In response to my "Mogadishu Democrats" post, Michael Totten penned "The View from the Center-Left"... and ignited a blog-war of sorts. Matthew Yglesias, who really ought to know better, penned "The Schtick." It more or less claimed Totten was writing these things for ulterior motives, and several members of his Comments section and other blogs joined in along similar lines. Welcome to High School.
Anyhoo, one of Totten's commenters summed up his own conflicts and beliefs in a way that drew particular mention. I won't say I agree with it (you'll see why soon), but it adds to the debate and is worth listening to if you want to take the political temperature of a certain segment in and around the Democratic Party....
A Democrat's National Security Rant
by M. Hess
For the last 30 years, the Republicans have been running on a racist platform. They've done everything in their power to fan the flames of racial hatred and combat the aspirations of minorities.
Yet every year, the Republicans stand up and say that they're champions of racial justice. No one believes this. Thier rhetoric is belied by their history.
On a similar note, there are Republicans who are not racists. I don't think George Bush is a racist; from what I can see, he's sincerely committed to equal rights. And a lot of the Republicans who are oposoed to affirmative action aren't racists either. Heck, while I am a Democrat, I myself am opposed to affirmative action.
But this doesn't change the fact that there is a sizable racist contingent in the Republican party. For every George Bush, there's a Trent Lott; for every Bob Dole, a Strom Thurmond.
The racism isn't overt any more. You'll never see Trent Lott make a speech against the evils of miscegnation. On the contrary, he'll publicly proclaim that he isn't a racist. He'll talk about his African-American staffers, and maybe he'll even get a few black leaders to campaign for him. Yet for some reason, his rallies are faithfully attended by the white sheet crowd. If asked, they'd probably say that they support Lott because of his tax policy, or his opposition to abortion, or whatever. But we all know the truth.
Lately, the Republicans have been trying to defend themselves against this charge by pointing out that Robert Byrd was once a KKK member, or that until the mid-60's, most racists were Democrats. But these pathetic arguments ring hollow. Given the above, if the most important issue in the 2004 election were racial justice, and if you were sincerely concerned about it, you'd be a fool to vote Republican.
This is a perfect analogy for the problem that Democrats have on national security.
For the last 30 years, the Democrats have been the party of weakness and appeasement. Their standard bearers have been people like George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, and Walter Mondale.
The Democrats always claimed that everything changed during the Clinton administration, citing Clinton's willingness to use force in Haiti and Bosnia, but it is difficult to assess the signifcance of this alleged "change" because we didn't face a significant threat to our national security during that era. But the one big issue that did come up, that of gays in the military, provides a hint as to how the Democrats really feel about naitonal security. The disgust and condescention was almost palpable. The enlightened, progresive Democrats were bringing much-needed reform to those primitive, bible-thumping savages in the military. That's how the Democrats thought of the brave men and women who defend us. For the record, I agree with Clinton and think that gay soldiers should be allowed to serve in the military.
Today, despite this history, the Democrats say that they can be trusted on the issue of national defense.
Of course, there are Democratic hawks, just like there are Republicans who aren't racist. I think that Clinton did a good job restructring the military, and also think that if he were still President, he'd be doing a fine job with the war on terror. Lieberman, Gephardt, and Edwards seem like they are up to the task as well. I'm sure there are others. I will be voting for one of these Democratic hawks come primary season.
But this doesn't change the fact that there is a sizable anti-American/weak-on-defense wing in the Democratic party. For every Lieberman, there's a Dean. For every Gephardt, a Kucinich.
On another note, 200,000 people showed up at the antiwar rally in New York City. How many Republicans participated in the rally? 1%? 2%? I think we all know the answer. The Democrats try to explain stuff like this away by claiming that "some of those people are Greens"-- sure, and all Buchannan supporters are Reform Party voters, right, whatever -- or by saying that the peace movement is "the luantic fringe." Guys, the "lunatic fringe" is not 200,000 strong, okay?
Today, like racism, the anti-Americanism and weakness isn't overt. Dean doesn't issue position papers proclaiming "I hate America and will never use force to defend her." No, he says that he's willing to use force. But for some reason, his biggest, most vocal supporters are anti-American pacificsts. They say that he's a centrist, and that they like his fiscal conservatism and his "plain-spoken" manner. But deficit hawks and people craving straight talk aren't packing his rallies; his most fervent supporters are from the peace movement. Today they're shouting "Dean in 2004!" Three months ago it was "Bush=Hitler!" and "No Blood for Oil!" I am supposed to ignore this?
