Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

When I was growing up we had a neighbor, Mrs. C., whose nephews were good friends of mine. Mrs. C., or "Aunt Mary" as we sometimes called her, had a good heart, and delighted in taking the neighborhood children on day trips to South Mountain Reservation, the Jersey Shore, and wherever. Her problem, and the bone I had to pick with her was this: it stuck in Aunt Mary's craw that my attorney father would rather vacation with his family on Cape Cod for a week, than let her take my siblings and I to friggin' Turtle Back Zoo in her VW bus for the day. She just couldn't comprehend that those mulattoes across the street (my family and I) didn't need her liberal "compassion" in the least, and were quite capable of leaving our near-suburban, erstwhile-professional-turned-working-class New Jersey neighborhood, on our own-- for a day, a week, and (ultimately) forever.

Maybe I'm missing something, but was her offer to take you and your siblings for the day an act of racial condescension or was she just being nice? If she was taking her nephews to the same place, maybe her invitation was about as racist as my inviting my daughter's friend to join us on an outing. Or maybe she just liked your company. Maybe she missed having kids. And what did her offers have to do with your family Cape Cod vacations? :-? :-?

I hope you don't think I'm being condescending, sweetheart, when I invite you to join my daughter Linda and me on an outing. :wink:

Yes dear, you missed the phrase "...it stuck in her craw". She actually became angry and derisive with 13-year-old me when I politely told her that we couldn't go to the Zoo because we were off to the Cape for the third week in July, 1973. That particular offer of hers (others of which I accepted) had nothing to do with our trip, it was simply a coincidence that both events were planned for the same week. It was her reaction to my decline, not the offer itself, that I found annoying-- and that reaction was part of a pattern. I guess you had to have been there, and known her (sigh).

For what it's worth, the pattern it sounds like you are describing (warm heart coupled with a certain amount of unconscious condescension, and a salt of self-focus) does ring familiar. I've seen it myself.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

And now, i read this morning, North Korea has decided to resume construction on its nuclear power plant and weapons program. Of course, the Bush Administration will bomb it to smithereens before it is operational. They'll have to, or risk the President's words/threats being seen as empty (recalling Mr. Bush's "Axis Of Evil" speech earlier this year, and declaration last week of our preemptive strike option).

Still think we're in 3T, anyone?

Well, yeah, I still do. For what it's worth.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

And now, i read this morning, North Korea has decided to resume construction on its nuclear power plant and weapons program. Of course, the Bush Administration will bomb it to smithereens before it is operational. They'll have to, or risk the President's words/threats being seen as empty (recalling Mr. Bush's "Axis Of Evil" speech earlier this year, and declaration last week of our preemptive strike option).

Still think we're in 3T, anyone?

Well, yeah, I still do. For what it's worth.

HC,

We agree so rarely, that I have to get on board when we do. It's still 3T for me.

I think the entire Excess of Evil thing is just a little too clever. If we're really into evil, there are plenty of good examples in lower profile Africa. 4T isn't going to be about foreign bugaboos. It'll be domestic - centering on equity issues.

Originally Posted by David '47

HC,

We agree so rarely, that I have to get on board when we do. It's still 3T for me.

I think the entire Excess of Evil thing is just a little too clever. If we're really into evil, there are plenty of good examples in lower profile Africa. 4T isn't going to be about foreign bugaboos. It'll be domestic - centering on equity issues.

Why do you assume they are mutually exclusive?

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by David '47

HC,

We agree so rarely, that I have to get on board when we do. It's still 3T for me.

I think the entire Excess of Evil thing is just a little too clever. If we're really into evil, there are plenty of good examples in lower profile Africa. 4T isn't going to be about foreign bugaboos. It'll be domestic - centering on equity issues.

Why do you assume they are mutually exclusive?

More importantly, why do you assume we'll all snap into a 4T mood like flipping a switch? Look at the Lott situation - is it a mess of political squabbling that looks strangely 3T? Mostly, but then again no. A lot of the furor is coming from mainstream conservatives who thought they might have beaten this beastly charge once and for all, and then find that they've elected a throwback as leader who hasn't heard the rest of the country bought a clue years ago.

