Posted on 03/08/2008 11:38:16 AM PST by AllseeingEye33
How Liberals Play Race Politics
by Patrick Buchanan March 6, 2008
"All is race," wrote Benjamin Disraeli, "there is no other truth."
What Disraeli meant by race is what Winston Churchill meant when he spoke of "our island race" -- a tribe, an ethnic group, a people unique and separate from all others.
Disraeli saw the Irish in Britain as a breed apart, an alien race:
"This wild, reckless, indolent, uncertain and superstitious race have no sympathy with the English character. Their ideal of human felicity is an alternation of clannish broils and coarse idolatry (i.e., Catholicism). Their history describes an unbroken circuitry of bigotry and blood."
And whose bigotry was on display here?
Recently, this writer cited a Foreign Affairs article titled, "Us and Them: The Enduring Power of Ethnic Nationalism." Professor Jerry Muller therein described what happened to Europe in the 20th century as the violent and bloody parturition of all the multi-ethnic nations and empires into homogeneous states where each "race" at last had its own country to secure its own separate and privileged existence and tribal interests.
Only then did peace come to the Old Continent.
The process may not be at an end. Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo wish to be with their kinsmen. Scots want out of Britain. Catalan and Basque seek independence from Spain. Flemish and Walloon are suing for divorce in Belgium.
This tribalism is now bedeviling America and the presidential politics of this diverse nation, and roiling its most diverse party.
The dominant minorities in the Democratic coalition are blacks, Hispanics and Jews. Though Obama began this campaign with under half of the black vote, African-Americans are now voting close to 90 percent for him. Dixiecrats called that the bloc vote. Ex-Goldwater Girl Hillary is now getting Goldwater's share of that vote.
African-Americans are rejecting the wife of our "first black president" -- for the real thing.
And though Latinos are similar in educational levels, incomes and political orientation to blacks, they seem as resistant to Barack's candidacy as white working men.
And where race and ethnic wedge-driving was thought to be the province of the Lee Atwater School of Republican Politics, liberals have shown themselves more than adept.
"I like the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, and that his father was a Muslim," said ex-Sen. Bob Kerrey, a Hillary backer, in Iowa. "I think it is a tremendous asset for him ... that he spent a little bit of time in a secular madrassa."
The day of South Carolina, Bill Clinton volunteered, "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. ... Ran a good campaign." And what do Jesse and Barack have in common?
Portside columnist Richard Cohen was first to raise the issue of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack's spiritual mentor, whose magazine last year declared that Louis Farrakhan "epitomized greatness." Minister Farrakhan, Cohen reminded his readers, "has reviled Jews in a manner that brings Hitler to mind."
Cohen's call for Obama to renounce Farrakhan was echoed by Hillary in the last debate, and she further demanded that Barack "reject" him. A beleaguered Barack dutifully did.
This was the old one-two to the midsection. Publicizing the Wright-Farrakhan ties alarmed Jewish voters backing Barack, while African-Americans, many of whom admire Farrakhan as a defiant black man, saw Barack as dissing a brother on the orders of the white liberal establishment.
Last weekend, The New York Times gave page-one coverage to the Farrakhan-Wright matter and Jewish concerns about Obama's ties to Zbigniew Brzezinski, who, said the Times helpfully, is "loathed by many Jews."
The Times also regurgitated Barack's statement of last fall that "no one has suffered more than the Palestinians."
On March 5, the New York Post ran a page-one story with the banner, "Shady," and subhead, "Black Ops: Hill Ad 'Darkens' Obama." The story was based on a left-wing Website's claim that Clinton's campaign is "darkening the tone of Barack Obama's skin in a new TV attack ad."
Post columnist Amir Taheri drove the wedge deeper between Barack and Jews. Saying Barack should be proud of his middle name, "Hussein," Taheri then accused him of cutting Israel loose.
"In an important symbolic move designed to signal an end of the special relationship between Israel and America, Obama has become the first major presidential candidate in 25 years not to commit himself to transferring the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem."
Barack, said Taheri, is meeting the key demands of "all radical Islamist forces, Sunni and Shiite."
Usually Democrats play the ethnic card against Republicans. Al Gore said Bush revered a Constitution that declared blacks to be three-fifths of a person. The NAACP said Bush did not care about the dragging death of African-American James Byrd.
This time, the liberals are playing the race card on each other, and showing real proficiency.
Yeah, but the thing is, as much as they revile each other, nothing compares to their hatred of Repubicans and Conservatives. Conservatives/Republicans keep asking after every election how can Jewish Amricans vote for Democrats? But they do any way. Counting Democrat hatred for each other to help us out in November is not going to work.
Actually, it was free northern states that wanted blacks to be counted as 3/5ths of a person for apportionment purposes. This issue was completely separate from disenfranchisement of blacks.
You don’t think that fail out Al would care about facts do you? In this case he should know better because his racist Daddy voted against the civil rights and voting acts.
The Promulgation of the Law of Slavery Reparations:
Democrats owe Blacks Reparations for having owned them as Slaves, and....
Blacks owe Republicans Reparations for having freed them from slavery.
Thenceforth, this is the inviolable Law of Slavery Reparations.
Liberals love to divide people, so they will compete with each other and fight with each other.
“Actually, it was free northern states that wanted blacks to be counted as 3/5ths of a person for apportionment purposes. This issue was completely separate from disenfranchisement of blacks.”
I thought it was the other way around, the free states wanted the slaves to not count as a person (with respect to apportionment) and the slave states wanted them to be counted as a full person. Being counted counted as a full person gave greater voting power to the slaveholders. The 3/5ths thing was a compromise, but it’s possible that slavery could have been eliminsted earlier had the slaves been counted as zero. I’m google-less at the moment, but someone jump in here and correct me if I’m wrong.
You’re right. The southern states wanted to count the slaves in when it came to determining the number of Congressmen a state would have, but not allow the slaves to vote. The three-fifths measure was a compromise — one that still gave extra power to the voters of slaveholding states.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.