| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
Waving the bloody race flag
The Right needs to do much, much more to condemn bigotry and purge itself of the bigots. However, Paul Krugman's attempt to smear the Republican Party and opposition to big government is simply callous race-baiting, and we shouldn't tolerate that sort of smear. Krugman's article isn't about real racism - the only example he cites is a satire that was popularized by lefties, Spike Lee and David Ehrenstein; it was tone deaf and poorly concieved for an RNC candidate to pass it on, yes, but that is categorically different than the virulent racism to which Krugman refers.
Krugman's op-ed is about a narrative that Krugman has constructed to paint limited government itself as merely a form of racism; it is a Lefty equivalent to the ridiculous John Birch Society accusation that liberalism = secret support for Stalin's massacres.
Of course, the Birchers were kicked out of the Right. The Left doesn't seem similarly inclined.
In order to do paint this picture of inherent, foundational racism, Paul Krugman argues by innuendo and misrepresentation. In particular, look at this paragraph:
Where did this hostility to government come from? In 1981 Lee Atwater, the famed Republican political consultant, explained the evolution of the G.O.P.’s “Southern strategy,” which originally focused on opposition to the Voting Rights Act but eventually took a more coded form: “You’re getting so abstract now you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites.” In other words, government is the problem because it takes your money and gives it to Those People.
But Lee Atwater was not explaining "the evolution of the GOP's Southern Strategy". He was responding to questions about the theory that racism was being conveyed in 'code words'. Right after the part Krugman quotes, Lee Atwater explicitly said "I'm not saying that." Indeed, Atwater even pointed out that these theories about incredibly abstract "code words" indicate that "we are doing away with the racial problem..."
We are making real progress and we can make much more. But that progress is thrown into reverse when people like Paul Krugman wave the bloody flag for political points.
- Jon Henke's blog
- Login or register to post comments


Comments
Hit the library, Henke
Krugman's article isn't about real racism - the only example he cites is a satire that was popularized by lefties
The newspaper column format clearly doesn't allow for too much evidence to be introduced. If you want Krugman's full argument - and the history he's talking about - read Conscience of a Liberal.
I’ve read the Conscience of a Liberal.
Though I would never vote for him, I appreciated Wellstone because he would never slime me as a closet racist. He was actually quite refreshing in that he took politics deadly serious. Yet he was able to put politics aside & become friends with staunch conservatives like Sam Brownback. The man was infectiously generous & optimistic. It’s a shame that Wellstone’s gone.
EDIT-My bad. Obviously I'm thinking of the wrong Paul's book by that title. But I'd still take a Wellstone over a Krugman any day.
here! here!
Wellstone made a damn fine Senator. Krugman does good research, it's true, and his research may do our American society more good than Wellstone, in the end, but time will tell. Krugman does better when he sticks to his forte -- which is economic research.
To bring this around to where Krugman should have stuck it -- 75% of the average white American's wealth derives from racist policies, and blacks have only 10% of the wealth of a white person, on average. This has remained relatively constant for the past fifty years.
It doesn't take a history expert to realize that a permanent underclass is antithetical to a functioning democracy -- just look at the riots in France.
So, nu, what do you do?
what will poor Paul do?
If Michael Steele or Ken Blackwell become RNC chairman?
I mean, you would think a Nobel Prize winner could do better than to quote a guy out of context who's been dead for almost two decades and claim it represents contemporary opinions
Suggestion to Paul. If you are as bright as you say you are-- give Pinch a call and try and save your paper and your job,
It really is contemporary though
because all the GOP has left is the south, and mostly white voters in the south, really mostly old racisit white voters in the south. We have been talking about finding a new voice rather then this Southern White GOP, so do it. Don't get offended at what liberals label the GOP and get all defensive, actually redefine the GOP so it is an open and welcoming party, thats what they did and we know who elite the left is.
Harry Reid is the one with the contemporary problem
Telling Illinois Democrats "No Blacks Need Apply" for the vacant Obama Senate seat.
http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2009/01/03/jesse-jackson-jr-emil-jones-and-danny-davis-have-at-least-two-things-in-common/
Let's see Paulie call Dingy Harry out on this one.
Why Krugman Lies....
Krugman spreads this canard about how race was instrumental in the rise of the modern GOP to cover up for the fact that New Deal/Great Society social programs not only failed, but actively destroyed the lives of those they were supposed to help.
because suddenly there were all these explosions
and the rural parts of america are descending into poverty because they grew to depend on electricity that is unreliable and inefficient.
No, that was South America and infant formula. Sorry, man, your facts are wrong.
