Morality and Race

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?

21 Comments

  1. Jazzy says:

    To answer your question NO it should not, unless you know that individual believes the same very way. This goes back to freedom of speech you can not censor people and still call this a democracy. For example, say some do gooder was to open a facility for the black elderly population where they could receive treatment, answers to medical questions and the like and this facility operated solely on donations. If Louis Farrakhan voiced his support then should all of the donations dry up because of his endorsement? I would think you would say no.

    And why is this posted under wp vs bp? Just curious

  2. Phelps says:

    Because 90% of black people vote for Barack over Hillary. I can’t help but think that a significant portion of those are voting strictly race and nothing else. That makes them racist to me.

  3. JAZZY says:

    Are you kidding me? So the fact that Hilliary has a LARGE number of women voters what does that make women that vote for her because of that and nothing else.

  4. Phelps says:

    No, I am not kidding you. And I agree that a large number of women voting for Hillary are voting for her simply because she is a woman. Not all of either group, but a significant portion.

    I rank racism as worse than sexism. You might judge it differently.

  5. JAZZY says:

    Ok so you want to throw the “R” word around well I’m voting for Obama I think he has a sound plan for change that this country needs (and if you have not READ his plan for change located on his website please do; you might LEARN something) and no it does not hurt him in the least bit that he and I happen to be the same shade.

  6. Phelps says:

    Most people who vote for any candidate are uninformed. Most people vote party loyalty (general election) and most people who vote in a primary vote name recognition, which should vote for Hillary. Virtually all (and yes, 90% is virtually all) black people just happen to be voting for the guy who looks black, and I’m supposed to think it is about the issues?

    As I said a few weeks ago, if you told me that the Republicans were running a white candidate and a black candidate, and black voters split 50-50, but white voters voted 90-10 for the white guy, I would say that the white voters were racists. The opposite still applies.

  7. Phelps says:

    I read his Blueprint for Change months ago; I am now stupider for having done so. There’s no point in me fisking it point by point. Unless Obama ends up with the nomination, that is.

  8. JAZZY says:

    Phelps, mmm let me think about this. 90% of black people voting for a candidate makes them racist because you believe the VAST amount of that percentage are UNEDUCATED about the issues. Ok so what about the vast amount of white Americans who are voting for Obama are the then color blind or is it because they are white therefore they must have some knowledge of the issues which justifies there vote

  9. Phelps says:

    I think that most of the white people voting for Obama are voting against Hillary. I’m not sure how much of it is “Hillary doesn’t oppose the war enough” and how much is “I just don’t liker her.” And I am not saying that the vast majority of black voters are ignorant of the issues; I am saying that most voters are ignorant of the issues. People in the blogosphere are the exception, not the rule. We are the ones who influence that vast majority in how they vote.

  10. Jazzy says:

    “I think that most of the white people voting for Obama are voting against Hillary”

    MMM so this means that white people could not possible be interseted in a viable black canadiate.

    And YES you did say the vast majority of black voters are ignorant of the issues and they are voting on his race alone. Scroll back and actually read what you type

  11. Phelps says:

    Yes, the majority of black voters are ignorant, because the majority of voters are ignorant and black voters are voters. Let’s take a look at what I wrote:

    Most people who vote for any candidate are uninformed.

    Yup, that looks like it.

    Yes, white people could possibly be interested in a viable black candidate. I am certain that there are a certain number of those. I think it is more likely that they are interested in a viable candidate who might or might not be black.

    Let’s get back to the point, though. If black people were split 50-50 on Obama, and white people were voting 90-10 for Hillary, would you think it is because a large percentage of the people voting for Hillary were racists?

  12. mexigogue says:

    Actually it’s quite clear that black people are voting their skin color in voting for Obama. But black people have been voting as a herd for years, which is part of the reason that the democrats never really had to pay them that much attention before because they’ve always been owned by the democratic party, bought and paid for. I think the reason for this herd voting is that a large number of black voters view this as an “us” vesus “them” situation. Normally any viable democratic candidate would do as an “us” but since there is a viable black candidate this time, he is of course going to be the obvious “us”. Is this racist? Of course it is.

    The funny thing is that the black community often identifies with an “us” who really isn’t one of their own, but they don’t get that because they judge by skin color. Remember black people saying that Clarence Thomas was only getting hit with sex harassment charges because white people were trying to keep black people down? Then of course many of these same black people were shocked when, as Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas sided against many of the black community’s favorite issues (affirmative action among other things). Then again many black people identified with O.J. during his trial even though by all appearances O.J. didn’t advocate for civil rights issues and ditched his black wife for a white one when he attained superstardom. Not that I begrudge O.J. his right to be whoever he wants to be, I’m just saying that black people often judge by race and their allegiances don’t necessarily pan out.

