Ooooooooooooooh.
I get it now.
I was confused as all get-out why anyone who opposes Obama’s policies has been labeled a racist. To me, the racists are the people who keep hammering on the black president thing… and I can at least vouch for the folks I associate with in saying we’re not upset about his skin color.
Are there a lot of people pissy right now who weren’t pissy under GWB? Yep. Do I think those people are kinda hypocrites, because GWB was spending like a drunken sailor, too? Yep. Do I think they’re all racists? No. Partisans, yes, but racists, no.
Anyway, I was trolling around some left-wing blogs and finally figured out where the racist theme comes from.
Apparently, the real problem is with states’ rights. See, them’s Confederate words. So, since states’ rights were at the heart of the Civil War, to believe in them means you’re actually advocating a return to slavery.
I wish I were making this up, but I’m not.
Governor Perry’s speech on April 15th was, according to the folks I was reading, laced with racist code-words, and had shades of George Wallace. He shouldn’t have invoked Sam Houston, either, because Houston was deposed when Texas entered the Confederacy. And since Perry, based on his belief in states’ rights, is clearly a racist yearning for a return to the Confederacy, he couldn’t possibly appreciate Houston.
Again: Not making this up.
Another thing – does it seem like the Obama administration is a smidge more vitriolic toward conservatives than the Bush administration ever was toward liberals? I’m sure Bush and Cheney sat around in private and made fun of liberals whining about stolen elections, or those goofy Code Pink chicks. But I honestly don’t recall them ever being so unprofessional as to say things like the cigarette tax will affect you more if you need to pick up a couple extra packs for ‘a nicotine fix at your little tea parties’… which is a paraphrase of Press Secretary Gibbs’ words the other day.
Or that deal I posted about ‘one of the stupider things Fox News has covered lately.’ Or, back when he first won, when Obama ended a conversation with some dissenting legislators with something to the effect of ‘I won, you lost.’
This, of course, is on top of suggesting about half of the citizens of the country are terrorists-in-waiting – including returned veterans.
Seems to me like they’re deliberately agitating at this point. Are they trying to push somebody over the edge, so they can retaliate? Obama was supposed to be such a uniter – so what’s with the mockery and divisiveness? They’re acting like little shits on a teeball team, all nanny-nanny-boo-boo at the kids they beat.
I’m curious – did anybody around here actually vote for this guy? Do you feel like he’s living up to his promises? Do you really think he’s a uniter? Did you feel like the Bush administration personally insulted you, like these guys are insulting conservatives?
I voted for Bush in ‘04, and I admitted later it was probably a mistake. I doubt Kerry was any better, but I wish I’d voted third-party or not voted at all. So hey, you’re free to admit you’re wrong, here. You don’t even have to say you wish he wasn’t president, just acknowledge he isn’t what he claimed to be.
I’ll be waiting.
*crickets*
“States rights” was also the rationale for not passing federal anti-lynching laws as well as the rationale for not ending segregation on the federal level. So, yeah. Historically (and you are a history buff, no?) “states rights” was an argument used primarily to protect some minority of states from something a majority of states wanted to do, whether it was abolish slavery or continue slavery, enact tariffs or stop Jim Crow. And for the most part, “some minority of states” was the white South, and “something a majority of states wanted to do” was “prevent the South from being so fucking racist”.
I think both parties are about equal in terms of their openly-expressed contempt for each other.
I’m not denying race issues have a strong connection to states’ rights issues.
But those are certainly not the ONLY states’ rights issues, and I honest-to-God don’t know anybody invoking states’ rights today as some covert secret-squirrel conspiracy trying to bring back slavery.
They’re more worried about things like the fedgov blackmailing states with transportation or infrastructure funds to ensure compliance with federal mandates, or the ways in which the interstate commerce clause is being applied to EVERYTHING, or various letter agencies (cough – BATFE, DEA – cough) enforcing federal laws within states that either couldn’t give a damn or actively do not want said federal laws.
I find it very hard to believe there is any kind of big push for restoring states’ rights in the interest of putting black people back in the fields. As in, impossible to believe.
It wasn’t just about slavery though, it was also about segregation and other forms of institutional racism that the federal government was trying to stop and the Deep South wanted to continue. You’re acting like “states rights” stopped being a racist rallying cry after the Civil War. It continued as such long into what is still living memory for many.
In the political discourse, “states rights” is something almost no one, historically, has ever supported on its own merits. It’s always brought up as a justification for something else, usually something that’s either of very local or limited concern (the effects of tariffs) or something that’s absolutely indefensible on its own merits (Jim Crow).
And it’s always been a bad argument. Human beings have rights, not states. Medical marijuana activists haven’t taken up the mantle of states’ rights, and there’s no reason they should: anything worth defending is worth defending on its own merits. I’m beyond caring about federalism because in practice, “states rights” have been an obstacle to human rights more often than they’ve been the slightest benefit.
No, I’m just saying that because racists often advocate states’ rights doesn’t mean the majority of people advocating states’ rights are racist.
Stormfront endorsed Ron Paul. I voted for Ron Paul. Am I a member of Stormfront?
