As pointed out by BBBC reader Michael Gill in a comment, a silly conspiracy theory (of apparently dubious origin) doing the rounds of lefty blog sites about a bulge (i.e. a wrinkle) in President Bush’s jacket during the first presidential debate during the week before last have made it straight onto BBC News Online – Bush’s bulge stirs media rumours.
Moreover, just to make sure this dubious rumour is given maximum exposure, it is currently on the front page of News Online, with a headline reading ‘President Bush’s mystery bulge stirs rumours he was wired’, for those who skim the headlines rather than read the full story.
There was a similar conspiracy theory about Kerry pulling out and unfolding a ‘cheat sheet’ at the same debate (which turned out to be unfounded – Kerry actually pulled out a pen – in contravention of the debate rules nonetheless). Yet not a whisper of this has been mentioned on News Online, not even as relevant background information to accompany the wishy-washy Bush’s bulge rumour story that they’re currently peddling. Why the disparity in coverage? I guess it depends on what line the ever impartial BBC are pushing.
…and while people nitpick about the meaning of leftist, the question of why the hell commercial managers say “oh well, this leftist stance is losing me viewers and ad revenue, and I’ll probably get fired when the CEO releases the next quarterly results, but never mind” goes unanswered…
Is this perhaps because the networks’ political leanings, if any, aren’t actually losing them viewers and ad revenue?
>>”…this leftist stance is losing me viewers and ad revenue, and I’ll probably get fired when the CEO releases the next quarterly results, but never mind…”
Gotta source for that quote, or is it a hypothetical you made up?
BBC has no worries about ad revenue. Profit-driven enterprises will broadcast whatever they believe will generate the greatest ad revenue, i.e. the bigger the audience, the bigger the rates they charge sponors. Talking heads and talk radio don’t pull down the largest possible ratings, but they are dirt cheap to produce (especially for AM radio stations who bear zero production costs for running syndicated talk.)
“Leftist has always described someone affiliated with a socialist or Marist-oriented party.”
“Individuals or groups professing views usually characterized by opposition too and a desire to alter the established order.” Webster’s Third International Dictionary.
“Adherence to liberal or radical views in politics” World Book Dictionary.
The terms ‘Leftist’ and ‘Left Wing’ predates Marxism by more than a century originating in the seating of the first French Legislature after the Revolution: the more conservative deputies were seated to the right of the speaker, the more radical on his left.
I am afraid, billg, that your highly specific definition of ‘Leftist’ as communist is not the common usuage or understanding of the term.
“The Republican Party, as hijacked by these people, is in love with the good ol’ 1950’s, when women, children, and brown people knew their place. Whatever you want to call it, it sure isn’t honest conservatism.”
Nor is that an honest characterization of the Republican Party. Just a tired attempt to play the old Race card.
In America and Britain, the term “Liberal” has been tragically distorted.
Liberalism is actually meant to be neither Right nor Left; Gladstone, Asquith, JS Mill, Keynes, Hayek, Friedman, Lady Violet, etc.
The above Liberals have wildly varying political beliefs, but they are united by a belief in personal liberty.
The word has since been distorted by the Left, in order to pretend they are “objective”.
And thus it has been innevitably labeled by the Right (ironic, since some American “conservatives” are actually “liberals” lol)
Roxana, you’re wrong. To cite one example, trace the career of Jesse Helms as he moved from being considered an open racist to being described as a venerable conservative, all the while maintaining essentially the same positions. Jesse didn’t change, but the buzzwords he other so-called conservatives used changed. But the audience got the message, and it was, and is, the same old message Jesse was spewing 40 years ago.
The Republican Party is a fine institution — founded by real liberals like Lincoln (hard to call him a leftist, eh?) — with a few legitimate conservatives (McCain, for one) but the party long ago decided to adopt the tactics that worked for Richard Nixon and George Wallace in the 1970’s: build a base among white suburban Americans by playing a thinly veiled race card. That’s neither conservative or liberal, it is just beneath contempt. Bush has adopted the same tactics to exploit fear of terror, which is, at least, a justified fear.
“…build a base among white suburban Americans by playing a thinly veiled race card.”
Any examples of this rather nasty allegation?