This is just the latest of the calls for Lott to step down:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/column.../?id=110002761

Sounds much more like we're putting the 2T issues of civil rights and segregation into the "Resolved" column to me.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by David '47

HC,

We agree so rarely, that I have to get on board when we do. It's still 3T for me.

I think the entire Excess of Evil thing is just a little too clever. If we're really into evil, there are plenty of good examples in lower profile Africa. 4T isn't going to be about foreign bugaboos. It'll be domestic - centering on equity issues.

Why do you assume they are mutually exclusive?

There's no necessity, of course, but Americans aren't very good at focusing on two places at once. I can see issues that might involve both, though. For example, if the equity issue had a major trade related compnent, there could easily be a strong foreign tie-in.

Unfortunately, we Americans tend to react to cases like that by turning inward. Is it likely that the worlds acknowledged hegemon could pull the metaphorical sheets over its head and go hyper-isolationist? Is it even possible?

Originally Posted by Chris'68

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by David '47

HC,

We agree so rarely, that I have to get on board when we do. It's still 3T for me.

I think the entire Excess of Evil thing is just a little too clever. If we're really into evil, there are plenty of good examples in lower profile Africa. 4T isn't going to be about foreign bugaboos. It'll be domestic - centering on equity issues.

Why do you assume they are mutually exclusive?

More importantly, why do you assume we'll all snap into a 4T mood like flipping a switch? Look at the Lott situation - is it a mess of political squabbling that looks strangely 3T? Mostly, but then again no. A lot of the furor is coming from mainstream conservatives who thought they might have beaten this beastly charge once and for all, and then find that they've elected a throwback as leader who hasn't heard the rest of the country bought a clue years ago.

If they thought they had escaped this charge, they really didn't understand their political opposition.

There's NOTHING the GOP can do or not do that will prevent the Dems from accusing them of being closest racists, bigots, and lynch-mob members. Lott needn't feel too guilty for saying something stupid, if it hadn't been that they'd have latched on to something else.

This is just the latest of the calls for Lott to step down:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/column.../?id=110002761

Sounds much more like we're putting the 2T issues of civil rights and segregation into the "Resolved" column to me.

Sounds more like some of the GOP still don't understand the rules the Dems play this game by.

H.C.:

Politicians will use any opening to tar the opposition, and set no store by intellectual integrity, true. Both parties are like that.

But the corrolary you're presenting about Lott not having to feel too bad, doesn't follow. The reason the Democrats are able sometimes to make charges like that stick is because, in the not-too-distant past, they were true. On the whole, they're not still true, but in Lott's case it appears they may be.

I'm not sure this will work for the Dems politically. Lott's racist attitudes are a relic of the past and I think most people realize that. For all his faults, and they are legion and very serious, I have seen no evidence that President Bush is himself a racist. I am sure that his condemnation of Lott, though politically motivated, was sincere, something I cannot say about much of his pronouncements.

The civil rights movement, unlike most other themes from the Awakening, was business that should have been finished a hundred years earlier. It was way overdue and had behind it the momentum of time. It really, truly is finished now as an issue, though not quite as a process. Even conservatives believe in it. And it is precisely the willingness of Republicans to affirm that fact that will keep it dead.

As for the TV talking heads, most of them are idiots with not the least idea of what the political issues were in 1948. Unfortunately, today political language is used to obfuscate and to confuse rather than to communicate. No politician today follows the advice of Confucius, who said of wise rulers, "... wanting order in the home, they first disciplined themselves; desiring self-discipline, they rectified their own hearts; and wanting to rectify their hearts, they sought precise verbal definition of their inarticulate thoughts; wishing to attain precise verbal definitions, they set to extend their knowledge to the utmost."

