Gingrich Panders in SC

How many more electoral cycles will we have to endure this ritual?

Via Think Progress:  Gingrich Defends South Carolina’s Decision To Fly Confederate Flag At Capital

At an event in South Carolina yesterday, Newt Gingrich was asked by a town hall participant to offer his views regarding the state’s decision to fly the Confederate flag at the statehouse in Columbia. The woman’s question was met with a smattering of boos from the audience.

“I have a very strong opinion,” Gingrich said, prefacing his weak response. “It’s up to the people of South Carolina.”

This is an issue that I have grown increasingly impatient about over the years.  Recognizing that, legally, the ability to fly said flag is in the hands of the SC government, that does not mean that it is the right thing to do or that candidates for office ought to pander on the issue.  In other words, Gingrich is right:  it is ultimately a decision and a fight for South Carolinians.  That fact, however, does not mean that he is not allowed to have a position on the subject.

Here’s the video:

The flag in question, the confederate battle flag, was/is flown for the following five reasons:

1.  A banner flown on the battle field in the cause of rebellion against the United States government and the US Constitution.

2.  A banner flown in support of maintaining slavery.

3.  A banner raised in the 1950s as a signal of opposition to desegregation (and as a sign of resistance to federal attempts at ending segregation).

4.  A banner flown as a symbol of contemporary neoconfederate ideas.

5.  A banner flown as a vague expression of “southern pride/heritage.”

Of the the five listed, only the fifth is even vaguely defensible (and I include it because there are a lot of people in southeast profess it).   It is only “vaguely” defensible because of the five listed, it is the only one with an acceptable motive.  However, as Ta-Neishi Coates wrote back in 2009:

But if the flag’s defenders aren’t racist (which I can accept) the necessary conclusion, while banal and common, isn’t anymore comforting–a shocking ignorance of one’s own history.

[…]

In terms of the confederate flag, the people claiming “not a racist” are the same people who name their parks, roads, and squares after generals who served in an army of white supremacy. Or they are  the same people who remain willfully ignorant that this is being done in their name.

So, to sum up:  the first four are indefensible (save from the perspective of a white supremacist) and the fifth is only defensible from a position of ignorance (willful or otherwise).  I would underscore:  the first four are incontrovertibly true.  As such, one has to really consider what one is defending if one defends this symbol.

A parting thought, number five is part of the ongoing personality disorder of the modern south, where the city of Montgomery can have the following seal:

The Seal that Speaks Volumes

In regards to South Carolina: there is something profoundly wrong with the SC GOP that every four years some Republican candidate (if not candidates) feel the need to pander on this subject.

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2012, US Politics
Steven L. Taylor
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a Professor of Political Science and a College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog). Follow Steven on Twitter

Comments

  1. ponce says:

    Birthplace of treason is more accurate.

  2. Ernieyeball says:

    The Confederate Flag is not the flag of the United States of America. It is the flag of some other country. I am sure that people who display that flag and claim it as their own will be happy to carry a Green Card and present it to United States officials on demand!

  3. Hey Norm says:

    Gingrich is just a big cuddly pander bear.

  4. rudderpedals says:

    Gently disagree with Steven that it’s pandering. I see it as an admission against interest.

  5. de stijl says:

    Steven,

    Of the the five listed, only the fourth is even vaguely defensible…

    I believe you meant to write “fifth” or “last” here

  6. de stijl says:

    In regards to both South Carolina and Georgia, based on the time when their flags were adopted, the answer is undoubtedly:

    3. A banner raised in the 1950s as a signal of opposition to desegregation (and as a sign of resistance to federal attempts at ending segregation).

    They are both “defiant” symbols in support if Segregation and Jim Crow.

  7. @de stijl: Many thanks. At one point I had only 4 items listed and I failed to fix that entire sentence (until now, of course!).

  8. de stijl says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    Happy to help. I don’t see you as a big League of the South / Neo-Confederate fan 😉

  9. Fiona says:

    How much moral courage does it take to say that, while the decision belongs to the people of South Carolina, given the flag’s history and all of the negative and racist connotations that accompany it, the wise choice would be to eschew from flying it? Apparently a lot more than Gingrich or most of his cohorts in the GOP have.

    How long is it going to take the South to realize that they lost the war?

  10. superdestroyer says:

    Considering that the U.S. will soon be a one-party-state and that politics will be about group identity, group benefits, and rent seeking, the pandering will continue until whites as become such a small demographic group in the U.S. that politicians feel comfortable in ignoring whites altogether.

