLIC WORKS projects actually performed by the government rather than shabbily done by the private sector in some pseudo-capitalist “lowest bidder†process. Conservative republicans fought to dismantle state-funded public works to allow private companies to profit. Think about that every time you see shabby “road work†crews holding up traffic and making you late for your business meeting. Additionally, it’s because these “private companies†are routinely defiling the environment that Environmentalists are up in arms every time someone proposes to build something somewhere. There’s no accountability, no effort to study impact of a project on the environment – it’s all about profit.
Space Exploration: Most Democrats think state-funded space exploration is a noble endeavor we must continue. Some believe that there are problems on this mortal coil we should take care of before we spend resources to go to Titan. It’s a responsible argument that causes great debate among liberals.
I could go on, but the point is the “liberal†media focuses on the most vocal minorities on the Left because we allow them to voice their opinions and speak. We allow them to engage in the policy debate. We don’t force them to fall into “lock-step†like some other party.
Example: Pro-Life Democrats still get funding from the National Party to run for election and re-election – the party doesn’t target these Democrats up for re-election by running “more-liberal†candidates in primaries. Ask Arlen Spector if the GOP has the same outlook.
Your “Democrats and WWII†statement is an often quoted, but never supported with evidence, argument that falls somewhere between partisan rhetoric and outright slander. Until you back up that statement with some “evidenceâ€, its just so much bluster.
Maybe your problem lies in the fact that everything you seem to know about liberals comes from the MSM or right wing blogs and radio DJs.
Comment by Russell Tupper — 01.18.05 @ 12:20 pm
I could not agree with you more. A day set aside to celebrate a great man of vision is used to advance the cause of liberalism. Very very sad. I enjoy your blog daily. Wish I has time to write more on my own!!!
Comment by Cliff Healy — 01.18.05 @ 1:21 pm
Actually, DS, most of us conservatives wrote off Buchanan as a sick-minded idiot years ago. Not a good example for your point.
OK, use William Buckley.
how about just letting us ALL remember Dr. King as he should be remembered, without trying to poke everyone in the eye based on your misconceptions?
Maybe you don’t realize it but that was the core of my original comments. There are misconceptions on both sides.
Oh, shudder the thought…
Comment by DarkStar — 01.18.05 @ 1:23 pm
“How do you undo 300 years in 30 or 40 years?”
You tell all children born in the last 5 years that they all will be judged the same based on merit starting the very first day of kindergarten.
I have two girls who are 5 and 8. My 5 year old started kindergarten this year. They are both 50% Filipino and 50% caucasian. There should be no reason why they should get preferential treatment or be discriminated against based on their race when compared to other children of other races at their age.
….. And…..
There should be no reason by the time they are 18 that they should be weighted down by the fact that they are not hispanic or black.
In order to fix race relations there should be no preferential treatment or discrimination based on race and/or ethnicity.
I agree whole heartedly with Ward Connerly. I read his book “Creating Equal” and I recommend it for everyone to read.
Watch, I bring up a name and there will be plenty of liberals to make accusations about him. I will not engage in any defenses of him suffice to say the accusations aren’t true.
Comment by Baklava — 01.18.05 @ 1:56 pm
Miguel asks: Would Dr. King be a Republican if he were alive today?
Let’s see,
- He supported affirmative action
- He fought against economic inequality
- He was a proponent of low-income housing
- He supported unions
- He was an antiwar activist
Answer: No
NO - Miguel - he wouldn’t be a Republican - but some thought he had socialist leanings - also called Communist in the 1960s.
And History tells the story quite well.
King had a lot of good intentions - but these weren’t enough.
Thanks for the Internet and people like La Shawn - people can get a better idea of MLK’s successes, and failures - not the sanitized version.
Comment by Frank Zavisca — 01.18.05 @ 2:33 pm
You tell all children born in the last 5 years that they all will be judged the same based on merit starting the very first day of kindergarten.
Great idea, if we lived in Happy Land. WHO, supposedly, will judge these 5 year olds? The people that have been raised in an unfair and unjust system?
Your “solution” is not a real world one. It requires that everyone who is going to judge these 5 year olds is color-blind.
That is not the case. You can’t wave a magic want and make problems go away. You can’t just declare “it’s over” and expect it to be over.
Comment by Russell Tupper — 01.18.05 @ 3:37 pm
It’s a challenge I’m willing to tackle and overcome.
Convincing people that preferential treatment should stay is your challenge (at what costs).