I'm convinced that a great deal of public apathy is attributable to the fact that people have now learned that they will learn nothing from the speeches and writings of politicians who favor demagoguery, vagueness and ambiguity. Politicians are as slippery as wet gummy bears when it comes to pinning them down on what they believe or where they stand on a given issue. Most of them have mush between their ears and Jell-O in their spinal cords. That applies to liberals and conservatives alike. This flap will blow over, because the critics are mainly addressing people who don't give a hoot what they think one way or another. Lott, however, would do well to engage his brain before starting his tongue.


Mr. Charley Reese on a pillar of salt:


http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20021216/index.php

I found this intriguing. Discuss, perhaps?

From "They Thought They Were Free" (more here)

You know it doesn't make people close to their government to be told that this is a people's government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing to do with knowing one is governing.

What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if he people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security.
. . .
"This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.
. . .
You see, . . .one doesn't see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for the one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don't want to act, or even to talk, alone; you don't want to "go out of your way to make trouble." Why not? - Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.
"Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, "everyone is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees none. . . . In the university community, in your own community, you speak privately to you colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, "It's not so bad" or "You're seeing things" or "You're an alarmist."

And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can't prove it. These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don't know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end?

The Lott controversy isn't as cut-and-dried as you think. It is true that many neoconservatives are calling for his ouster; in fact, they largely drove the issue when Daschle was ready to let it slide. The problem is that, as usual, neoconservatives and paleoconservatives are talking past each other, neoconservatives with arrogance and paleoconservatives with a rising sense of rage. If the neos don't watch out, they may face a revolt in the GOP ranks.

Neoconservatives view this as a logical puzzle with an easy solution. You have an incompetent majority leader who has never stood up to the leftist leadership of the Democratic Party; a gaffe that paints him, fairly or otherwise, as a racist; and a score of racially tinged issues coming down the pike, many of them supported by black or Hispanic conservatives who have nearly been martyred for their courage in opposing racial quotas. To the neos, this is not only an opportunity to get better leadership, it also has become necessary if we are to avoid selling these brave souls down the river.

Paleoconservatives, who tend to be poorer and more parochial, see the issue as a personal affront. Have you ever been fired from a job for making "insensitive" remarks? I have--and I don't consider myself a paleo, I just understand where they're coming from. To paleos, this is a free speech issue: Lott said some things that anyone might have said, given enough beer, and now is being threatened with his livelihood. Listen to the Michael Savage show, and you'll expect the torches and pitchforks to come out any minute now. (I don't like Savage much myself, but he seems to hit a nerve with many people. Essentially, he's Buchanan but less principled). Things aren't helped when you see a black Democrat strategist on Fox trying to drown out the conservative black representing the pro-Lott side, then laughing out loud at his remarks and doing the "yak yak yak" hand symbol while his opponent is speaking.

I myself haven't decided on Lott. One minute I'll be ready to give him the heave-ho, and the next I'll be ready to shout down his opponents, right or left. The best thing would be if he could somehow be persuaded to step down and remain in the Senate, since I wouldn't want the GOP majority to depend on Lincoln Chafee's integrity.

Dominic, Lott can't be deprived of his Senate seat over this, and if he resigns from the Senate (and not just as majority leader), most likely a Republican will be appointed to replace him.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Dominic, Lott can't be deprived of his Senate seat over this, and if he resigns from the Senate (and not just as majority leader), most likely a Republican will be appointed to replace him.

Right about the first point, wrong about the second. The governor of Mississippi is a Democrat, and governors almost always appoint members of their own party.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

H.C.:

Politicians will use any opening to tar the opposition, and set no store by intellectual integrity, true. Both parties are like that.

But not all politicians and all parties to the same degree under all circumstances and in all periods.

But the corrolary you're presenting about Lott not having to feel too bad, doesn't follow. The reason the Democrats are able sometimes to make charges like that stick is because, in the not-too-distant past, they were true. On the whole, they're not still true, but in Lott's case it appears they may be.

The Democrats' record on racial issues is as bad or worse than that of the GOP. They just have better PR on the subject.

