Posted on 07/30/2015 4:04:33 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Who would’ve thought an obscure hip-hop artist would go down in history as the most overrated political moment of all time?
Sister Souljah — a name now always followed by “moment” — made headlines back in 1992 when she said of the Los Angeles riots: “If black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?”
This inflammatory comment incensed a majority of the American public. Then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton cemented Souljah’s name in political history when he denounced her comment at a convention for Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition — an event at which the hip-hop musician also spoke.
Even though Clinton was expressing the majority opinion of the country in denouncing Sister Souljah, it took stones to do it at a Rainbow Coalition event that welcomed her. Especially when Jackson himself quickly rebuked Clinton’s remarks and there was speculation that the then-Arkansas governor’s talk would cost him critical support among the African-American community.
Instead, it turned out to be one of the highlights of Clinton’s successful presidential campaign. While the original Sister Souljah moment was an instance of a Democrat refuting left-wing extremism to align himself with the vital center, the phenomenon has now become code for what Republicans politicians should allegedly do to placate the mainstream media.
Every time some figure on the right says something or does something that upsets the hive of elitist media opinion, it’s demanded that GOP leaders and candidates have a “Sister Souljah moment” and denounce said figure. Unlike Clinton, who targeted a fringe figure on behalf of the vast majority of America, conservatives who try to pull of a Sister Souljah moment always target large segments of their own base to appease elite media opinion.
That’s an inversion of what made Clinton’s statement so effective: it dramatically resonated with large segments of the public.
Not surprisingly, these attempts fail. Republicans and conservatives get no political rewards for these moments of base-slapping — particularly during presidential campaigns.
In 1996, Bob Dole lambasted the pro-life movement in attempt to make his platform look more “big tent.” Dole went on to lose to Clinton by a wide margin on Election Day.
In 2000, both George W. Bush and John McCain had their respective Sister Souljah moments in the GOP primary. Bush critiqued Robert Bork’s cultural pessimism in a high-profile speech and McCain tore into the religious right. McCain lost the primary. Bush went on to lose the popular vote in a general election he narrowly won.
In 2008, McCain reveled in the opportunities to please media elites by denouncing alleged extremists on his way to losing the general election to Barack Obama.
In 2012, enraged liberal opinion-makers called upon Mitt Romney to castigate Rush Limbaugh for insulting Sandra Fluke. Romney did so, albeit tepidly, and was rewarded with constant coverage of his supposed “war on women.” He also lost the general election.
In spite of all the failures that have accompanied Republican Souljah attempts, we’re now gearing up for even more denunciations from the right during this election cycle. Right now, there are already two issues that are making the mainstream right pray for a Sister Souljah moment.
The first, of course, is Donald Trump. He continues to surge in the polls and continues to infuriate Republican leaders. Nearly every candidate — with the notable exception of Ted Cruz — has profusely condemned Trump’s more incendiary comments. Then, instead of receiving compliments from pundits, these presidential hopefuls get blowback for taking so long to condemn the flamboyant billionaire.
Meanwhile, Rick Perry, the one candidate who decided to go all-out on Trump, was rewarded with measured praise by the press and declining poll numbers from actual Republicans.
While the Republican Party hierarchy and presidential hopefuls tangle with Trump, various conservative commentators are fretting over accusations from Twitter trolls that they’re “cuckservatives.” Cuckservative is a lovely combination of “cuckold” (a man whose wife is cheating on him) and “conservative.” It has its origins in white nationalist circles, which is why many of the offended object to it.
But, unfortunately for those wishing to bury the word cuckservative, it’s now gaining traction among conservatives — in large part due to a popular Breitbart article and the latest capitulation by Republican leaders in Congress.
Against the intentions of the commentators who drew attention to this term in an attempt to differentiate themselves from extremists, it has been embraced by many within these pundits’ own respective audiences.
In short, it’s had the opposite effect of a Sister Souljah moment.