Alan:
For starters, the Republican Senatorial candidate in my state is running ads accusing his Democratic opponent of wanting to spend money for “welfare” to help “immigrants” learn English and go to school rather than spending it on “our people”. That’s clearly an attempt to exploit racial and ethnic fear.
On a broader scale, the Republican rant about Democrat’s being “soft on crime” can be traced back to Nixon, who adopted it when he saw George Wallace use it successfully as a third-party candidate. Wallace was obviously using crime as a synonym for race, and the Republicans have taken that nasty gambit and run with it. (You don’t really think all those white suburbanites have images of blonde-haired carjackers in their heads when they listen to some Repub’s anti-crime schtick?)
That’s pretty thin evidence.
It sounds like you’re trying to shut down any debate on immigration or crime by accusing anyone who dares raise those issues of being a “racist”. The only evidence you have presented is your own opinions on what is going on inside the hated “white suburbanites” heads.
It could just as easily be you projecting your own racism onto others. According to you; only white suburbanites care about crime, and you claim it’s obvious (to the white suburbanites anyway) that carjackers won’t have blond hair.
Alan: Why would you think I’m arguing to shutdown discussion on immigration or crime? Where I live, when someone refers to “immigrants”, they mean browned-skinned Latinos. When a white male Senatorial candidate refers to “our people”, he means white people like himself and his target audience. If that’s not racially and ethnically exploitive, I don’t know what is.
That doesn’t mean immigration, or crime, aren’t legitimate issues. But, anyone who’s been a conscious adult for the duration, as I have, knows what Nixon was up to and knows what the Republicans who followed him are still up to.
Which still comes down to you accusing them of “thought-crimes” without being able to supply supporting evidence.
Alan, I dunno what you would accept as evidence. Republicans studying Mein Kampf? In the specific case I cited, it seems obvious to me that any deliberate distinction between “immigrants” and “our people” is a blatant racist tactic.
I’m not accusing anyone of “thought crimes”, whatever they might be. I’m asserting I believe the Republican Party deliberately uses racially and ethnically divisive tactics, and that they’ve been doing it for more than 30 years.
I’m not particularly interested in convincing you. And, I suspect, you’re not particularly interested in being convinced.
“I dunno what you would accept as evidence.”
How about links to their obviously racist ads? Or witnesses who’ve heard what these republicans say to each other behind closed doors? Over the last 3 decades it would seem likly that they would’ve been overheard at least a few times.
“…it seems obvious to me that any deliberate distinction between “immigrants” and “our people” is a blatant racist tactic.”
Only because in your case it just happens that the majority of the immigrants are a different colour of the majority of “our people”. It does not necessarily follow that the people raising the issue are actually racist.
“I’m not accusing anyone of “thought crimes”, whatever they might be. I’m asserting I believe the Republican Party deliberately uses racially and ethnically divisive tactics, and that they’ve been doing it for more than 30 years.”
Ah, you seemed to be stating that it was an objective fact that the republicans are, or pander to, racists. Now I see you are just asserting your subjective opinion. As long as you understand that, I’ve got no problem.
“…And, I suspect, you’re not particularly interested in being convinced.”
If you’ve got real evidence, I want to see it. If not “innocent until proven guilty” applies as far as I’m concerned.
I’m not especially inclined to review the history of the Republican Party since 1972. I’ve given you evidence that fits within the space limitations of these comments. You can learn the rest yourself.
Nor am I inclined to agree that I’m giving a “subjective opinion”. I’ve cited one representative example of a Republican candidate obviously playing the race card. I’ve cited one representative and glaring example of an avoid racist — Helms — who was never disavowed by the Republicans. I’ve cited Nixon’s campaign tactics, expecially his racially code-worded anti-crime strategy.
To reiterate, politicians who attempt to frighten white voters by talking about crime and welfare do that with full knowledge that their audiences think of criminals and welfare recipients as non-white. That’s a blatant attempt to play the race card via the proxies of crime and welfare.
“To reiterate, politicians who attempt to frighten white voters by talking about crime and welfare do that with full knowledge that their audiences think of criminals and welfare recipients as non-white. That’s a blatant attempt to play the race card via the proxies of crime and welfare.”
