Why Blacks Aren't Likely To Become Republicans Anytime Soon

[Donald Isler]

The New York Times
By BOB HERBERT
Published: September 25, 2007
I applaud the thousands of people, many of them poor, who traveled from around the country to protest in Jena, La., last week. But what I’d really like to see is a million angry protesters marching on the headquarters of the National Republican Party in Washington.

Enough is enough. Last week the Republicans showed once again just how anti-black their party really is.

The G.O.P. has spent the last 40 years insulting, disenfranchising and otherwise stomping on the interests of black Americans. Last week, the residents of Washington, D.C., with its majority black population, came remarkably close to realizing a goal they have sought for decades — a voting member of Congress to represent them.

A majority in Congress favored the move, and the House had already approved it. But the Republican minority in the Senate — with the enthusiastic support of President Bush — rose up on Tuesday and said: “No way, baby.”

At least 57 senators favored the bill, a solid majority. But the Republicans prevented a key motion on the measure from receiving the 60 votes necessary to move it forward in the Senate. The bill died.

At the same time that the Republicans were killing Congressional representation for D.C. residents, the major G.O.P. candidates for president were offering a collective slap in the face to black voters nationally by refusing to participate in a long-scheduled, nationally televised debate focusing on issues important to minorities.

The radio and television personality Tavis Smiley worked for a year to have a pair of these debates televised on PBS, one for the Democratic candidates and the other for the Republicans. The Democratic debate was held in June, and all the major candidates participated.

The Republican debate is scheduled for Thursday. But Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson have all told Mr. Smiley: “No way, baby.”

They won’t be there. They can’t be bothered debating issues that might be of interest to black Americans. After all, they’re Republicans.

This is the party of the Southern strategy — the party that ran, like panting dogs, after the votes of segregationist whites who were repelled by the very idea of giving equal treatment to blacks. Ronald Reagan, George H.W. (Willie Horton) Bush, George W. (Compassionate Conservative) Bush — they all ran with that lousy pack.

Dr. Carolyn Goodman, a woman I was privileged to call a friend, died last month at the age of 91. She was the mother of Andrew Goodman, one of the three young civil rights activists shot to death by rabid racists near Philadelphia, Miss., in 1964.

Dr. Goodman, one of the most decent people I have ever known, carried the ache of that loss with her every day of her life.

In one of the vilest moves in modern presidential politics, Ronald Reagan, the ultimate hero of this latter-day Republican Party, went out of his way to kick off his general election campaign in 1980 in that very same Philadelphia, Miss. He was not there to send the message that he stood solidly for the values of Andrew Goodman. He was there to assure the bigots that he was with them.

“I believe in states’ rights,” said Mr. Reagan. The crowd roared.

In 1981, during the first year of Mr. Reagan’s presidency, the late Lee Atwater gave an interview to a political science professor at Case Western Reserve University, explaining the evolution of the Southern strategy:

“You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger,’ ” said Atwater. “By 1968, you can’t say ‘nigger’ — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things, and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.”

In 1991, the first President Bush poked a finger in the eye of black America by selecting the egregious Clarence Thomas for the seat on the Supreme Court that had been held by the revered Thurgood Marshall. The fact that there is a rigid quota on the court, permitting one black and one black only to serve at a time, is itself racist.

Mr. Bush seemed to be saying, “All right, you want your black on the court? Boy, have I got one for you.”

Republicans improperly threw black voters off the rolls in Florida in the contested presidential election of 2000, and sent Florida state troopers into the homes of black voters to intimidate them in 2004.

Blacks have been remarkably quiet about this sustained mistreatment by the Republican Party, which says a great deal about the quality of black leadership in the U.S. It’s time for that passive, masochistic posture to end.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times

[jbuck919]

We will not see an end to the complications of this situation in our lifetime, Donald. There is a significant body of Republican African-Americans, and a case can be made that Colin Powell could have been the first Afro-Am President (my impression is that his family talked him out of running, as did the family of Mario Cuomo). On the other hand, as a signifcant political presence, politically visible African Americans are just as capable of shooting themselves in the foot as anyone else. Part of the problem, for which they can perhaps be forgiven, is the old story that all politics is local politics, which means that they feel the primary responsibility to their own constituency and often this tends to conflict with being the leader of the free world.

[Corlyss_D]

But what I’d really like to see is a million angry protesters marching on the headquarters of the National Republican Party in Washington.

Enough is enough. Last week the Republicans showed once again just how anti-black their party really is.

The G.O.P. has spent the last 40 years insulting, disenfranchising and otherwise stomping on the interests of black Americans. Last week, the residents of Washington, D.C., with its majority black population, came remarkably close to realizing a goal they have sought for decades — a voting member of Congress to represent them.

This article is ignorant bullsh*it, Donald.

Blacks aren't about to become Republican in large numbers anytime soon because they appear willing to disregard 90 years of abuse by the Democrats because John F. Kennedy could talk a good game while doing what he was really good at: nothing. What the Democrats are really good at is forcing the middle class to pay for the panoply of dysfunctional behaviors exhibited then by inner city blacks. In view of the fact that the Democrats pay them to be continuously pregnant with illegitimate children and to be drug addicts and criminals, why should they join a party that emphasizes personal responsibility?

[Philoctetes]

I think I'll leave.
This site most definitely is not for a person like me.

I now understand why trolls like jbuck and Saul are allowed to flourish here.

[jbuck919]

But what I’d really like to see is a million angry protesters marching on the headquarters of the National Republican Party in Washington.

Enough is enough. Last week the Republicans showed once again just how anti-black their party really is.

The G.O.P. has spent the last 40 years insulting, disenfranchising and otherwise stomping on the interests of black Americans. Last week, the residents of Washington, D.C., with its majority black population, came remarkably close to realizing a goal they have sought for decades — a voting member of Congress to represent them.

This article is ignorant bullsh*it, Donald.

Blacks aren't about to become Republican in large numbers anytime soon because they appear willing to disregard 90 years of abuse by the Democrats because John F. Kennedy could talk a good game while doing what he was really good at: nothing. What the Democrats are really good at is forcing the middle class to pay for the panoply of dysfunctional behaviors exhibited then by inner city blacks. In view of the fact that the Democrats pay them to be continuously pregnant with illegitimate children and to be drug addicts and criminals, why should they join a party that emphasizes personal responsibility?

Every word of that is outrageous.

[Philoctetes]

But what I’d really like to see is a million angry protesters marching on the headquarters of the National Republican Party in Washington.

Enough is enough. Last week the Republicans showed once again just how anti-black their party really is.

The G.O.P. has spent the last 40 years insulting, disenfranchising and otherwise stomping on the interests of black Americans. Last week, the residents of Washington, D.C., with its majority black population, came remarkably close to realizing a goal they have sought for decades — a voting member of Congress to represent them.

This article is ignorant bullsh*it, Donald.

Blacks aren't about to become Republican in large numbers anytime soon because they appear willing to disregard 90 years of abuse by the Democrats because John F. Kennedy could talk a good game while doing what he was really good at: nothing. What the Democrats are really good at is forcing the middle class to pay for the panoply of dysfunctional behaviors exhibited then by inner city blacks. In view of the fact that the Democrats pay them to be continuously pregnant with illegitimate children and to be drug addicts and criminals, why should they join a party that emphasizes personal responsibility?