Comment by Baklava — 01.18.05 @ 3:52 pm
“Regarding Annie’s point, conservatives don’t get it. They’re always late to the game, then want to say, “I was for that!” once everything has already been set in motion by liberals and progressives.”
UHHH…I’ve always been a registered democrat, just seeing the “progression” going too far, has made me lean a bit more conservative. So, I can give credit to the liberals for what they’ve done. Like building the dams. Do I now how have to say they did wrong because they are trying to block them? Like maybe it didn’t work or something? They just got upset because they found out that one of those old EEEEVIL institutions was actually providing the money. PHHHH! Bash anyone you consider some evil conservative and then wonder why so many dems are jumping ship. Most of us have figured out that the old socialist idealism is what didn’t work. It’s called pragmatism.
Comment by Annie — 01.18.05 @ 4:23 pm
we all can make King’s dream a reality by ending programs which divide us. you cannot legislate people’s attitudes, but you can get rid of the roadblocks that keep people from reaching their full potential, such as good schools, low taxes, less regulation on small business, strong enforcement of anti-discrimination laws
Comment by conservblack — 01.18.05 @ 6:22 pm
Well, there is at least one liberal that doesn’t “get” it: Hillary Rodham Clinton, on Jan. 20, 2003
“.. there are those who don’t understand Dr. King’s dream and legacy. Yes, we want to be judged by the content of our character and not the color of our skin. But what makes up character? If we don’t take race as part of our character, then we are kidding ourselves.”
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 01.18.05 @ 6:44 pm
Comment by conservblack
Please explain to me how you end programs that “divide us” and de-regulate small businesses and at the same time strongly enforce anti-discrimination laws - without creating or enforcing regulations on small businesses that upholds anti-discrimination laws, that is.
I won’t even go into “low taxes with good schools.”
Comment by Russell Tupper — 01.18.05 @ 7:42 pm
Convincing people that preferential treatment should stay is your challenge (at what costs).
comment by Baklava
Uh, sorry. Affirmative Action is the status-quo.
You have to convince people to get rid of it.
For every single example you cite of AA-gone wild, I can name many more examples of AA that added value to society - both morally and fiscally.
Comment by Russell Tupper — 01.18.05 @ 7:51 pm
I’ve been “listening” to this thread, but now I have to speak up. What moral and fiscal “added value” to society do skin color preferences have? Be specific.
Comment by La Shawn — 01.18.05 @ 7:59 pm
Russell, I wish I had time to fisk your writings above — your luck this time around I guess.
Needless to say, full of canards and misrepresentations. Not that you’d deliberately misrepresnt anything of course, nonetheless, repeating revisionist/post-modernist talking pointsthem don’t make them anything more than wishful thinking.
I rest assured that the new generation ain’t buying the malarky and as long as we stick to common sense, morals (that which comes from God above) this purple country will continue to turn redder.
As an aside, didn’t the color red use to represent leftist/marxist/socialist ideology? hmmm… Rather than ban the red colors, I guess we must have co-opted it. How ironic.
Comment by Andy — 01.18.05 @ 8:03 pm
Comment by Andy
Nice ad hominem. Perhaps next time instead of just calling me either a liar (full of canards and misrepresentations) or stupid (Not that you’d deliberately misrepresnt anything of course) you could find the time to actually refute an argument.
To your aside about this next generation: I too look to them for a brilliant future - since, empirically, the upcoming generation always rebels against the status-quo.
Hopefully we’ll both be around to see how lovely the country’s shade of blue is in 2020.
Comment by Russell Tupper — 01.18.05 @ 8:26 pm
Civil Rights–no conservatives around supporting that when the fight began…
Feminism–ditto, but now, thanks to femisim, Ann Coulter can spout her ridiculous nonsense. Ann on the Iraq War: “When we were fighting communism, OK, they had mass murderers and gulags, but they were white men and they were sane. Now we’re up against absolutely insane savages.” Don’t let me get started on her defense of segregation. She’s your girl!
Job creation–job creation has ALWAYS been up with a Democrat in the office, and always awful with a Republican in the office…
Civil Rights, don’t know about Conservatives, but the Republican platform was all for it when the party first formed.
Feminism, why the HECK would ANYONE want to own up to that hack job and a half?!
Job creation, not sure about job creation, but at least under Reagan small businesses began to flourish.
Comment by Jade — 01.18.05 @ 8:52 pm
La Shawn -
Several studies have documented important gains in racial and gender equality as a direct result of affirmative action. For example, according to a report from the U.S. Labor Department, affirmative action has helped 5 million minority members and 6 million White and minority women move up in the workforce. That’s 11 million taxing-paying citizens that add a direct dollar amount to our GDP.