No, I'm not fooled. I don't believe Dean when he says that he'll vigorously prosecute the war on terror. I don't trust him to confront the North Koreans; If you were Kim, would you rather be dealing with George Bush or Howard Dean? And I don't think Dean is going to invade Saudi Arabia any time soon (not actually adovacating this, just illustrating my assertion that Dean will not take decisive action against even those countries who he has identified as our enemies.)
You can't seperate the man from the party. I believe that George Bush is basically a decent man. He's not a hate-filled fundamentalist, and he's not a racist. But I know that these people have a lot of influence in the Republican party. Bush may be a moderate, but if he's elected, there's going to be an Ashcroft in the cabinet. He's going to have to take Trent Lott's calls, and he won't be able to disavow him either.
The same is true for the Democrats. Suppose I take Dean at his word -- I'm not prepared to do that, but let's just suppose -- that he's not afraid to use force. That's great, but I know that the peace movement will have his ear. The weaklings and the appeasers will be helping to craft his polices. This is an absolutely terrifying prospect.
As a Democrat, during the primary season, I will be doing everything in my power to reform the party. My personal goal is to drive the weak anti-American leftists out of the party, or at least muzzle them.
But if this doesn't work, and those people get their wish, I'll be voting for Bush in 2004. I'll be campainging for him. I'll donate money to him. Like Michael, I don't agree with his polcies. I don't want to become a Republican. But nothing is more important to me than national security right now, so if the price I have to pay is a bigger deficit, more tax cuts for the rich and a few Republican Supreme Court justices, then so be it. These things aren't going to get me killed, but a foreign policy based on weakness and appeasement just might.
On another note I, like Michael, am disgusted by the way that Democrats have abandoend thier traditional principles in the name of partisanship. Democrats used to be for human rights and against repressive dicatorships. ONe of the reasons why I have always been proud to call myself a Democrat is because we stand up for the week and the oppressed. But in Iraq, when we were faced with the opportunity to liberate 25 million innocent people from a horrific dictatorship, the Democrats chose to do nothing. The extremists shouted "no blood for oil!" The more "moderate" Democrats urged us to accept the weapons inspections, an act of profound moral cowardice. Hans Blix was not going to liberate a single person from Sadaam's prisons. The UNMOVIC teams would do nothing -- absolutely nothing -- to stop the torture and rape of innocent people. We had 300,000 troops on the border. It was time to go in and save the Iraqis and put an end to the horror. Yet the Democrats said "do nothing."
Now, in the postwar period, they are doing their best to sabotage the occupation. We are trying to give a liberal democracy to 25 million people. We have put an end to torture and rape. What do the Democrats do? They complain about the Iraqi museum and blackouts in Baghdad. When we take casualties, the Dems act as if something has gone terribly wrong. Dems, I have a news flash for you: American soldies in the Middlee East may, just may, be the targets of terrorist attack. Yet they claim to be "shocked" by these developments. Incredibly, they also seem to have discovered a respect for our men and women in uniform. How touching.
The biggest problem I have with the Democrats is that they seem to assume that any problem is a major disaster and will last forever. I have more news for you: We'll restore the power in Baghdad. In a year, we'll have turned a lot of policing over to the Iraiqs, and our guys won't have to guard Baghdad University and the national bank any more. Casualty rates will go down, and the lot of the Iraqi people will improve dramatically. But don't expect the Democrats to realize this today or acknowledge it when it comes to pass tomorrow. They're too busy shouting "quagmire!" and "where's our exit strategy?" to give the matter any serious thought.
Are the Democrats putting forth any constructive proposals on how to fight the war on terror, other than "let's work with the French"? No. Instead of coming up with plans on how to improve our defenses and help the people of Iraq, they scream "Bush lied!!" and whine about intelligence failures.
For each of the above reasons, I too am disgusted with the Democrats.
Michael whew, sorry this post has been so lengthy. I got really worked up and didn't realize how long this rant was.
UPDATE: Matthew Yglesias sees some hope on the horizon, and writes a much smarter post: "Run, Wes, Run!"
In fact, the Democrats are the racist party, with the racist platform, and explicitly racist policies.
