Double standards: Walter Williams says GOP held to higher expectation of decency than liberals

During World War II, ex-Ku Klux Klansman, now U.S. senator, Robert Byrd vowed never to fight "with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

Just a couple of years ago, Byrd lectured us on the floor of the Senate that "there are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time." I wonder whether he was talking about whites who act like blacks.

San Francisco's esteemed mayor Willie Brown once described a successful legislative battle this way: "We beat those old white boys fair and square."

Spike Lee said in disapproval of interracial marriages: "I give interracial couples a look. Daggers. They get uncomfortable when they see me on the street."

The National Association of Black Social Workers drafted a position paper calling white adoptions of black children "cultural genocide." They warned against "transculturation ... when one dominant culture overpowers and forces another culture to accept a foreign form of existence."

Donna Brazile, Al Gore's presidential campaign manager, called Republicans "white boys" who seek to "exclude, denigrate and leave behind."

At a celebration for retiring Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said that Mississippians were proud to have voted for Thurmond in his 1948 presidential campaign "and, if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years."

Which among the above statements are the most racist, which have received the most media coverage and which caused the most angst? Clearly, Lott's statement received the most media coverage and created the most angst, but it doesn't begin to qualify as the most racist.

You say: "Williams, that's different. High officials shouldn't honor and praise racists or ex-racists." Then what about Bill Clinton's acknowledged political mentors – former Arkansas Sen. J. William Fulbright and former Arkansas Gov. Orville Faubus – who were both rabid segregationists? Yet the former president highly praises Fulbright and bestowed upon him the Presidential Medal of Freedom Award.

By the way, Fulbright was one of 19 senators who issued a statement titled, "The Southern Manifesto," condemning the 1954 Supreme Court decision of Brown vs. Board of Education and defending segregation. That's a bit more recent than Thurmond's run for the White House. Does Clinton's praise of Fulbright mean that he supported "The Southern Manifesto," just as the assertion that Lott's praise of Thurmond means he supported Thurmond's segregationist stand in 1948? If so, why not also condemn Clinton?

I have several possible theories on the responses to Lott's rather stupid remarks – stupid in the context of our politically correct world.

My first theory is that conservatives are held to higher standards of decency, conduct and decorum than liberals. In other words, it's like behavior that's tolerated in the case of children but ostracized when adults do the same thing. That theory might also explain why racist statements made by blacks are excused.

Another theory is that since 9-11 and President Bush's public popularity, both appointed and unappointed black leaders have had no platform and been paid no attention. Lott's gaffe gives them platform, voice and mission.

Finally, the Democrats, having lost all branches of national government in the recent elections, are desperate to get something on Bush and the Republicans, and Trent Lott's statement is the answer to their prayers.

Good post!

Here is what Freeper driftless wrote at:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/808549/posts?page=3#3

which sums this up quite nicely:

"I don't know if too many people on this forum remember the days when civil rights was THE issue. Back in the sixties the activists argued that we must have a color-blind society where people would be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King. So then we should all try to be color-blind today right? " "Well no say todays race-hustlers, today we have to judge people by the color of their skin because we don't have "a level playing field". The fact is there never was and never will be a level playing field...for anyone. A poor Black person in Detroit is hardly any more economically disadvantaged than some white hillbilly in Appalachia. "

"But the joker in the deck is that todays activists do not desire a level playing field because how would they be able to rip off the rich and powerful. For the race-hustlers there must always be a class of "victims"... helpless pawns in the hustlers quest for their own wealth and power. They make up the rules of the race game and decide who is a racist and who is not. They should look in the mirror."

From Peggy Noonan's column on Friday:

Sometimes I think we should get back to some basic truths when we talk about race and civil rights. Instead we talk past each other.
A lot of liberals harp on the subject of race, and they do it in a way that gives more attention to hatred for racists than love for equality. They can't make or buy enough movies with names like "Ghosts of Mississippi," which illustrate how terrible white people are, were and probably will be again if we don't pass more laws. (White Southerners are and historically have been particularly demonized by liberals.)
The liberals' sin is a mindless race obsession that keeps them from seeing clearly. But conservatives have a sin too. A lot of them become deaf when the subject is race. All their lives they've heard the long 40-year rap about how wicked America is, how hateful, and along the way they just stopped listening. Which left them unable to hear nuance, and slow, if you will, to hear the music of a great movement.
All this is part of the kabuki that happens when you take a great moral movement like civil rights and turn it, as it is inevitably turned, into a political movement. Sides get hardened and sides get stupid. It's a little like the debate the past few years about obscene art. In that particular kabuki liberals get off on their faux courage, making believe it takes guts to create a painting of the Madonna smeared with feces. In the world we live in that takes no courage, and they know it. If they had guts they'd do a beautiful painting of the Madonna and accept the price: marginalization and dismissal by the art establishment. At the same time, conservatives in these battles get off on faux outrage. They stand up, shake their fists and say they're outraged that someone would desecrate the Madonna. And some are. But some in their hearts know it's all nonsense that means nothing, and what they really feel is delight that the left has once again done something ugly and stupid, and in public.

