Thursday, July 12, 2012

Romney's Great Speech At The NAACP

Let’s talk about Romney’s speech to the NAACP. He gave a great speech and I suspect it will serve him well. Interestingly, the race-baiters seemed to have nothing they could counter with, except calling Romney racist, and that’s not really going to work. As with his appeal to Hispanics, this speech was brave and correct.

What He Said: Romney made several interesting points in his speech, each of which fit into the theme of his policies making the lives of blacks better. This is an interesting choice because it sidesteps all the race-baiting stuff for which Republicans normally fall. Observe.

First, Romney noted that Obama has been horrible to blacks. Specifically, black unemployment is 6.2% higher than white unemployment and the average income and median family income is lower for blacks than whites. He then promised that his goal as president would be the creation of jobs, but he intends to do so without trying to target things for specific racial groups:
"If I am president, job one for me will be creating jobs. I have no hidden agenda. If you want a president who will make things better in the African-American community, you are looking at him."
This actually got booed, which tells you something about the audience, doesn’t it? Then he said something fascinating. He essentially told the audience that capitalism isn’t their enemy. Check this out:
"I’ve never heard anyone look around an impoverished neighborhood and say, 'You know, there’s too much free enterprise around here. Too many shops, too many jobs, too many people putting money in the bank.'"
This is a brilliantly subtle point. What he’s doing is saying that no matter what other issues blacks may have vis-à-vis race in America, capitalism is not to blame. And subscribing to free enterprise, rather than the spoils system so popular in black circles, will make their lives better without them even having to give up the other issues which concern them. In other words, he’s trying to depoliticize capitalism and wealth.

Then he spoke about education, calling it the “civil rights issue of our era” and arguing that “mediocre schools” are setting black kids up to fail. To fix this, he pointed out that he supports school choice and won’t be beholden to the teachers unions, as Obama is. Here is how he sold this idea:
"If equal opportunity in America were an accomplished fact, black families could send their sons and daughters to public schools that truly offer the hope of a better life. Instead, for generations, the African-American community has been waiting and waiting for that promise to be kept. Today, black children are 17 percent of students nationwide—but they are 42 percent of the students in our worst-performing schools."
Notice that again, he’s telling blacks that this is an issue which they should depoliticize and thus support his education policies, which have proven effective. He’s also tossing a wedge between blacks and the teacher’s unions.

Finally, he made a direct appeal for them to look past the ideology and take an honest look at him:
"I believe that if you understood who I truly am in my heart, and if it were possible to fully communicate what I believe is in the real, enduring best interest of African-American families, you would vote for me for president."
That’s a pretty solid appeal across the board.

Smart Move: Romney was never going to win over the NAACP because those people have blinded themselves to anything they don’t want and nothing Romney could have said or done would have won him their vote or endorsement. So was it smart to give this speech to a hostile crowd? Well, yes. Winning over the NAACP wasn’t Romney’s goal. Instead, Romney was speaking to several other groups:
1. White Moderates. By speaking to the NAACP, Romney shows himself to be inclusive and willing to hear from everyone, not just his most loyal constituents. That makes moderates comfortable.

2. White Conservatives. By refusing to pander, Romney continues to show that he has strong conservative instincts -- though this point will be lost at some blogs.

3. Hispanics. By being seen appealing to blacks, Romney demonstrates to Hispanics that he’s not a white candidate speaking to white audiences. Following his speeches to Hispanics, this will help soften Hispanic fear that Romney wants to make them second class citizens.

4. Average Blacks. Obama will need every black vote he can get. Last time Obama got 96% of the black vote, and he still polls at 92% now. By speaking to the NAACP and speaking honestly, while making it clear he wants to help blacks, Romney could peel off a few percentage of blacks, which could make a key difference in some states. In other words, he doesn’t need to win them all to be successful, every percentage point counts.
He’s Racist: The moment Romney finished, the race baiters started whining. There was nothing in his speech they could attack so they turned him into an evil genius by claiming he designed his speech so he would be booed, with the intention of using that booing to win over racist whites. Clearly they don’t believe this, but they know that many of their followers are stupid enough and paranoid enough to think this is true. So it’s a decent strategy in that regard. In fact, the smears started yesterday when Romney was called "too white" to speak to the NAACP. But I think ultimately, this speech is the kind of speech which could shift the needle a couple percentage points over time. And if Romney’s message that blacks don’t need to fight us on all issues finds legs, then the race industry is in serious trouble.

Final Thoughts: Romney continues to impress, quite frankly. I have no doubt that if Newt or Santorum were the nominee, they would have told this group about all the laws they passed to give blacks spoils. Santorum would have promised some piece of civil rights legislation -- Newt would have promise seats on the new moon base. And in the process, both would have strengthened the liberal meme that everything related to blacks needs to be seen through the prism of race.

What Romney did here is give a speech which basically laid out how a color-blind agenda will help blacks too, and he suggested to them that it was all right to agree with us on issues like economics and education because they didn’t need to surrender their beliefs on other issues to do that. That’s incredibly smart.


(P.S. Obama sent Biden to the same conference. He said racist things, told a sex joke and insulted veterans.)


Joel Farnham said...


What is interesting to me is the race baiters are claiming that Romney "tricked" the crowd into booing him.

Good speech.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I agree. How bizarre is that? First, everyone knew they were going to boo him no matter what. And if this was something Romney wanted, why did they do it? It sounds like pure idiotic spin. It sounds like they were ready to describe him as racist no matter what happened.

Tennessee Jed said...

Andrew - I happened to catch Brett Baier's show as I usually do. It was a good speech, and the panel made the point it was a "win win" for Romney. He didn't duck speaking to them and he didn't pander. Anything he picks up in the black community is a plus. That will be negligible to be sure. My local news affiliate played up the fact he was booed on Obama Care. Big whoop. In the end, what probably matters more is that the left has yet really found a way to counter the fact Obama has failed to really energizer the black vote and draw them to the polls. What may matter most, is not picking up votes for Romney as, perhaps, the lack of some repute votes for Obama.

Anonymous said...

Andrew: Romney told a black gathering the same thing he would tell a white or mixed group. That's integrity and honesty with no pandering. So naturally, it's also racism. I just wonder how many black voters will hear that speech, join the crowd in complaining about how Romney doesn't care about black folks, then go into the voting booth and secretly vote for him because he had the guts to respect them enough to tell the truth. In their heart of hearts, many savvy black folks know that Obama has only made their lives worse, and what Romney proposes is good for all Americans, including blacks, maybe even particularly blacks.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, I think that's exactly right. I think this speech will most likely pick up votes for Romney among white moderates and Hispanics -- not blacks. What it may do with blacks, however, is get those most disappointed in Obama to decide to stay home. That could be critical if the election is at all close. (Interestingly, Obama is already down from 96% to 92% among blacks. That could be a critical difference in the states where they are concentrated.)

Also, if Romney's policies end up working in the black community, then you could be looking at more of them leaving the Democratic Party in 2016 or 2020 when they see that Republicans can deliver a better world as Romney promised. Wouldn't that be something?

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, That's a good question. I have no answer for you there.

To me the more interesting thing is that Romney has broken this cycle of Republican pandering. Time and again Republicans would go speak to groups like this and tout all the goodies they've given to blacks. This was the first Republican I can think of who went in with a colorblind message and said, "stop playing politics while your lives are falling apart."

EricP said...

As always, great breakdown, Andrew! I'm certainly not getting cocky, but if Romney keeps getting better nearly every day, the words "cake" and "walk" just keep getting closer as November approaches.

That said, I still see all hell breaking loose 11/7, no matter who wins. Stupid cynical reality brain cells.

Anthony said...