I don’t know what the statistics say (or even if they collect the relevant data), but in your opinion; would it still be racist if most of the criminals and welfare recipients actually were non-white? Also, why do you think that these issues don’t play equally well with the non-white suburbanites?
billg wrote:
I’m not accusing anyone of “thought crimes”, whatever they might be. I’m asserting I believe the Republican Party deliberately uses racially and ethnically divisive tactics, and that they’ve been doing it for more than 30 years
The Democrats have been using racially divisive tactics for as long they’ve been pandering to Jew-hater Jesse “Hymietown” Jackson, or that truly wicked cretin, Al Sharpton (the guy who claimed the Attorney General of New York masturbated over a photo of Tawana Brawley).
Alan: Perception is everything. When a white politician tells an audience of white people (as Republican audiences ususally are) that Democrats won’t protect them from crime and will raise their taxes to fund welfare, those people aren’t imagining whites commtting crimes or taking welfare. Fourty years ago, politicians would have openly talked about keeping people “in their place”. They can’t get away with that now, even if their own preferences haven’t changed. So, they play the race card by proxy. (Statistics have nothing to do with this, as you well know.)
Anonymous: Race remains the single biggest issue in the U.S, and in the rest of the world for that matter, so it is no surprise to see individual Democrats saying stupid things. But only the Republican Party has sustained a decades-long record of organized exploitation of racism. The entire right-wing of U.S. politics was motivated by and is infused with a will to negate the civil rights progress of the 1960’s and l
“…those people aren’t imagining whites commtting crimes or taking welfare.”
This is why I am pointing out that you’re accusing these people of thought crimes. What bothers you isn’t that they are concerned by crime and welfare/taxes (that you admit are valid issues). It’s that you imagine that they envisage non white criminals and welfare recipients. There is no way they can defend themselves from your accusation, as you will accept no other possible translation.
You have deconstructed the words “immigrant” and “criminal” in republican ads to mean “non white immigrant” and “non white criminal”. You then accuse them of racism on those grounds. Ask yourself this; how could a Republican debate the valid issues of crime, immigration and welfare without you accusing them of racism? What form of words would you find acceptable?
Billg:
Apologies for the anonymous post above — I know I filled out the name and email info, but apparently the comments system here is on the fritz again.
You wrote:
But only the Republican Party has sustained a decades-long record of organized exploitation of racism.
Sorry, but the Democrats are exploiting racist, divisive demagogues like Sharpton and Jackson. Of course, you’re probably going to trot out the old canard that only whites can be racist….
–Ted Schuerzinger
“And thus it has been innevitably labeled by the Right (ironic, since some American “conservatives” are actually “liberals” lol)”
Quite true. Back in the sixties my current views would have been considered ‘liberal’.
Haven’t got time to read all the previous comments, so I might repeat someone elses observation, but:
that bulge in the back of Bush’s jacket? It’s been identified by doctors and biologists as a SPINE, something that was not noticeable in the similar position on Kerry’s suitjacket.
Alan: I haven’t “deconstructed” anything, or accused anyone of “thought crimes”. I have said that racism remains America’s most serious problem; that many, many white Americans picture criminals and welfrare recipients as blak and brown; and that the Republican Party, in league with reactionary Christian organizations, deliberately exploit that racism to advance politically. In fact, I go further and attribute the impetus for the growth of so-called “Christian conservatism” in the U.S. to a racist reaction to the progress made in the 1960’s. That is when we saw the creation of the first “segregation academies” that underpinned the growth of this American parallel to Islamic fundamentalism.
Ted: No, to assume racism is a white problem is itself a racist assumption. Sharpton and Jackson are individial Democrats expressing their own opinions, whereas it is the deliberate policy of the Republican Party to exploit racism. There is a differnce.
“I have said that racism remains America’s most serious problem”
My understanding is that most immigrant groups in the US do just fine in the melting pot. The problem seems to be one of poor educational opportunities in the largely black urban ghettos, rather than white suburban racism. But if you have evidence to the contrary…
“…and that the Republican Party… …deliberately exploit that racism to advance politically.”
Yet you havn’t provided links to the obviously racist ads yet.
“…attribute the impetus for the growth of so-called “Christian conservatism” in the U.S. to a racist reaction to the progress made in the 1960’s.”