Which is just another reason conservatives should stop trying to have these overrated moments.
The original event brought respect for Bill Clinton and put him in line with the majority of America that was repulsed by the rapper’s comments. Clinton also looked bold and strong in making his denunciation at an event where he could’ve faced immediate backlash.
Republicans and conservatives, on the other hand, never gain respect when they engage in condemnations of supposed radicals. They always make their condemnations from a position of weakness.
Instead of looking like champions of the American majority, they look like cuckolds beholden to the left and the mainstream media.
Democrats have grasped that they have little to gain from making public pronouncements against extremists on their left and they no longer engage in Souljah moments.
If only we could expect the same from Republicans, who will likely make further attempts to distance themselves from the base at the guaranteed expense of votes and respect.
Voters cast ballots for candidates they respect. Republicans engaging in pseudo-attempts at repudiating radicals won’t give them that needed quality.
Only looking bold and strong, like Clinton did in 1992, will earn them respect.
“Cuckservaive” must not simply go viral. It must become part of the political language.
Well spoken!
This needs to be shouted from the housetops.
I first heard of “cuckservative” from an overwrought hand-wringing screed on Ace. Maybe if we all use the term with gusto, our supposed betters will get the message.
i prefer to deem it as faddish balderdash
Clinton rebuked a person for calling for an immoral reaction--he was actually on the side of morals in that particular case.
The Republican examples are all exactly opposite of that.
In 1996, Bob Dole lambasted the pro-life movement in attempt to make his platform look more “big tent.” Dole went on to lose to Clinton by a wide margin on Election Day. In 2000, both George W. Bush and John McCain had their respective Sister Souljah moments in the GOP primary. Bush critiqued Robert Bork’s cultural pessimism in a high-profile speech and McCain tore into the religious right. McCain lost the primary. Bush went on to lose the popular vote in a general election he narrowly won. In 2008, McCain reveled in the opportunities to please media elites by denouncing alleged extremists on his way to losing the general election to Barack Obama. In 2012, enraged liberal opinion-makers called upon Mitt Romney to castigate Rush Limbaugh for insulting Sandra Fluke. Romney did so, albeit tepidly, and was rewarded with constant coverage of his supposed “war on women.” He also lost the general election.Dole--rebuked pro-life movement
If you get on the right side of an issue, you win.
Get on the wrong side, like so many Republicans trying to please the Left, and you lose.
I first read it right here, then looked the reference up.
THIS article sums it up quite well.
It’s really hurt Trump, right????
>>> Unlike Clinton, who targeted a fringe figure on behalf of the vast majority of America, conservatives who try to pull of a Sister Souljah moment always target large segments of their own base to appease elite media opinion. <<<
He then went on to give several examples of the so-call Sister Souljah moment, who targeted large segment of the base.
Except none of them used in the examples are 'conservative' and they didn't rebuke the far out 'fringe' minority in their party.
Causation vs correlation?
That’s because Republicans try their Sister Souljah moments aiming in the wrong direction.
Tell off the RINO middle, as Trump does, and a candidate would be rewarded. Tell off the belleaguered base, and the backlash is appropriate.
Not only that, but Republicans, especially conservative ones (rare as unicorns), will never get a fair play from the media, no matter what they say, and the media is more blatantly biased now than it was in Clinton’s day.
Maybe because Conservatives have never espoused mass killings?
Establishment Republicans dump on their base and are then surprised when the base doesn’t show up on Election Day.
Either they’re too dumb to figure it out, or they don’t want to be associated with conservatives.
Current US politics have become a scripted theater, like “professional” wrestling. It is supposed to be a very serious and important competition of ideas and policies for the common good, but look at it this way.
The US is ruled by a republicrat oligarchy. It is one party with two faces that regurgitate talking points to their constituents. This rhetoric is for duping different sheeple into believing that they are actually represented in our government system. It is really very disconcerting to believe, how many more bogus selections are we going to have every two years before anything substantial changes for the better?
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.