The civil rights movement, unlike most other themes from the Awakening, was business that should have been finished a hundred years earlier. It was way overdue and had behind it the momentum of time. It really, truly is finished now as an issue, though not quite as a process. Even conservatives believe in it. And it is precisely the willingness of Republicans to affirm that fact that will keep it dead.

The actual struggle is mostly over, granted. The political issue won't die because the Dems won't let it, at least for the next few years. This entire Lott business is driven primarily by the perception on the part of the Dems that low black turnout on E2002 was their big problem. If Lott is forced out of the Majority Leader slot over this, I suspect we'll see a lot (no pun intended) of race-cards played over the next 2 years.

I'm not the world's biggest fan of Trent Lott, as I've said before, but right now staying on as Majority Leader would be a national service.

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

The Lott controversy isn't as cut-and-dried as you think. It is true that many neoconservatives are calling for his ouster; in fact, they largely drove the issue when Daschle was ready to let it slide. The problem is that, as usual, neoconservatives and paleoconservatives are talking past each other, neoconservatives with arrogance and paleoconservatives with a rising sense of rage. If the neos don't watch out, they may face a revolt in the GOP ranks.

Neoconservatives view this as a logical puzzle with an easy solution. You have an incompetent majority leader who has never stood up to the leftist leadership of the Democratic Party; a gaffe that paints him, fairly or otherwise, as a racist; and a score of racially tinged issues coming down the pike, many of them supported by black or Hispanic conservatives who have nearly been martyred for their courage in opposing racial quotas. To the neos, this is not only an opportunity to get better leadership, it also has become necessary if we are to avoid selling these brave souls down the river.

Paleoconservatives, who tend to be poorer and more parochial, see the issue as a personal affront. Have you ever been fired from a job for making "insensitive" remarks? I have--and I don't consider myself a paleo, I just understand where they're coming from. To paleos, this is a free speech issue: Lott said some things that anyone might have said, given enough beer, and now is being threatened with his livelihood. Listen to the Michael Savage show, and you'll expect the torches and pitchforks to come out any minute now. (I don't like Savage much myself, but he seems to hit a nerve with many people. Essentially, he's Buchanan but less principled). Things aren't helped when you see a black Democrat strategist on Fox trying to drown out the conservative black representing the pro-Lott side, then laughing out loud at his remarks and doing the "yak yak yak" hand symbol while his opponent is speaking.

Excellent analysis. There's a swath of the country who may or may not be racists, but are fed up with being told what they can and can't say, and are and are not supposed to think. Frustration could easily turn to fury.

H.C.:

But not all politicians and all parties to the same degree under all circumstances and in all periods.

Agreed. The Republicans, on the whole, are worse. But the Democrats are guilty, too.

The Democrats' record on racial issues is as bad or worse than that of the GOP. They just have better PR on the subject.

If you look at the entire history of both parties, then the Democrats are unquestionably worse. But if you look at recent history, then the Republicans are worse. Of course, that's because the Pubs have absorbed a lot of former Southern Democrats who quit the party over civil rights, including Strom Thurmond and Trent Lott.

The actual struggle is mostly over, granted. The political issue won't die because the Dems won't let it, at least for the next few years.

I remind you that, while the Democrats are indeed putting in an oar or two, the current storm is mostly internal to the Republicans. The party does not wish to be perceived as racist.

This entire Lott business is driven primarily by the perception on the part of the Dems that low black turnout on E2002 was their big problem.

No, because it isn't driven by the Democrats. (Low black turnout, and low turnout of what ought to be the Democrats' base in general, was indeed their big problem. But it's not fixable by playing the race card, or any other type of negative campaigning against Republicans. The Democrats' base already don't like the GOP; the question now is why we should like the Democrats. They didn't vote Republican in the last election. They didn't vote at all.)

If Lott is forced out of the Majority Leader slot over this, I suspect we'll see a lot (no pun intended) of race-cards played over the next 2 years.