For this I'd never have voted for them even absent war.
I agree that the Democrats are more racist than most will ever admit. That sure doesn't make the GOP innocent, though.
John Derbyshire wrote this rather honest bit in National Review.
With Jesse Jackson (and junior), Sheila Jackson-Lee, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Cynthia McKinney, Al Sharpton, Carol Mosely-Braun, Julian Bond, and many other black Democrats playing the race card constantly, the Republicans are racist? These are the same Democrats that scream "Uncle Tom" at Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and any other black individual that dares to utter a conservative word.
Those shrill voices are driving the non-blacks away.
But we all know the truth.
I don't think so.
As soon as pretty much anyone (not just a GOPer) utters something remotely racist, their asses are fried. That's not tolerated in any corner of our nation. Period.
You can be a crack-smoker, a whore chaser, a confirmed liar and any number of maladies & still get elected, but the absolute WORST thing you can have on your shoulders is even the hint of racism.
Ask Arnold, who voted for an anti ILLEGAL immigration measure & who is getting pummelled for bigotry.
Saying that Republicans are racist is like saying Muslims are terrorists. Sure, a lot of terrorists are Muslim, but that doesn't make the majority of Muslims terrorist or even sympathetic. Conversely, the white-sheeters vote Republican, but I don't think that the vast majority of Republicans are racist.
At any rate, the problem that the Dems have with security issues goes back to the 1968 realignment when the then Southern Democrats took the entire pro-segregationist and anti-communist wings of the Democrats across the aisle. That's how the party of Lincoln garnered a reputation for racism and how the Democrats managed to loose all credibility of defense issues.
There are a couple of *reasons* this is coming to a head, but essentially this rift on security issues could very well drive a realignment in the upcoming election.
Buchannan was drummed out of the Republican party.
Lieberman is the future of the Democrat Party. The center is libertarian. Arnie S. in CA is an exmplar of this trend. The leave me alone ideology is alive and well. But it is pragmatic not purist.
What the Republicans have come to terms with is that you can change the rules but you can't change what is in peoples hearts. As long as the rules are fair then we have to live with people's imperfections.
We can live with people's bad ideas as long as it doesn't lead to violence or fraud. This is a level of tolerance the Democrats don't even aspire to.
M. Simon: For the Future, ol' Joe is getting pretty beat up. It looks to me like Hillary is still the future (as well as past!) of the Democratic Party -- and an ugly future it is.
I forgot to bash Clark in my original comment, though. Didn't his supporters watch the war coverage? Clark lost a lot of credibility there.
Setting aside the partisan credentialing (which is true to a degree - IMO it would be hard to accurately deny that there are racists who run under the banner of Republicanism and Conservativism. However, the Democratic Party is not at all clearly better on this, as others have pointed out. I mean, which candidate for Governor in California was a member of a extremist ethnic hate group and refuses to repudiate it? Arnold, or Bustamante?)
But be that as it may, the analogy is one that hits several of the arguments we've freqently seen from some Democrats head-on (btw, Dean conservative on anything, including fiscal matters? I guess it's a sign of how far Left some folks have gotten that they think a willingness to raise any and all taxes as high as they need to be to support an expanding government is "fiscally conservative". But again, I digress).
In spite of the flaws in the analogy that others have commented on, it's certainly, IMO, one that is suited to the original audience for the post, who probably also believe that regarding Republicans - when the Left invokes that their position on defense isn't anti-American or hostile to American strength, well it is like those people, however many there are, who have learned to mask their racist rhetoric under more covert language, something that ex-Democrat and recently-claiming-to-be-Republican David Duke is a master of; quite different from the overtly - almost admirable in its straightforwardness - racist polemics of the KKK types in earlier eras.
This is a very apt analogy because it could be said that they both learned to mask their intentions behind deceptive rhetoric at the same time: just as it's hard to find people who are bluntly honest about their racist views, like they were into the '60s, it's become harder to find people who are bluntly honest about their desire for a Revolution against the American System and looking for people to "Burn this Mothah down".
