Democrats, day 3

[calimac]

The big speeches last night were on the virtues of communitarianism. This was most impressively shaped by Joe Biden, who managed to make ringingly clear a rather subtle point on how a communitarian approach to national policy feeds the soul and satisfies the heart of America. He took his "Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive" stump speech line and expanded on it by arguing that addressing the nation's underlying emotional needs is an important job of the President, and one which Obama has fulfilled.

And I'd say he's right. Obama speaks like a technocrat (and he did so again tonight, like a technocrat who's had elocution lessons that stuck with him), but he knows where the spirit goes. Others do not, and that was why - to take an example Biden did not use - it was so disconcerting when at one point GWB went all Western-movie sheriff on bin Laden (I'm gonna git him), and then later said he didn't care whether we got the guy or not. It was not only disconcerting, it was disorienting. I'm not about to buy another American car, but if we shrugged the whole U.S. auto industry off, where would that leave us? We must remember that the companies exist for the sake of the people, and not the people for the companies.

Republicans were probably totally allergic to the whole idea, being divided into libertarians (in turn divisible into philosophical libertarians and Craig T. Nelson-style obliviatti) and racists, because nobody determined to declare that anyone who gets government help is a lazy layabout, or who invents stories that the black president is a foreigner, is anything but a racist. But while they're not listening, it was worth saying.

Seen earlier on: Brian Schweitzer, less impressive than four years ago, and Jennifer Granholm, who gave out the "D puts you forward, R is for reverse" line, which ... come on. If Republicans were still conservative, they could point to "Keep Right" signs. (British socialists used to point to "Keep Left" signs.)

Comments

[whswhs.livejournal.com]

There's a lot I could say about this, but it would lead us into a long debate which would not have much chance of either of us convincing the other. But I really think the "Republicans-are-racists" idea is claiming too much. That some Republicans are racists I don't deny for a moment. But I'm not seeing that as nearly so central to the party as you seem to think. They don't seem to have any problem with Artur David, Mia Love, Condoleeza Rice, Allen West, Ted Cruz, Susana Martinez, Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley, or Bobby Jindal; Ann Althouse reports that Love got a standing ovation. The big nonlibertarian factions in the Republican Party seem to be, on one hand, the establishment political insiders like Romney, and on the other hand the social conservatives—but the latter is the faction that includes most of the people I named and seems to welcome their presence. It's not one I care for, but I think their appalling religious views are their big problem; racism is at most a secondary problem and I think it's perfectly possible to be a social conservative without being a racist.

(I'd also note that libertarians are not free of racism, sad to say. Ron Paul was all too willing to go along with the von Mises's Institute's attempt to recruit bigots into libertarianism. But that's a minor point by comparison.)

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

I did carefully say that the racists are only one part of the Republican Party today, but they are a very large part. The welcoming of certain particular Blacks and Latinos does not disprove racism. The more sophisticated racists are noted for cultivating selected tokens. This is known as the "Some of my best friends are ..." defense. After much crass misuse, this line has a dishonorable name, and it has had one for decades now. But genuine non-racist whites have black friends too; what makes a racist is that person's view of the selected race as a whole, and the attempt to make all non-selected individuals fit the selected negative stereotype. When certain Republicans complain about their hard-earned tax money going to lazy welfare bums, they are making three objectionable points, the third and currently relevant of which is the stereotyping of government assistance recipients as lazy. Besides the crass and unjust assumption that hardworking people don't need help (OK, four objectionable points), it is, as Lee Atwater pointed out and employed deliberately, a code word for a long-standing negative stereotype of blacks, and anyone aware of the history of black representation in a white culture knows it. It is because many of these people are black that the white racists object to supporting them in any way, and they assimilate all of them, even the non-blacks, into their racist stereotype of blacks.

[whswhs.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, but that looks kind of like a "no true Scotsman" argument. If any black, Hispanic, South Asian, East Asian, or other nonwhite person who speaks at the Republican convention can be classed as a "token" and not counted as evidence against a charge of racism, then the charge of racism becomes unfalsifiable and thus, on Popperian grounds, empirically meaningless.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

Please read the other two-thirds of my post, the part beginning "But genuine non-racist whites ...", which is all about responding to this charge before you even made it.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

Example of racism.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

As for the other groups, the establishment insiders have been completely eaten up by the Craig Nelsons. Romney is determined to let no daylight between him and them, to the point of denouncing his own health-care plan, a position we're now so used to him having that it's no longer remarked how totally ludicrous that is. The social conservative agenda is in remission at the moment in favor of economic agendae, and the active social conservatives have also joined the louder bands. It is possible to be a social conservative without being a racist, but the question is, how many of them actually manage it?

[barondave.livejournal.com]

The RNC was a debacle for the Republican Party. What people are taking away is: Paul Ryan lies and Clint Eastwood talks to imaginary beings in an empty chair. Oh, and Romney is an Etch-A-Sketch candidate who has no ideas and will say anything, even if it reverses a position held weeks ago, to hurl insults.

Meanwhile, the DNC was a huge success for the Democratic Party. Disagreements were forgotten (or at least slid over) and the common bonds strengthened. Truth was told, courage was displayed.

Political conventions are about two things: Rallying the party faithful and launching the official candidacy of the candidates. The RNC barely squeaked by in the former and screwed up the latter. The DNC did both.

How much either of these will affect the general election is hard to say. But the Republicans, who have more money than the Democrats thanks to Citizens United, have stopped buying ads in Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Mexico and Nevada. They seem to have given up. Good.

Next battleground: Democrats need to retake the House and keep the Senate. So far, it's looking good.

[(Anonymous)]

And Monty Python once did a short skit about vicious gangs of "Keep Left" signs that attacked elderly women walking down the street!