If you're talking about the inner cities, i'll refer you to the racist policies still in affect through most of that period, when you ask why the Italians and Jews and Poles did well and the blacks did poorly.
Accept responsibility
I'm old enough to remember how the race-baiting Dixiecrats morphed into present-day Southern Republicans. Let's not play games. The GOP's "Southern Strategy" was always based on depicting the blacks as the enemy and their supporters as "nigger lovers." Now that that approach has been exposed for what it is, the GOP is depicting itself as the victim. Accept responsibility and fight for the minority vote. Hint: distributing material like "Barack the Magic Negro" to your partisans is probably not the way to attract blacks. Question: Where were those black faces at the Republican Convention and Sarah Palin's rallies? Is it possible that they felt unwelcome? Until you can explain this phenomenon, just resign yourselves to increasing irrelevance as a force in American politics.
iirc
LBJ said at the time that he was signing away the South to the GOP.
echo
n/t
Well Said
...and all of Henke's ladylike pearl-clutching vapors ain't gonna change a damn thing.
Krugman
Krugman has no credibility at all. He is one I don't even bother critiquing because he is simply not worth the effort nor worth treating seriously.
But he's got that Nobel Prize
n/t
And he was right about the Iraq war all along
Oh, yeah, also about the real estate bubble. But other than that, not credible!
And he was right about the Bush Administration
Wiki
But, other than that, not credible!
Krugman is a trained economist.
And a very good one, at that.
But let's be honest, he's a hack when it comes to politics.
Truth Hurts
Krugman's thesis, in his column:
"...Forty years ago the G.O.P. decided, in effect, to make itself the party of racial backlash.
And everything that has happened in recent years, from the choice of Mr. Bush as the party’s champion, to the Bush administration’s pervasive incompetence, to the party’s shrinking base, is a consequence of that decision.
If the Bush administration became a byword for policy bungles, for government by the unqualified, well, it was just following the advice of leading conservative think tanks: after the 2000 election the Heritage Foundation specifically urged the new team to “make appointments based on loyalty first and expertise second.”
Contempt for expertise, in turn, rested on contempt for government in general. “Government is not the solution to our problem,” declared Ronald Reagan. “Government is the problem.” So why worry about governing well?... "
As usual, Dr. Krugman hits the nail on the head, and it resonates. Credibilty? He walks the walk.
Three things
First, it isn't race-baiting, it is an accusation of racism. Second, I don't see a lot of innuendo, I'd say he proceeds in a pretty direct manner. And third, um, Southern Strategy? It is real.
I see the Libs have Stopped By to Enforce the New Meme
Same as the Old Meme: it ignores History.
As usual, liberals ignore their complicity in driving Southern White Voters into the Nixon Camp by engineering the greatest foreign and military catastrophe in American History: the Vietnam War.
You'll notice that the Vietnam War has drifted down the memory hole of liberalism? The notion that John F. Kennedy's assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem and Madam Nhu, and Lyndon Johnson's catastrophic policy of gradualism had anything to do with our defeat there is studiously ignored by liberals. Southern White Voters flocked to George Wallace and Curtis LeMay in 1968, who vowed to win the war by means of atomic bombing if necessary.
Southern White Voters aren't as stupid or as racist as liberals think they are. The South has been the most progressive part of the nation in the transition away from Jim Crow. It's hard for liberals to get this, but it's true. These same voters watched Democrats try to blame Nixon for the war that Kennedy and Johnson started, and lost. It didn't work. Southern Whites flocked to Nixon in record numbers.
But you know something? They didn't stay with him. If the Southern Strategy was so devious, why didn't it work in 1976? Lots of Southern Whites ditched Jerry Ford for Jimmy Carter because they wanted to give the Republican Party the heave ho.
Here's the meat of Krugman's arguement. He says that Southern White voters vote Republican because of race. That ignores the fecklessness, inflation, unemployment, and appeasement, of the Democratic regime of the Carter years. In each case, I would argue that Southern voters turned on one of their own because of the incompetence of the Democrats, inflation, and fear of Soviet Power. Not race. Reagan offered leadership, Carter offered excuses.
I'm not saying race wasn't a factor, but it was dwarfed by economic and national security concerns. And that's how it remains.
The Vietnam War, and the Democratic Party's bad stewardship of that war, was the cause of the great divorce with the South. Indeed, I would argue that Democratic gains in the South are temporary, and with a good Republican candidate and a ground game to match the Dems, we'll come back to take the South back.
It's the rest of the country we have to do better in. This was just an enormously bad year for Republicans.