-PJ

One of the true differences between the extreme right and the extreme left is how they react to capitalists when they do get into power.

The extreme left wants them gone and usually give them the choice of leave or die. The extreme right usually caters to their needs as long as they are cooperative.

Otherwise, their policies tend to look very similar. The right extreme usually lasts longer because at least they don't destroy the basis of their wealth. This is a necessity because by agreeing to be goverened by extremists, the people expect immediate improvements in their lives. Thus, a redistribution of wealth is the immediate consequence.

Yes, of course the NSDAP (the "S" stands for Sozialist) had programs that were very similar to communists. In fact, many have said that the Nazis were brown on the outside, but red on the inside.

Having majored in German history and being fluent in German, I am willing to bet I have forgotten more about the subject than you've ever learned. So take your secondary resources and shove them you know where.

But, I must say, we are definitely experiencing some serious thread drift here. As long as you admit that extreme right wing and extreme left wing philosophies quickly experience confluence, I will cede the fact that my original phrase of "right-wing facist" is a less than clear description of what I was trying to convey.

Here is a definition just for fun. It would appear as if 4. and 5. lend themselves to both sides of our argument:

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.

Fascism (fsh´zm) (KEY) , totalitarian philosophy of government that glorifies the state and nation and assigns to the state control over every aspect of national life. The name was first used by the party started by Benito Mussolini, who ruled Italy from 1922 until the Italian defeat in World War
II. However, it has also been applied to similar ideologies in other countries, e.g., to National Socialism in Germany and to the regime of Francisco Franco in Spain. The term is derived from the Latin fasces.
1 Characteristics of Fascist Philosophy Fascism, especially in its early stages, is obliged to be antitheoretical and frankly opportunistic in order to appeal to many diverse groups. Nevertheless, a few key concepts are basic to it. First and most important is the glorification of the state and the total subordination of the individual to it. The state is defined as an organic whole into which individuals must be absorbed for their own and the state’s benefit. This “total state” is absolute in its methods and unlimited by law in its control and direction of its citizens.
2 A second ruling concept of fascism is embodied in the theory of social Darwinism. The doctrine of survival of the fittest and the necessity of struggle for life is applied by fascists to the life of a nation-state. Peaceful, complacent nations are seen as doomed to fall before more dynamic ones,
making struggle and aggressive militarism a leading charackteristic of the fascist state. Imperialism is the logical outcome of this dogma.
3 Another element of fascism is its elitism. Salvation from rule by the mob and the destruction of the existing social order can be effected only by an authoritarian leader who embodies the highest ideals of the nation. This concept of the leader as hero or superman, borrowed in part from the
romanticism of Friedrich Nietzsche, Thomas Carlyle, and Richard Wagner, is closely linked with fascism’s rejection of reason and intelligence and its emphasis on vision, creativeness, and “the will.”
4 The Fascist State
Fascism has found adherents in all countries. Its essentially vague and emotional nature facilitates the development of unique national varieties, whose leaders often deny indignantly that they are fascists at all. In its dictatorial methods and in its use of brutal intimidation of the opposition by the militia and the secret police, fascism does not greatly distinguish itself from other despotic and totalitarian regimes. There are particular similarities with the Communist regime in the Soviet
Union under Joseph Stalin. However, unlike Communism, fascism abhors the idea of a classless society and sees desirable order only in a state in which each class has its distinct place and function. Representation by classes (i.e., capital, labor, farmers, and professionals) is substituted for representation by parties, and the corporative state is a part of fascist dogma.
5 Although Mussolini’s and Hitler’s governments tended to interfere considerably in economic life and to regulate its process, there can be no doubt that despite all restrictions imposed on them, the capitalist and landowning classes were protected by the fascist system, and many favored it
as an obstacle to socialization. On the other hand, the state adopted a paternalistic attitude toward labor, improving its conditions in some respects, reducing unemployment through large-scale public works and armament programs, and controlling its leisure time through organized activities.
6 Many of these features were adopted by the Franco regime in Spain and by quasi-fascist dictators in Latin America (e.g., Juan Perón) and elsewhere. A variation of fascism was the so-called clerico-fascist system set up in Austria under Engelbert Dollfuss. This purported to be based on the social and economic doctrines enunciated by Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XI, which, however, were never put into operation

My first theory is that conservatives are held to higher standards of decency, conduct and decorum than liberals.
In other words,
it's like behavior that's tolerated
in the case of children
but ostracized when adults do the same thing .
That theory might also explain why racist statements made by blacks are excused.