I don't think so, unless other Republicans have, and betray, racist attitudes the way he did. For most Republicans, there simply isn't a target for that kind of thing. It can't be manufactured. It has to be supplied.

I'm not the world's biggest fan of Trent Lott, as I've said before, but right now staying on as Majority Leader would be a national service.

I doubt very much if he'll manage it. A challenge is arising in the Senate, and the White House is staying out of the fray.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

H.C.:

Politicians will use any opening to tar the opposition, and set no store by intellectual integrity, true. Both parties are like that.

But not all politicians and all parties to the same degree under all circumstances and in all periods.

But the corrolary you're presenting about Lott not having to feel too bad, doesn't follow. The reason the Democrats are able sometimes to make charges like that stick is because, in the not-too-distant past, they were true. On the whole, they're not still true, but in Lott's case it appears they may be.

The Democrats' record on racial issues is as bad or worse than that of the GOP. They just have better PR on the subject.

The civil rights movement, unlike most other themes from the Awakening, was business that should have been finished a hundred years earlier. It was way overdue and had behind it the momentum of time. It really, truly is finished now as an issue, though not quite as a process. Even conservatives believe in it. And it is precisely the willingness of Republicans to affirm that fact that will keep it dead.

The actual struggle is mostly over, granted. The political issue won't die because the Dems won't let it, at least for the next few years. This entire Lott business is driven primarily by the perception on the part of the Dems that low black turnout on E2002 was their big problem. If Lott is forced out of the Majority Leader slot over this, I suspect we'll see a lot (no pun intended) of race-cards played over the next 2 years.

I'm not the world's biggest fan of Trent Lott, as I've said before, but right now staying on as Majority Leader would be a national service.

I've thought about this long and hard, and I regretfully have to conclude otherwise. The problem isn't that Lott is evil or a racist--he is neither. Nor is it that he is hurting the Republican Party as far as elections go--this could just as easily hurt the Democrats, who could be seen as the Race Hustlers' Party. The problem is that Lott shows an utter lack of principles--he went straight from yakking up the good old States Rights Democratic Party to getting on his knees for Black Entertainment Television, which is just as offensive. He seems to think that his offense was in kissing up to the wrong side; in reality, his offense was in not understanding the morality of the situation at all.

Segregation really was a nasty system--not just for blacks, but for Southern whites as well. The Southern Democratic politicians typically would "out-nigger" (George Wallace's phrase) their opponents, while acting as placeholders for the Tammany-controlled national party. Essentially, ALL southerners were disenfranchised: blacks by being forcefully denied the vote, whites by being conned into voting for a one-party system that allowed them to languish in a Third World economy. The Dixiecrats hated Republicans not so much because of the civil war, but more because they threatened to make the Southern voters more wealthy, and more sophisticated. (It is ironic that so many Southerners felt such pride when George Wallace, on national TV, stood in the schoolhouse doors--and that those same people are generally ignorant of his secret agreement with Robert Kennedy to get out of the way once the cameras were removed. Wallace, the "unrepentant segregationist," was in reality in it strictly for himself).

Do you really want to put up a fight to keep Lott, only to have him stab us in the back when the judges come up? He will--he's done it before. The man is utterly unable to differentiate between crucial issues--such as civil rights (his recent gaffe and other past ones), national security (his caving on the chemical weapons treaty), and limitation of presidential power (by killing the impeachment trial he was essentially stating that Clinton, the most prosecutorial president in history, could not himself be prosecuted)--from "important issues" like perscription drug benefits or highway funds. He has no concept of American history (he didn't even know who Dewey was!); as the elder Bush said of Dukakis, he thinks that America is a nice country on the UN roster somewhere between Albania and Zimbabwe. (Aren't we forgetting Afghanistan, Mr. President? :lol: ) And that is why he should be demoted. The Democrats, the status quo party, can afford to have men without principle; we, the impassioned agents of change, cannot.

Dominic:

The Democrats, the status quo party, can afford to have men without principle; we, the impassioned agents of change, cannot.