Every word of that is outrageous.

Kind of shocking that upon my last day here. I find something to admire jbuck by.

Sorry for always giving you such a hard time.

[Corlyss_D]

Blacks aren't about to become Republican in large numbers anytime soon because they appear willing to disregard 90 years of abuse by the Democrats because John F. Kennedy could talk a good game while doing what he was really good at: nothing. What the Democrats are really good at is forcing the middle class to pay for the panoply of dysfunctional behaviors exhibited then by inner city blacks. In view of the fact that the Democrats pay them to be continuously pregnant with illegitimate children and to be drug addicts and criminals, why should they join a party that emphasizes personal responsibility?

Every word of that is outrageous.

I assume you are referring to my remarks. Truth is outrageous.

[Corlyss_D]

Kind of shocking that upon my last day here. I find something to admire jbuck by.

Just goes to show you how widespread the Democratic propaganda is. If you do not possess a critical eye to what they are doing, it is shocking to have someone explain it to you.

Why would this be your last day?

[Ted]

JB writes:

Colin Powell could have been the first Afro-Am President (my impression is that his family talked him out of running, as did the family of Mario Cuomo

That's odd, why would Mario Cuomo's family talk Powell out of running

[Donald Isler]

Corlyss wrote:

"Truth is outrageous."

Sometimes it is, but there's little truth in what you wrote here..

[Corlyss_D]

JB writes:

Colin Powell could have been the first Afro-Am President (my impression is that his family talked him out of running, as did the family of Mario Cuomo

That's odd, why would Mario Cuomo's family talk Powell out of running

I can posit two reasons: 1) Cuomo had ambitions of running in the 90s. If Powell had won, he would have been a sitting president heading for 2 terms. 2) Democrats absolutely despise blacks who run as Republicans. It puts the lie to their specious self-congratulations about controlling the blacks and represents a very real threat to their programs. Plus the Dems would have to smear them, which is okay on a localized basis, but would present real problems for them on a national scale. You can rest assured if Obama were running as a Republican, they would be merciless in stirring up race-hatred. Then they would be unmasked for what they are.

[Corlyss_D]

Corlyss wrote:

"Truth is outrageous."

Sometimes it is, but there's little truth in what you wrote here..

Donald, you are just exhibiting your massive ignorance when you say that. Do you recall the timing of the Civil Rights act and what Johnson said about signing it? 1964 for the Civil Rights Act and 1965 for the Voting Rights act. He believed he was delivering the south into the hands of the Republican party for a generation. Why? Not because the Republicans were racists but because the south would shift to the Republicans because they were the only national party that wasn't the Democrats. When did Johnson announce the War on Poverty? 1964. What was its aim? To keep the blacks, particularly the inner city blacks, in a position to demographically offset the southern shift to the Republican party.

[Opus132]

But what I’d really like to see is a million angry protesters marching on the headquarters of the National Republican Party in Washington.

Enough is enough. Last week the Republicans showed once again just how anti-black their party really is.

The G.O.P. has spent the last 40 years insulting, disenfranchising and otherwise stomping on the interests of black Americans. Last week, the residents of Washington, D.C., with its majority black population, came remarkably close to realizing a goal they have sought for decades — a voting member of Congress to represent them.

This article is ignorant bullsh*it, Donald.

Blacks aren't about to become Republican in large numbers anytime soon because they appear willing to disregard 90 years of abuse by the Democrats because John F. Kennedy could talk a good game while doing what he was really good at: nothing. What the Democrats are really good at is forcing the middle class to pay for the panoply of dysfunctional behaviors exhibited then by inner city blacks. In view of the fact that the Democrats pay them to be continuously pregnant with illegitimate children and to be drug addicts and criminals, why should they join a party that emphasizes personal responsibility?

Every word of that is outrageous.

Actually, she's right on the mark. It's obvious that the 'black community' is faultless for their own problems, blame the Republicans instead.

[Opus132]

Why would this be your last day?

Liberals are like scientologists. They cannot allow themselves to be exposed to views contrary of their own without sacrificing their well being in the process.

[jbuck919]

JB writes:

Colin Powell could have been the first Afro-Am President (my impression is that his family talked him out of running, as did the family of Mario Cuomo

That's odd, why would Mario Cuomo's family talk Powell out of running

I can posit two reasons: 1) Cuomo had ambitions of running in the 90s. If Powell had won, he would have been a sitting president heading for 2 terms. 2) Democrats absolutely despise blacks who run as Republicans. It puts the lie to their specious self-congratulations about controlling the blacks and represents a very real threat to their programs. Plus the Dems would have to smear them, which is okay on a localized basis, but would present real problems for them on a national scale. You can rest assured if Obama were running as a Republican, they would be merciless in stirring up race-hatred. Then they would be unmasked for what they are.

OK, OK, Mr. Jbuck acknowledges his solecism, but I have always imagined that Cuomo, an enormously accomplished and intelligent poltician who was the last so far in a series of great governors of New York and who also announced publicly in advance that he would decline an appointment to the Supreme Court, had some kind of skeleton in the closet which would not come out at the level of office he held but would have at the higher level. This may be simply my imagination, but he was a great political figure. (In case anyone does not know, his son is the current Attorney General of New York, and the best I can say at this point is that he is not awful.)

I once heard Cuomo (the elder) interviewed, and I think I can paraphrase him without doing him an injustice, for he was as well-spoken a man as I have ever heard. "My father was an Italian immigrant who was a ditch digger. My mother had no great expectations of her son except that he might one day become the Governor of New York."

[Donald Isler]

Corlyss,

After you finish frothing at the very thought of Lyndon Johsnson, whom, I suspect, you regard as a somewhat lower form of life than even Osama Bin Laden, I suggest you consider about two facts:

1) You don't seem to have a very high opinion of most black people, and

2) None of the pre-1965 southern Democrats who made life miserable for blacks would be welcome in today's Democratic Party. They, and their political descendants have all ensconced themselves in your Republican Party. Is it any surprise that blacks don't feel very welcome there?

[Barry]

First of all, I'm going to wager I know Corlyss a lot better than you do, Donald, and she's not a racist. She holds some politically incorrect views on the subject of race and isn't shy about sharing them, but that's not the same thing as disliking black people. What I've seen most of all over the years from her on this topic is a genuine belief that if more AfricanAmericans embrace what have essentially become the Republican principles of self-reliance and advancement through free enterprise, rather than relying on government to solve their problems for them (i.e. the liberal prescription), they'd be helping themselves in the longrun.

I'm guessing this statement from Corlyss is what's rubbed a couple posters the wrong way:

<<<What the Democrats are really good at is forcing the middle class to pay for the panoply of dysfunctional behaviors exhibited then by inner city blacks. In view of the fact that the Democrats pay them to be continuously pregnant with illegitimate children and to be drug addicts and criminals, why should they join a party that emphasizes personal responsibility?>>>

Again, that may not be the most diplomatic way to make a point, but Corlyss is obviously bright enough to realize that not all or even most blacks fall into those categories. But there is no point in denying that having children out of wedlock at insanely young ages, drug abuse and violent crime are out-of-control problems in the black community and that those problems have developed or gotten much worse since Johnson's war on poverty was launched? I don't think it's going out on a limb to say that some of the government programs designed to help poor blacks have had undesired consequences.

