So Much for Sanity re: Racial Politics
Privately, Democrats have been busily charting out the choreography for Burris' arrival, conscious of the racial sensitivity involved with blocking Burris from becoming the Senate's only black member.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28471732/
What the f-ck is wrong with some people when there is some presumption -- a presumption carrying politically intimidating force -- that a U.S. Senate seat is the proper place for race-based affirmative action (even assuming the dubious premise that there is any place for it at this point in 2009 America).
The U.S. Senate is not a committee, nor do we have some system in which we vote for a national party which then apportions seats based on some form of proportionate representation. Rather, it a body consisting of members who represent individual geographic constituencies (residents of individual states) as well as serving the nation as a whole.
Even if some contnrived, forced racial proportionate representation were somehow appropriate, why should the residents of one state, Illinois, be made to sacrifice to achieve it?
Yeah, that's right, I said it: sacrifice. And before the Racial PC Police scream "OMG! You're saying that an African-American senator is a sacrifice!", no, I'm saying that forcing/coercing/pressuring a constituency (or other political leaders) to accept only the "best" representative available from a particular racial (or ethnic or religious) group is demanding a sacrifice from them because it precludes their selecting from the entire pool of potential candidates. It's (in a limited, but relevant way) like if the NFL or some segment of the population demanded (and applied pressure or manipulated processes to ensure) that the Colts choose as their starting quarterback the best Jewish quarterback available because it's unacceptable that the NFL has no Jewish quarterbacks (sorry Peyton, sorry Colts, sorry Colts fans -- and most NFL fans).
Yet many African-American leaders line up in support of the choice of a disgraced (or at the very least untrusted) governor simply because this choice is a black man and they want to ensure -- or to be seen by some constituency as trying to ensure -- that the U.S. Senate have at least one black member. (I admit that what I've seen of African-American leaders advocating/expressing a position on the matter is surely a small sample, but what I have seen has been entirely one-sided. By all means, correct me if I'm inappropriately generalizing)
So much for the election of an African-American president ushering in an era of sanity regarding "race", affirmative action and derivatives thereof in American politics and society.
I have to give the Racial PC Police and their leaders/agitators credit for one thing: they've applied McCarthyist strategy and tactics (using accusations and branding and threats thereof, including the ol' guilt-by-association treatment to deter anyone speaking out against their accusations and unreasonable demands) with much greater and longer success than Joe himself.
- B Rational's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
Umm, who said anything about affirmative action?
The article you reference doesn't even mention affirmative action. The national Dems object to Burris because he was picked by Blagojevich and they therefore consider him tainted. The fact that they are trying to avoid accusations of being racists because they refuse to seat him should be unsurprising, no?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Umm, I thought it was
Umm, I thought it was self-evident. Apparently not, at least not to everyone. The argument/insistence/demand by some that the Senate should not be devoid of African-Americans -- essentially a racial quota -- is essentially affirmative action. Not sure what you're not getting. At least some black leaders are pushing that point, and at least some senators apparently believe that some significant segment of voters believe similarly and feel pressured and worried about it (afraid of being accused of being insensitive to the needs/rights of blacks and perhaps even being accused or thought of as being racist), although I'm glad to see they are not rolling over.
Understand now?
I Agree with BR? Wait...
...yes, that's right..Iook at that...I do...I agree with BR! LOL! ;-)
In all seriousness...
...an appropriate, important observation.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I guess we scared 'em off BR?
LOL?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
if there's any place for Affirmative action, it is the Senate
First, I think your characterization is way off. This only has the slightest connection to affirmative action. It is actually more akin to anti-discrimination laws. Illinois chose to send an African-American to the Senate, and it is outsiders (the rest of the Senate) who are trying to prevent their lawfully chosen Senator from representing their state. If he is not seated, then Illinois will be without a Senator. Nobody is forcing Illinois to send a black man to the Senate. The issue is whether the Senate can reject this man for what are effectively arbitrary reasons. If they choose to reject him for reasons aside from legal disqualification, then they need to be prepared for those who will look at the history of the country and ask "Is this just another case of powerful white guys excluding blacks from the institutions that dominate American life."