I agree that things which are worth fighting for are worth fighting for everywhere. However, I’m also a realist and understand that people form tribes. The tribe of Idaho is much more apt to adopt gun laws I can live with than the tribe of California is. If given the opportunity to make that decision as a state, it means Californians – with their overwhelming representative presence at the Federal level – can’t impose their will upon Idahoans.
Would I like to see the same freedoms enjoyed across the country? Of course. Do I think that is realistic or possible to achieve? Unfortunately, no – so I’d like to at least give us the opportunity to have them in our tribe.
You’re also correct on the issue of rights – states don’t have them, people do. Obviously governments usually forget that little detail, so my goal is to bring the power of the government down to the lowest level possible, so the individual has the most influence possible. (I matter more as a constituent in Idaho than I do as a constituent of the USA… and more as a constituent of Latah County than of Idaho… so on and so forth.)
Yeah, but that cuts both ways. It makes it easy for local majorities to gang up on local minorities.
I’m not implying anything, but I think it’s interesting that the “leave it to the states” approach to gun laws is one that was supported by Howard Dean. It’s a good way for the national party to hold onto those Midwestern swing states where both labor unions and the NRA have political sway while also recognizing the realities that Democratic governors, representatives, and senators from these states have to deal with. Dean himself was the governor of Vermont, which has very permissive gun laws last I checked.
Oh, and I didn’t ask if both parties are equal in terms of their openly-expressed contempt for each other. I asked if those who supported Obama feel like they were maligned or mocked by the Bush administration like those of a conservative orientation are being maligned and mocked by the Obama administration.
It’s a genuine question. It’s entirely possible it happened and I just missed it for lack of attention paid.
I voted third party in ‘08 — likewise in ‘04 and ‘00. I didn’t doubt that Obama the candidate meant most, if not all, of what he said; I just didn’t think he would be able to *do* a lot of it very effectively. And so far, it seems to me that’s what’s happening.
My take on it so far is this: Obama ran into a Congress that was dead set against him doing a lot of what he wanted, and it took him completely by surprise. The Republicans, predictably, were going to stonewall everything they felt they could get away with, just because Obama’s a (the horror!!) Democrat. This doesn’t come as a great surprise to me; the Republicans, as a collective, have become as radicalized over the last 10-12 years as the Democrats (again as a collective) had gotten some time before that. What Obama failed to predict was Congressional Democrats, led by Pelosi, making the same mistake that the other side had eight years previous — treating the election results as a Serious Mandate To Do Everything They Wanted… bipartisanship, statesmanship, effective government, and the health of the country be damned.
Obama seems to have done little to stem this tide. What I’ve heard from him and from administration officials doesn’t sound so much like they really agree with the loony left-wingers as that they don’t want to risk a showdown in order to actually start working on real solutions with realists from all parts of the political spectrum.
I miss the days of Carl Albert and Gerald Ford, of Jacob Javits and Scoop Jackson. Hell, I even miss Tip O’Neill.
I’m not white and I can’t stand that arrogant piece of shit.
I didn’t vote for him.
He’s not kept ANY of his promises.
He’s not a “uniter,” he’s an “untier.” Once untied, watch the whole thing unravel.
Couldn’t we have simply surpassed the racist influences of the minority of states by amending the Constitution? Hell if we could outlaw booze, one would think we could outlaw Jim Crow laws. If we did it that way we could at least have avoided the underhandedness of the situation we are now in.
[...] Quote ofd the Day – Untied Edition He’s not a “uniter,” he’s an “untier.” Once untied, watch the whole thing unravel. – OrangeNeckInNY, in the comments at Politics, Guns, & Beer [...]
The concept of States Rights gives people hope.
I don’t expect in my lifetime to see the federal government protect my 2nd amendment rights.
But pretty soon, I expect to be able to move to Montana and do almost anything I want gun-wise.
Philip, I believe the average voter is so brainwashed about guns that I will never get a fair shake in my home state or at the national level.
All I can do if I want to live free is flee to a state that is waving the States Rights flag.
And it is marvelous that we have that pressure-relief valve.
God bless them, but would you really want the free-staters agitating in your community for some of the changes they want to government? Far better that they go somewhere else and do their own thing.
That way we can all stay happy (long-distance) neighbors.
The sword cuts both ways. If my state wanted to ban guns, they could wave the states rights flag.
“States rights” is a means to an end. The Supreme Court legalized sodomy in Lawrence v. Texas, abortion in Roe v. Wade, and contraceptives in Griswold v. Connecticut: bad for states rights, good for individual rights. The Civil Rights Act ended Jim Crow: bad for states rights, good for individual rights. The 14th Amendment: bad for states rights, good for individual rights.
If we went back to the days of states rights, I assure you that my rights to have sex with men, own sex toys, or even cohabit with an unmarried partner would be taken away in the exact same states that respect your right to open-carry M-16’s in the middle of town.
Right now we have the right level of federalism. I don’t want to support anything that will risk the structural protections that we have for individual rights right now. You’re taking a myopic view that completely misses our 200 years of history with the limitations and issues of federalism.