As an aside, I don't think Johnson pushed his war on poverty for selfish political reasons. I think he had a lifelong desire to help the poor. But that doesn't mean his plan for accomplishing his longterm goals was the best one to accomplish them.

Republicans may not say what blacks want to hear, but they aren't the ones creating the crisis that exists in many inner-city black communities.

[Fugu]

But what I’d really like to see is a million angry protesters marching on the headquarters of the National Republican Party in Washington.

Enough is enough. Last week the Republicans showed once again just how anti-black their party really is.

The G.O.P. has spent the last 40 years insulting, disenfranchising and otherwise stomping on the interests of black Americans. Last week, the residents of Washington, D.C., with its majority black population, came remarkably close to realizing a goal they have sought for decades — a voting member of Congress to represent them.

This article is ignorant bullsh*it, Donald.

Blacks aren't about to become Republican in large numbers anytime soon because they appear willing to disregard 90 years of abuse by the Democrats because John F. Kennedy could talk a good game while doing what he was really good at: nothing. What the Democrats are really good at is forcing the middle class to pay for the panoply of dysfunctional behaviors exhibited then by inner city blacks. In view of the fact that the Democrats pay them to be continuously pregnant with illegitimate children and to be drug addicts and criminals, why should they join a party that emphasizes personal responsibility?

Speaking of ignorant bull*hit.

[Donald Isler]

Barry,

I'm sorry you've bought into the right-wing crap that racism is over, and that all of black peoples' problems are of their own creation. Which is essentially what you're saying.

If you were 10 or 15 years older and could remember the civil rights era I think your perspective would be different.

[Ted]

OK, OK, Mr. Jbuck acknowledges his solecism

Good for you John, you realized I was sarcastically pointing out your gaffe, our friend from Utah on the other hand...... Rolling Eyes

[Barry]

Barry,

I'm sorry you've bought into the right-wing crap that racism is over, and that all of black peoples' problems are of their own creation. Which is essentially what you're saying.

If you were 10 or 15 years older and could remember the civil rights era I think your perspective would be different.

Donald,
You don't know what my view on this or my personal background is. You're very good at making these kind of pronouncements without having a clue as to what you're talking about though.

Nobody on this board that I'm aware of has ever said racism is over, yet you're at least the third liberal on this board who read that into our comments. That shows your biases, not ours. I even agree that the problems that are rampant in the black community can be traced all the way back to slavery in a sense. But what I've said (and I'd guess Corlyss agrees with me, but she can say for herself) is that what are far and away the most serious problems facing blacks today are going to have to be solved largely by the black community. Neither the government nor white racists are forcing young blacks to get pregnant at alarming rates and rarely with a husband. And it's not the government or whites that are forcing young black males to kill other blacks at alarming rates. The breakdown of the black family is something that has gotten much worse in recent decades. Is it such a horrible thing to say the best thing the government can do is not create incentives for irresponsible behavior?

It's a question of emphasis and deflecting attention from the most serious problems, thereby ensuring that they continue to not be properly dealt with. I don't deny that there is racisim still today in the country, but it's nowhere near as bad as it was decades ago and will be even less of a problem in the coming decades. And just as importantly, white racism isn't doing nearly as much damage to the black community as the breakdown of the black family and the resulting violent crime. But saying that doesn't jive with the guilt complex white liberals are on. I'm concerned with what works best; not what feels best.

If you're interested, here is a site with a link to a back and forth between two black commentators who essentially debate the very topic we're discussing:

http://mirroronamerica.blogspot.com/200 ... scuss.html

[Corlyss_D]

You and Rob and Dan often turn discussions about failed Democratic policies into a tirade about me and my views. You know, that only shows me you aren't capable of a creditable thought on the issues and I am left to lament another ignernt git who votes. I mean, you don't bother even to defend the policies or the programs; you just whale away at me because I point out that they are failures. And not only failures, but personally destructive as well as expensive disasters that cross the line into the flagrantly immoral. You'd make good extras in the tale of the Emperor's New Clothes.

I suggest you consider about two facts:

1) You don't seem to have a very high opinion of most black people, and [

That's not a fact; it's more of your self-delusion about the consequences of Democratic policies. As some point, the mature citizen has to judge government programs by their results, not the saccharine intentions used to sell them. Of course, some never catch on.

2) None of the pre-1965 southern Democrats who made life miserable for blacks would be welcome in today's Democratic Party. They, and their political descendants have all ensconced themselves in your Republican Party.

Oh, please! No thinking person belongs to today's Democratic party with the left-wing baggage it carries now. That's why you guys don't have an idea among you except Bush-bashing. Good luck with that after Bush leaves office. You can't run a country on it. The thinking members of the party have become independents. Lyndon Johnson took the party away from Southerners by blackmailing the southern Congressional delegation into voting for the platform which was written by the Republicans and which failed in one Democratic-controlled Congress after another for 90 years. If you think Republicans were going to refuse the votes of the Southerners because northeast liberals are scandalized, you're even more naive than I thought you were.

Is it any surprise that blacks don't feel very welcome there?

That's not the reason they vote Democratic. They vote Democratic for two reasons: 1) they are not mature enough as a political force to understand the necessity of putting their votes in play in order to be courted by both parties; and 2) the Democrats give them money - not enough to allow them to make it out of the inner cities, just enough to keep them in line and dependent on the Democrats. That's why I have said here repeatedly that Katrina was the greatest liberating force for blacks since Sherman marched thru the south. It got them off the disgraceful failed New Orleans plantation and out of the grip of the Democrats. Too damn bad it can't happen all over the country.

I'm sorry you've bought into the right-wing crap that racism is over, and that all of black peoples' problems are of their own creation.

Makes you feel sooooo socially responsible to keep voting for failed programs which have destroyed the black family more effectively than southern racism ever did, paid for by the taxpayer, so you can sympathize with the poor blacks and chatter on about terribly Republicans abuse them.

If you were 10 or 15 years older and could remember the civil rights era I think your perspective would be different.

That's ridiculous and patronizing. Barry's unique circumstance and his views have nothing to do with his age, and they are a lot more credible than your goody-goody limousine liberal baloney. I am old enough to remember the civil rights era; when there was a fight to make, I did so, having grown up in a color-blind military society. I spoke out for equal treatment of every American citizen. I'm appalled at the degraded spectacle that noble effort has become, with the old civil rights bulls clinging to every legislated special privilege as though it were still 1960. The fight now is to rescue the inner city blacks from the clutches of the Democrats who don't give a rip about them except for their votes and the civil rights industry that only wants them for props.

[Corlyss_D]

Since no one was reading this as a separate thread and it is relevant here . . .