I second your sentiments on racism within the GOP, but the above reflects a purely culture-war mentality, and late culture-war at that.

What's more, while it is technically correct, I question whether it is really appropriate to designate reaction -- which the Republican culture-war effort has been -- as "impassioned change." The implication is one of progress, which hardly describes an effort to roll back gains in equality from the culture-war's first act. The Democrats have indeed been the status quo party in terms of the culture war over the last 20 years or so, but were hardly that during the Awakening, when they helped enact the changes that constitute the status quo currently being challenged in by the GOP (in favor, not of something visionary, but of the status quo ante).

Be that as it may, the Crisis does and will involve issues completely different from the culture war. And the GOP not only is not the party of impassioned change on those issues, but is constitutionally incapable of being one. As with the last 4T, the champions of progress will be Democrats or no one. And as with the last 4T at this point (i.e., during the Hoover administration) it is not yet clear which of those will come about.

But recent signs are fairly encouraging.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

H.C.:

But not all politicians and all parties to the same degree under all circumstances and in all periods.

Agreed. The Republicans, on the whole, are worse. But the Democrats are guilty, too.

For over 20 years now, the Democrats have been far worse about this sort of thing than the GOP, and we're seeing it in action again right now. After Reagan, the GOP became almost inept at this game. I honestly can't imagine where, in the past 20 years, would see the GOP as being worse than the hardcore Left about this sort of thing. (Prior to Reagan, that's another matter, but even then it was debatable which one was the worst about it back to the Nixon period.)

The Democrats' record on racial issues is as bad or worse than that of the GOP. They just have better PR on the subject.

If you look at the entire history of both parties, then the Democrats are unquestionably worse. But if you look at recent history, then the Republicans are worse. Of course, that's because the Pubs have absorbed a lot of former Southern Democrats who quit the party over civil rights, including Strom Thurmond and Trent Lott.

HOW are they worse recently?

The actual struggle is mostly over, granted. The political issue won't die because the Dems won't let it, at least for the next few years.

I remind you that, while the Democrats are indeed putting in an oar or two, the current storm is mostly internal to the Republicans. The party does not wish to be perceived as racist.

This entire Lott business is driven primarily by the perception on the part of the Dems that low black turnout on E2002 was their big problem.

No, because it isn't driven by the Democrats.

It was initialy driven by the Democrats. Even they didn't get going on it for about 2 days after it happened, which in itself puts the lie to the notion that this was instant, genuine outrage.

Now, the younger GOPers see a chance to oust Lott and get his seat for harder-core type. If they do get him out using this, they'll likely regret it later, since it won't end the controversy.

(Low black turnout, and low turnout of what ought to be the Democrats' base in general, was indeed their big problem. But it's not fixable by playing the race card, or any other type of negative campaigning against Republicans. The Democrats' base already don't like the GOP; the question now is why we should like the Democrats. They didn't vote Republican in the last election. They didn't vote at all.)

True, but the Dems in the upper leadership levels THINK it will bring them back. I'm not by any means sure that this will actually work, but I am fairly confident we'll see them try it. I've said before that the Democratic leadership has lost touch with big chunks of their own base. That's true of the GOP to a lesser extent as well.

That's part of why efforts by Lott to apologize for this are so comical and pitiable. His opponents among the Dems and his rivals among the GOP don't care whether or not he's a racist, or whether he's sorry. There's nothing he can say that will satisfy people who want him gone for their own reasons that have nothing to do with him.

You're right that the GOP is shiveringly afraid of being called racist. But they're going to be accused of being racist regardless of their actions, and the traditional media are going to portray them as racist no matter what they do or don't do, so they might as well get over that.

If they're worried that the Lott mess will galvanize broad swaths of voters against them, they needn't be. The public scarecely cares about this whole thing.

If Lott is forced out of the Majority Leader slot over this, I suspect we'll see a lot (no pun intended) of race-cards played over the next 2 years.

I don't think so, unless other Republicans have, and betray, racist attitudes the way he did. For most Republicans, there simply isn't a target for that kind of thing. It can't be manufactured. It has to be supplied.