Aside from that, if there is any place for affirmative action, it is in government. It isn't as though these people are doing real work -- their job is to represent Americans. If a substantial portion of Americans feel that they are unrepresented (due to technicalities of our representation system combined with a history of intentional discrimination) then there is nothing wrong with considering that fact when faced with a situation like this one, and biasing our decisions in a way that give them representation.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Absolute nonsense!
First this;
It is the senate democrats that are balking, because Illinois did not choose a black senator, or any senator at all for that matter, their disgraced Governor did, hence the apprehension.
Why jump into the absurdity contained in your above quote? Such foolishness.
And secondly, the federal government is about as diverse a workplace as any on the planet, infact I would submit ...it is the most diverse workforce on the planet.
Adam, there never was, and certainly is not today, any place for discrimination, whether you label it something tricky like "affirmative action" or not.
Get some fresh air.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
those aren't my sentiments
The full quote:
I did not say that it is reasonable for someone in my position (a middle class white guy) to ask this question. My social status provides me with a particular perspective on racial relations, and I don't think that there's much reason to suspect the senate of being racist.
I'm an insider in this respect. Other people (i.e. poorer blacks) are outsiders and have different experiences, which makes it much more reasonable for them to suspect the Senate of being racist. If the government wants to be viewed as legitimate by those people, then it needs to take those concerns into account and not act in a way that reinforces their suspicions.
When people stop placing the interests of their own kids (OMG, genetic discrimination!) over those of other people's kids, I'll believe you.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
America is one big happy family
You want to create a mythology in which America is one big happy family, and we are all equals and all respect each other. Sorry, but that isn't reality.
If you want to create that reality, you've got to work for it. You've got to consider where we are, and what needs to change in order to make it reality. You can't just declare that it is reality.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
I loath liberals of your ilk - Creators of a ficticious world...
Oh Adam...What exactly makes you an insider my friend?
Barack Obama, he's an insider, Tiger Woods, Oprah Winfrey, Thomas Sowell, Will Smith, Toni Morrison, Jay Z, Spike Lee, Maya Anjelou, etc... Ok they're insiders, but you? LOL, you're just another schmuck who happens to be a white guy.
If you want to perpetuate the myth that America does not afford young Black, Asian, or Latino kids the same opportunity as white kids, you go right ahead, you're delusional, but go ahead?
It's a liberal figment, the big ploy, liberals want to keep funding their big government programs, a democrats best friend.
Let me ask you something, why do Asians do so much better in school than blacks Adam, are we not discriminating against the Asians enough?
It's time to drop the rock dude.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Aren't your parents liberal
Adam is a reasonable person, who backs up his arguments fairly and rationally without being rude.
He also doesn't use a broad brush to paint segments of society with sweeping generalities.
I'm only half stupid
I'm sure he is..?
...so let him then...
He has most certainly failed to meet those standards altogether in the course of this brief thread, seemingly stuck on civil right TP's of the 1950's...
60 years have passed, a Black guy is POTUS, the highest paid movie star in the country is a black guy, hip hop culture dominates the music industry, the wealthiest business woman in the country is a black chick...
GET OVER IT...let the country move past it already. It's a done deal, with the exceptions of liberals like Adam, who for whatever reason want to continue to perpetuate that fraud on Africans Americans.
How can we expect joe black kid to feel and be equal, if Adam doesn't see him as such?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I didn't bring up this issue
All I said is that there's nothing unreasonable about others bringing up the issue.
You must read a different history book than me if you think that the civil rights reforms were completed by 1949. More accurately, ~40 years have passed.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Really...
If we can say the civil rights movement is characterized by the developments between 1941, and 1973, as sad as it may sound to you, your civil rights rhetoric resembles that of the 1950's.
