The Everlasting Phelps

Cobraalaalaalaalaa!

It is easy to vote against a racist.  When a candidate espouses racist views, then my vote is decided — anyone but him.  But what is your moral obligation when it is the supporters of a candidate that are racist?

Earlier in the campaign, Ronpaul2008.com (who in my mind is a distinct entity from the Ron Paul I’ve followed over the last 12 years) had a lot of supporters.  Well, a few very vocal supporters.  And more than a few of them were unsavory types.  Truthers were rampant.  More disturbingly than even that was the Stormfront types.  They gave money to ronpaul2008.com.  They stumped for him.  They gave youtube endorsements.  I have no doubt that they were sincere, since these people are too stupid and too excited to put on a false front.

What does it say about a candidate when he attracts racists like flies to dung?  Should this be setting off warning bells for me?  (It does, but the question is, should it?)  When David Duke endorses a candidate, should we be paying attention?  Likewise, when Hamas and Al Queda weigh in with their choices, should we be going the other way?

I’ve been thinking a lot about this interview, especially in relation to the comments that I’ve been getting in other threads. This is the sort if thing that I have intuited a long time ago:

Half of the difference between conservatives and liberals is demographic. It has to do with religion and marriage, which is more frequent among conservatives. The real question is why is the other half unexplained? Conservatives have a different orientation. Conservatives think there is a lot of opportunity in America. A lot of liberals feel this way, too, but conservatives overwhelmingly believe if you go around and work hard and persevere, you’re going to get ahead, as opposed to you are a victim of circumstance or oppression and you are screwed in life. Again, that might be right, but it’s not happy.

People involved in any level of politics are trying to influence you in a certain way. (That includes people who mix politics with other things, like Wright.) They have incentives to make you think and feel certain ways. They win when they get the reaction from you that is to their advantage.

The right wins when people feel happy and strong. When we think that we can make it on our own, we want a conservative government. When we think that we can defend ourselves against all comers, we want a conservative government. When we think that the sky is the limit, we want a conservative government. The right has an incentive to make you happy.

The left wins when people feel oppressed and vulnerable. When we feel like everyone around us is out to get us, we want a liberal government. When we feel like the only reason we haven’t been shot is because the other guy doesn’t have a gun, we want a liberal government. When we feel like we are living hand to mouth and the ends will stop meeting any day now, we want a liberal government. When we feel like our situation is miserable, we want a liberal government. The left has an incentive to make you desperate.

I’m not saying that “every liberal out there is plotting to make you feel desperate”, any more than I am saying that every conservative is sitting around thinking, “what can make this guy feel happy?” (If that was the case, you would see more push for drug decriminalization from the right.) I am saying that when the left looks back at the things that give them victories, they are also things that feed on desperation. When the right looks back on things that have given them victories, they are things that feed on (usually an already present) happiness.

Look at the changes of power recent history. Clinton came into office when people were in despair over the recession of the GHB final years, and the feeling of betrayal over “read my lips.” GWB came into office on the tail end of the dot.com boom. The ‘94 revolution came at the start of the dot.com boom. The ‘06 revolution came in the despair over the Iraq war.

This is the question that each of us needs to answer for himself, and there are so many shades of gray that there can be no right or wrong answer. Do you want to be a part of the group that capitalizes on the good times, or do you want to be part of the group that is in power when everyone else is miserable. More importantly, do you want to end up in the group that stays in power as long as the people are happy, or the group that can stay in power only when people are desperate?

There is a lot of power in the words of the Operative from Serenity. “I believe in something greater than myself. A better world. I’m not going to live there. I have no illusions about it, but it must be done.” I can see where someone could believe in that.

I believe that it is a siren song.

If you are going to vote for a politician no matter what they do, they have no reason to listen to you.

Maybe I am in an echo chamber. I seriously could not conceive of hearing this amongst my friends. But then, my friends aren’t hard corps leftists. We’ve (Republicans) got lots of things to say about the places where we are unpopular, but they don’t include maligning two unrelated groups at the same time, and they have to do with someone’s ideas, not his color. Jeez, what is it with these people?

I was thinking about this last night. There are black people that seem really touchy about everything to me. But because the only observations I have of them is when they are interacting with a white person (me), I don’t know whether or not they have a constant ‘tude going, or if it is only when they are around white people. (I would actually feel better if I knew they were 24/7 asses rather than just asses to white people.) Black people have to have the same problem with white people. Black people can’t tell if a white person is on his best behavior when they are around, or if he really does think like that.

First, white people do tip-toe around most black people. It is what we have been trained to do, because the consequences of being labeled a racist are so dire. But we really don’t start bigotting out as soon as black people leave the room.