Superb speech. I don't agree with all of it. For example, as a guy who came up through public schools and mentored troubled elementary school kids for two years while in college, I think that parenting is a huge part of why kids excel or fail at school (not that schools couldn't improve).

However, Romney giving a 'Pound Cake' speech wouldn't have been smart politics and it wouldn't have been addressing an issue the government can fix (whereas school choice is).

Anyway, this speech will play well among white moderates and what have you.

Tam said...

I loved that he didn't just tell them what they wanted to hear, and I love that he didn't feign a negro dialect like Our Dear Leader and his secrectary of state. How do they not get insulted by those people? Rush made a good point too...who's more presidential? The president who has abandoned specific groups, or the candidate who demonstrates he wants to govern everybody? The president who sends a surrogate, or the candidate who is willing to enter "hostile" territory to speak the same message to everybody? I like it!

tryanmax said...

If Romney is "too white" to speak at the NAACP, what does that say about our President who isn't speaking to them?

Romney is campaigning brilliantly! He's making it exceptionally hard for the MSM to lay a finger on him. And by refusing to pander, he's doing the same to RWR. By having both sides of the media targeting him, but without being able to land a blow, I'd say he's bound to win over the independents.

If it had been Newt or Ricky up there, I have no doubt they would have pandered all over the place. And the RWR apologists would be happily sweeping it away. So it's ironic that, having left no mess, Romney has so far only received scant praise from the right over his speech, and plenty of nitpicking (because that is all that can be done).

tryanmax said...

Tam, but I would still pay cash money to hear Romney say, "I ain't no ways taard!"

Tennessee Jed said...

The only negative in any of this is that much of the lame stream media only covers the booing. I guess what I am saying is that just about all the people who significantly follow politics have already made up there mind (such as ourselves.) The casual uncommitted probably will never hear the full speech or even an unbiased assessment.

I really like the new Romney ad which is available over on Drudge. Again, my one concern is that such an argument can be turned around on Mitt. Most negative ads (including some run by Romney in the primaries) tend to be a bit disingenuous, usually by taking facts out of context. Still, I think the notion of hammering B.O. on his outrageous falsehoods and mis-statements is a good one. As POTUS, and one who can't stand to not "speechify" specify daily, he is a target rich environment in that arena.

Koshcat said...

I don't listen to Rush very often but he is supporting Romney. He stated the other day basically Romney isn't perfect but he was the best available and the primaries are over. A woman had called in frustrated and was planning to not vote. He told her that is a vote for Obama. To me that is a huge endorsement to keep the more conservative side engaged and show up at the polls.

The black vote is interesting because many black men are conservative in their thinking, but black women overwhelmingly vote more than black men. Somehow need to engage that group and this is where someone such as Congressman West working with you can help.

Tam said...

Tryanmax, I got a good giggle out of Romney saying "I ain't no ways taard." Oh my.

Koshcat said...

Off topic alert!

Happy belated birthday Andrew. Hard to believe we are the same age. For some reason I pictured you older. Perhaps it's because you come across so wise.

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks Eric. I'm starting to believe this is going to be a blow out. I'm just amazed how mistake-free Romney's campaign has been and how many things like this he does, which I think will keep moving the needle a little more in the right direction across the board.

November will be fascinating. Like you I suspect a lot of problems, but we'll see. If the margin is large enough then no amount of fraud, lawsuits or rioting will change it.

AndrewPrice said...

Koshcat, Thanks! Wise. :) I think it's the beard on the avatar -- it makes me look older.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, I think it was an excellent speech. And I think the real effect will be long term. What Romney has basically said here is if you want to fight about a couple race issues, that's fine, but on issues that are important to your daily lives like education and economics, stop being political and do what works.

I think that message will pay off if Romney can create an economic recovery and can improve schools. If that happens, I think a lot of the blacks who heard this speech and have seen him working to improve everyone's lives will start to see that they don't need to remain on the left's identity politics plantation anymore on all issues.

I'm not sure how many that would be, but if even another 10% of blacks break away because of that, it will be a seismic shift for race relations.

And on education, I agree that it's mainly on the parents. But the thing about choice is that it lets the parents who want to make things better find better schools. When enough have done this, it will make the rest of the problem easier to identify and handle. Right now the hopeless kids are too well hidden from sight among the other kids. That lets everyone pretend that everything is generally good across the board.

BevfromNYC said...

The main point that I have stressed at the "Romney did it for the boos" crowd at HuffPo is that..YES, maybe he did. But he did it anyway knowing that his message may not be received well. AND he did not change his message to pander. That is something that Obama has not and will not do.

Can you imagine Obama deigning to speak before a convention of Tea Party Patriots? His handlers won't even let people question him or into where he is speaking without being fully vetted as loyal Democrats (who have donated to his campaign) and the questions approved before hand. He certainly won't engage with the WH Press Corp without deciding who will ask the questions and what questions they can ask.

AndrewPrice said...

Tam, I agree completely. Romney is much more presidential than Obama for each of the reasons you mention. He behaves exactly like a president should -- cares about everyone in the country, not just his voters, seeks out people who don't agree with him and tries to convince them to join him, and doesn't try to single out groups for separate treatment. I'm impressed.

I'm also impressed that Romney is the first Republican in forever to get so much of this, especially how to appeal to minorities. I'm so sick of Republicans playing into the race games. He's the first I can honestly remember who isn't doing that.

Patriot said...

Front page upper left (first thing you see of course) in today's Washington Post...."Mitt Romney Booed in NAACP Speech." These die-hards are out of control. They just as easily could have led with "Mitt Romnney Given Standing Ovation in NAACP Speech." As he was.

All to keep the meme alive that blacks hate all you blacks and "progressives" out there who glance at the Post headlines, see, he was booed...they don't like him.


Joel Farnham said...


With the way the liberals are talking about the booing of Romney, could it be they have "jumped the shark" so to speak?

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Believe it or not, someone (name escapes me) said the other day that Obama isn't our first black president because he's half-white and thus his being black doesn't count.

I agree entirely that Romney's campaign has been exceptional. I've never seen the MSM this flustered trying to find anything they can to use to hit a Republican and continuously coming up dry. It's the same with Obama. He's struggling to find anything that will stick, and there's nothing. But at the same time, Romney has totally gotten under his skin. As with Newt and Santorum, Obama just seems to be beside himself with anger, but can't ever tell you exactly why he's angry. And that's causing him to take cheap shots and look petty.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I'm absolutely sure that Newt or Rick would have pandered. They would have said something to try to sound "tough" and then they would have gotten weepy about some imaginary black child they met whose imaginary mother works two jobs and told them about some government program Newt/Rick voted for which saved her life. And then they would have promised to do something to end racism or whatnot.

And in the process, they would have confirmed like every other Republican before them that blacks need to be seen as a group (a monolithic subset of America) and who need to be won with race-based promises. And since the Democrats will always out-promise us, they will continue to win.

And you're right, RWR would have been all thrilled about the moment of tough talk and then would have called the pandering the price that needs to be paid to win over blacks, and they would have completely missed the long term damage.

Romney's approach is the one conservatives need to start taking. Treat everyone like an individual, pass laws for everyone, and hope that they eventually wake up to the fact we're making their lives better. That is the only way Republicans will ever break the Democratic plantation.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, That is the big problem. The MSM is only covering the booing. But I think people will hear this. Not everyone, but some. And that's how ideas spread -- little by little.

The bigger problem in that regard is that the conservative media, which has a lot of power suddenly to reach people (even those who disagree), has been so blind to Romney's better qualities and moments that they won't help amplify this message.

But in any event, this is a long term issue and I think Romney is doing it right, and I think he will continue to do it right. And over time that will result in a real change.