David Duke's counterparts are the likes of Tom Hayden - among others. People for the American Way, the group that Democrats in Congress work closely with in formulating policy strategy, created an anti-War group that would supposedly be "moderate" (rather than ANSWER types), but put in control of it a roundup of the usual anti-American suspects, and Democrats saw nothing wrong with this. The people in charge aren't really fundamentally different from ANSWER types - just a different subset of Communists (litterally, not in the "McCarthy accusation" sense) who never have a good word for the U.S. and its defense and always see the behavior of our foes in the most positive light possible. Sheesh, it's as if the Republicans were making a Grand Wizard of the KKK their Senate Majority leader (oh, wait - wrong party).
But we're not supposed to make an issue of stuff like that, because "questioning someone's patriotism" is very serious and grave. . .not at all like calling the Republicans the party of racists, NAZIs, and segregationists (which, of course, can be done whenever).
I don't think its fair to compare Tom Hayden to David Duke. Hayden has never stated that any group of people belong on the "ash heap of history" as Duke said of the Jews. And he is, at least, genuine in his convictions. Duke is a racial huckster, turning the hate rhetoric up or down depending on his transcendent political needs, and has never been shy about denying he ever said what he uttered 5 minutes ago.
At the same time, Duke is widely denounced by the entire national Republican Party, while Hayden is a member in good standing of the Democrats.
Of course, the irony of this whole discussion is that David Duke and Pat Buchannan are on the side of the ANSWER crowd (which the Democratic party is increasinly pandering to) on national security issues.
For what it’s worth, in the pittance of my personal experience, being a Democrat tends to correlate with being aggressively anti-racist mainly among academics & school teachers.
I’ve known people who vote liberal Democrat, who support welfare & the like explicitly on the bribe rationale, & who would fight to keep people of various races from living near them, & have told me so in no uncertain terms. I the Reaganite have found myself standing up for civil rights & arguing against libs on those issues — racist libs. Not in the media. Not in academe. But there, & many.
I suspect that racist libs have exercised a destructive influence on lib/Dem social programs, by accepting or preferring those that keep the other races away from them, sometimes keep them down, too. E.g. the old punch-them-down-onto-a-mattress combo of welfarism plus letting it stay difficult for some races to get work in some unionized industries (I don’t know how big a problem that still is). Obviously I’m willing to stand corrected on at least some of this. But I believe it is significantly & saliently false to say that racists are mainly among Republicans.
Not to be agrumentative, but you guys need to re-read my post.
I AGREE that not all Republicans are racists. I painstakingly made this clear; see, e.g.:
"...there are Republicans who are not racists. I don't think George Bush is a racist; from what I can see, he's sincerely committed to equal rights. And a lot of the Republicans who are oposoed to affirmative action aren't racists either."
(Maybe I should have said "most Republicans are not racists.) But see also:
"I believe that George Bush is basically a decent man. He's not a hate-filled fundamentalist, and he's not a racist."
What I was trying to say is that there is a sizable racist contingent in the Republican party. This is really true, and it's pointless to deny it.
To the extent that I painted all Republicans with too broad a brush, I apologize; I really was trying to avoid doing that. They represent a minority of Republicans, but they are very important to the national party; thus the pilgramages to Bob Jones University, the proclomations that the display of Confederate symbols on government buildings is a matter of "state's rights," etc.
And I also agree that the Democrats are guilty of race-baiting, and that we also have thier own subtle problem with racism; the Democrats should have a thousand Colin Powells in thier ranks, but the people we promote to positions of prominence are either comical figures like Jocelyn Elders, or boring medocrities like Ron Brown. We can't even shut Sharpton up. There are millions of capable African-Americans, but with the exception of a few congressmen, they aren't represented at the highest levels of the Democratic party.
Still, you cannot deny that the Republican party (a) is preferred by the white sheet crowd -- you don't see Democratic politicans making the pilgramage to Bob Jones University or running Wille Horton ads -- and (b) relies heavily on them. The Democrats just don't have this problem, and it's crazy to pretend otherwise. We are burdened by a differnt sort of extremist -- the anti-American pacificts.
Porpy and Michael hit my main points right on the head. First, Democratic anti-Americanism, like racism, isn't over any more. No racist politician has made a speech about the mixing of the races in at least 30 years. Instead, they talk about "inner city crime" and "welfare mothers." We all get the message.
The anti-American wing of the Democratic party has the same modus operandi. No Democratic politician ever says "I hate this country and hope the rest of the world teaches the United States a lesson." Instead, they make speeches decrying the "arrogance" of US foreign policy, or talk about how the United States has "blundered into" a situation which it does not understand and lacks the competence to deal with effectively.