On what grounds do you discard other possible explainations for the growth of “Christian conservatism”? It could be that they are just concerned by the breakdown of social order, crime and welfare dependancy and so on. Racism isn’t the only possible explaination and it’s not good enough to just accuse others as you do.
As I said, I’ve no reason, or space, for “evidence” you’d find acceptable. Anything short of direct appeals to reinstitute segregation will be seen as “thought crime”. Many Americans are racist. So are many Brits, Germans, Canadians, Russians, Arabs, etc. It’s a human malady. Because they harbor racist notions, many white people link “criminal” and “welfare” and “immigrant” with “black or brown”. For evidence, see the history of Europe and North America.
Also, I said the impetus for Christian conservatism was a racist reaction to school integration which propelled the creation of whites-only segregation academies under a religous umbrella. These so-called Christians may be worried about things that I’m not, but if they put their kids in “Christian” schools because black or brown kids attend the other schools, that is racist behavior.
Finally, urban schools are typically black/brown and underfunded because white people to the suburbs to get away from all those
You see how it works Alan and Ted: Whites are by definition racist, Christian Whites especially so, therefore the Republican party which includes Christians is also racist thus when Republicans speak of welfare or immigration it is code for blacks and hispanics – QED.
Of course he can’t produce the kind of proof of racism you or I would accept because it doesn’t exist. His only ‘evidence’ is his assumptions about how White Christian Republicans think.
Having grown up in the South (which usually gets the rap for racism, although it is worse up North or out West), there are racial code words used. Whether every Republican buys into them or not, I seem to recall a few Democrats using the same code words. And among many of my acquaintances “nigger” was a word used very frequently to describe black people.
Heck, my sister went to a Christian academy because of the changing racial mix of our neighbourhood (mind you, it was in reaction to the racist beatings my brother received in high school before her time came up). That said, I think you are more likely to find multi-coloured hues at a Southern evangelical church than you are walking down almost any street up North, except for maybe parts of New York.
cont’d
cont’d
Where my parents live now went from a population of about 500 people in the late 80s to a few tens of thousands by the mid-90s because of White Flight and the inability of the public transport system to reach where they live.
I think both parties of the Republocrats have played the race card in different capacities. I think the pandering and exploitation by the Democrats of black voters is just about as racist as the law-and-order code words used by Republicans.
As for racism elsewhere? I was never a victim of racism/ethnic discrimination until I lived in Europe, where being American will make people assume all sorts of things about the way one thinks and acts. And the Germans hate everybody who isn’t German (actually they can be just about as mean to each other, too.)
I have been completely dissed by right-on hippy types in England, too. But apart from them, most English people are pretty broad-minded and have a strong sense of fair play, especially when it comes to racial issues. They are a lot more open-minded than some quarters seem to give them credit for.
Roxana is, again, distorting my words. I did not say “Whites are by definition racist”, or ” Christian Whites especially so…”.
I said the Republican Party has deliberately exploited racism for political purposes for, at least, the last 30 years. Roxana hasn’t addressed that, but wallows in juvenile debate tactics.
James: I’ve lived in the American south for 30 years. I’ve no way of knowing if racism here is more of an issue than up north or in Europe. When I lived in the UK, I certainly didn’t find it free of racism. (Different code words, same attitudes.) But, that is not relevant to my criticism of the Republican Party. The obvious existence of non-racist white people in the South, or the North, does not disprove my charge.
billg.
It seems to me like you are equating racism and cultural stereotypes. You seem to assume that everyone who accepts the stereotypes to even the smallist degree is by definition racist,
even if those stereotypes have some basis in reality.
I prefer a narrower definition that limits the term to people who believe that the stereotypes are inherent to a racial group, and/or supports discrimination on racial grounds.
Under your definition of the term, almost EVERYONE is racist, no matter how well meaning. This leaves you unable to differentiate between a “white supremacist” and a “white suburbanite”, they are both racist as far as you’re concerned.
First I’m neolithic now I’m juvenile – am I going up in the world or down?
“I said the Republican Party has deliberately exploited racism for political purposes for, at least, the last 30 years.” Roxana hasn’t addressed that, but wallows in juvenile debate tactics.