If you think this stuff can't be manufactured, I've got a bridge in the American southwest to sell you. MOST of the recent racial controversies in America have been manufactured, and this one is no exception. If nobody does anything to indicate a racist attitude, they'll pick something trivial and neutral and manufacture artificial outrage (or try to) around it.
I've seen it happen before.

I look for more radio ads about burning black churches, too, especially if the GOP is foolish enough to fall for this. They probably are.

I'm not the world's biggest fan of Trent Lott, as I've said before, but right now staying on as Majority Leader would be a national service.

I doubt very much if he'll manage it. A challenge is arising in the Senate, and the White House is staying out of the fray.

Word is that Rove wants him out anyway. It wouldn't be the first time Rove was too clever for his own good.

Just had to weigh in.

If Lott is voted out as Majority Leader, then it is more evidence that the Republicans will be firmly established as the governing party for the next generation. Look backwards from the future and note that 2002 was the year that the Republicans shed themselves, in the senate, of Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and Phil Gramm and now Trent Lott. (So Gramm does not have the same race baiting history as the others, but he talks just as funny and he was a part of the old Republican Senate image.)

It is a cleansing move that clears the way to make the tent bigger. And W articulated the principle why. "...and America was untrue to its ideals, when..."

I think Dominic noted that the debate over Lott was a debate within the Republican party.....as all important debates now are.

Monoghan:

The Republicans' problem isn't their racist past. It's their corporatist present. That will prevent them, utterly and inescapably, from being the dominant party during the Crisis.

Getting rid of the racist hanger-on baggage is nothing but overdue housecleaning. It's not a bad idea, and certainly it can't hurt, but it won't help the underlying problem.

I think Dominic noted that the debate over Lott was a debate within the Republican party

No, that was me.

.....as all important debates now are.

Obviously, you're paying no attention to the debate raging inside the Democratic Party, or the ones outside of Congress. Or else you don't think those are important.

My apology in not attributing to Brian the trenchant observation that the most interteresting debates occur within the Republican party these days. I was agreeing with some other of Dominic's posts.

There are no debates within the Democratic party now, only bloodletting. The only debates that Democrats have now are those that will be important 15 years from now. Otherwise, they are just playing the role of the party out of power. Especially, if Trent Lott goes.

That corporatist analysis of yours gets you an A from a university professor, but is of no use otherwise. It is merely interesting.

Monoghan:

There are no debates within the Democratic party now, only bloodletting.

Nonsense. Clearly, you HAVEN'T been paying attention. The debate raging currently is over whether to junk the DLC philosophy of veering right on economics and foreign policy while holding steady on social issues that elected Bill Clinton. Or, to put it another way, whether to actually stand for something. The Democrats are in roughly the same position today that they were in 1930.

Keep an eye on the Dem presidential candidates, especially John Kerry. See what kinds things he's saying a month from now. Also, continue to listen to Al Gore, although he's decided not to run. The Bush administration obviously fears the currents emerging from the Democrats, since they are very quick to jump on any of them that show their heads, and you should worry, too.

That corporatist analysis of yours gets you an A from a university professor, but is of no use otherwise.

This shows you're not paying attention to the debates outside of Congress, either. The growing sentiment in the country is that big business has been given FAR too much leeway and too much influence, and it needs to be curtailed. The party that gives that voice, will win and dominate the Crisis.

It CANNOT be the Republicans. Support for corporate power is the reason that party exists.

It can, but need not necessarily, be the Democrats.

And that is why the debate within the Democratic Party is far, far more important than the one within the Republicans.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Monoghan:

There are no debates within the Democratic party now, only bloodletting.

Keep an eye on the Dem presidential candidates, especially John Kerry. See what kinds things he's saying a month from now. Also, continue to listen to Al Gore, although he's decided not to run.

Do you believe him (Gore)? (Straightforward question.)

H.C.:

Do you mean about what he's saying or about not running?