    As another aside, the media keeps saying Obama is trying to be the first black President. I don’t think he’s trying to do that at all. I think he’s trying to be the 44th U.S. President. My guess is that if he’s elected the black community may be in for another letdown. People should judge by issues, not by identity.

  13. Jazzy says:

    @Phelps: The answer to your question would be no. I might assume that its name recognition more than anything. Especially if the black were split 50-50 as you say.

  14. Jazzy says:

    @mexigogue
    It’s quite clear that black people are voting their skin color. And where did you receive this information. Are black people now being polled as they exit and asked if they are voting for Obama because he’s black (last time I heard he was bi-racial, but whatever the one drop rule is still in effect I see).

    And the bought and paid for comment I take specific offense to. No one is entitled to MY vote I give it to whomI feel has MY best interest at heart, if that person is a Republican then so be it.

    “ My guess is that if he’s elected the black community may be in for another letdown.”

    Whenever I hear this argument whether it’s from black people or people who feel the wrath of the black community will descend when Obama is elected president is beyond ignorance.

    And your examples of Clarence Thomas and O.J. are speaking solely to those people that fall into herd mentality. Professional black people have to make concessions and compromises on a DAILY basis that the herd mentality you are speaking of would be against. You guys need to change the circle of black people you know or either stop watching the nightly news not all black people and the majority don’t fall into this herd mentality you are describing

  15. Phelps says:

    (last time I heard he was bi-racial, but whatever the one drop rule is still in effect I see).

    I’ve been back and forth over the whole “what is race” issue. What I eventually came down to is, “I don’t buy any of it, but I will call you whatever you want to be called.” Obama self identifies as black, so I will call him black. Tiger Woods does not, so I won’t call him black.

  16. mexigogue says:

    You can take offense to the bought and paid for comment all you want, the fact is the Democratic Party does not have to work for the black vote, it’s something that’s taken for granted, sort of like an extra-point.

    As far as the one-drop rule, that came down from slavery days and most black people I know still buy into it. I’ve never bought it as it makes no sense.

    Lastly, what do you mean by your statement that most black people don’t fall into the herd mentality? How then do you explain 90% of black democrats voting for Obama? Or an overwhelming percentage (I can’t remember exactly how much) supporting Bill Clinton back when it was popular to say that he was the first black President (which is even more funny now that the Clintons are blatantly playing the white card in this primary)? I don’t think “most” means what you think it does.

  17. Jazzy says:

    @Phelps Obama self identifies as black, so I will call him black. Tiger Woods does not, so I won’t call him black.

    Ok I’m trying really hard not to laugh at this statment but the fact of the matter is you may not call him Tiger Woods black but that’s what you see, it’s human nature and nothing wrong with it in the least.

  18. Phelps says:

    I think that what you are experiencing is called “projection.”

  19. Jazzy says:

    “You can take offense to the bought and paid for comment all you want, the fact is the Democratic Party does not have to work for the black vote, it’s something that’s taken for granted, sort of like an extra-point.”
    You are correct in saying the Democratic Party has not had to work hard for the black vote, but I believe the same can be said for the Republican party and Hispanics. What I choose to take offense to was your reference that black people are once again on the auction block for sale!

    “I don’t think “most” means what you think it does.”

    Then please explain most in the terms you mean because its obvious I’m being obtuse about it, right?

  20. Jazzy says:

    @Phelps now I am laughing, but thanks for psychoanalysis

  21. R says:

    90% of any type of population leaning in one particular direction is a statistical phenomenon on its own. This type of discrepancy would lead someone to believe that there is an enormous difference between the choice that 90% of the people have elected vs. the choice that the remaining 10% have elected.

    Obviously, candidate X with 90% of a population’s vote appeals to more people can candidate Y. But why? We must study the differences between the two candidates.

    Politically, there are small differences between Hillary’s and Barack’s proposals and to whom they’re attempting to appeal. They’re both competing against each other for the same types of voters. Hillary says she’s more electable amongst blue-collar whites whereas Barack says he is just as electable. They each want to shrug off the “elitist” moniker in order to go after the same constituency.

    Their plans are nearly identical (the differences in implementation details are irrelevant), their socio-economic targets are identical. So what other differences do they have?

    Oh, one is a white woman and the other is a black male. By the way, the population in question is the black American voters.

    If Obama was campaigning for reparations and Clinton was not, I could see a rational correlation for the numbers. But there are negligible policy differences and zero differences in their target base (by socio-economic status). Nor, if we look at the population, are there 9 black men for every 1 black woman.

    I also agree that the majority of black voters are voting for Obama based on race alone. I mean, if it was Hillary and a Mexican-American man, and their policies were exactly the same, I’d be pulling for Pedro myself.

    (I also agree with the latent race AND gender issues present in the media. They always, always, always comment about how Hillary could be the first female president or Barack the first black president. Instead of the next president.)