The Party of Civil Rights
It wasn't the Democrats.
by Gerard Alexander
09/24/2007, Volume 013, Issue 02


An anniversary passed without much notice on September 9th. It was fifty years since President Eisenhower signed the 1957 Civil Rights Act. This was the first civil rights legislation to make it into law since Reconstruction, and it also marked just about the last time that commentators considered the Republican party to be friendly to civil rights. In the five decades since, the idea that conservatives are hostile to minorities and civil rights has been a mainstay of academic research and publishing, amply reported by the press, and happily echoed by Democratic politicians. But if we revisit the 1957 law and trace events forward from there, we uncover a more interesting story.

The 1957 Civil Rights Act was mainly a Republican achievement. For a close to a century after the Civil War, the Democratic party had been hamstrung on civil rights. Much of their electoral base and congressional delegation was from the South, and southern Democrats worked as a bloc in Congress to nix any civil rights or voting bills. The Republicans had no senators and pitiably few House members from the South, and had many constituents, both black and white, repelled by segregation. So clear was the Republican profile on the issue that Harry Truman's 1947-48 civil rights program--usually seen as kick-starting the postwar civil rights debate--was in part motivated by Democrats' concerns that preexisting Republican efforts on civil rights might win decisive numbers of black votes in key northern states in the 1948 elections.

Truman did not enact most of his program, and reform legislation hardly came in a rush when Eisenhower succeeded him in 1953 either. But Eisenhower's Justice Department did side with those who found segregated schools unconstitutional when the Brown v. Board of Education case went before the Supreme Court. Even before his 1956 reelection campaign, Eisenhower proposed a civil rights package that focused on helping African Americans in the South register to vote, though southern Democrats quickly stalled the bill in Congress. And the Republicans' 1956 platform explicitly endorsed the Brown decision, while the Democrats' did not.

When the legislation was revived by the administration in 1957, it was assisted by a key ruling by Vice President Nixon, acting as Senate president, and propelled forward by a crucial intervention by Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson. As author David Nichols and others have shown, Johnson struck one of the bill's key provisions and gutted another by ensuring that anyone charged with voting rights violations would get a jury trial, which was understood to practically guarantee acquittal in the South. With the bill sufficiently watered down, almost all its southern opponents caved and--despite the drama of Senator Strom Thurmond's record 24-hour filibuster--the bill was passed. It created the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, laid the basis for the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, and tried to advance black voting rights in the South, which ultimately proved ineffectual. Within weeks of signing it, though, Eisenhower dispatched federal troops--paratroopers from the 101st Airborne--to Arkansas to enforce the desegregation of Little Rock schools.

Given all this, Nixon entered the 1960 election season with at least as strong a record on civil rights as John F. Kennedy and ran on an equally strong civil rights platform. But he lost, and from then on the idea that Republicans were soft on civil rights and even downright hostile to racial minorities became prevalent. It's a storyline that originated in the 1964 presidential campaign when Johnson easily defeated Barry Goldwater.

Goldwater had voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act and then as the Republican nominee won several Deep South states with heavy support from segregationists. With that, the main party of civil rights became known for its implied support of segregation. That was reinforced four years later, when Nixon, in his quest for the presidency, implicitly promised Southerners to go slow on integration, and once in office sided with southern school districts and opposed busing. From then on, the story goes, Republican politicians appealed to the politics of white solidarity by opposing busing and affirmative action, criticizing welfare, harping on crime (think Willie Horton), and appointing judges who rendered judgments in these same directions. Worse, these Republicans excelled: What Goldwater had done badly in 1964, Nixon, Reagan, and their successors learned to do well, often with code-words, a wink, and a nod. They supported civil rights in words but abandoned it in substance.

A close examination shows that, yes, Nixon and Reagan adjusted their rhetoric and behavior to try to attract southern white voters, just as Franklin Roosevelt did when he refused to support anti-lynching bills for fear of antagonizing southern congressmen. Just as John Kennedy did when he wooed southern leaders (including by voting for the 1957 jury trial provision) in the lead-up to the 1960 Democratic nomination battle. And just as Hubert Humphrey did when he rubbed elbows with Georgia's segregationist governor Lester Maddox as the 1968 election approached. The question should not be about electioneering or rhetoric but about whether Nixon and Reagan's policies made conservatism any more racist in practice than FDR's liberalism.

With Nixon, the issue of school desegregation is front and center. He broke with LBJ's strategy on this issue. Rather than threatening recalcitrant southern schools with the loss of federal funding, Nixon formed a cabinet committee, led by George Shultz, that convened black and white leaders from each noncomplying state. Together, they overcame 15 years of foot-dragging and negotiated the successful desegregation of local school systems within a couple of years. Nixon insisted that administration spokesmen not crow publicly about what was being accomplished, to avoid inflaming southern opposition. Nixon--despite the stereotype that he only paid lip service to civil rights--did virtually the reverse: accommodating southern sensibilities rhetorically while delivering desegregation substantively. He also laid the basis for affirmative action as we know it by pressing race-preference guidelines on government contractors. He pioneered sizable minority set-asides in federal procurement and contracting in the hopes of boosting black advancement in business. All in all, Nixon's was a pretty progressive record by the civil rights standards of the time.

But the terms of debate had changed by the late 1960s. Liberal civil rights activists became committed to the proposition that desegregation was not enough and that not just the moral responsibility but also the capacity to erase disparities between black and white Americans lay entirely with the broader society. They advocated large-scale government intervention to achieve "racial balance" throughout society. In K-12 education, because children were assigned to public schools by neighborhood, and because residential neighborhoods were largely sorted by race, this necessitated busing students across and even between school districts. Greater racial balance in neighborhoods could be achieved by placing housing projects in existing, majority-white communities. Poverty could be eased by greatly expanded welfare programs.

By these standards, conservatives fell short. They were skeptical that racial disparities could be solved by group-based policies and government programs. If anything, government policies risked setting up perverse incentives (financially encouraging the formation of single-parent families, for example) and lowering valuable social standards (dropping all screening for entrants to public housing).

But such interpretations were more than out of favor. The new civil rights activists enforced an orthodoxy of opinion on the subject of how to solve social disparities between blacks and whites. Daniel Patrick Moynihan discovered just how aggressively policed this orthodoxy was when, deeply concerned about black poverty, he authored a 1965 Department of Labor report--"The Negro Family: The Case for National Action"--that voiced concern about high rates of single-parent black families, which tended to have lower incomes. For his trouble, Moynihan was bitterly condemned as a bigot and his report as "blaming the victim." The latter became a common charge against commentators who tried to express genuine concern over the consequences of growing crime, delinquency, and disparities in educational performance, as well as illegitimacy.

This orthodoxy was shared by academic public-opinion research. Many race scholars began to treat conservative attitudes as presumptively racist, including any skepticism about affirmative action or expression of the belief that opportunities for social mobility are alive and well. One study coded as racist any agreement with the statement that "The streets are not safe these days without a policeman around." Others detected racism in white voters' hesitation to vote for black candidates like Tom Bradley and Jesse Jackson. This line of research accumulated into a general indictment of conservatism.