I'm not worried about Obama turning Romney's ads back on him. Romney has very skillfully kept this election about Obama. And unless and until Obama can find a way to defend his own record and win people back, no amount of attacks on Romney will succeed.

AndrewPrice said...

Koshcat, Someone actually sent me the transcript of Rush handling that caller. I was happy to see him get behind Romney. I think he's still missed some of the signs of how good Romney may actually be, but that's not a big deal so long as he's telling people they need to focus on Obama and stop waiting for something better.

I'm actually not worried about conservative turnout being low. I am worried that RWR isn't seeing the forest here and continues to miss golden opportunities to inspire the country.

The interesting thing about blacks (as with many liberals actually) is that they have some very strongly conservative traits. I've even argued at BH that rap music is evidence of a desire for economic independence and breaking from the cycle of being a ward of the state. But it just doesn't translate into voting for conservatives.

AndrewPrice said...

Tam, I seem to have missed that? When did he say that?

Joel Farnham said...


I believe it was Morgan Freeman who said Obama wasn't the first black president.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, Sadly, I don't think it matters to the Huffers. They aren't rational people anymore. And the "logic" they are using is that if they can come up with any reason why a Republican has a bad intent, then they will ignore the substance of what happened and focus purely on the intent. It's bizarre. It's the way some people treat news of the things their ex's are doing.

I agree 100% about Obama. He would NEVER speak to a Tea Party crowd or any other hostile crowd. The man is a coward. Romney is clearly not a coward. To the contrary, it took a lot of nerve to go to a hostile group and tell them what they need to hear rather than what they want to hear.

And sending Biden was stupid. Not only is the man a fool, but since Obama needs to win back his base, avoiding this conference looks strange. It either means he was afraid to be seen with them, afraid that his speech wouldn't be well received -- or he would need to say things the public would not like, or he really just doesn't care about anyone and couldn't be bothered. I'll bet he went golfing though.

tryanmax said...

Interesting note: all of the headlines are calling Biden's speech today a "rebuttal" of Romney's speech. First of all, is everybody on the same page much? Moreover, the lefties doth protest too much, methinks. Calling Biden's speech a rebuttal seems to lend some credence to Romney's words and reveals that the White House is on its heels after yesterday. It may not seem like much, but I like to peek into the gap in the curtains.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, That's right it was Morgan Freeman. I knew it was a black actor, but couldn't remember who. Thanks.

How's that for despicable? He's not black because he's half white. What kind of racial purist crap is that?

AndrewPrice said...

Patriot, Sadly, I expect no better. The media has gone into pure spin mode. They will shamelessly say anything, leave out anything, cherry pick the facts they want to use, and flat out lie, to advocate for their side. They have become a propaganda machine, pure and simple.

DUQ said...

Excellent breakdown as always Andrew!

DUQ said...

Bev, I checked out Huffpo and saw the same thing. They're all just talking about how he only did this to get booed. But if that's the case, then why did these people fall for it and boo him? Also, doesn't it seem the least bit condescending to suggest that Romney shouldn't be allowed to speak to black groups?

tryanmax said...

Freeman is off his nut. A better argument that he could have made is that Obama doesn't count b/c he isn't descended from slaves. I think it's pretty well understood that most blacks in America have some white ancestry, and just by looking at his complexion I'd say Freeman is a pretty good candidate for that.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I think "jumped the shark" is a good way to put it. I think they jumped the shark when they declared the Tea Party racist and started making up claims of hearing racist comments from the crowd. And they've just been adding sharks to the pool ever since. At this point, it's so reflexive and so idiotic when they scream racism that it's become like a bad SNL skit.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, That is interesting. First, as you point out, it's funny how all these "unbiased" news sources always end up using the identical talking points. It's as if the Journolist never really went away. . . isn't it?

Secondly, I don't really recall Biden giving a rebuttal. I recall him telling a few inappropriate jokes and then whining that the Republicans are racist and want to bring back slavery, but I don't recall him addressing anything Romney mentioned.

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks DUQ! There does seem to be a strange sense of "how dare he speak to our possessions" in the criticism.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I was amazed Freeman said it. But the sad truth is that the black community is obsessed with race and they are steeped in racism, and they very much judge the "blackness" of candidates.

Joel Farnham said...

Yes, they did declare the Tea Party racist, but that pales in comparison to calling the NAACP idiots, because they can be tricked and duped which is what Al Sharpton and Nancy Pelosi are implying.

Basically what they are saying is blacks are stupid to boo to Romney, when all they were booing about was what Romney said.

Anthony said...

Morgan Freeman's comment is odd because he called Obama black (and Republican opposition racist) just last year.

*Shrugs* Maybe Freeman just had a senior moment.

Anthony said...

tryanmax said...
Freeman is off his nut. A better argument that he could have made is that Obama doesn't count b/c he isn't descended from slaves. I think it's pretty well understood that most blacks in America have some white ancestry, and just by looking at his complexion I'd say Freeman is a pretty good candidate for that.

I don't think being a descendent of slaves or not means anything to the black community. Quite a few people of Carribean heritage (whose parents came over post-slavery) participated in the Civil Rights movement.

Individualist said...

Q: So let me get this straight Romney tricked people at the NAACP into booing him.

A: Thant is right!

Q: How exactly did he do that?

A: He walked up to the podium aqnd saide "I'm Mitt Romney and I am a Republican"

It is a sad thing but the high unemployment and the poverty is a direct result of the Great Society programs that got balcks to switch to the Preogressives in the late 60's.

As sowell says Afirmative Action is detrimental to the minorities it is supposed to help because the schools lower the standards to accept more minorities but then do nothing special to help them compete in a body where the are at a disadvantage. This affects those among all levels of intelligent because a student that would excel at Georgia Tech gets accepted to MIT and so on. The graduation rate of minorities is not in line with the acceptance rate.

The welfare programs are essentially designed to keep one in poverty and remove them from the workforce. the fact that these programs are targeted to minorities only works to increase powerty by not allowing those within the system to elevate themselves out of it.

but it is an immediate free handout and we humnans find it difficult to resist that.

Anthony said...

AndrewPrice said...
tryanmax, I was amazed Freeman said it. But the sad truth is that the black community is obsessed with race and they are steeped in racism, and they very much judge the "blackness" of candidates.

I don't think racial purity has been a worry of the black community at any point in time. Looking beyond Obama, Ben Jealous, the current leader of the NAACP is also clearly mixed, and there is a long tradition of mixed black leader (Malcolm X and Frederick Douglas are two names that spring to mind).

I do think there are concerns about blackness, but I think it is in the context of political idealogy, not racial purity.

Black guys like Allen West (a fiery speaker who was barred from speaking before the NAACP) have a lower chance of selling blacks on conservatism than white guys Romney, who refrains from using slavery language (always a quick way to end civil debate).

rlaWTX said...

Andrew, maybe the press accidentally added a couple of letter's for the story about Biden and they just meant "butt".

Anonymous said...

I just had a thought about Romney's speech. There's an historical parallel. During his run for president, Harry Truman became defined by his "give 'em hell, Harry" campaign. After the election, one reporter asked him why he "gave 'em hell." Truman responded: "I didn't give 'em hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell." I think that just might very well apply to Romney at the NAACP, except that Romney would never say "hell." LOL

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I agree this was yet another shark, but I think they first the shark in 2009 when they clearly set out as a group to make obviously false smears. It was so obvious they were lying that it was almost startling. That was the moment I think the racism charge became a mockery of itself.

And that's been helped by the internet which has allowed conservatives to speak directly to each other without the MSM getting in the way and telling them that they are the only ones who feel that way.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, I thought it was a bizarre comment, the hypocrisy not withstanding. I suspect he was just trying to make a point that whites are racist by claiming that we only like Obama's white half (and thus he's safe to us), but it came across very strangely.

tryanmax said...

Anthony, I think the bottom line is that there is no consistency on the part of leftist black when it comes to placing criteria on its candidates. Declaring someone "not black enough" or any similar comment is simply a meaningless pejorative that they pretend carries great weight.

The reason I pick apart Freeman's comment in the way I do is to demonstrate that it lacks internal consistency. If mixed heritage doesn't affect "blackness," why bring up Obama's mother? I only offered up the slavery angle because it might have had more resonance, not because I assume Freeman is concerned with it.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, I think the issue of race and blackness are entwined.

On the one hand, blackness is ideological. But it's also more about behavior. To be "black" seems to require a black inflection in the voice, bad grammar, and a tough-guy baring. Thuggishness is a prized commodity among athletes and entertainers. And the implication is racial -- to be "genuinely" black, you must display these traits. Otherwise, you aren't really black.

And much of the attacks on blacks who don't conform are premised on ideas of racial unity. If you are a conservative, you are an Uncle Tom or a sell out -- one who betrays his own race to serve another.

On the purity issue, you are right in the sense that being mixed is not a handicap. To the contrary, I've seen numerous studies where blacks value light-skinned blacks more than dark-skinned blacks. But a lot of the rhetoric is still purity based. For example, there is strong opposition to interracial marriage and the adoption of black children by whites, on the grounds that this is "genocide." There is also still a strong black separatist movement.

All of this tells me that American blacks remain obsessed with their own race.

Tam said...

Andrew, Romney never pulled a Hillary. I was giggling at the idea, planted by Tryanmax, of Romney saying "I ain't no ways taard." My comment was misleading. I would be thoroughly disgusted and disappointed it he actually had.

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, That is basically the argument -- he tricked them into booing by showing up and telling them the same thing he tells everyone else. And they stupidly fell for it! Ha ha the fools!

Stupid, isn't it?

I absolutely agree that all of the programs meant to help blacks have hurt them a good deal. I saw a great example in college. I started at a top engineering school in the Northeast. They had almost no black students, so they decided to lower the standards to let them in. I worked in the placement office (internship) and I got to see the data on these kids. They would have done really well as most other schools, but they were massively out of their league at this school (I was too frankly). These kids ended up getting almost straight Ds. They would eventually graduate, but what good did it do them to go through that and come out with a D average when they could have gone to a different school and learned at a different pace and done a lot better? Letting them in was done to help the school not them, and the school didn't care if they got hurt in the process.

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, LOL! Nicely played! :)

Of course, all stories involving Biden should include the word butt at some point! We should have known.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, LOL! Nice parallel! Yeah, I can't see Romney using the word Hell, but still. :)

I think this speech is further proof of the type of President Romney will be and I think he continues to show good signs.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I think you're right about the inconsistency within Morgan's position, but inconsistency no longer bothers the left. Two people using the same words and performing the same deed can be classified as angelic and evil simultaneously based on nebulous, undefined factors.

Blackness, in my opinion, is just an attempt to reinforce the idea of groupthink within the black community.

AndrewPrice said...

Tam, LOL! Pulled a Hillary. Well said!

Yeah, I can't imagine Romney doing that, and I would be surprised if he tried it. One of the things I find very comforting with Romney is that he's not fake. What you see if what you get... he's no actor trying to sell you an image.

rlaWTX said...

Andrew, that's something I appreciate about Romney as well.

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, It's an unusual feeling with a politician to think that what you see is what you get.

Anthony said...


There's a difference between black legitimacy and street cred. Nobody questions the blackness of say, Henry Louis Gates, Robert Johnson or Musiq Soulchild (neosoul singer you might not have heard of). And even gangster rap is softening. When I was a teen gangster rappers would have mocked a guy like Justin Bieber, now they do duets with him.

Generally speaking, the only way you can really get you blackness questioned is to be conservative or Republican. Even those aren't necessarily lethal offenses.

Cosby is conservative, but he made it clear he is a Democrat, so he is still tolerated. Republican Colin Powell is popular (his crossing the aisle to vote for Obama didn't hurt) and even Condoleeza Rice has won respect (in part by talking about her background, grounding it within the Civil Rights struggle).

I think the worry abour racial purity is actually a worry about culture. Our identity was formed over the process of two hundred years and its something some of us have drawn strength from. It is not going to go away soon and might not ever go away. For my part, I consider myself a black conservative, not a conservative who happens to be black or whatever the fashionable formulation is.

My heritage is key part of my identity, when discouraged I measure the relatively small challenges I face against the momumental challenges my ancestors faced (granted, only half of them faced those challenges here in the US, the other half were slaves in Jamaica).

All that being said, though we disagree about the cause, I agree with you that opposition to transracial adoptions and interracial relationships is a problem in the black community (though there are a lot of interracial relations) and that its very wrong.

Its deeply immoral to keep an orphan away from a loving family and honestly, I doubt many people just sees beauty in one narrow slice of the vast range of colors that is the human race.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, Thanks for the interesting perspective. I'm just going with the things I've seen and read, and those things come across as very hostile to whites and distinctly separatist. And that concerns me a lot.

Again, I know this isn't everyone, but it seems to be a significant chunk of the leadership/role models of the black community. And I think as long as these things are acceptable, race relations won't ever heal in this country.

On your heritage, I fully understand your point. I feel the same way with my German ancestry. It gives me a different perspective than other people, it has resulted in my speaking another language, learning another country's history, and experiencing another culture. So that is part of me and it shapes my world view.

To me, the real problem comes from the exclusiveness/anger I see in much of black thinking. In other words, I'm fine with blacks having their own cultural heritage and even adopting it to their daily lives. That's not a problem at all. Things like wearing African colors or using African names doesn't phase me in the least. But what concerns me is how many weave in anger into that, either in the form of ancient grudges applied generally to all whites or a conspiratorial sort of thinking about whites trying to hold blacks down.

Trust me, nobody is trying to hold blacks down. Whites would be thrilled if blacks suddenly because ultra successful. But the longer this idea runs through the black community, the worse things will get.

I've been utterly shocked at many of the documentaries I've seen that talk about black schools or black families to see how casually these adults tell their kids that they shouldn't bother with things like education because whites won't let them succeed. How do we ever move forward if that is being taught to black kids?

You're right about interracial dating, the numbers are surging across the board and it's becoming much more accepted. Though there is still this very vocal group.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

That was an honest yet saavy speech. I think the school choice thing will especially resonate with black families.

Conservatives can help Romney follow through by pointing out what the left has done for blacks since they took over public education.

We all know how that has worked out despite the US spending more money per student than any other country in the world.

There is clear evidence that private schools are better and they cost less.

In fact, I would say to blacks "we just wanna give you a choice. It's YOUR money and you should be able to spend it on whatever education you see fit, be it public, charter or private."

There's no way for liberals to counter that.

And maybe the free enterprise part will also touch a chord.
Like anyone else, blacks want an opportunity to run a business or get a good job in a business.

IMO, most blacks are pro free enterprise. That's been my experience. With the exception of the tenured neocoms and their student acolytes, of course.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, Sadly, these issues aren't about common sense, they're about ideology and liberals are very good at coming up with fake reasons why anything conservatives propose would be evil.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

I concur, Andrew.
Here's the kind of garbage we must contend with:
How To Think And Talk Like A Democrat

Nonetheless, as you mentioned, if we can get some folks to see that it's in their best interest to have school choice and free enterprise it will help out immensely.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, Thanks for the link. I've read about half the article and it's pretty fascinating -- especially the people who endorsed the bok (e.g. George Soros).