Additionally a study sponsored by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs showed that between 1974 and 1980 federal contractors (who were required to adopt affirmative action goals) added Black and female officials and managers at twice the rate of noncontractors. This means because of Affirmative Action, there are more black and female managers – which in turn means more white-men have black and female bosses, which deflates stereotypical prejudices held by a mostly white workforce. 30 years ago having a female or black boss was unthinkable to most white men. Now, for the most part, it’s not that big a deal. How could that have been accomplished without Affirmative Action?
Furthermore, job discrimination is grounded in prejudice and exclusion, whereas affirmative action is an effort to overcome prejudicial treatment through inclusion. The most effective way to cure society of exclusionary practices is to make special efforts at inclusion, which is exactly what affirmative action does. The logic of affirmative action is no different than the logic of treating a nutritional deficiency with vitamin supplements. For a healthy person, high doses of vitamin supplements may be unnecessary or even harmful, but for a person whose system is out of balance, supplements are an efficient way to restore the body’s balance.
Simply put, Affirmative Action increases minority employment in formely “close” careerpaths. Increasing minority employment adds to the fiscal well being of the country while breaking down walls and defeating prejudice – which is “morally†the right thing to do.
Source:
http://www.understandingprejudice.org/readroom/articles/affirm.htm
Comment by Russell Tupper — 01.18.05 @ 8:53 pm
And that was exactly what I was waiting for: the presumption that blacks get where they are BECAUSE OF THEIR BLACK SKIN. This is the repugnant nonsense I get from while liberals ALL THE TIME, and I’m TIRED OF IT.
What about the notion of people advancing because of what they know and how well they do their job and excel at their craft? No, it’s their blackness that people can’t stop looking at!
All of the mumbo-jumbo double-speak about “exclusionary practices” truly makes me ill. And the numbers you roll off about “minorities” is more of the same. I’m updating this post with a link to “The Immorality of Race Preferences.”
Latent bigotry disguised as…liberal enlightenment. I think it’s time to close this thread.
Comment by La Shawn — 01.18.05 @ 9:01 pm
La Shawn -
White liberals? Sorry dear if I don’t wear my race on my sleeve. But I’m as black as you. Ask baldilocks.
Comment by Russell Tupper — 01.18.05 @ 9:08 pm
Russell, I apologize and take back what I said for any of your comments prior to 01.17.05 @ 6:55pm.
However, going forward from that rant, my statement stands. When considering executive and/or party accomplishments, it behooves us all to consider the balance of power at the time. So in response, I’ve created a simple table after doing some screenscraping (thanks M$ Excel)
So w/o further ado:
Years____ | POTUS_____ | SENATE_ | HOUSE____ | IMHO Noteworthy
1927-1929 | Coolidge(R)__ | 46:48 50% | 194:238 55% | Effectively doing nothing
1929-1931 | Hoover(R)___ | 39:56 58% | 164:270 62% | Stock Crash. Cuts taxes, expand spending
1931-1933 | Hoover(R)___ | 47:48 50% | 216:218 50% | Economy begins to recover, kneecapped by Europe
1933-1935 | FDR(D)_____ | 59:36 61% | 313:117 72% | Blame Hoover for recession. New Deal
1935-1937 | FDR(D)_____ | 69:25 72% | 322:103 74% | Economy begins to recover. Attempts redesign of SCOTUS
1937-1939 | FDR(D)_____ | 76:16 79% | 334:88 77% | Good Neighbor policy
1939-1941 | FDR(D)_____ | 69:23 72% | 262:169 60% | Prepares for war, Lend-Lease
1941-1943 | FDR(D)_____ | 66:28 69% | 267:162 61% | WWII, brings in CEOs to produce war machines and maximize public works efforts
1943-1945 | FDR(D)_____ | 57:38 59% | 222:209 51% | WWII. Truman saves $15B from Fraud, Waste & Abuse
1945-1947 | Truman(D)___ | 57:38 59% | 242:191 56% | V_E Day, V_J Day, UN chartered
1947-1949 | Truman(D)___ | 45:51 53% | 188:246 57% | Expand SS, Fair Employment Practices Act (Fair Deal)