2009 - 1950
= 59
Evidently the math in your world is just as screwy as the facts?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I wasn't commenting one way
I wasn't commenting one way or the other on whether or not Burris should be seated in the Senate, I was only commenting on one argument that I think is inappropriate and criticizing those who are pressuring others to act based on that argument and/or via the implicit threat that they will be accused of racism (in ways similar to the type of question you posed and apparently are presenting as an appropriate question and accusation or at least expression of suspicion), thus harming the people of Illinois and our democracy and public generally if they succeed on that basis.
Tell me, please, why anyone should presume or suspect that those who oppose seating Burris in the Senate do so because they are racist or even just unacceptably insensitive to the needs of African Americans? Why? Isn't it wrong -- both in the sense of being invalid and in the sense of being unfair and injurious -- to have such thinking and speaking as our default assumption whenever someone takes a position that adversely affects someone who happens to be black?
As for your argument that it is right to apply pressure on politicians or voters or whomever to use the Senate to ensure some kind of proportionate representation by race, I've already explained why that is very unfair and harmful to the people of whatever state(s) is being pressured to make that sacrifice for some supposed national benefit (as I explain in my diary), and would be unfair and wrong even if the benefit or net benefit for the nation of this result were not so dubious. The same applies to the lack of justification on the basis of supposedly benefitting some segment of our population (particularly a segment based on "race").
And hell, if you like the idea of racial proportionality in the Senate so much, do you favor, say, a raffle through which a particular number of states are chosen each election cycle (about 12% of Senatorial elections in the case of African-Americans), and those states can ONLY seat an African-American senator that cycle? Or how about states being required to spot black Senate candidates 20% of the vote to improve their chances of winning? And would you want to do the same for Latinos, Asians, homosexuals, atheists, disabled, etc., etc., etc.? If not, why not?
Nobody is forcing Illinois to do anything
I don't have the time to get into all of these issues right now, so I'd just like to get this one out of the way: nobody is forcing Illinois to do anything.
We agree on this: There are some people who think that it is important to have an African-American in the Senate. Either they involve the decision-makers themselves (the governor or the voters) or they have some influence over the decision makers and they have used normal political tools to persuade the decision-makers to take this factor into consideration.
What we apparently disagree on is whether it is legitimate for these people to consider this issue important. You say that it is illegitimate and offensive. I say that it is legitimate. I do NOT say that it is necessary to consider this issue (ethnicity) when choosing Senators--just that African-Americans are not being unreasonable if they fret about the absence of their ethnic group in Congress. I don't know if anyone (prominent) is throwing out charges of racism (exclusiveness), but this issue can also be from the perspective that it is good for America for us to make active attempts to include previously excluded groups. I think that is also a legitimate viewpoint.
I do not think that there should be any sort of quota. This is just one factor among many to take into consideration when making decisions about who will be elected/nominated.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Nobody is forcing Illinois to
Again, here's what I'm saying:
U.S. Senate leadership believed it faced a decision as to whether or not (or to what extent) to resist allowing Mr. Burris to join the Senate. People can debate the legitimate merits of deciding one way or another all they want. But what I've been saying is that if some folks are pressuring these Senate leaders to accept Mr. Burris on the basis that it would be racist or at least grossly insensitive and unfair to African-Americans, then that argument and that pressuring amounts to trying to hoist upon the people of one particular state, Illinois, the harm of being restricted to a black Senator for that seat, or at least putting a heavy finger on the scale in that direction. I would feel the same way if these same people were pressuring a governor to appoint a black person on the same grounds, or even if Americans nationally applied that argument (not to mention those McCarthyist tactics) to pressure the voters of a particular state to elect a black person.
I think, generally speaking, it would be good to have closer to proportionate representation of some types in the U.S. Senate, as in legislatures generally, but that should happen naturally, and at the very least it is wrong for people to use the argument of the desirability of proportionate representation in a broader body (e.g., the U.S. Senate, a national body) and the threat of branding as a racist or as grossly racially-insensitive to coerce decisions-makers in a particular constituency (e.g., Illinois) to limit themselves to choosing their representation (e.g., their U.S. Senator) from among some particular segment.