I'm frankly not surprised by this by this book or by the things within it because I've been hearing them for so long already from so many liberals... they really are great at absorbing talking points.

Frankly we should probably make a book to counter this, "How to Understand And Debate Liberals."

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

On Morgan Freeman saying Obama is not black (enough):

Then how can Freeman call the Tea Party racist?
I mean, based on Freeman's own (illogical) reasoning, there's no way the Tea Party can be racist.

Of course the Tea Party isn't racist, but not for the reason Freeman gives (Obama not being black enough).

Sadly, Morgan Freeman is a hypocrite and a liar.
Too bad. I used to respect him (and James Earl Jones).

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Andrew: Just the tiltle alone...good grief! Really? They just accept that?

Conservatives don't need to be told how to think or talk and neither should anyone else!
We should all only be concerned with reality and truth. Period.

Notice how the author of the book says that liberals should never repeat what conservatives say or even address our arguments?

The author and anyone who accepts this crap is essentially saying conservatives ain't human and you shouldn't even give them enough respect to address what we say.

The book is fascist. No wonder Soros endorses it.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, I always saw James Earl Jones as apolitical and I'm disappointed in what he said. Freeman lost me some time ago.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, Tell me about it! It's an obvious reference to Mao's little Red Book!

I agree that conservatives don't need to be told, but at some point we should still put together a book helping conservatives dissect liberal arguments and arming them with a few counterpoints.

Soros is a real turd. I can't think of anything good he's done.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Andrew, I agree and wasn't referring to that.
The problem isn't so much how to demolish leftist talking points.
I believe Dr. Sowell does an excellent job of that, among others such as Mark Steyn.

The problem is getting leftists to accept reality.
Nothing we say will matter until they realize that their entire ideolatry is an ill-usion.

They have so much invested in it that they even ignore history and the fact that leftism in all it's forms always leads to disaster.
Which is why they hafta rewrite it.

I'm not talking about the sheep but the wolves in sheeps clothing leading them.
Unfortunately, the sheep blindly trust them as they're fleeced and led to slaughter.

You are correct, however. We must keep trying to reach them.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Oh, and let me give a big shout out to you, Andrew, and LawHawk!
You guys do a superb job destroying leftist talking points. :^)

I also find my fellow commenters do a great job (WTG guys and gals!) even if I don't always agree 100%. There's always much to contemplate in the comments.

Individualist said...


Here is the kicker. Hade the school fessed up and told the those kids they were being admitted even though their SAT scores were say 10 points less than the standard requirement of every other kid, of their GPA .2 below what is required etc. then the kids might not have failed.

The validectorian of our accounting class at undergrad was a girl who had so so SAT scores. She outperformed other kids that had much higher IQ's because she studied all the time. Grades are 90% work.

If these kids are told this before they accept to go to school. For instance:

"Look we don't have enough of your minority and we let you in even though you underperform the minimum entry requirements. You should consider this before accepting to go here. If yiou do accept, here are the areas we feel you are weak in and here are some learning assgnment you can begin before you come here that will help you get up to speed."

Then if they accept and fail it is on them and there will be fewer failures because they know what they have to do to make the curve. Also there will be none of this "the test is ethnocentric" nonsense as these kids try to udnerstand why they can't excel even though they know they are smart.

But the schools would refuse to do this for fear of someone telling them they are being racist in telling the minority they are not as good. so instead just let them drop out of school. It is nearly criminal.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, The sad truth is that we'll never reach them. I've spoken with many of them over the years and they just won't be reached. Many will dismiss anything we say because we're conservatives. Others simply won't think beyond the bumpersticker thoughts and will ignore all contrary evidence. And some (the most frustrating ones) will actually admit that none of their views work but will then tell you that they don't care because they still "feel" their views are the right way to be. Huh???

It's sad, but I don't think any of that will change. The best we can do is work on winning over the moderates.

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks Ben! :)

I'm glad you enjoy the site! It's a lot of work, but I think it's worth it and our audience really makes it a great experience. Everybody here always contributes a lot to the conversation.

tryanmax said...

I just skimmed that article about George Lakoff (rhymes with...) and his Little Blue Book.

I actually think the author of that article gives Lakoff too much credit. I would wager that he actually believes his own theories about conservatives wanting and oppressive father state vs. the liberal desire for a nurturing mommy state. Binary thinking is endemic among liberals, and I would not be surprised if Lakoff never considered that people might want to grow up to be independent adults.

I'm also not surprised that Lakoff promotes repeating things often and loudly as a messaging strategy. It reminds me of my two year old who repeats his demands for candy again and again, louder and louder in hopes of wearing me down. (I confess, sometimes he does.)

tryanmax said...

P.S. - all said, I may have to get a copy of Lakoff's book just to witness the travesty for myself.

AndrewPrice said...


It was nowhere near 10 points below standard. The average SAT was around 1450/1600 for the student body with the lowest being around 1200 and a huge number scoring 1600. The average SAT for the black kids was 1100 and I don't think any where above 1200.

And I don't know for certain, but I suspect the school never told them about this huge differential.

And while you're right that grades are 90% effort once you get there, the kinds of kids who get 1600s aren't going to slack off to let you catch up. It was an intensely competitive school.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I concur. I doubt Jackoff is being at all cynical in his claims, I suspect he really believes what he says. At the same time, think you put your finger on it what you suggest he's arguing like a child -- never use the other side's words, never admit anything, and just keep saying the same things over and over, louder and louder. That's very much how children argue.

You're right about the binary state of liberal thinking. You are good or you are evil. You want what we want or you want to destroy us. There are no good faith disagreements. Which makes it particularly funny that liberals accuse conservatives of seeing the world as black and white.

Jen said...

I'm not going to add much except, great article, great comments, and to Romney for not caving to the idiots.

I realize that there will always be those who are unhappy no matter who the candidate is. Well, this is the hand we were dealt, so we have to play it.

Even stone can be chipped away at (Mount Rushmore, anyone?).

Joel Farnham said...

Condi Rice has been named leading front-runner for VP.

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks Jen! I agree. I think this has been an excellent discussion!

And you're right, every stone can be chipped away little by little. That's how the world works and I'm hopefully as long as people are making the right decisions, and I think Romney is.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I have been starting to get that feeling lately. She fits everything Romney seems to be looking for. I'm not thrilled with the choice, but she'll be good.

Jen said...

My brother brought up something to me a couple of years ago. He said he was tired of hearing the blacks complain about slavery, as though they were the only ones it had ever happened to, and told some of them where the English word for slave was derived from. That's half of my heritage. So then, who were slaves?

tryanmax said...

Jen, Ha ha! My ancestors totally pwnd your ancestors! No, really, they totally pwnd them.

AndrewPrice said...

Jen, Slavery has existed everywhere at one point or another (and still does in some places), but blacks do have an historical grievance in the US.

I would argue, however, that (1) there comes a point where historical grievances cannot be considered having an effect on the presence, and (2) it's highly counterproductive to live your life waiting for compensation or vengeance. And in this case, it's worth pointing out that the overwhelmingly vast majority of Americans never benefited from slavery.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, LOL!

Jen said...

Tryanmax, I didn't specify which country, and I'm not gonna. You don't want to go there, because you might get more than you bargained for.

Andrew, I understand what you mean. The way it was told to me, the ones my brother were talking to thought it was something exclusively to them, as though slavery never existed until the U.S.

tryanmax said...

Jen, I didn't specify who my ancestors were, so bring it on, sister! LOL!

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Based on your name, they are the Chinese Triad. OR based on your avatar, you are related to Henry Kissinger.

AndrewPrice said...

Jen, I know what you mean. Some people are historically ignorant and some people choose to be historically ignorant to make their own grievances sounds worse than everyone else's or to make them sound unique.