Stop insulting our intelligence
I went to segregated schools and drank out of water fountains painted black; I was around when the southern Democrats walked out of the 1948 Convention to form the Dixiecrat Party. I listened to their stump speeches which almost always contained the rhetorical question "Do you want your daughter to marry a nigrah?" I saw Jessie Helms use the race card against his black opponent in a senatorial campaign. When I go visit my son in Charleston, SC, I read the local paper which is nothing but a rehash of Republican talking points and insidiously racist, so don't talk to me about race not being at the center of everything political in the deep South. You tell me why Harold Ford lost to Croker if it wasn't race baiting.
You're dreaming if you think the South will ever be solidly Republican again. The old racists are dying off, blacks are voting Democrat over 90% of the time and Hispanics over 70%, the youth and college-educated vote is overwhelmingly Democrat, so where is your growth going to come from? GA and quite possibly TX will turn blue in 2012. Have you looked at an electoral map recently? The GOP can kiss the industrial and unionized midwest good-bye because of the antics of the southern congressmen from states with foreign automakers. It's going to be a long time before the GOP will recapture the White House because the fractured South and unpopulated Western states will never carry you over the top. You've got to start appealing to voters who are not old, white and uneducated. When will you wake up to this stark reality?
Harold Ford
Maybe he lost because he comes from a family of criminal machine hacks?!?
umm... no. his brother ran as an independent.
and they basically taped duct tape on his relatives.
Harold's as clean as Fords come, and most voters knew it.
It was racism, pure and simple, that meant that someone who couldn't even answer 911 calls on his watch got elected senator from Tennessee
Section9 is absolutely correct.
Not surprising that Democrats buy into the meme that Dixiecrats=Republicans. It’s extremely simplistic but reassures the Democrats they are (and always have been) on the right side of history. It’s also totally bogus.
The problem with that theory is that it is built on the false assumption that the political divide is still South vs. North. It’s not. It’s not even Rural vs. Urban. It’s Urban vs. Suburban. Very few people vote based on fears of “scary” black people. Most people in rural America never even deal with black people.
Check out The End of Southern Exceptionalism. In the post-WW2 era, the South was economically desolate. They embraced conservatism for the same reason “New Europe” does today. The previous economic system was unsustainable & eventually collapsed. Free-market policies allow citizens to build wealth. That’s not trivial! Going back to “New Europe” the Jews are a favorite scapegoat of Polish racists. Yet Polish anti-semites lean left on economics.
The Republican Party is not immune to racism. The Democrat Party deserves credit for distancing themselves from their KKK past. But calls for tax-cuts are not secret code speak for oppressing minorities.
section9 and noufa...
...are both guilty of their own charges, both glaringly ignoring the history before their very eyes. To pretend somehow that George Wallace attracted white southern votes primarily because of his strong pro Vietnam War stance is utterly ridiculous. The charge that the "Democrat (sic) Party deserves credit for distancing themselves from their KKK past," completely overlooks that point that it wasn't so much Democratic distancing as it was former southern white klansmen leaving the Democratic Party in droves to join the Republican Party.
Not surprising to find this level of commentary in a Henke post, though. I'm now convinced Henke's M.O. is to miss the point.
Same talking points, different election...
Who put the separate drinking fountain there? Democrats.
Who installed Jim Crow Laws? Democrats.
Who passed the Black Codes? Democrats.
Who originated and staffed the Ku Klux Klan? Democrats.
An administration of which party opened up concentration camps in the United States for loyal, patriotic Japanese-Americans, primarily because of their ethnicity? Why, the Democratic Party, of course.
What you are spouting is not only partisan nonsense, but triumphalist claptrap that reminds me of the way Republicans were swaggering around between 2002 and 2004. Elections happen. Parties do well and then run into hard times.
It was the Democrats' misfortune to attain supreme power. Believe me, this is not what you wanted to happen. Now, there's no one to blame when you people start screwing up and you can't solve the problem by printing monopoly money to monetize the debt.
No Free Health Care Plan for You, Clyde!
A pitiful argument
Section9, are you obtuse or what? Do you have any sense of history? You put forth a childish argument in which you substitute labels for facts. Do you know anything about the Reconstruction Era? The South was occupied by troops sent there by a Republican administration. Republicans were the hated carpetbaggers, so is it any wonder that the former Confederates became Democrats? The label didn't change their racist ways. Sure they were responsible for Jim Crow, but what is your point?
What you pretend not to seize is that when the Democratic Party took a progressive turn (Kennedy, LBJ), those racist Democrats turned Dixiecrats eventually flocked to the Republican Party (Helms, Thurmond, et al). Do you really want us to believe that these sleazebags represented in any way the party of Lincoln just because they joined the Republican Party?