How can I possibly address it when all your evidence is your mind reading of evil white suburbanites?
Now I can give concrete examples of Democratic exploitation of the Race issue: Take for example Kerry’s accusation that the Bush White House has a ‘Blacks keep out’ sign on it – presumably Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice use the back door? Then there was Jesse Jackson throwing around false accusations of racial intimidation during the 2000 election. Not to mention the cynical use of the James Byrd murder in Democratic political adds.
About those schools, fact is nobody wants to send their children to inner city public schools – and who can blame them – but Black parents’ attempts to extract their children through vouchers are being deliberately blocked by the Democrats who have a vested intrerest in maintaining a permanent Black underclass – as well as in encouraging racial hate and fear.
Massey: Did I say there is no difference between a “white supremacist” and a “white suburbanite”. Are you saying someone must be a white supremacist before they are guilty of racism? That no white racists exist in the suburbs?
Roxana: Do you deny “white flght” driven by racism helped fuel the growth of suburbs? That urban schools lost their tax base as a result? That the impetus for the creation of many private schools in the U.S. beginning in the 1960’s was fear among whites of sendng their kids to integrated schools?
You can name as many Democrats as you wish. That’s your scarecrow. I’ve no interest in defending them. I’ve argued the Republican Party has deliberately exploited white racial fears since the 1960’s. It has taken the place of the Jim Crow-era Democratic Party in the South. You could identify a million racist Democratic politicians and not change that fact.
Bill, I agree with you that the race card does get played quite a bit by the Republicans. But I also believe the Democrats play opposite ends of the race card as well.
As far as my own experience with racism within the US: when I went to boot camp, my boot camp company was a pretty big cross-section of poor- to lower middle-class people from all over the country and a disproportionate amount of ethnic minorities. I was surprised to find some of the white suburban Californians, especially, to be quite more openly racist than the rednecks I went to school with. I mean, I was genuinely shocked, and I thought I had heard it all before.
I think, though, that the Christian Right is not so much about race but more about helping the apocalypse come about whilst legislating good behaviour in the mean time.
“Did I say there is no difference between a “white supremacist” and a “white suburbanite”. Are you saying someone must be a white supremacist before they are guilty of racism? That no white racists exist in the suburbs?”
Nope, I didn’t say you thought they were equally racist. But I do think you call it racism when “white suburbanites” refer to the racial stereotypes, and that it makes no difference to you whether there is any truth behind those stereotypes or not. You believe that “white suburbanites” (a racist term by the way, by your standards), are being racist when they point out that the largly black ghettos have a serious problem with criminals. Presumably you would prefer that they just ignore the problem and pretend it doesn’t exist?
Does real racism exist in the suburbs? Of course, but I doubt it’s as serious a problem as you pretend.
James: I’m not defending Democrats. My argument is that the Republican Party, as a deliberate campaign strategy, has exploited the racism that exists in America ever since Nixon saw George Wallace take the votes of millions of traditional Democrats. Those people eventually migrated to the Republican Party in the 1970’s primarily because they opposed Demcratic support for civil and voting rights legislation. Nixon, and the Republicans, adopted Wallace’s divisive code-worded rhetoric about crime and values and ran with it.
Alan and Roxana seem to believe that pointing to the sins of Democrats proves I’m lieing about Republicans. It’s common sleight-of-hand.
I don’t doubt the sincere beliefs of many of today’s Christian conservatives. But, as I said, the movement had its impetus in the “Christian” private schools that were a racist reaction to integration.
Alan: Yes, any adherence to racial stereotypes is a marker of racism. Racial stereotypes, and behavior motivated by them, are always immoral and always racist. No truth lurks “behind” them.
“White suburbanites” is a descriptive term, not a racist term, Most surburbanites are white.
Again, another scarecrow: I did not say white suburbanites are being racist when they point to poor urban schools. I said that white flght to the suburbs, prompted by resistance to integration, destroyed the tax base of the cities they fled, causing the collapse of urban schools. Urban schools are poor, in large measure, because whites left the cities. Cause: racism; affect: insolvent city schools.