The result was a chilling of honest debate. One Nixon aide later said of out-of-wedlock births: "You weren't supposed to talk about that." This self-censorship was costly, as evidence began to appear that busing had inconclusive effects on academic achievement, that minority set-asides did not spark black middle-class growth, that welfare, while helping many, harmed many others, and that problems like family structure, crime, and educational lags were worsening socio-economic disparities with devastating effectiveness.

It took no time at all for individual commentators to point out these problems, but it took decades for the intellectual orthodoxy to develop serious cracks. In the 1980s, Reagan administration lawyers challenged head-on the most expansive racial preferences and the assumptions that justified them. Welfare came under withering scrutiny from scholars like Charles Murray, and, in the 1990s, politicians and voters from both sides of the aisle enacted welfare reform to propel more of the poor into the labor market and toward lives of greater self-sufficiency. Just in the past few years, scholarship has begun to document some perverse effects of affirmative action programs. In 2005, the fortieth anniversary of the Moynihan Report was noted with articles that validated the original conclusions and condemned the smear that greeted its author.

In the end, the position that has best stood the test of time is the long-standing conservative proposition that improving individual capabilities--through quality education--is the best means of reducing socio-economic disparities, with the additional virtue of not being zero-sum, as racial preferences and minority set-asides are.

In the half-century since the 1957 Civil Rights Act, dramatic gains occurred in many areas, but rigid intellectual orthodoxies heavily contributed to the terrible worsening of problems in other areas. Maybe after 50 years, America is finally prepared to have a debate--driven by facts and not ideology--on how to tackle the remaining racial disparities.

Gerard Alexander is associate professor of politics at the University of Virginia.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... 5poams.asp

[Corlyss_D]

I think I'll leave. This site most definitely is not for a person like me.

Yeah. You liberals can dish it out but you can't take it. Your decision is no surprise, really, since I've been expecting you to leave for months now. I seem to recall that you and I had some real knock-down-drag-outs in 04/05, and that you tag-teamed with Larry and Herman, neither of whom is here any longer to give you moral support.

I now understand why trolls like jbuck and Saul are allowed to flourish here.

Neither of them is a troll; they just don't share your delusions.

[Ricordanza]

The breakdown of the black family is something that has gotten much worse in recent decades. Is it such a horrible thing to say the best thing the government can do is not create incentives for irresponsible behavior?

Barry, you seem to forget that there have been changes to the welfare system to do just that, and the leading proponent of those reforms was a Democrat, Bill Clinton.

[Barry]

The breakdown of the black family is something that has gotten much worse in recent decades. Is it such a horrible thing to say the best thing the government can do is not create incentives for irresponsible behavior?

Barry, you seem to forget that there have been changes to the welfare system to do just that, and the leading proponent of those reforms was a Democrat, Bill Clinton.

I didn't forget that. It was a positive step, although we have a different understanding of the politics of it. Remember that welfare reform didn't pass until after the GOP took control of Congress. Clinton, as he did with a number of other issues once the GOP took control of Congress, hopped on board and took credit for something when he saw it was going to speed through the Republican Congress. I give him credit for not vetoing it though, and I think he was smart enough to know that reform had to take place, even if the reform he really wanted may not have matched the one passed by Congress.

But that was just one step and doesn't change my point that the ultimate solutions to the most serious problems facing the black community are going to have to come from within the black community (like that piece I posted that you liked on the Jena 6 thread by the guy from the KC paper basically asserted).

[Donald Isler]

Corlyss,

1) If you're going to call me names (a possible violation of CMG rules?!) I insist on knowing what I'm being called. What is a "git"? That's not a term we use in this here part of the country.

2) I find it hilarious that you seem to think Katrina helped make blacks more sympathetic to the Republican party. Katrina was a disaster in so many ways, but few people think it increased the credibility of the party, and the people who were running the country at that time.

3) If you get the impression that I was treating Barry in a patronizing way I can tell you it wasn't meant that way. Let me explain.

I find it of some sociological interest that, among the many regularly active participants at CMG, there are men from a Jewish background representing at least five decades. Barry's in his 40's, I'm in my 50's, Ralph's in his 60's, Pizza's in his 70's, and Dad (Werner) is in his 80's. No one will question that this group goes from very religious to totally non-religious, and maybe even anti-religious, and from liberal to conservative.

But I do not believe that any of us, other than Barry, would write about the issue of equal rights for black people with the sense of detachment that he does. Because he didn't live through that era. I believe that all of the rest of us heretofore mentioned, whether or not we were personally active in this movement, felt a connection with another, still oppressed (as they were in the early 60's) people. Pizza, I think, actually experienced some physical violence in his work for this effort. Black-Jewish relations are not what they were then, but there was a pride in our support or actual work for this cause. That stays with you.

This is not to say that blacks are not at all responsible for some of their problems, or to deny that black leadership is needed to conquer some of them.

Barry,

1) Please read the above. It may not speak to you, but that's where i'm coming from.

2) If I misinterpreted your attitude I'm sorry, but since I regularly hear you complain about blacks being responsible for their own problems and you never seem to mention any other causes I came, incorrectly, to that conclusion.

[Barry]

Again Donald, you assume way too much. I wager that there is not a single poster on this board that is more passionate about the issue of white racism and black civil rights than I was for many , many years. The reason it became so personal to me was most likely because I spent much of my youth in an interracial household. My step-father, who really is like a second father to me, is black. We were the only Jews AND black on the block (the only black in the entire neighborhood). We were the talk of the neighborhood for the first few years. We know this because my aunt, who lived around the corner, used to pass on things she heard to my mother. I was literally called a n*****-loving Jew by a neighbor.
I preached to friends about racism all the time, and think I successfully changed a few attitudes in the process.

But the funny thing is, as much as people on our block were unhappy at first, by the time we moved away, many years later, they were almost all more sorry to see him go than any of the rest of us in the house. He won them over with his obvious work ethic and outgoing personality; and I'm sure got some of them to drop various stereotypes in the process. He also was harrassed by the cops a couple times for no good reason.

So you won't see me claim there is no racism in this country. But I don't know how you can objectively say that the Democrats approach, which they were able to enact much of into law before losing political power, has been a success in the long run. What works is more important than holding onto dogmatic notions of conservativism being instinctually racist, when lots of conservatives just think that blacks will go further as a group through embracing free market principles and self sufficiency than on relying on the policies favored by Democrats for decades.

And further, I don't know how an objective person can think white racism is anywhere near as bad in this country as it was during the civil rights era. It's not even close. And further, it's not anywhere near as serious a problem in terms of consequences faced by blacks in many inner-city areas as is black on black violent crime and having multiple babies at a young age and out of wedlock.

In my opinion, by placing what I think is a disproportionate amount of attention on isolated cases of racism and claiming that means that the most important issues facing blacks today are the same ones that faced them 50 years ago, people like Jackson and Sharpton obscure the problems that are doing the most harm to blacks, and white liberals eat it up instead of thinking about this logically. You just can't give up your liberal dogma enough to look at what works or even enough to be willing to try a different approach.

And if you haven't already watched that program I posted a link for earlier on this thread, I urge you to do so. I think the first link I posted was bad. I've fixed it. You can hear what I'm saying and more from a left-leaning African American and what you're arguing from any even further left African American. Now please don't tell me Juan Williams, a Democrat no less, is a racist or wasn't around during the Civil Rights era.