BUT still, it's undeniable that America was wrong to allow slavery. There are no 'yeah, buts' to that. I don't subscribe to the idea this has permanently ruined blacks -- indeed, look at all the immigrants who came since even Jim Crow and how well they've done. But it's undeniable that America was wrong.

Jen said...

Tryanmax, Okay, I'm ready to rumble! LOL!

Jen said...

Andrew, I can remember the first time "Roots" aired on TV. The blacks at school were ready to riot, but dummy them, my state never had slavery. Apparently, they just didn't get it.

I know we can't change the past. I didn't know much about the side of my heritage I mentioned, until my brother said something. He actually researched the history, and then I met an Egyptian man two years ago, who has done extensive traveling. He told me the same thing my brother did. He also told me about some other ethnic backgrounds which I found very interesting.

Isn't slavery part of human history?

AndrewPrice said...

Jen, Slavery is part of human history, but that doesn't make it right. That's my only point. And just because group X was rotten to group Y doesn't excuse group A from doing the same thing to group B.

I am a firm believer not only in human freedom, but in freedom for the individual. I find the idea of slavery in any form repugnant.

Jen said...

Andrew, I agree with you that it isn't right. I only mentioned the human history part because there are people who tend to forget it.

Human freedom, and freedom for the individual should exist, but you know it, and I know it that we have less of it every day. So in essence, aren't we now becoming slaves?

AndrewPrice said...

Jen, I'm not one for hyperbole, so I try to avoid saying that the present conditions are like slavery or an administration is like Hitler.

I think a better word is that we are becoming serf-like. We are not slaves in the sense of being controlled minute by minute, but we keep having our freedoms reduced and we spend much of our year (4 hours in 10) working to pay our masters.

Jen said...

Andrew, if things keep going the way they are...

Serfdom--modified slavery.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Andrew, I think Rice would be a poor choice for Romney.
People will think of Bush, and she isn't very conservative.

If she is picked it wouldn't stop me from voting for Romney but she wouldn't foster enthusiasm among most of the conservative base.

Christie would be another problematic choice since more conservatives now know he isn't conservative and really hasn't accomplished much.

IMO, Rubio would be the best pick. Ryan, Jindal, Walker and West would also be good picks but I believe they would be much more effective in their current jobs.

AndrewPrice said...

Jen, Yep, serfs are modified slaves and our middle class is heading there very fast.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, Ok, I admit it, I'm not at all thrilled with Rice. She's not conservative. She has limited gravitas. She'll be horrible in debates. I see no evidence that she's got a strong enough personality to influence policy, nor am I convinced that I trust her ideas. The only thing she has going for her is being black and female and generally being liked.

Tactically, I think Christie would be the best "white guy" he could pick because he's got a great reputation and most people don't know he's not conservative. I would HATE the pick, but it would help him win the election -- but then I'd be very leery of what happened next.

I would be happy with Rubio, Jindal, West. I don't want Haley (she's not proven to be solid) or Ryan (who is better in the House). I think Walker would lose him votes. To controversial.

I've been trying to think of other good minorities and few come to mind. Maybe old school JC Watts?

Joel Farnham said...


I think this is one of those trial balloons that Mitt sends up, plus it serves to keep team Obama off balance and groping. I would be more interested in the rest of his short list.

I also think that she is a valid choice, just one of the poorer ones.

tryanmax said...

Slightly OT, but race related: I don't know how reliable Quinnipiac poll is considered, but their latest poll shows Obama's support among Latinos dropping precipitously in the last two months (73% to 59%), with Romney making similar gains 14% - 30%).

The Spanish-language outlets (of which I can usually only interpret the headlines) are abuzz with the Romney campaign's latest Spanish language ad, in which his youngest son speaks--in fluent Spanish--of his father as a man of conviction and hard work. Apparently it is playing pretty well.

To the best of my ability to tell, the Obama campaign is coming up a little short in the Spanish language media market.

tryanmax said...

RE: Slavery and serfdom - I too find both ideas extremely repugnant, but at the same time I accept the wisdom that says, "To everything there is a season." This is not meant in justification of past abuses, only in acceptance of where we may be directed.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, That would make sense. He's done a stellar job dominating the news cycle with his possible choices. It seems that each week he gets seen with somebody new and the both get a ton of publicity in their states.

And then the media tries to destroy that person, during that week and basically has helped him learn how each would do.

I agree with you about Rice -- valid choice, but one of the poorer choices.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I could see where that would be a pretty impressive ad. People love being spoken to in their "own" language. I've seen that with other groups too. Germans love it when you can speak their language.

Also, having a son who speaks Spanish pretty much kills the boogeyman motif of a scary white guy who hates and fears Hispanics.

I'd heard Obama's support was dropping, but I don't trust Quinnippac frankly. What would make that very interesting if true is that I saw that Obama has been spending something like $7 to Romney's $1 on ads to Hispanics.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, That's true. And I am not a fan of judging the past on modern standards. But I'll tell you what offends me about slavery in America. By that time, most of Europe had already banned the practice and when you look at the thoughts in the Declaration of Independence and how we were setting up a consensual government rather than an imposed government, it's a bit shocking that they could believe those things while allowing slavery to continue.

tryanmax said...

Andrew, it is regrettable in the extreme that slavery was allowed to exist under the Constitution at all, yet at the same time, I can understand (not necessarily accept) the Framers' reasoning for allowing it to continue.

Still, one thing I cannot stand is the argument that the 3/5 compromise makes it a pro-slavery document. If such were the case, there would be no cause for such a clause. And even in its presence, the Framers made the point of not allowing the word "slave" into the document.

The fact is, at the time the issue was every bit as contentious as the health-care debate is now. Both sides feel their position makes perfect sense and that the other side is crazy. The Framers' error was not in allowing slavery to continue so much as it was in believing it was possible to craft a Constitution that was neutral on the matter.

Again, none of this is meant as justification for past wrongs. It's merely meant as a dispassionate observation of the subject.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, That's true. In real life things are never as easy as people like to think after the fact. If they had banned slavery, then the South would not have joined and America might have had a very different history. Perhaps a better one, perhaps a worse one. We'll just never know.

And we need to keep in mind that sensibilities were different at the time too. So it's unfair to judge individuals based on modern thinking.

I agree about the 3/5th thing. That didn't make this a pro-slavery document. It was a statement of the voluntary nature of the union, i.e. that everything had to be negotiated and everyone had to consent. It was a recognition of disagreement that could not be bridged.

So I'm not saying slavery can't be understood, I just wished they had lived up to their lofty ideals. Not doing so was a mistake which still resonates today.

USArtguy said...

Interesting observations about the speech Andrew. i agree with most of them and I especially agree with the notion the NAACP is never going to be won over. Frankly though I'm not so sure it's even worth the effort. That is to say Romney can say the same things to the people you think he's really talking to elsewhere and without the "boo" soundbites.

I did some quick searches for presidential demographics and the Roper Center Public Opinion Archives:

All voters by race (in percentages)--

B (Black) W (White) H (Hispanic) A (Asian)

To save space I left off third candidates like Anderson, Perot and Nader

1976: Carter B 83 W 48 H 82, Ford B 17 W 52 H 18

1980: Carter B 83 W 36 H 56, Reagan B 14 W 56 H 37

1984: Mondale B 91 W 34 H 66, Reagan B 9 W 66 H 34

1988: Dukakis B 89 W 40 H 70, Reagan B 11 W 60 H 30

1992: Clinton B 83 W 39 H 61 A 31, HW Bush B 10 W 41 H 25 A 55

1996: Clinton B 84 W 44 H 73 A 44, Dole B 12 W 46 H 21 A 48

2000: Gore B 90 W 42 H 62 A 55, GW Bush B 9 W 55 H 35 A 41

2004: Kerry B 88 W 41 H 53 A 56, GW Bush B 11 W 58 H 44 A 43

2008: Obama B 95 W 43 H 67 A 62, McCain B 4 W 55 H 31 A 35

The black vote for a Democrat has never been below 83 percent since 1976. Notice the black vote for Mondale at 91 per cent and Gore at 90 percent both of whom still lost. In my opinion, Obama got that extra 4 or 5 percent for no other reason than he's "black" and he won't lose those voters.