Bill,
I understand where you’re coming from, I believe it is called the “Southern Strategy”! I agree with you, too. But given the gradual decline of traditional communities with everybody on the go constantly (and I could just be talking out my ass), I think this strategy is probably not as strong as it once was compared to the idea of “religious” values and economic factors.
With regard to white flight…I often wonder how different my own, my family’s, and many of my friends’ lives would have been if people had not have upped sticks as soon as the first middle class black family bought a house in the neighbourhood. Where I come from, I believe white flight is making even “suburban” schools insolvent by a gradual regentrification of the cities but with private schooling or further moves afield.
James, I agree. That’s why I emphasized the role of racism as an impetus for the development of private schools in the 1970’s. I won’t disparage the sincerity of many of today’s Christain conservatives, although I do oppose efforts to assess the validity of anyone’s faith by their positions on a few politically-tinged litmus card issues.
I grew up in a Midwestern small town where redlining and de facto segregation was the rule. Now, I’m in a prosperous Southern suburb where I hear more Spanish and Hindi than Southern drawl. But, the money follows the new development, along the edge of suburbia and in the gentrified central city. The older suburbs are stuck with dropping incomes and a shrinking tax base.
billg: “Racial stereotypes, and behavior motivated by them, are always immoral and always racist.”
billg: “”White suburbanites” is a descriptive term, not a racist term, Most surburbanites are white. ”
Still sounds racist by your definition. Racial stereotypes according to you are ALWAYS racist, whatever the facts behind them. You are using a stereotypical “white suburbanite” in your arguments and making a whole series of racist assumptions about their opinions. You try to claim this doesn’t matter as; “Most surburbanites ARE white”, ignoring the fact that you’ve already indicated that “NO truth lurks “behind” them” (ie the truth is irrelevant).
You have failed to show any substantive difference between your stereotypical white suburbanites opinions about non-whites and your own “racist” opinions about them.
Alan: Racial stereotypes are always wrong. Dealing with a class of individuals as a group because you attribute characteristics to them as members of a “race” is racism. Dealing with individuals as a group because they have been subjected to immoral treatment as a result of racism is not racist. I.e., if you refuse to sell your house to African-Americans, that is racist. If I sponsor legislation that funds lawsuits against this practice, that is not racist.
Racism is a univeral human affliction. You have not challenged that. Then, logically, racism must exist among whites living in the suburbs. I have no requirement to prove the racism of any specific individuals.
“No truth lurks…” refers to the lie of racial stereotype: that individuals can be treated based on preconceived notions of how members of that “race” behave. However, just as saying “white Englishmen” is only a description, “white suburbanite” is only a description.
“Racial stereotypes are always wrong.”
“Dealing with a class of individuals as a group because you attribute characteristics to them as members of a “race” is racism.”
One does not necessarily lead to the other.
You have been using racial stereotypes about white suburbanites in your arguments, but AFAIK you don’t apply these stereotypes to your dealings with them. But by your own argument, that “Racial stereotypes are ALWAYS wrong”, you are still racist.
You will never get away from stereotypes, racial and otherwise. They appear to be a normal part of how humans recognise distinctive social groups. However most humans are quite capable of having dealings with individuals from other “groups” without undue influence from racial stereotypes. Yet you would call both the overt racialist and the normal human, who cannot help but be familiar with his/her society’s stereotypes, racist.
(cont.)
The real problem you have is that some of the stereotypes applied to young black males in the US are very negative. But you probably have no problem with the positive stereotypes also applied to that group. Yet both are equally racist by your definition of the term.
Alan: I see no point in continuing this so long as you purposely distort my statements and accuse me of holding opinions and beliefs that I have not expressed.
Since you so enjoy building and knocking down annoying little scarecrows, I suggest you practice your hobby on some talk radio show. They exist for just that purpose.
Otherwise, take your unwarranted assumptions and go play elsewhere.
whatever…
Any assumptions I’ve made about you are based purely on your own statements. I’ve made no obvious distortions that I can see, if I have I appologise. However in reply I note that you in turn refuse to provide evidence to support your claims, refuse to retract your claims in light of that or admit your claims are subjective and refuse to answer my questions.
Unless you own this website, you have no right to tell me to “go play elsewhere”, any more than I can tell you that.
But this discussion got boring a long time ago, so I agree we should let it drop.