It's not about denying racism though. It's about looking for an approach that will do the most good in the long run at stemming and turning the tide in areas where positive change is desperately needed, and in the process focusing the most attention on the most serious problems.

And as an aside, doesn't it piss you off at least a little that in spite of the fact that there were always loads of Jews marching with MLK or willing to put themselves in harms way as freedom riders, somehow leaders like Farakkan, Jackson and Sharpton are able to get away with badmouthing Jews without losing any popularity among their consituencies? When a public figure makes any king of disparaging remark that can be taken as racist, these so called leaders will never let you forget it. But yet they can say whatever they like about other groups and all is forgiven.

[Corlyss_D]

Corlyss,

1) If you're going to call me names (a possible violation of CMG rules?!) I insist on knowing what I'm being called. What is a "git"? That's not a term we use in this here part of the country.

It's British for "silly frivolous person." If you acts and talks like one, you is one. You should stick to music.

2) I find it hilarious that you seem to think Katrina helped make blacks more sympathetic to the Republican party.

I would too if that were what I said. That isn't what I said. You should go back and read what I said.

3) If you get the impression that I was treating Barry in a patronizing way I can tell you it wasn't meant that way. Let me explain.

No, don't, please. Your expending so much ink on why you think Barry ought to agree with you is pointless. It's not his youth that's the problem; if he agreed with you, you'd think "What a clever right-thinking young man!" It's that he doesn't agree with you. You act like people cannot learn from history because they didn't live thru it. Silly. Specious. You aren't that dumb. You and and other here simply refuse to believe that we aren't in the 1960s any more. Racism ain't what it used to be, thank goodness, but some don't want to recognize that because they got such good strokes from what they did 40 years ago to change things. So. Things changed; many of the people haven't. As Paul Mirengoff noted "Fifty years ago, the face of the civil rights movement was innocent black school children who were trying to get an education. Today, it's black teenagers who beat a white student unconscious and apparently were overcharged by a prosecutor." Fifty years ago, pernicious programs designed and perpetrated by the Democrats hadn't destroyed the black family, turning them over to those who ravage them now.

And still you have nothing to say in defense of the programs; you just attack the critics.

And as an aside, doesn't it piss you off at least a little that in spite of the fact that there were always loads of Jews marching with MLK or willing to put themselves in harms way as freedom riders, somehow leaders like Farakkan, Jackson and Sharpton are able to get away with badmouthing Jews without losing any popularity among their consituencies?

Of course he doesn't. He and Werner both consider it a lamentable anomaly, not a systemic problem of the politically immature, not to mention ungrateful. I believe that is the generally accepted "turn the other cheek" attitude. It's a damn good thing the Muslims don't consider black Muslims to be genuine Muslims, otherwise those two groups together could gin up some really frightful anti-Semitic rhetoric.

[Corlyss_D]

Barry, you seem to forget that there have been changes to the welfare system to do just that, and the leading proponent of those reforms was a Democrat, Bill Clinton.

Clinton talked a good game until he got into office. What was the first thing he did on inauguration day? Sign 3 executive orders: 1 restored federal funding for abortions, which he claimed during the election that he wanted to make abortion "safe, legal, and rare." 1 ordered the military to accept homosexuals, later battled back to "don't ask, don't tell." I don't recall what the 3rd one was but it didn't have anything to do with welfare reform. What were the two major legislative programs associated with his first 2 years in office (i.e., when he had a Democratic majority)? NAFTA and Health Care, the latter of which was not even a national issue but the one campaign issue that James Carville had had any success electing anyone on, before or since. I recount this all to point out that he had no intention of reforming welfare. None. Zip. Nada. Welfare reform was a Republican issue and had been for years because as it has been designed and run by the Democrats it was an expensive and evil failure whose only product was more poor blacks to vote Democratic. Bill's only contribution to the debate was triangulating the issue and appropriating the rhetoric.

[Donald Isler]

Corlyss,

And you like to accuse me of inaccuracy?

Where did I EVER write a word extolling the virtues of Farrakhan, Sharpton and Jesse Jackson?? Please show me such an example!! They're certainly not my heroes, and of course I dislike their anti-semitic utterances. By comparison, MLK was a true "king," liked Jews, decried anti-semitism, and supported the State of Israel. But if you think those three are typical of mainstream Democrats, then you should be in the looney bin!

Also, since you claim that the policies of the Democrats have "destroyed" the black family, would you please show me some well-documented studies to prove how wonderful things were for black families prior to 1960, a time when these American citizens were not allowed to vote, pursue educational possibilities, and perhaps most importantly, have a fair chance at getting decent jobs, all of this being legal?

Barry,

I have not yet read the link you posted, but will.

I forgot you had a black stepfather. Obviously that brought you closer to the situation than otherwise, and from a rather unusual perspective.

I am not against looking into solutions from different sources and angles. I'm not tied to any particular solution, or group of people who try to solve ithe problems (though Corlyss won't believe me!).

Most blacks don't support the Democrats, as they do, because all of the Democratic policies have been a success, but because most of the people who don't like them are now Republicans. Most Republicans are not racist. But most of the racists these days tend to be Republicans.

[Barry]

...
Where did I EVER write a word extolling the virtues of Farrakhan, Sharpton and Jesse Jackson?? Please show me such an example!! They're certainly not my heroes, and of course I dislike their anti-semitic utterances. By comparison, MLK was a true "king," liked Jews, decried anti-semitism, and supported the State of Israel. But if you think those three are typical of mainstream Democrats, then you should be in the looney bin!

The issue, at least to me, and I would guess Corlyss, is not whether those three are typical of mainstream Democrats, but that anti-Semitic utterances and actions over the years haven't done a thing to lessen their standing within the black community. It's apparently okay for black leaders to be anti-Semitics. That probably says something about a lot of people within the black community. Does that not bother you in the least in light of how many Jews fought for civil rights during that era?

...please show me some well-documented studies to prove how wonderful things were for black families prior to 1960, a time when these American citizens were not allowed to vote, pursue educational possibilities, and perhaps most importantly, have a fair chance at getting decent jobs, all of this being legal?

Again, you continue to completely miss the point we're making. Nobody is saying things were wonderful for blacks prior to 1960, just like nobody said there is no more racism in this country. We're not the idiots you seem to take us for. What we are saying is that the most serious problems facing the black community today are not the same ones that faced them back during the civil rights era. And further, prentending that the most serious issues facing blacks today are the same as they were 50 years ago, as black leaders like Sharpton and Jackson and white liberals, like you, like to do, deflects attention from the problems that are doing the most damage and that are in most dire need of being addressed. You can't seem to stop making incorrect assumptions as to our intent; assumptions that aren't backed up by what we actually write.

...I am not against looking into solutions from different sources and angles. I'm not tied to any particular solution, or group of people who try to solve ithe problems (though Corlyss won't believe me!).

Honestly, I find it difficult to believe you'd have an open mind to any solutions that contradict your liberal dogma.