Persons who take time to think and inform themselves don't spout off such nonsense. Did you know that blacks flocked to the Republican Party after President Eisenhower sent troops to LIttle Rock to force a Democratic governor to open the doors of a public high school to blacks?
It's not the label. It's what the party stands for at a given time in history.
A pitiful argument
Section9, are you obtuse or what? Do you have any sense of history? You put forth a childish argument in which you substitute labels for facts. Do you know anything about the Reconstruction Era? The South was occupied by troops sent there by a Republican administration. Republicans were the hated carpetbaggers, so is it any wonder that the former Confederates became Democrats? The label didn't change their racist ways. Sure they were responsible for Jim Crow, but what is your point?
What you pretend not to seize is that when the Democratic Party took a progressive turn (Kennedy, LBJ), those racist Democrats turned Dixiecrats eventually flocked to the Republican Party (Helms, Thurmond, et al). Do you really want us to believe that these sleazebags represented in any way the party of Lincoln just because they joined the Republican Party?
Persons who take time to think and inform themselves don't spout off such nonsense. Did you know that blacks flocked to the Republican Party after President Eisenhower sent troops to LIttle Rock to force a Democratic governor to open the doors of a public high school to blacks?
It's not the label. It's what the party stands for at a given time in history.
Let's see what Paul says....
if a big spending ,less than competent, hack hiring, ideology driven President isn't a white Republican.
Will it be racist to point this stuff out?
I'm still trying to figure out how the NY Times is on the verge of bankruptcy when they have a Nobel Prize laureate in economics on the payroll?
Krugman is, at bottom, a partisan hack.
He would find an excuse to praise the Khmeres Rouges if they gave money to the Obama Campaign.
it won't be racist, if it occurs
but I'll be damned if I'll let you slander Chu like that! So step down off your hypothetical horse before you wind up riding the fence you tried to jump.
This blog is dedicated to the
This blog is dedicated to the re-birth of conservative principles. If it is to succeed in this mission, it has to confront its past, destroy its myths, and expunge what ever rot is hiding in its core. It has to examine its history, and if necessary, set fire to its martyrs and saints.Jon Henke falls into the common Center Right trap. He links to one of his previous posts that condemns racism, and then attacks Paul Krugman for linking the conservative dictum of small government to its obvious racist implications.This has been a long standing theme of Professor Krugman, and he has addressed it previously, pointing to the great saint of modern conservatism, Ronal Reagan. Every single Republican Presidential Candidate, from Reagan on, through Bush I, Bush II, and McCain have played the race card. And then, why then, they say the others are doing it also…When you begin to consider that racism is not defined by the speaker, but by the listener, you will be half way there… When you realize that not all poor are of color, you may be ready to cross the great divide. But, that will take a leap your leadership, and its many of their followers are not willing to take. It means knocking on voter’s doors and saying: “We are the government, and we are here to help. Ronald Reagan was wrong…”A long time ago my pappy told me that criticism implies that the recipient has an open mind. That modest thought might get brother Henke to examine Professor Krugman’s thoughts, rather than devote energy to ad hominem attacks.
With respect to 90% of the
With respect to 90% of the comments in response to this post:
Labeling as trolls
Why lable as trolls those who systematically, respectfully, and cogently present a counter argument ? I agree that those who engage in ad hominum attacks and name calling should be ignored. But to dismiss intelligent debate as "trolling" is to admit that your own positions can not compete in the marketplace of ideas.
I expect better from the Next Right. Don't turn this site into a dissent free zone like Red State or Free Republic. Proverbs 29:11 "As iron sharpens iron, so does one man sharpen another."
Admiration for this site's goal
I visit many political sites everyday. I am often turned off by DailyKos and other sometimes strident blogs tending leftward but I go there because, in my opinion, there is enough rational thought and reflection to reward my time. I'm becoming more and more annoyed with AMERICAblog's gay bias. I used to visit the Drudge Report, but it just became too predictable in its rejection and mocking of progressives.
I have always wanted to read thoughtful opinions on the right but there was just too much invective and parroting of rightwing talking points in most of the sites I visited. I feel that this new site (thenextright) is sincere in its desire to reform the GOP and I would like to contribute to that discussion. Calling those who aren't in total agreement with your arguments "trolls" doesn't advance a mature give and take of ideas. I do hope this site doesn't devolve into anything resembling FreeRepujblic, Michelle Malkin, or, God forbid, Rush Limbaugh.
So I'm a troll but a racist like Superdestroyer is OK
So, I'm a troll but someone as thick as Superdestroyer, who is so consumed by racism that he's happy to argue that Ronald Reagan put political correctness over this country's defense when he made Colin Powell is national security advisor, is a welcome member of the community?