Second, you can't seperate the candidate from his supporters. Trent Lott never talks about literacy tests and the need to get tough on civil disobedience. No, his speeches are about stuff like family values, taxes, defense, and the like. Yet for some reason, the white sheet crowd can't get enough of his rallies. If racial justice were my number one priority, I'd steer clear of Trent. He's not saying he's a racist, but racists just LOVE him. You can't seperate the two.
The same goes for Dean. Dean says all the right things; he won't hesitate to use force, he opposed Iraq because he thought it was a misuse of resources, etc. He doesn't sound like an anti-American. Yet for some reason, the MOVEON crowd just can't get enough of ol' Howard. Because national security is my number one priority in 2004, I'm steering clear of Howard. You can't seperate the man from his followers.
Anyway, hope that clears things up a little bit.
“...you don’t see Democratic politicans making the pilgramage to Bob Jones University...” — true, no Dems go to Bob Jones U to shore up their support, though Kerry may yet go there to argue with them. I hold no brief for a place where interracial dating was until recently against the rules. I doubt that it’s “embraced” there now. I’m sorry that Republican pols go there. Really. I do grant your point to some extent. My view of Lott is that he was unreconstructed in a sense but, also, inhabited more by the ghosts of departed political feelings—than by the feelings themselves. He wasn’t really a racist any more. But in some sense he had not reconstructed his world view either. Mainly, he’s a politician.
That said, I’m sorry also about universities & colleges in the hundreds across the USA, campuses where I would feel as ill at ease I would at Bob Jones U. What with the PC dogma & leftist intolerance, & growing anti-semitism. I don’t think it’s apples & oranges between Bob Jones U & those places.
“...you don’t see Democratic politicans...running Wille Horton ads...” To the contrary! The Willie Horton ads were, first of all, Al Gore’s during his primaries campaign versus Dukakis. Then Time (or was it Newsweek?) did a cover story on Willie Horton. Then, finally, along came the GHWB campaign.
There is a strange phenomenon, when people realize that some of their feelings were wrong-headed. The renounced feelings die down, but there is little redesign, re-architecting, of the world view. Something about the underlying layout stays the same. Lott puts me in mind of this. I could see it happening likewise to an anti-war Dem politician at some point. Or look at McGovern who after retiring from politics opened an inn & came to feel that small business really does suffer from excessive regulations & imposed paperwork, & said he never realized as a Senator what burdens he had been putting on small-business people. Doesn’t seem to have led to any deeper re-thinking.
It reminds me of the last scene in Wyndham Lewis’s Self-Condemned, when a hotel burns, & the firemen pour a lot of water on it. What’s left after the conflagration are some ruins & some frozen streams of water. This also serves as an image of the novel’s central character’s final state.
Hey how about some recognition of some of the positive arguments that went on in Michael's blog, and made it over to my blog. Every comment wasn't "high schoolish" by any means. It's easy to tear down, but harder to rebuild!
Joe,
I think you are fudging your argument there.
"For the last 30 years, the Republicans have been running on a racist platform. They've done everything in their power to fan the flames of racial hatred and combat the aspirations of minorities.
"Yet every year, the Republicans stand up and say that they're champions of racial justice. No one believes this. Thier rhetoric is belied by their history."
I don't really care about your later qualifications regarding GWB. What you led off with was not so much painting with a broad brush as throwing several gallons of paint at the wall. The heavy implication is that GWB is an anomaly, and that Republicans generally deserve the criticism they get on the issue of race relations, because of their history. WHAT HISTORY? The party of Lincoln, the party that largely enacted the Civil Rights programs of the 60s, the party that enacted welfare reform, the party that opposes affirmative action--this party has no reason to be defensive about race relations. As others have pointed out earlier, it is the Democrats who need to investigate the log in their own eyes, before attacking the mote in someone else's.
"Inner city crime" and "welfare mothers" are not racist code words. They describe real problems that demand real solutions. Violent crime is more prevalent, per capita, in inner city neighborhoods. Is that a racist statement? NO. It is a fact, and facts are not racist. There once was a trend of single women on welfare becoming pregnant repeatedly, despite being unable to provide for the resulting children. This is also a fact, and facts are not racist. As it happens, Republicans have a substantially positive record for dealing with these problems in ways that WORK, and end up benefitting everyone involved, be they rich, poor, black, white, whatever. Slamming this record by associating it with racist code words is dishonest revisionist history.