Oh my. Definitely an un-PC conclusion. And my favorite lines in the whole piece. I'm with the good Doctor on this: if Conservatives are willing to allow themselves to be held to the higher standard and demand much less of Democrats, Liberals, AND blacks, they are guilty of the same conclusion, that we are better than they are. Well, we are not better, and ought not be held to a higher standard of conduct. In our persons we are created equal; in our ideas we are superior. To continue the lie of the Left by allowing them to skate on the race issue is to perpetuate the bias.

The Conservative position on affirmative action puts forth the proposition that blacks, whites, reds, browns and yellows are equally capable, equally culpable, and ought to be judged by the content of their character, NOT the color of their skin. The Liberal position, on the other hand, would keep us forever separated by race, by gender, and by a thousand other qualifiers. I'm mad as hell about such segregation.

To call the Nazis extreme right is a slander on the extreme right which by definition seeks maximization of individual liberty. The state control over the means of production, socialist medicine, state control over all schools, guarantteed employment are all left wing programs.

In the early days of the Third Reich German armed forces were trained in the Soviet Union. The first big break between Stalin and Hitler came in the Spanish Civil War.

This break was later repaired in the non-agression pact of 1939 that carved up Poland and the Baltic states.

In coming to power the big difference between the NAZI party and the Communists was that the NAZI party asserted the Germaness of its people and the nation as opposed to the internationalist system espoused by the Communists. Yes I accept that the NAZIS did allow a large portion of their capitalists to retain their wealth but they as a party fed off the Jewish population's wealth confiscating that to support their abomination of a political system.

Now as to which is able to last longer, clearly the Soviet system endured for many more years as horrible and murderous as it was than the Third Reich. The Soviet system killed more and some remanents of this structure still hang on to this day.

If you wish to bring Mussolini into the discussion will you also bring up the fact that he was head of the Italian Socialist Party.

You have cited one small difference of degree in stating that the Communists and Nazis were very different. The Communists in the Soviet Union did not completely eliminate the Capitalists from their system nor did the Chinese or any other Communist/Socialist regime. Occidental Petroleum was coducting business in the Soviet Union under Lenin, Stalin, Krushchev and to this day. There were numerous other such operations both foreign and domestic in the CCCP.

Do not just look at what others have stated about the Third Reich look at the actual policies. Do not just consider the crackdown on the German Communist Party as definitive it has long been documented that the Soviet Union provided the names of many members of that party to the Nazis.

Also study the actual policies of the time. Study the news coveraqge from nations where there was a free press. study Mussolini's rise to power along with that of the NAZI's. The rhetoric was different between the National Socialists and the International Socialists but the fundamental operations of the two was very similar in its effects.

However, unlike Communism, fascism abhors the idea of a classless society and sees desirable order only in a state in which each class has its distinct place and function.

However party appartchiks are a distinct "higher" class within any Communist state. Therefor such a state does not abolish social classes it merely cjanges the basis for entry into the middle and upper classes. Birth right of the children of party members is also presumed in Communist states so that instead of tracing its nobility to roots of fuedalism it traces its nobility to loyal party service and often to service in the civil war resulting in the Communist state. Is this so different than nobility being confered by prior service to a king in a civil war to establish his legitamacy or prior familial wealth? Further, there was probably more "class mobility" for the average peasent, factory worker or shopkeeper's child under the Nazi Party than ever existed in the Soviet Union without party membership. A German child in the 1930's did not have to become a member of the Nazi party to advance to say a professional position but the same can not be said of the Soviet Union.

Representation by classes (i.e., capital, labor, farmers, and professionals) is substituted for representation by parties, and the corporative state is a part of fascist dogma.

First, within all Communist states there has never been any representation by any group other than the Communist party and its appartchiks. Second, since supposedly all capitalists are abolished within the Communist state how can they be represented. In short this internally inconsistent lie can not be even considered.

5 Although Mussolini’s and Hitler’s governments tended to interfere considerably in economic life and to regulate its process, there can be no doubt that despite all restrictions imposed on them, the capitalist and landowning classes were protected by the fascist system, and many favored it as an obstacle to socialization.

The support of the wealthy of both Italy and Germany is not a given per se. One could make the same claim abnout the October Revolution of Russia. Clearly that revolution was supported by the Kaiser of Germany and many of the Bolsheviks were actually quite well off expatriates who had returned during the Menshevik government.

On the other hand, the state adopted a paternalistic attitude toward labor, improving its conditions in some respects, reducing unemployment through large-scale public works and armament programs, and controlling its leisure time through organized activities.

As opposed to the Soviet system which preserved leisure time primarily for the Party members and their families

In short ERF you really need to improve your personal analytical skills and study more than Germany in isolation. As to primary sources they are available in more than just German and actually from the period of the 1930's and early 1940's many of the best are not originally written in German due to the nature of the regime in power.

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.