  11. @Fiona:

    How much moral courage does it take to say that, while the decision belongs to the people of South Carolina, given the flag’s history and all of the negative and racist connotations that accompany it, the wise choice would be to eschew from flying it? Apparently a lot more than Gingrich or most of his cohorts in the GOP have.

    Indeed.

  12. michael reynolds says:

    Thanks, SuperD for making my argument: that the GOP still contains a large number of unreconstructed racists. The GOP cannot win a national election without those racist votes. So the GOP panders to racists.

    It’s really not much of a mystery. The GOP deliberately opened its arms to racists who had been shut out by their former home, the Democratic Party. The Democrats did the right thing, to their credit. The Republicans did the wrong thing, to their shame.

  13. @superdestroyer: Indeed. I hear tell that once the Democrats are able to select the Hegemon to rule over us that all us pale folk will all be sprayed with numerous layers of fake tan.

    Fear the future!

  14. WR says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: “I hear tell that once the Democrats are able to select the Hegemon to rule over us that all us pale folk will all be sprayed with numerous layers of fake tan.”

    Oh, my God. That can only mean that John Boehner is secretly a Democrat… which explains a lot about the last couple of weeks.

  15. superdestroyer says:

    @michael reynolds:

    Most of those unreconstructed segregationist voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976. The south did not become dependably Republican until the 1990’s or until most of the people who supported George Wallace was dead.

    However, since the Democratic party has become so anti-middle class white, the Democrats have pushed many whites into the Republican Party. Look at how the Democrats kept supporting forced busing in the Raleigh North Carolina area even after the majority of voters had rejected the idea.

    As long as the Democrats take one position in the public life and the opposite position in their personal life, the Republican Party will be the defacto white party. However, as the white demographic shrinks, there is no way that the Republican or any conservative party will survive. Then the U.S. will have the politics of Mexico (one dominate party ans massive corruption).

  16. Blue Shark says:

    How many more electoral cycles will we have to endure this ritual?

    …How long will there be a Republican Party?

  17. Peter says:

    @superdestroyer:
    You really seem to miss the days when a total failure of a white man could say to himself “at least I’m not a n@##%amp;r “.

  18. sam says:

    @superdestroyer – Saturday, December 24, 2011 at 15:19

    Dude never disappoints, does he?

  19. superdestroyer says:

    @sam:

    why would most of the private sector employed, middle class whites want to support the Democratic party. The Democratic Party supports affirmative action, quotas, race norming, and forced busing, and racial gerrymandering. The blue collar and middle class whites in South Carolina live in a state with a large percentage of the population is african-amercian. Every decision in South Carolina, where to live, work, educated your children, shop, or even eat is affected by race. Of course one party is going to be better at appeal to whites.

    Look at how little effort the Democratic party in states like South Carolina put into appealing to middle class and blue collar whites. The only response that Democrats have is to call blue collar whites racist and tell them to shut up and do what others tell them to do.

  20. PogueMahone says:

    However, since the Democratic party has become so anti-middle class white

    Yes, I can tell you from experience as a white, middle-class male, age 25-40, I’ve had it soooo rough. No one ever does anything for me…. 🙁

  21. Eric Florack says:

    So, to sum up: the first four are indefensible (save from the perspective of a white supremacist) and the fifth is only defensible from a position of ignorance (willful or otherwise).

    Obviously, the majority there feel differently. Fortunately, for them,their will prevails, not yours.

  22. ponce says:

    Fortunately, for them,their will prevails, not yours.

    As today’s Justice Dept. ruling shows, you’re wrong, Eric.

    In addition to being a traitor state, South Carolina is also a probationary state that needs the approval of the Federal Government on issues that real American states are allowed to decide for themselves.

  23. MM says:

    @Eric Florack: Well, as long as they feel it’s defensible, for facts are elitist, and therefore for libs

  24. Eric Florack says:

    In addition to being a traitor state, South Carolina is also a probationary state that needs the approval of the Federal Government on issues that real American states are allowed to decide for themselves.

    Interesting that you should bring that up, given that that’s what the Civil War was about in the first place, not slavery, particularly.
    Again, in a free society that’s their right to choose not yours.
    Are you really arguing against that freedom?

  25. Sam Penrose says:

    Really appreciate your posting this, Steven. Thank you.

    WRT “how to discuss the people who approve of flying the Confederate flag”, I am trying out “Sons of the Old Confederacy.” It emphasizes the core of the issue while avoiding the bowdlerism of “Southern Pride” and the inflammatory rhetoric of “racism.” (Note that I think “racist” is quite accurate, but if you start with it, many people will tune you out.)

  26. MM says:

    @Eric Florack: Freedom means that they are not compelled by armed agents of the state to not fly their flag, not that they can’t be called out for it.