Even if one has the wish that there will be blacks in the U.S. Senate, and even if one believes in the very debatable notion (one to which I don't subscribe and consider quite lame) that such a result should be deliberate and contrived in some way by actively favoring black candidates or even setting explicit quotas, a state only gets two U.S. Senators, and it's just wrong to pressure decision-makers to make one state sacrifice for the purpose of some form of proportional representation, and pressuring decision-makers to allow a guy to join the Senate via that argument and those tactics if they otherwise would not is causing such harm to those constituents.
Adam, Adam, Adam...
Honestly, Adam, your post is borderline unintelligible.
So ok, lets see...
Ok, I'm with ya here...
Yes...which means everyone...
Like...?
...influence over everyone?
Like they do in Chicago...?
...e v e r y o n e . . .
....Wow?
apparently = obviously...
...EVERYONE...
Oh brother....
It just get's weirder from there...
I have read it through several times, and at best I get the gist of it, though it was not easy, and at moments it was downright painful to extract the PC meaning - you think you mean to say - from what you are saying.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Your Everyone
schtick is way off.
Either decision makers or voters does not imply everyone.
Are you a voter? Can we assume then, following your logic that you voted for Obama?
Obviously all voters don't wear the same stripes and there will be a minority of voters whose candidate/issue is not selected.
Some people (some people think it's important) specifically excludes everyone.
Some people think it is important to ban gay marriage. They could be decision makers (the governor) or voters. That does not imply everyone thinks it is important to ban gay marriage.
I'm only half stupid
Herein lies the shortcoming in Adams post...
However, I think you should re-read it...
The whole thing is one giant cluster f^@k.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
That doesn't speak
to your blanket statement that the 'they' is everyone.
The clusterf^ck is your faulty logic, and inability to see clearly that some people means exactly that, some people.
Some people enjoy playing the victim. A perfect example would be Sarah Palin whining that some people don't understand her because they are elitist snobs.
Some people think that it is important to have an a 'regular gal' like Sarah Palin in the Seante.
Either Sarah's supporters engage the decision-makers, or the voters, or her supporters have some influence over the decision makers and they have used normal political tools to persuade the decision makers to take this (the Sarah factor) into consideration.
What exactly is wrong with that statement. It just means some people think that the Sarah class is under represented. Sarah is clinging to a perception that she is a victim of elite media discrimination to gain sympathy and political support.
I'm only half stupid
ZZZzzz....
Sarah Palin this, George Bush that, Cheney, Conservatives, Republican, Bankers, Investors, blah, blah, blah, f^@k!^g blah already!
Man, could you please incorporate the slightest smidgen of diversity in a long ago worn out routine?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
That's funny coming from you...
with sweeping deligimzation of all ideas that start from L.
But of course you sidestepped your 'everyone' strawman logic, and turned it into the standard you can't possibly have a valid point you are a liberal.
Obviously you can't defend the line that you drew. =)
I'm only half stupid
I guess the plain english explaination upthread...
...failed to dislodge that Rush Limbaugh bumper sticker someone wadded up and shoved up your a$$ all those years ago, that has made it virtually impossible for you to have even the simplest conversations?
Look, read it, I even broke it out so even an up tight, fanatical, whack job like yourself can understand it...or so I thought.
And one other tip...I know you think it makes you seem cool, but you use the term "straw man" WAY TO OFTEN ok... I'm afraid there aren't that many straw men in all of Kansas - let alone SC. ;-)
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Odd comment
I read your break down. I disagreed. I explained why.
People disagree. It doesn't make them fanatical whack jobs.
I think this is the first time in months I have used the word strawman, yet somehow you judge that I use it constantly for the coolness factor. Odd.
Your response is very strange.
I'm only half stupid
Finida La Comedia...
...lets just drop this here...
...I'm sure going to miss Brendan!
(I don't want to fight anymore...! LOL)
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman