Green Room

Disowning the Democrat bigots

posted at 9:42 am on August 31, 2010 by

William Saletan has a pompous, condescending piece in Slate about how liberals should not keep trying to get up in arms about how Glenn Beck is trying to co-opt Martin Luther King Jr.’s message by having a big rally, decades later, where King did, and on the same day of the year. (It was a coincidence. It was the only day in that time period that was free.) So here’s his advice to liberals:

The resemblance doesn’t mean that Beck wants to take us back to the days of segregation. It means the opposite. Crying “socialism” is what conservatives do before they yield to change. It’s a stage in the process of defeat. But the process doesn’t end with defeat. It ends with absorption. It ends with the political descendants of George Wallace embracing the legacy of Martin Luther King. Beck today is just catching up to where King was 50 years ago. That’s because King was in the front of the civil rights bus, and Beck is in the back. And it’s a really slow bus.

It’s amazing how the left refuses to acknowledge the bigots in its own history. The above shows how Saletan is trying to pawn off Wallace’s inheritance on conservatives and Republicans.

Say, Bill? Wallace was a Democrat. His political descendants voted for Obama. They’re not Republicans. In fact, Republicans were instrumental in getting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed over Democratic obstruction.

The most fervent opposition to the bill came from Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC): “This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress.”[7]

After 54 days of filibuster, Senators Everett Dirksen (R-IL), Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), and Mike Mansfield (D-MT) introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would attract enough Republican swing votes to end the filibuster. The compromise bill was weaker than the House version in regard to government power to regulate the conduct of private business, but it was not so weak as to cause the House to reconsider the legislation.[8]

On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed a filibustering address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation. Until then, the measure had occupied the Senate for 57 working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, the bill’s manager, concluded he had the 67 votes required at that time to end the debate and end the filibuster. With six wavering senators providing a four-vote victory margin, the final tally stood at 71 to 29. Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only once in the 37 years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure.[9]

If you want a really unbelievable look at who the party of racists was, check out the stats of who voted for and against the bill. Republicans were generally 80/20 in favor. It was a Republican who used parliamentary procedure to get the bill away from the Democrat-led Senate Judiciary Committee so that it could be voted on.

But God forbid Saletan go against the narrative that conservatives and Republicans were the real obstacles to civil rights in this country. Because everyone knows it’s they who are the real bigots. Well, everyone in the liberal media, anyway.

Cross-posted on Yourish.com

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Both sides have racist a*sholes.
Both sides slimily ignore them.
Both sides point fingers at each other saying YOU have racists.
Your article is pointless because you only examine one side.
You need to grow up.

Dave Rywall on August 31, 2010 at 10:31 AM

Dave Rywall on August 31, 2010 at 10:31 AM

You showed your intellectual level with the endding of your first line.

You seem to have missed the point of this artical or read it with an opinion that does not support the main topic of the artical.

Franklyn on August 31, 2010 at 11:19 AM

Racist iceholes are not the driving factor on either side of our political divide. If Mr. Rywall wouldn’t agree with that, then his bias toward one side is obvious.

Saletan clearly adopts the position that racism is and has been a big part of right-wing politics for decades, and Meryl Yourish calls him out on it. Fair and worth doing.

J.E. Dyer on August 31, 2010 at 11:51 AM

“It’s amazing how the left refuses to acknowledge the bigots in its own history.”

“If you want a really unbelievable look at who the party of racists was”

” it’s they who are the real bigots”

What a pile of party-blindered obnoxious sh*t.
At least I have the objectivity to say there was and is a problem on both sides.
This Yourish clown chooses to bedwet about racism on the Dem side as a retaliation and completely ignores any reality that makes the right look bad.

Any intelligent discussion about racism in politics requires that you call out the racists on both sides. Otherwise you’re just another poartisan as*hole.

This article is just another childish tantrum that simply furthers the retarded way both sides approach racism, that being WAA WAAA YOUR SIDE DOES IT.

Again, Yourish needs to grow up.

Dave Rywall on August 31, 2010 at 11:53 AM

Racist iceholes are not the driving factor on either side of our political divide. If Mr. Rywall wouldn’t agree with that, then his bias toward one side is obvious.

Saletan clearly adopts the position that racism is and has been a big part of right-wing politics for decades, and Meryl Yourish calls him out on it. Fair and worth doing.

J.E. Dyer on August 31, 2010 at 11:51 AM
—–
Saletan’s an idiot for doing exactly what Yourish is doing. They are two peas in a stupid pod.

Dave Rywall on August 31, 2010 at 11:55 AM

Poor little Davey doesn’t like it when his team is called for a foul.

I’ve got news for him. If you lie, you’d better expect to get called out on it. Suck it up, or start being honest in your dealings.

Vancomycin on August 31, 2010 at 11:58 AM

Poor little Davey doesn’t like it when his team is called for a foul.

I’ve got news for him. If you lie, you’d better expect to get called out on it. Suck it up, or start being honest in your dealings.

Vancomycin on August 31, 2010 at 11:58 AM
—–

Wrong, idiot. Read my posts.
I call out any and all racists.
And since I’m not from your country, I couldn’t give a sh*t what side they’re on.