The black vote for Democrats has ranged only 12 points at most.

Meanwhile, the white vote for Republicans has ranged 25 points.

The Hispanic vote for Democrats has ranged 29 points and Republicans 26 points.

The asian vote for FROM Republican Democrat has ranged 32 points (They only made up 2 % of the vote, but that doubled in only 3 elections)

I think Romney needs to concentrate on changing other people's minds.

AndrewPrice said...

USArtguy, I think Romney is simply trying to win everyone with this strategy. And that actually works since he's not making specific promises to different audiences.

And I agree that right now, there isn't much point in trying to win the black vote. But I think that in trying to win the black vote in this way, Romney will make moderate whites and Hispanics more comfortable with him.

tryanmax said...

I find it interesting how each of the races break down. White and Asians are generally split about 50/50. Black are solidly 90/10, Democrat. It's clear why Democrats are hammering on Hispanics (and trying to import them), their trend of constant gains with that group seems to have stalled at least. Figuring that the Obama election caused racial outliers, unlikely to ever be repeated, then they've probably started a losing trend. (One could argue that the event could repeat with a Hispanic presidential candidate, but there are reasons to think Hispanics would be more critical of one of their own.)

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, It is interesting to me that blacks are so monolithic when nobody else is. And you're right, that getting Hispanics to join them would be a Holy Grail for Democrats, and I think they've been working toward that for twenty years now. I think it's important that Republicans reverse that before it takes hold because then it would become very, very hard to undo.

I think the key is what Romney just did in terms of appealing to their interests over any sort of racial uniformity, and also getting a lot more highly-visible Hispanic Republicans. I don't think one or two will make a difference, but if it becomes common to see Republicans who are Hispanic, that would make a difference because it prevents the Democratic meme from working that the Republican Party is a white's only club.

tryanmax said...

OMG! The first chapter of Little Blue Book is free online, so I decided to read it. I've only made it through three paragraphs and it is abundantly clear that Lakoff (rhymes with...) and liberals in general are victims of binary thinking. To wit:

[The progressive view] yields a view of government with a moral mission: to protect and empower all citizens equally. ... Conservatives hold the opposite view: that democracy exists to provide citizens with the maximum liberty to pursue their self-interest... (original emphasis)

To my mind, to the average conservative mind, those two viewpoints are hardly opposing. Verily, the conservative would likely say the former is necessary to ensure the latter.

Lakoff also goes on to place in opposition the concepts of Public and Private, not so much as to say they can't coexist, but to assert that the Private is dependent upon and subordinate to the Public. (He of course is conflating "Public" with "Government," though not explicitly at this early point.) In binary fashion, he paints conservative priorities as opposite, obviously never considering that the conservative in reality struggles with how the two might be balanced.

There is so much erroneous and simplistic thought in just three introductory paragraphs, I am simultaneously repulsed and intrigued. I can't decide whether I should part with $6 or $7 to assess this train wreck of foolishness.

It certainly underscores a primary thesis of mine, that this country is moving left because it lacks a proportional hard-right. So necessary is an opposition to hard-sided thinking, the hard-left has taken the centrist POV and characterized it as the polar opposite. Meanwhile, soft-lefties get to feel reassured that they are the moderate thinkers when it is absolutely not the case. (No wonder they can sympathize with actual leftist bomb-throwers while being repulsed by the same on the right. Both are equally repulsive to the conservative.)

I could go off on so many more tangents, but I think I'm already pretty muddled.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I've often found that with liberals. They decide that they want some policy to achieve X result. Thus, if you disagree with the policy then your goal must be the opposite of X. Hence, if I want to feed children, and you oppose my methods, then you must want to starve children.

It never occurs to them that both sides could have the same goals but with different methods. And I think the reason for that is that liberals don't understand cause and effect. They don't put together that just because they want a policy to achieve something doesn't mean it will because they see the intention as being all that matters.

That's why I keep running into liberals who will keep doing the same failed things over and over and expect it to finally work one of these days. They just aren't intelligent enough to understand how cause and effect work.

tryanmax said...

Very interesting that you should boil it down to cause and effect because I was just mulling over that very thing this morning from a religious angle. My entire upbringing told me that God can, does, and will supersede cause-and-effect and so we should worship Him. However, I've always been fascinated by the science programs that demonstrate how the miracles of the Bible could have had natural causes, and I've gravitated toward that mode of thinking, that God and His actions can be understood rationally.

So when I look to the world and see that a good third to half of all people can't grasp something as simple as cause-and-effect, I begin to believe that my upbringing was essentially wrong. Who was it that observed that advanced technology seems like magic to the uninformed? That's simple cause-and-effect to liberals! They are routinely baffled by the simplest predictions and just imagine the correct deduction occurred by luck.

I'm having one of those "thinking too much" days.

T-Rav said...

Hmmm, I apparently missed a good discussion while out yesterday. Isn't that always the way....

On the racial purity thing--well, I can't say much from personal experience because I don't live in an area with a high black population. But, I do have a sister who's dating a black guy from St. Louis, and has gone to meet his family, and many of his older relatives are downright resentful of him being involved with a white girl. The things they've said about interracial relationships are about as nasty as anything I've heard elderly white people say about it.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Well, we did try to call your house to tell you to come back, but your mom said you had been arrested for unlawful use of a pitchfork. ;)

Interestingly, my experiences with blacks in Colorado has always been very positive. It wasn't until I went to law school that I first met a group of really angry blacks -- very privileged kids with a LOT of hate in their hearts.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Sure, let's add religion to this discussion! LOL!

Seriously though, you make an excellent point. To those who can't grasp cause and effect (young children and liberals), a lot about the world seems like magic. To them, things seem to happen random or just because others intend them that way. They don't grasp the vital missing piece, where the person causes the effect they want... they seem to think that's automatic.

And if you can't grasp that idea, then you will never be able to generate the effects you want because you lack the ability to diagnose the types of actions that are needed to cause the effect. That again explains much of liberalism:

1. I want people to be fed.
2. The government can do that because it can get food and give it to them.

That ignores everything you need to understand the hunger issue. But it seems so simple and so obvious to liberals that they can't grasp why anyone would object (because they don't see all the steps they are missing). Thus, if you object, then you must want people to starve.

I see this all the time from liberals. They have some effect they want and so they either want the government experts to make it so, or they latch onto the most direct, childish method for achieving it and they never stop to think about whether it would actually work or what the collateral damage would be.

Anthony said...

With the Hispanic vote, I'd be interested to see a country by country breakdown. Culturally and politically there is a lot of variance in Latin America and I would be deeply shocked if that variance isn't reflected in voting patterns here in the US.

For example, we know that 67% of non-Cuban hispanics voted for Obama in 2008, but only 35% of the Cuban vote, and that 35% was a historic high.

A lot of Hispanics I've spoken to seem to view being anti-illegal immigration as being anti-Hispanic (despite the fact that most Latin American countries are orders of magnitude tougher on illegal immigrants than the US is) so I'm not sure that non-Cuban Hispanics are going to fall in love with Republicans this election cycle.