What I was trying to say is that there is a sizable racist contingent in the Republican party. This is really true, and it's pointless to deny it.
So what? There is also a sizable racist contingent in the Democrat party, yet their racists are ignored, excused and treated as a minor flaw. Personally, I'm sick of the double standard.
The "30 years of a racist platform" is a reference to the supposed "Southern Strategy". This leftist canard ignores the Democrat's 30 years of pandering to the worst elements of black society to buy votes; Jesse Jackson, Shelia Jackson Lee, and Cynthia McKinney are some of the results. Excuses for and openly condoning the continuing destruction of the inner cities, and disasters like the LA and Cincinnati riots are another.
There's a mote in the Republican Party's eye, sure, but there's a log in the Democrat's.
Robert does have a point. So far the Democratic party line in the California is "don't vote for Arnold, his father was a NAZI - elect the MEChA member instead. He's a Democrat so his racial views are ok."
You guys forgot vouchers.
Gotta keep em dumb and on the plantation.
The left doesn't seem to have woken up to how thoroughly they've lost the moral high ground on race. After Gratz, though, there's no mistaking it.
"Sam Barnes" - note that this is a guest blog, so if there's fudging going on it isn't mine.
As I noted, I have my own disagreements with this post, and most of them parallel yours. At the same time, the Bob Jones University stuff has to be acknowledged. I've run a piece in the past from a Black Republican who says the problem is real, and seen "GOP Team Leader" stuff that was in no way racist, but like Dems on National Security the tone was off-base even when the message was right. And like it or not, true or not, this is a tag Republicans have been successfully painted with.
The fact that the Democrats have similar problems within their ranks (as Joe Schmoe himself acknowledges) is no excuse - Republicans should be better, just like their policies, and then they must take the offensive and be prepared when the watershed issue comes. Ultimately, that's the only way to dig oneself of of these perceptual holes.
Mr. Katzman,
Sorry, my comments were directed at "Joe Schmoe," not at you. I apologize for the misunderstanding.
Whether Republicans have been successfully painted with the racist tag or not, that painting would only be rhetorically successful if it were not vigorously challenged. The facts simply do not support it.
With regard to the Bob Jones University issue, I sincerely doubt that its now-discarded policy against miscegenation was the reason it drew visits from Republican officials. In any case, they dropped the rule when they were called on it without a bunch of self-justifying rhetoric, as far as I remember. I agree that it was a stupid rule (I am very much in favor of miscegenation, thank you), but at this point it is a non-issue.
It’s not necessarily that the anti-interracial-dating rule drew GOP pols, though the obvious impression might be true in some cases (I have no idea how many GOP pols have actually gone there to speak—dozens? scores?). It’s that, in any case, they didn’t let that rule stop them from going there without even challenging it. We may want to put it behind us, now that the rule has been dropped, but—first—nobody will believe that the practice is now truly accepted there, so that a Republican pol would be nuts to speak there except to challenge them à la what Kerry wanted to do &, second, just a real change in practice (not only the rule) would have to be seen at Bob Jones U, so, likewise, some adjustment in the GOP has to be seen, too. I do NOT mean shout surrender at the Left like Trent Lott did. I mean, say, go to Bob Jones U to challenge them.
Correction: ...just as a real change in practice (not only the rule) would have to be seen at Bob Jones U, so, likewise, some adjustment in the GOP has to be seen, too. I do NOT mean shout one’s surrender at to the Left like Trent Lott did. I mean, say, go to Bob Jones U to challenge them.
Just for the sake of argument, how well-known was the anti-interracial-dating rule before it was challenged? Did Bob Jones U. put it in their ads--"Now, With More Racial Purity!!!"--or what? I don't know all of the specific facts of the case, but it seems plausible that it was an old rule that got dug up by someone wanting to make a point.
In any case, how would you measure progress at Bob Jones U.? If you found that there were no interracial couples at the school right now, would that demonstrate a problem? What does Bob Jones U. have to do to cleanse itself of the stigma of having a stupid rule and then getting rid of it when challenged? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember any long, hard-fought campaign to protect the rights of interracial couples at Bob Jones U.