Are you willing to call out the racists on both sides of the aisle?
Or are you just another little party flag waver?

Dave Rywall on August 31, 2010 at 12:01 PM

Saletan would just rebut you with the claim that all the “conservatives” crossed over from D to R, and all the “liberals” crossed from R to D, in a mass movement, because of some aspect of Nixon’s campaign strategy. They really believe this.

I still haven’t found an effective way to argue against this clearly preposterous assertion. (You can tell, just by the fact that they’re saying it, that they have a compelling need to rationalize their continuance of the tradition of slavery and racism.) You can generally shut them up by asking them to name a single Republican policy that isn’t color blind, or to name a single major Democrat policy that doesn’t have race in it. (But I suspect they just go away angrier, not wiser.)

joe_doufu on August 31, 2010 at 12:01 PM

This Yourish clown chooses to bedwet about racism on the Dem side as a retaliation and completely ignores any reality that makes the right look bad.

Dave Rywall on August 31, 2010 at 11:53 AM

See, the problem you have is that Yourish is looking at a specific example that Saletan has laid out: namely, that the “political descendants of George Wallace” are the same people that were at the 8-28 rally.

Yourish disputes that by using a specific example that the people who opposed the civil rights movement (George Wallace’s political allies, etc.) were Democrats, and therefore the “political descendants of George Wallace” are, in fact, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, etc.

My bet would be that Yourish would indeed admit that there are racists on the right. But the argument over the “political descendants of George Wallace” needs to be an honest one. The Democrats can’t just decide that they have no racism in their past. You can’t just disown the Democratic bigots by pretending that they never existed.

The first step in solving your problem (racism within a party) is admitting it took place. Saletan wishes away the past without acknowledging what actually took place.

Abby Adams on August 31, 2010 at 12:03 PM

Abby Adams on August 31, 2010 at 12:03 PM
——
YES

THANK YOU

Dave Rywall on August 31, 2010 at 12:07 PM

Wrong, idiot. Read my posts.
I call out any and all racists.
And since I’m not from your country, I couldn’t give a sh*t what side they’re on.

Are you willing to call out the racists on both sides of the aisle?
Or are you just another little party flag waver?

Dave Rywall on August 31, 2010 at 12:01 PM

YES

THANK YOU

Dave Rywall on August 31, 2010 at 12:07 PM

Don’t be too quick with the exultation, Rywall. The piece is a written counterpunch to a Leftist talking about Rightists owning racism.

Even your microscopic brain ought be able to understand the logic. I know it’s difficult for you to be honest in your criticisms, but it would make you a more useful idiot if you would at least feign the attempt.

KinleyArdal on August 31, 2010 at 12:13 PM

Don’t be too quick with the exultation, Rywall. The piece is a written counterpunch to a Leftist talking about Rightists owning racism.

Even your microscopic brain ought be able to understand the logic. I know it’s difficult for you to be honest in your criticisms, but it would make you a more useful idiot if you would at least feign the attempt.

KinleyArdal on August 31, 2010 at 12:13 PM
——
Saletan’s initial punch was ludicrous, obnoxious and childish
Yourish’s counterpunch is ludicrous, obnoxious and childish

Nobody has the balls to take the high road. Everybody loves it in the gutter.

The right does not own and never did own racism.

Dave Rywall on August 31, 2010 at 12:17 PM

Mr. Rywall,

The biggest logic hole in your argument is the underpinning world views of the Left and Conservatives.

The left strongly believes in collectivism and group identity. Conservatives focus on individuals.
In a world that knows about single nucleotide polymorphisms, why are you harping on melanin distribution? Your world outlook may need some updating from the 19th Century. I will not say grow up, rather, why don’t you study DNA biochemistry and genetics? You are tiresome and jejune otherwise.

NaCly dog on August 31, 2010 at 12:18 PM

Mr. Rywall,

The biggest logic hole in your argument is the underpinning world views of the Left and Conservatives.

The left strongly believes in collectivism and group identity. Conservatives focus on individuals.
In a world that knows about single nucleotide polymorphisms, why are you harping on melanin distribution? Your world outlook may need some updating from the 19th Century. I will not say grow up, rather, why don’t you study DNA biochemistry and genetics? You are tiresome and jejune otherwise.

NaCly dog on August 31, 2010 at 12:18 PM
———
I’m harping on the childish hypocritical pot-kettle way both sides talk about it.

“The left strongly believes in collectivism and group identity. Conservatives focus on individuals.”

A functioning society is based on an enormous amount of collectivism. Maybe you should move to Somalia and enjoy less of it and see how that works out.

Dave Rywall on August 31, 2010 at 12:28 PM

The rapidity of the left using the term “racist” to describe any opponent or their “arguments”, rather than using reason or logic in debate is comparable to chimps screaming and flinging poo, and has the same cause…low intelligence.

trl on August 31, 2010 at 4:19 PM

A functioning society is based on an enormous amount of collectivism.
Dave Rywall on August 31, 2010 at 12:28 PM

In Soviet Russia, society collects you.

Inanemergencydial on August 31, 2010 at 9:09 PM