On the other hand, Obama has deported people at a much, much faster clip then Bush did and until his recent temporary gesture he hasn't demonstrated an interest in providing legal status to illegals. So I suspect Hispanics aren't going to fell in love with the Democrats either.

T-Rav said...

Andrew, in my defense, I did not know that was an endangered species of gerbil, and they respond well to displays of dominance.

Don't blame your college acquaintances, blame the oppression theory and racial solidarity doctrines they were exposed to. Postmodernism at work, huh?

T-Rav said...

Anthony, as I've said before, Mexico has no room to protest U.S. border policies until it starts throwing rose petals and sunshine to the Guatemalans entering it in the south. (Right now, not doing that.)

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, I was thinking the same thing actually about the Hispanic vote. I know with Asians that Vietnamese and Koreans trend Republican whereas Chinese and Japanese trend Democratic. With Hispanics, I know Cubans trend Republican, but I don't know about the rest.

On the immigration issue, frankly, I think Republicans are making a huge mistake. Their rhetoric is often thinly-veiled racism, whether they mean it to be or not. They are also advocating things that simply can't happen, and paying a high price for being seen promoting those things. Why do that? Just drop the obnoxious parts, work on a solution, and stop antagonizing people over something you can't even do? It's like threatening to burn down 10% of the houses in the city.

I am hoping that Romney will start to change the relationship with Hispanics over the next eight years.
attached to those positions

tryanmax said...

Anthony, it seems your experience with Hispanics is directly opposite mine. I've long been baffled because my own anecdotal experience is completely counter to the political narrative, but I knew there must be those like you've encountered out there.

What is truly amazing to me is that I've been stumbling my way through Spanish-language news sites (I am far from fluent) and to the best of my ability to tell, the attitude in the Spanish-language media is against illegal immigration with very sharp distinctions made between illegal and legal. The way Democrats have made inroads with Hispanics on the issue, it seems, is the same way they do it in English: portray the Republicans as making no distinction between the two and that they are the party that knows the difference. Of course, we know the opposite to be true, but Republicans routinely fall into the trap of accepting the Democrats' premise. That needs to end, and this issue is a perfect example of why.

tryanmax said...

Andrew, I didn't mean to drag in religion, too. It's just where my mind was this morning. :-)

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, They definitely learned it in college from their professors (many of whom were white). But it was a real shocker. Here were kids who came from families where the mother and father were doctors and lawyers, they lived in McMansions, drove expensive cars, and (frankly) got passed through school at great schools with no one ever telling them they were wrong about anything. Yet, they HATED everyone for "oppressing" them.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, When I was in DC (Northern Virginia actually), which has a very large Hispanic population from many different countries, they were definitely unhappy about the Republicans. They didn't like the focus on illegal aliens and they thought Republicans were talking about Hispanics generally.

Individualist said...


If we are discussing the tenants of secular progressivism is that not already bringing in a religious argument to the conversation.

Secular Progressives said...

All Hail the Obaqmasaiih!! Mayhap we all pray for the beneficience of Great Obama's Stash. May we be counted worthy by the Bureaucrat's of the One. Amen!

tryanmax said...

Indie, oh no, according to the left, secularism and atheism are not religions at all. That is why they are the state-approved belief systems.

"But isn't "belief system" just another word for "religion?"

Uh, no. Not when a mandate enforced by financial penalty is actually called a "tax."

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I'm going to disagree with you a bit. Secularism, as you're calling it, is not a belief system. It is an attempt to keep the government from taking a position in either direction, i.e. to ignore the issue completely. Atheism, however, is a belief system.

Individualist said...


Secularist Progressivism as it is practiced by the left is a Cult......

Secularism may mean something else to the dictionary but then again English was invented by ancient white racists mysognists so definitions should be gotten from somewhere other than the dictionary. Don't worry there is probably a list of approved words in The Little Blue Book

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, Progressivism has many of the trappings of a cult, but secularism doesn't. Secularism is simply avoiding the issue. That fact that progressivism has made a fetish of atheism doesn't change the nature of secularism. They are simply using secularism as a form of attack on behalf of atheism.

Anthony said...

AndrewPrice said...
T-Rav, They definitely learned it in college from their professors (many of whom were white).

Sometimes students are poisoned by their professors, but sometimes other factors (such as culture shock) are at play. Below is one of the possible reactions to culture shock (clipped from Wikipedia).

There are three basic outcomes of the Adjustment Phase:

Some people find it impossible to accept the foreign culture and integrate. They isolate themselves from the host country's environment, which they come to perceive as hostile, withdraw into a "ghetto" and see return to their own culture as the only way out. These "Rejectors" also have the greatest problems re-integrating back home after return.

I saw that phenomena a lot among the black students when I was an undergrad (there were never more than 40 of us out of a student body of 800something, so everybody knew everybody to some degree) and later in life when I travelled abroad I saw it quite a bit (of course, abroad the unifying factor is nationality) as well.

I remember one particularly egregious case in which a group of African (Gambia, Ethiopia and Senegal IIRC) freshwomen who started off nice if a bit shy started acting ghetto and militant after a couple months, despite the fact they had never experienced any discrimination and came from extremely privileged backgrounds.

Adjusting to a new culture and finding your place in it can be tough, and sometimes militancy is just some people's way to try to make being an outsider 'cool', an act of choice and defiance rather than something unfortunate.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, That could be it too. Whatever the reason, there was real venom in these people. They hated all whites and constantly spoke about being oppressed, which was utterly ridiculous.

Then they tried to get a professor fired for using the word nigger in class -- he used it in a torts class and asked (based on a real case) "if the KKK is marching through town and they are chanting 'death to all niggers' is that an actionable tort?" They went to the Washington Post and tried to spin this as the professor being racist and claimed he picked this example to make them uncomfortable. Give me a break! That ultimately became a mini-scandal.

What was really amazing to me is that I grew up knowing a lot of poor black kids (I grew up dirt poor), and we always got along. There was no sense that we were anything other than friends -- not black and white, nothing. In grade school and high school (by the time we were middle class), we sat in the same classes, played football together, hung out together, and nobody ever thought to mention race.

In college, you heard rumblings but rarely ran into those people.

But then in law school, it suddenly exploded. It was stunning because of all the blacks I've ever met, these had the least cause to complain about anything. Their parents were rich and everything they wanted had been handed to them. Yet, they were the ones who screamed about being held down. It was startling.

AndrewPrice said...

By the way, Joel, I see that Rice is absolutely denying that she wants to be VP now.

Interestingly, Drudge, who is pushing the idea, put up a poll and 63% of 400,000 voters say they thought she should be the nominee.

USArtguy said...

My relationships with black folk have been the same as any other: I get along great with some, not so great with others. Way back in my single, college days, I had a serious year-long romantic relationship with a black girl. Other than my very old aunt, not one of my white friends or kin ever gave me, or her, any problems or ever said anything untoward. After she met my girlfriend face to face, even my aunt made nice.

On the other hand, my girlfriend told me she often got visits and phone calls (even a shoed me a letter one time) from people in the NAACP chapter on campus, among others, "counseling' her on the evils of dating a white boy while other blacks would just come right out and say things to her like she was a traitor to her race. Sad.

AndrewPrice said...

USArtguy, Wow. I've heard of peer pressure, but that's pretty aggressive. And it is sad.

By the time I was in law school, interracial dating and marriage were getting pretty commonplace, and no one I know really batted an eye when they saw a mixed race couple. Love works in mysterious ways and people really shouldn't stand in the way of other people's love.

Anthony said...

In my college the school sent me a copy of its magazine which featured an article in which a white guy stated the college wasn't ready for interracial relationships (this was in 1992).

Suffice to say when I got to college I found out the guy must not have gotten out much.

Post a Comment