The real test comes when someone does make an offhand remark that comes off as racist (sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t.) First, there is silence. Sometimes you get a nervous laugh from people around, like, “uh… was that sarcasm? A messed up joke?” Most of the time, the person will say, “wait, that came out wrong.” Because it did. But there is no question — it is embarrassing. To everyone who heard it. We know that racism was real. We are embarrassed by it. No one likes to be embarrassed. (That’s what the whole “Porch Monkeys” scene in Clerks 2 was riffing on — flipping that situation around.) And if the person who said it isn’t embarrassed by it, then we all start assuming that the person is a bigot. We’ll give really old men and women a pass on it sometimes (like you do everything crazy that old people do), as long as they don’t embarrass us in public. But we know who they are, and we keep their hands off the switches.

That is what is so surreal about that clip. No one seems to be embarrassed. I’m actually hoping that someone jumped his shit right as the video ended, but I suspect sadly that this isn’t the case.

Update: Case in point on the nervous laughter.  (And for the record, no, it isn’t a song, it is a continuation of the racist stereotype that black men are sexual beasts out to steal all the white women.)

We desperately need for black people and white people in this country to communicate. I don’t see that happening with this. When Wright first hit the media, we started to get some talking going. And then people entrenched and the dialog stopped. We got lectures going both ways. And things started getting missed.

One of the things that has been getting missed may have shown itself to me. I’ve referred to it, but I’ve only seen one afro-centric blogger even make reference to it. And it is something that, and I’m speaking from the heart here, black people — sends white people into a white hot rage. This accusation will not stand. And it is what I think really has white people pissed the F off about Wright.

We will not abide being accused of genocide. That is what Wright’s “the government created AIDS” line is. It is an accusation that white people have attempted — in our lifetimes — to exterminate black people as a race.

White people get rightly pissed off at this concept. We have reason to. We’ve committed acts of attempted genocide before, and that is exactly what Carmen pointed to. That is why we won’t abide it. Yes, smallpox ridden blankets were given to Indians. Yes, Cortez introduced all sorts of diseases to the native Mexicans. That is why we are touchy about it. We’ve put it behind us as best we have and are striving to the be the sorts of people who have no connection to it. To make the accusation makes it seem like we will never be beyond it, and begs the question of why we even try.

The Germans are touchy about anything to do with the Nazis, and doubly so in regards to anything to do with Gypsies or Jews. That is how it should be. That wound should be raw. By the same token, you should not poke at the wound frivolously. And that is exactly what Wright is doing with his offhand, “oh, and by the way, Amerikkka created AIDS to kill black people” remarks. When you accuse White people of trying to exterminate Black people, all converstation is over. You are no longer a credible person. Three things go through that white person’s mind:

1. I would never try to kill all black people.
2. This person just accused me of being part of trying to kill all black people.
3. This N’s crazy.

That’s all there is to it. It is no more rational or logical than the accusation that set if off, but that is just how it is.

You can’t credibly, at the same time, hold the beliefs that: black America has problems because white people think badly of black people and; the way to help black people is by pissing white people off about black people. The two are mutually exclusive. White people believe everything. We believe in the American dream. We believe that people should be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. We believe that hard work and a good attitude is all that you need to succeed in America. When black people shit on those beliefs, it puts us on the defensive.

So, you have two ways to look at it. 1) White people are ignorant of the plight of black people, and need to be informed, but, you have to be careful and not trip the genocide (or personal racism) circuit breakers, or 2) Honkeys are genetically evil.

You can be careful. I know that because white people all over America are careful every day. We are careful not to use phrases that we freely use to describe other white people (like ape, monkey or boy) to describe black people, and we get by. If you can get by the whole “white people are tying to come up with some super virus that will kill all black people but leave white people alone like some James Bond villain” thing, then we will be a lot closer to reconciliation.

Via Rachel Lucas:

Suppose you were elected Temporary Supreme Dictator of America.

What are 10 laws you would pass/repeal or government programs you would create/tear down? (Assume that you are in office for however long it would take to do these things and that any changes you make will remain in place after you leave office.)

1. Repeal the 17th Amendment.
2. Repeal the NFA of 34 and all gun laws since.
3. Eliminate the government enforcement of the legal and medical cartels. Included in this is all control over prescriptions and scheduling of drugs. (Yes, this would also end drug prohibition.)
4. Convert all government immunity to limited immunity, starting with investigators and prosecutors.
5. Prohibit Congress from delegating its legislative functions to regulatory agencies.
6. Sunset all acts of Congress eight years after passage other than the ratification of treaties.
7. Suspend for two years the franchise of anyone who accepts government largess, including welfare, unemployment benefits, college grants, farm subsidies, etc. (Benefits from actual government service, both civil and military, do not apply.)
8. Jury trials for all eminent domain or asset forfeiture proceedings.
9. Eliminate the EPA. Institute strict liability for environmental claims, requiring clear and convincing evidence of causation.
10. Require a speedy trial (within 14 days) by jury for all family law matters, including child protection and child custody matters.

That would go a long way, and I picked things that I thought would have the least pushback compared to what they accomplish.

What would you do?