1949-1951 | Truman(D)___ | 54:42 56% | 263:171 60% | Truman Doctrine, Marshall Plan, Berlin Airlift & Korean War
1951-1953 | Truman(D)___ | 49:47 51% | 235:199 54% | Korea partitioned
1953-1955 | Ike(R)_______ | 47:48 50% | 213:221 51% | US/USSR develop H_Bomb
1955-1957 | Ike(R)_______ | 48:47 50% | 232:203 53% | Proposes arms verification w/USSR
1957-1959 | Ike(R)_______ | 49:47 51% | 234:201 54% | Desegregation of military & schools accelerated — ‘There must be no second class citizens in this country’
1959-1961 | Ike(R)_______ | 65:35 65% | 283:153 65% | Atoms for Peace program
1961-1963 | JFK(D)______ | 64:36 64% | 263:174 60% | Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missles, To the Moon, tax cuts, sends advisors to ‘Nam
1963-1965 | LBJ(D)______ | 66:34 66% | 259:176 60% | Civil Rights, Tax Cuts, increased spending
1965-1967 | LBJ(D)______ | 68:32 68% | 295:140 68% | Great Society program
1967-1969 | LBJ(D)______ | 64:36 64% | 247:187 57% | Nam, Black ghetto unrest
1969-1971 | Nixon(R)____ | 57:43 57% | 243:192 56% | Moon landing, revenue sharing, draft ended
1971-1973 | Nixon(R)____ | 54:44 54% | 255:180 59% | Engage Peking/Moscow, disengage Nam, Egypt/Syria vs Israel
1973-1975 | Nixon/Ford(R) | 56:42 56% | 242:192 56% | Watergate, resigns
1975-1977 | Ford(R)_____ | 60:38 60% | 291:144 67% | Heals nation, fights inflation, maintains Détente
1977-1979 | Carter(D)____ | 61:38 61% | 292:143 67% | National energy policy _ deregulate energy & transportation
1979-1981 | Carter(D)____ | 58:41 58% | 277:158 64% | USSR invades Afghanistan, Iran hostages, crippling unemployment & inflation. Attacked by a wabbit and seeks nuclear counseling from daughter
1981-1983 | Reagan(R)___ | 46:53 53% | 242:192 56% | Stimulates economic growth, curbs inflation, increases employment, and strengthens national defense
1983-1985 | Reagan(R)___ | 46:54 54% | 269:166 62% | Tax cuts, growing deficit, Grenada invasion, still blows Mondale out of water
1985-1987 | Reagan(R)___ | 47:53 53% | 253:182 58% | Overhauls tax code, declared war against international terrorism
1987-1989 | Reagan(R)___ | 55:45 55% | 258:177 59% | Plays hardball with USSR and S American subversives. Overal economic prosperity & peace thru strength
1989-1991 | Bush(R)_____ | 55:45 55% | 260:175 60% | Exxon_Valdez, Panama invasion, Berlin Wall Falls, Gulf War 1
1991-1993 | Bush(R)_____ | 56:44 56% | 267:167 61% | Economy falters, ‘Read my lips’, loses popularity vote due to Perot’s 15%
1993-1995 | Clinton(D)___ | 56:44 56% | 258:176 59% | Wins w/<50% popularity vote, ‘I feel your pain’, co-opts GOP platform
1995-1997 | Clinton(D)___ | 47:53 53% | 204:230 53% | Welfare reform. Liberal spending programs blocked by GOP
1997-1999 | Clinton(D)___ | 45:55 55% | 206:228 52% | Monicagate, impeached by House
1999-2001 | Clinton(D)___ | 45:55 55% | 211:223 51% | Lame duck. Bosnia/Kosovo/Desert Fox. DotCom bust
2001-2003 | Bush(R)____ | 48:50 50% | 212:221 51% | 9/11, frees Afghanistan, recession & turn around, rising employment
2003-2005 | Bush(R)____ | 48:51 51% | 204:229 53% | Economy starts recovery, Iraq invasion, UN Oil Scam discovered, Afghan elections
2005-2007 | Bush(R)____ | 44:55 55% | 202:232 53% | W/o US & Australia military, much more Tsunami victims, UN inept. Iraq elections, Condi becomes SecState
NOTES
Given the layout of La Shawn’s Blog, I hope it turns out OK.
1) “##:##” = # of DEM vs # of GOP, or Left:Right
2) “## = Majority Party
3) “##%” = Majority Party %. Generally speaking and depending on circumstances, either a simple, 60% or 2/3 majority is required to pass legislation, override vetoes etc
4) “##% = Majority Party is NOT POTUS’ Party
SOURCES
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/index2.html
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm
http://clerk.house.gov/histHigh/Congressional_History/partyDiv.html
Comment by Andy — 01.19.05 @ 7:41 pm
La Shawn,
I understand how upset you are when you say you believe that white people (even though Russell isn’t white) accuse blacks of “getting where they are” because of their black skin–i.e. what you would call “preferential treatment.”