Most blacks don't support the Democrats, as they do, because all of the Democratic policies have been a success, but because most of the people who don't like them are now Republicans. Most Republicans are not racist. But most of the racists these days tend to be Republicans.

You've got poll numbers indicating that most racists are Republicans? That's another pretty broad leap for you. How seriously can I take you when you've already shown a tendancy to assume that anyone who doesn't follow your line of thinking on this is insensitive to blacks? You probably assumed that by emphasizing personal responsibility, I was making an Archie Bunker like statement ("Let them solve their own problems; it's not my issue."), when I was simply saying what I think is the approach that has the best chance of achieving success. It's just not liberal, so you seem to have a gut reaction that there is something inherently insensitive in it. So I'm left wondering how many of these other racists you think are Republicans are actually people who are just saying something that isn't politically correct. Oh, I know there are plenty of racist Republicans. And there are plenty of anti-Semitic Democrats (and racist ones too). Does that lead you to dismiss the Democrats wholesale along with their positions on various issues? I have no doubt that a lot of blacks do stay with the Democrats because they think the Republican party is full of racists though. But that hasn't exactly been a strategy that's paid off big-time for them. IMO, they'd be making a mistake to allow the Democrats to continue to take them for granted.

[Corlyss_D]

Also, since you claim that the policies of the Democrats have "destroyed" the black family, would you please show me some well-documented studies to prove how wonderful things were for black families prior to 1960 a time when these American citizens were not allowed to vote, pursue educational possibilities, and perhaps most importantly, have a fair chance at getting decent jobs, all of this being legal?

http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/histo ... apter3.htm.

You err in implying that the conditions in the south prevailed coast to coast and border to border. The problems for the black family start with the mass migrations, from the south during the depression and the war, to northern and western cities that didn't have same pathologies as the south. As citizens of their new states and cities, they had the vote and rapidly began to become wards of the government. The thing Moynihan leaves out , understandibly, is that most of the cities were run by Democrats. I grant you that the programs, if self-serving, started off with good intentions. At least they didn't start out to destroy black lives. The programs move into the realm of evil once the effects became obvious and no effort was made to terminate them; indeed, Johnson expanded the programs in the 60s.

(though Corlyss won't believe me!).

Damn right I don't. Tell me, Donald, who was the last Republican you voted for? John Lindsay?

But most of the racists these days tend to be Republicans.

You have absolutely no support for that ridiculous statement. What possible basis could you have for making it?

If you judge them by their fruits, blacks and Democrats are the worst racists in the country. Blacks because they seek to maintain race-based preferences wherever they were once instituted, reflexively deny progress as a matter of ideology despite all statistical evidence to the contrary, denounce every effort at reform as resurgent racism, and are unashamed of their efforts or their vocal anti-Semitism; Democrats because they perpetuate the programs that destroy the urban blacks in order to retain their votes.

[Corlyss_D]

It's apparently okay for black leaders to be anti-Semitics. That probably says something about a lot of people within the black community.

Let's not stop with anti-Semitism. Cosby has a whole riff on the blacks who pressure their peers to "stop acting white" when they begin achieving some success by majority societal standards. It's happening to Obama as well. The main question about him is not whether he has the experience for the job, but whether he's "black enough" to take the black vote away from Hillary, implying that if he acted more black, they would be more likely to vote for him instead of the white politician with the better chance who would represent their interests just as effectively if not more so.

Does that not bother you in the least in light of how many Jews fought for civil rights during that era?

Give it up, Barry. He's gonna keep avoiding the question by changing the subject.

We're not the idiots you seem to take us for. *** You can't seem to stop making incorrect assumptions as to our intent; assumptions that aren't backed up by what we actually write.

Remember the Krauthammer thesis: "To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil." And you're in worse odor than I am, because though you are still liberal, Donald has watched you change from reflexive Democrat to thinking independent.

[Donald Isler]

I was unable to open the links either of you sent me, Corlyss and Barry. Will have a look at them again if you send me something that works.

Will respond to more of what both of you wrote sometime later, but was curious when you lasted voted for a Democrat, Corlyss?

No, I didn't vote for Lindsay (who was a Republican during his first term as Mayor of NY City) but that's because I was too young.

I did vote a number of times for the Republican congressman who represented this district for many years before he started leaning too far to the right. I also have sometimes voted for a Republican mayor in our village. The only time I didn't vote Democratic for president was in 1980, when I couldn't stomach Carter anymore and voted for Anderson. I may have also voted for Javits once for the Senate. That's so long ago I'm not sure anymore.

You'd approve of Dad's record somewhat more, I guess. He voted for many Republicans over the years before he gave up on them!

[Barry]

Donald,
I just checked and the link I posted worked. You just have to take the additional step of scrolling down a bit and clicking on "view video here" after arriving at the page to get to the exchange I described.

Here it is again:

http://mirroronamerica.blogspot.com/200 ... scuss.html

I don't expect you to change your mind on these issues, but I hope you'll at least see that there is nothing insensitive towards blacks inherent in my positions, which are very similar to the ones expressed by Juan Williams in the video.

[karlhenning]

"You know, we've obviously progressed, because it is accepted that black children and white children are going to go to school together."

Heckuva job, Mr President!

[Barry]

"You know, we've obviously progressed, because it is accepted that black children and white children are going to go to school together."

Heckuva job, Mr President!

I'm going to see if I can find some software that will allow you to pre-set your anti-Bush posts so they pop up automatically every day. Save you some trouble.

While I know you'd never intentionally help illustrate a point Corlyss and I have been making, you just did: the one about the most serious issues facing blacks today being vastly different than the ones that faced them 50 years ago; in spite of protestations to the contrary by liberals and some in the civil rights community.

[Donald Isler]

Barry,

Unfortunately I still could not access that video. When I clicked on "See Video" it says that that website is unavailable. It suggests that one go to the C-Span site, where I saw many other items, but could not find this one.

I don't know if it will change my mind about anything, but I'm willing to watch it, if I can find it!

[Barry]

That's weird, Donald. It still works for me. I just click on the link I posted, which takes me to a page, where I click on the words "view video here." My realplayer comes up at that point and the video plays. Maybe it's because you have a different media player that I do.

[Barry]

What Bill O'Reilly Really Told Me
Friday, Sep. 28, 2007
By JUAN WILLIAMS
It started with Bill O'Reilly's grandmother. And it blew up into charges of O'Reilly being called a racist and me being attacked as a "Happy Negro" (read that as a lackey or Uncle Tom).

O'Reilly, controversial host of the top-rated TV cable talk show on Fox News Channel, interviewed me on his radio show about a woman-hating, N-word-spouting rapper being hired by McDonald's for a celebrity endorsement. O'Reilly has been on a crusade against big companies legitimizing a crass, hateful and pornographic popular culture by putting stars like Snoop Dogg, the pornographer/rapper, in their ads.

Sad to say, but a lot of today's rappers fit the bill.

They make their name by bragging about how many people they've killed, how many times they've been shot and how many "bitches" they've abused. And those rappers, along with no-talent black comedians who use the N-word and profanity constantly, are creating a very negative image of black people in music, in music videos and in the movies.