Moving back to the Republican party.... How exactly does an organization demonstrate that it is not racist? Obviously not through its official platform, since if that was sufficient none of this would be an issue. Are we supposed to give a bunch of money to Jesse Jackson to prove that we're not racists? That seems to work for the corporations that give him protection money...um, charitable contributions.
I’ve tried to do a little research on Bob Jones U & Googled around on phrases like
"Bob Jones University" interracial
& didn’t manage to find a particular article that sums it all up, but there is much out there. Unfortunately articles by people like Michelle Malkin have become unavailable, as well as CNN & other coverage. Many articles are available only in fee-charging archives. Here are a few of the old articles that I could find still available.
“Students stunned as Bob Jones drops interracial dating ban,” March 5, 2000, Associated Press via Deseret.com
*http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,155007840,00.html?*
Larry King Live, “Dr. Bob Jones III Discusses the Controversy Swirling Around Bob Jones University”
Aired March 3, 2000 - 9:00 p.m. ET
*http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0003/03/lkl.00.html*
My general impression from looking around is that the anti-interracial-dating policy reflected attitudes at Bob Jones U & did not need active enforcement & apparently it was not just a forgotten outdated rule still sitting on the books. Bob Jones U says the formal policy began in the 1950s as a result of a lawsuit against them by Asian parents suing them because their son wanted to marry a white woman there. Students supported the policy & one said that all the races are already perfect & therefore shouldn’t be mixed. There are a few stories mentioning a rule requiring parental permission for interracial dating, but I can’t access them & can’t figure out whether that was the original rule or a temporary form of the rule, or what. Bob Jones also apparently has extreme attitudes about Roman Catholicism, & so on. McCain criticized Bob Jones U & did pay some local political price fot it. Michelle Malkin wrote a no-longer available article “What does 'W' stand for? Try wimp” (The Philadelphia Inquirer) http://www.phillynews.com/daily_news/2000/Feb/17/opinion/MALK17.htm (Feb. 17, 2000) criticizing them & this article is also unavailable at Townhall & JWR, etc., I can’t find it anywhere.
Alan Keyes spoke at Bob Jones U & challenged them in a speech that I googled up at *http://www.multiracial.com/news/keyesbjutranscript.html* :
EXCERPT FROM KEYES’ SPEECH=========:
There are folks who don't think I should be talking to Bob Jones University, in fact. You know that, don't you? I hope you understand this. They said I shouldn't come here, because I am a black person, and there are these terrible policies about interracial dating. They said I shouldn't come because I am - I say it with pride and certainty - a Roman Catholic Christian. And that I would not be received in this place, on that account.
I have, thankfully, put the lie to that by my presence. But I think we are, all of us, enjoined to put the lie to it by what we do, and what we pray for, and how we act, and how we love. For our Lord told us that it is by their fruits that ye shall know them. And if the fruit is the fruit of courage to stand for Christ; if the fruit is the fruit of truth to call our people to salvation, and to call our nation back to its right path and its right home - then we ought not to let any sectarian bigotry, any racial prejudice, stand in the way of the UNITY that Christ represents for ALL Christian people who acknowledge His name, and welcome Him into their life, and into their heart.
It is for us, as Christian people, to reject religious bigotry, to reject racial bigotry, to stand before America to example that which we are called upon to example - whether we be Americans, whether we be Indians, whether we be Asians, Jews - whatever it is. We are called upon by the Lord God, in the name of Jesus Christ, to go and preach to ALL NATIONS the truth that we stand before the Lord our God, one in His mercy, if we are willing to accept that Christ which is the messenger of His truth, and whose life and whose blood has saved us for our God, by His love.
If we stand, one in the body of Christ, one in the faith we have in our Lord, Jesus Christ, then we are one indeed, and we can offer to the world a hope and an example of love and purity that they will get from no other source, and find in no other place.
=====END OF EXCERPT
From a WorldNetDaily story “Bob Jones answers critics”:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17816
EXCERPT=========:
Bob Jones III, the university's president, believes Keyes' remarks reflect his submission to media pressures. Keyes' comments during a televised debate prior to the South Carolina primary further incensed the university president. Indeed, after his appearance at BJU, Keyes attacked the school and criticized Gov. George W. Bush for his Feb. 2 visit to the university.
=====END OF EXCERPT
That’s all, I’m tired.