But I’m a little confused as to how old you are, and when you were born…are you entirely unaware that 30 years ago most whites simply wouldn’t have hired even qualified blacks? Do you not know that it was Nixon who, realizing this, extended Roosevelt’s propositions to become the third plank of Affirmative action?
It was called “The Philadelphia Plan” (1969) and it set specifc goals for minority hiring. He did this because he knew that without nudging whites to hire qualified blacks, they simply wouldn’t, and what Nixon wanted (despite being no personal friend to blacks) was to expand the black middle class, and bring them more fully into the Republican fold.
One thing that happened, that many people aren’t aware of, is that to gain further support for AA, women were added on, and today, white women are the biggest beneficiaries of AA, and don’t even realize it…
I wish people who talk about AA actually cared enough to do research on it..
I also wish conservatives who talk so mush of “skin color preferences” and “merit” would explain why it’s fine for someone who NEVER would have gotten into Yale w/ his awful grades (GW BUSH) to benefit from white skin color preferences?
Where’s the uproar?
That’s why your cause has no merit. When the sides are reversed, conservatives NEVER fight against white skin color preferences that are institutionalized in our society.
Comment by angels in america — 01.19.05 @ 8:39 pm
AiA, I’ll respond to just one canard:
Bush got into Yale w/awful grades (must have been snorting cocaine to enhance his performance)? I suppose he passed OCS & Flight school with bad grades as well? Then explain how he got into Harvard Business School?
No one gets in regardless of connections unless they have the grade. Think how devalued a HBS MBA would be devalued if anyone could buy a degree.
Alternatively, sKerry couldn’t get out of the Navy to get into his school of choice since they all turned him down. He had to reach deeper into the barrel before he could find one that would accept him.
Comment by Andy — 01.19.05 @ 9:00 pm
If MLK were alive today he would be telling Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton to keep their big noses out of things that dont concern them such as making buisnesses pay money to Jacksons RAINBOW/PUSH and all the time that Big Al Sharpton tried to get blacks to riot when they have better thing to do like work at their jobs and provide for their families
Comment by firebird — 01.19.05 @ 9:29 pm
Andy,
Do you know anything about your president? Yes Bush got into Yale with awful grades! GW Bush was an AWFUL student at Andover–and since you seem to know so little about anything, Andover was the prep school his father went to, and Andover only accepted him b/c of that connection.
Bush is what is called a “legacy.” And yes, you can get into Harvard Business school based on connections if you’re a Bush, or come from a powerful family. You’re telling me he got in based on the straight C’s he earned at Yale? And he earned D’s at Andover. Look it up.
I went to Yale, I get the alumni magazine, and know that he was the biggest legacy that ever was (I thought others knew that, too, but apparently not on this site…). At most schools–and Yale and Harvard especially–there is a big push to let in sons (and now daughters) of alums. Many, many allowances are made for “legacies.” Much more than for “diversity,” and more than for athletics. The reason is simple. Alums donate big bucks. Alums have connections, power, prestige, and the Ivy Leagues want to continue to court their support.
See, La Shawn. This is who you’re dealing with. People who are completely uninformed about their own president, their own party…
And, in case you’re completely outfoxed by Fox, you probably don’t know that despite “Rathergate” Bush didn’t show up for the majority of flight school. In fact, he went to Harvard MBA and tried to “make it up” later. Flight school was his way of getting out of ‘Nam. He was, however, better than Cheney, who got (at last count) five deferments, and who went on record as saying, “I had other priorities in the 60’s.”
The fact is, even the president’s friends and family knew what a bad student he was. So you all support Affirmative Nepotism for him and his kind. Equality at work.
Re Firebird. I don’t agree with everything Jesse Jackson–and certainly not with everything Al Sharpton–says or does. But I’m quite sure King wouldn’t stoop to your language, telling them to keep “their big noses” out of things…
I’ll just say this, then this thead is closed. It’s skin color preferences that bother me, not legacy preferences. I’m not all that bothered by athletic preferences, either. Admitting/hiring a black person because they’re black is quite odious. If you don’t get it, perhaps you should read someone else’s blog. - Admin
Comment by angels in america — 01.20.05 @ 5:14 am