So, O'Reilly says to me that the reality to black life is very different from the lowlife behavior glorified by the rappers. He told me he was at a restaurant in Harlem recently and there was no one shouting profanity, no one threatening people. Then he mentioned going to an Anita Baker concert with an audience that was half black, and in sharp contrast to the corrosive images on TV, well dressed and well behaved.

I joked with O'Reilly that for him, a guy from Long Island, a visit to Harlem was like a "foreign trip." That's when he brought up his grandma. He said she was prejudiced against black people because she knew no flesh-and-blood black folks but only the one-dimensional TV coverage of black criminals shooting each other and the rappers and comedians glorifying "gangsta" life and thug cool. He criticized his grandmother as irrational for being afraid of people she really did not know.

I defended his grandma.

After watching all those racist, minstrel images of black people, I argued, she is right to buy into stereotypes of blacks as ignorant, oversexed and violent. And I said while I worried about his grandma having racist images justified in her mind I had bigger worries.

The most pernicious damage being done by the twisted presentation of black life in pop culture is the self-destructive message being beamed into young, vulnerable black brains. Young black people, searching for affirmation of their racial identity, are minute by minute being sold on the cheap idea that they are authentically black only if they imitate the violent, threatening attitude of the rappers and use the gutter language coming from the minstrels on TV.

The lesson from the rappers and comedians is that any young brother or sister who is proud to be black has to treat education with indifference, dismiss love and marriage as the business of white people and dress like the rappers who dress like prisoners — no comb in the jail so they wear doo-rags all day, and no belts so their pants hang down around their butts.

That was the heart and soul of the conversation between O'Reilly and me. The point of the whole exchange was to defeat corrupt, untrue and racist images of real black people.

So imagine how totally astounded I was when I heard O'Reilly was attacked on the basis of that radio conversation as a "racist." He was slammed for saying he went to a restaurant in Harlem and had a good time. He was slammed for saying the audience at the concert was nicely dressed. The suggestion was that O'Reilly had racist preconceptions about the restaurant and the concert crowd.

That twisted assumption led me to say publicly that the attacks on O'Reilly amounted to an effort to take what he said totally out of context in an attempt to brand him a racist by a liberal group that disagrees with much of his politics. But the out-of-context attacks on O'Reilly picked up speed and ended up on CNN, where one commentator branded me a "Happy Negro" for allowing O'Reilly to get by with making racist comments without objection.

This is so far from the truth of the conversation on the radio that it is beyond a matter of words being taken out of context. This is a pathetic cowardly, personal attack against me intended to damage my credibility and invalidate any support I offer to O'Reilly against the charges that he is a racist.

For the record, I am a black man who lives in a black neighborhood in a mostly black city, and is married to a black woman. I am also the author of several books and documentaries on the civil rights movement. And any viewer of the O'Reilly TV show knows that O'Reilly and I respect, even like, each other but are frequently at loud, finger-pointing odds over politics and people.

But this is an attempt to take down O'Reilly and dismiss anyone offering him support — me. This is along the lines of telling anyone who calls attention to the excesses of hip-hop culture a "self-hating" black man and skewering anyone who dares to say there is a crisis in black America because of the high dropout rates, high crime rates and high out-of-wedlock birth rates.That is what happened to another well-known Bill, Bill Cosby, after he spoke out about the self-destructive images and behavior in the black community.

The critics want to shut up Cosby, O'Reilly, me and anyone else who points out the crisis in black America. They want anyone who dares to speak publicly about problems in black America to fear being called a racist, if they are white, or a "Happy Negro" if they are black. They want silence so they can continue to make money by distorting black life and allowing black on black murder rates to climb along with the black dropout rate and the black poverty rate.

The critics want to paralyze efforts to help those locked in poverty and too often in a criminal culture where acceptance of drug use and violence becomes acceptable. They don't want black people to be known as Americans with a long distinguished history of patriotism, reverence for education and a willingness to fight for America's ideals — justice for all — despite the harsh facts of slavery and legal segregation.

They prefer to bash anyone who points out their tragic, mindless willingness to sell out the history and pride of black people to make a buck. But take this from the "Happy Negro." The critics are some Sad People.

Williams is a senior correspondent for NPR, an analyst for Fox News and the author of Enough

[Madame]

For what it's worth:

http://www.teenpregnancy.org/resources/ ... nlfact.asp

The United States has the highest rates of teen pregnancy and births in the western industrialized world. Teen pregnancy costs the United States at least $9 billion annually

The teen birth rate has declined slowly but steadily from 1991 to 2005 with a decline of 35 percent for those aged 15 to 19. These recent declines reverse the 23-percent rise in the teenage birth rate from 1986 to 1991. The largest decline since 1991 by race was for black women. The birth rate for black teens aged 15 to 19 fell 48 percent between 1991 to 2006. Hispanic teen birth rates declined 22 percent between 1991 and 2005. The rates of both Hispanics and blacks, however, remain higher than for other groups. Hispanic teens now have the highest teenage birth rates. Most teenagers giving birth before 1980 were married whereas most teens giving birth today are unmarried.

[Corlyss_D]

Donald,
I just checked and the link I posted worked.

Try this one. It goes directly to the vid.

http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?Prog ... yMedia=Yes

[Corlyss_D]

The birth rate for black teens aged 15 to 19 fell 48 percent between 1991 to 2006.[/b] Hispanic teen birth rates declined 22 percent between 1991 and 2005. The rates of both Hispanics and blacks, however, remain higher than for other groups. Hispanic teens now have the highest teenage birth rates. Most teenagers giving birth before 1980 were married whereas most teens giving birth today are unmarried.

What this lacks is context. Here's the context:



In 23 years, the out-of-wedlock birthrate for all classes has gone up, notwithstanding the easy availability of abortion, but for blacks it shot up from 57% to 75%. Obviously more women think it's okay to have kids without marriage, but among blacks, the welfare state is definitely an enabler.

[Corlyss_D]

That twisted assumption led me to say publicly that the attacks on O'Reilly amounted to an effort to take what he said totally out of context in an attempt to brand him a racist by a liberal group that disagrees with much of his politics. But the out-of-context attacks on O'Reilly picked up speed and ended up on CNN, where one commentator branded me a "Happy Negro" for allowing O'Reilly to get by with making racist comments without objection.

The pool is now open on how much longer NPR will keep Williams around. Obviously he's not "black enough" for them. First he wrote that book agreeing with Cos, and now he's defending Bill O'Reilly! What next? He joins the Republican party? Can't have any of that! He now finds himself in the same position that Larry Elder was in, being called a "house nigger."

THE TEN THINGS YOU CAN'T SAY IN AMERICA by Larry Elder

Elder says and proves what no one else will:

1. Blacks are more racist than whites
2. White condescension is as real as black racism
3. The media bias: it's real, it's widespread, it's destructive
4. The glass ceiling: full of holes
5. America's greatest problem: illegitimacy
6. The big lie: our healthcare crisis
7. The welfare state: helping us to death
8. Republicans vs. Democrats: maybe a dime's worth of difference
9. Vietnam II: the war on drugs, and we're losing that one too
10. Gun control advocates: good guys with blood on their hands