It is aburd to say the Southern Strategy isn't real. And it is equally absurd to say that a best-selling author with a column in the largest newspaper in the country and a shiny new Nobel prize has no "credibility". Those three things don't make him right, but they do mean that people are going to tend to believe him. So if you don't, you need to come up with a credible counterpunch.
That's it
That's pretty much why I come to this site, stated fairly sucinctly.
Excuse Me?!?
And what exactly, pray tell, is wrong with Rush Limbaugh?
Thats a joke right
because everybody who reads that is laughing
Not At All
Rush Limbaugh has done more for Modern Conservatism than anyone except (perhaps) Ronald Reagan. I'll say it again: what, exactly, is wrong with Rush Limbaugh?
Which is why
The Democrats own Congress and the White House.
Rush Limbaugh is an overblown gasbag, who appeals to voters who don't usually pay attention to policy and instead react to dogwhistles.
GAYS! TERRORISTS! IMMIGRANTS! VOTE REPUBLICAN!
I don't mind Bill O' Reilly too much, as it seems he just plays to his audience for the most part. But Rush Limbaugh is past his prime.
he's the new father coughlin
next please?
Did you wear your Ashley Todd costume for Halloween?
Oh come on!
Look, trolls frequently use "intelligent debate" as a cover. I know this having been on websites where trolls drop pointers about how to anger political blogs without getting banned. I was just being careful.
And let me say, undoctored, that I have never had any interest in shutting down discussion on this or any other website. Historically, I have been very happy to argue with people who disagree with my points or want to contest them. It's just that, having had experience with troll tactics, my troll radar occasionally gets a little paranoid.
Should be a lesson for all Republicans
The Republicans can have an admnistraiton full of quota appointments, the Republicans can oppose things like the Michigan Civil Rights Initaitive, the Republicans can support affirmative action, quotas, 8a contracting, and minority set asides; the Republicans can support busing, school based social engineering, and diversity training, the Repulblicans can conduct outreach to blacks and Hispanics instead of appealling to middle class whites and in the end, the elites of this country will still call you a racism an every avaialable chance.
You would think that the Repubicans would eventually learn that if you care going to be called a racist no matter what, the least they could go is put an end to affirmative action, minority set asides, and race based social engineering. Yet, the Karl roves of the world keep believing it is more important to pander to illegal aliens and blacks while spitting in the faces of conservatives by running up a $5 trillion dollar debt and expanding the government.
Sorry, but Boy Genius had it nailed.
Karl Roves political strategy of appealing to youth and minorities (and by extension everyone else) under the banner of "Compasionate Conservatism" was spot on exactly what the GOP needs to get themselves out of what Krugman labeled a "cul de sac." Problem is, Bush and Co. failed to govern under the principals they ran on. And now "Compassionate Conservatism" is tainted by it's association with the most unpopular and ineffective president ever.
Bush's failures as president in no way discredit Rove who won two elections with the CC strategy. Going back to the cruder Atwater tactics will keep the GOP bottled up in the cul-de-sac for many cycles to come. Rove's tactics were as down and dirty as an Atwater or a Carville, but his overarching strategy is brilliant and IMHO the only correct answer for the GOP brand revival.
People on the right and the left seem to want to kick CC to the curb. But I am reminded of what Chesterton said about Christianity. "The problem is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it has never been tried."
Can "CC" ever really work?
Given the fact that this approach seems to require a growing public sector, how is going to be possible to implement going forward given the nation's out-of-control public debt?
If it is going to require large tax hikes to implement this, then it stops being conservative , now doesn't it?
Query whether a more pro-free market pitch to younger and non-caucasian voters would have worked? (I'm not a biased pessimist ala SD) But, that wasn't tried, either.
if you'll open our borders
then you stand to gain a lot of Hispanics.
But lose all the Dixiecrats.
it's free market, sure, but is it good for the country?
Tried that with Clinton
...and it didn't work out so well.
Actually
Rove won the second election with the complete lack of compassion. He used race, gay, and alien baiting to activate a base that is exactly like what Krugman describes. Using those tactics the GOP should just rename themselves Dixiecans! Time to move on and find issues that are important to all people in this country.
p.s. yeah right drop an atomic bomb on Vietnam, thank god Wallace failed.
What issues would that be?
What issues can Repubicans use to appeal to blacks and Hispanics without losing more conservative whites in the process. Do you really think that a group where all of their elected leaders routinely use phrases such as "White Folks" or "Gringos" is going to ever vote for the more conservative party? Do you think that blacks will ever support smaller government, less intrusive government, and lower taxes instead of government set asides and higher "white folks" taxes?"