Replies

Wizard: I'll try to be more clear.

Honorable men and women can argue and disagree about all sorts of public policy questions.

However, when we consider whom or what is deserving of our political or financial support, it seems to me that an honorable, decent person understands that certain options are unacceptable---EVEN IF those options might propose ideas, policies, and programs that otherwise might seem attractive.

I previously used Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and KKK as examples of options that would be unacceptable under any circumstances, because they are morally defective, i.e. the spirit underlying their premises, conclusions, and proposals are manifestly hateful and designed to capitalize upon fear and suspicion, and can only lead (if successful) to oppression.

In a free society, no honorable decent person should ally themselves with "States' rights" (SR) proponents if SR is being used as a device to impose and sustain second-class citizenship on a segment of Americans whom SR proponents consider inferior beings undeserving of equal protection of the law.

Consequently, the well-known systematic disenfranchisement and intimidation of black Americans as a matter of public policy in States like Alabama and Mississippi would render void any claims to SR used by racists who were prominent citizens and civil authorities within those States.

Finally, I would very much like to give the benefit of the doubt to organizations like the John Birch Society when it comes to whether or not their alliance with racists was nothing more than incidental to their main focus on SR. Obviously, the JBS had many fine and decent folks as members. But, regretably, official JBS spokespersons and literature never seemed willing to make the distinctions I have discussed above. The JBS was a magnet for all sorts of characters whose beliefs were (at a minimum) racially insensitive and mean-spirited and, in some instances, outright bigots.