  27. ponce says:

    Are you really arguing against that freedom?

    I’m all for keeping the racist crackers who run South Carolina on a tight leash, but I would prefer just to kick the state out of the union altogether.

  28. Gustopher says:

    That’s quite a seal — very inclusive.

    Cradle of the Confederacy — ok, you got your traitors and racists covered.

    Birthplace of the civil rights movement — yup, lots of supreme court decisions against Alabama. And the Jim Crow laws were so bad there the blacks started getting all uppity and demanding their rights. So this honors both the racists and the oppressed.

    Star of David — wtf?

  29. James says:

    @Eric Florack:

    Are you really arguing against that freedom?

    Do you mean the freedom to hold human beings as property through a regime of legalized violence and terror? Or the freedom to be a bigot?

  30. DRS says:

    Who’s taking their freedom to fly their (loser) flag away from them, Eric? And other people are free to criticize that decision. Freedom’s funny that way.

  31. Davebo says:

    Are you really arguing against that freedom?

    Actually I’m all for advertising their choice.

  32. Console says:

    @Eric Florack:

    Ah yes, the “freedom” to make it harder for people to vote. A “freedom” that was taken away because of a past that involved South Carolina ignoring actual rights like those in the 15th amendment…

    Speaking of the 15th amendment,yes, voting is a right… not a privilege. So don’t even go down that path of nonsense.

  33. Jim Henley says:

    The confederate apologism in this thread reminds me that I like to say, “I’m not a self-hating white man. It’s these other fuckers I can’t stand.

  34. @superdestroyer:

    The only response that Democrats have is to call blue collar whites racist and tell them to shut up and do what others tell them to do.

    Th claim that the GOP is the party of the blue collar worker seems a bit strained (he said politely and with understatement) given its anti-union positions, at a minimum (not to mention its free trade positions). Neither of those, especially the union stance, can be construed as pro-blue collar. Nor, for that matter, can its tax policy (which is decidedly skewed in favor of the upper class).

    Your claims are, therefore, make like sense–unless, really, all you are worried about are things like affirmative action and civil rights (and your specific interpretations thereof). As such, it is rather clear that your position is focused on the “whites” part of “blue collar whites” and that, further, you have a very specific interpretation of the entire racial component of the discussion.

  35. Just nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: Good to see that you read and pay attention to the thread (not that I doubted it at all, mind you). Now, in defense of Newt (something I never expected that I would say even once–and I am now defending him twice), what do you expect him to say in response to that question in that venue, knowing that in addition to the South Carolinians his party is chockablock full of unreconstructed crackers such as SD and Eric? He’s only a politician–I would say “a lying weasel in a suit” but that seems unfair to all the other weasels in suits who would be offended at being called politicians (weasels have principles, after all).

    It seems to me that he has three choices:

    1. he can go into his tap-dance routine–while acknowledging the fact that even you note is true (it’s up to the citizens of the state) OR

    2. he can express his objections as eloquently as Ms. Coates and Fiona do–and completely doom his chances to win any SC delegates at all (because at least one of his morally courageous opponents will be willing to pander for the votes of SC crackers) OR

    3. he can endorse their freedom of speech (possibly being true to his own demons, I don’t know), secure the approval of the SDs and Erics out in the hustings but writing off any chance of winning primaries outside of Dixieland (or worse yet showing that the GOP really are the unreconstructed bigots that MR accuses them of being by winning the nomination with strong support from urban whites in the North and West).

    It seems to me that the question shoehorned him into God’s little acre–east of the rock and west of the hard place. While it would be nice to see someone show some principle on this question, I don’t look forward to it happening any time soon.

  36. superdestroyer says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    Democrats detest blue collar whites. To the leadership of the Democratic Party, any whites who did not get into a tier one college is worthless. Look at how Democrats have pushed wages down by pushing for open borders and unlimited immigration. Look at how Democrats have used racial gerrymandering to give blacks political power but to take it away from blue collar whites. Look at how blacks are over-represented in civil service and the postal service. Thus, blue collar blacks have job opportunities. Look at how Democrats work hard to reduce the number of whites in jobs like fire fighting but Democrats never care if a workplace is dominated by blacks (like Sanitation or jails).

    Look at the bluest cities in the U.S., Detroit, Baltimore Cleveland, NYC, Los Angeles, St Louis. Those cities are almost devoid of blue collar whites. Those cities represent the future for the U.S. and that future has no place for blue collar whites.

  37. Ben Wolf says:

    Ironic that SD would complain about identity politics:

    . . .the pandering will continue until whites as become such a small demographic group in the U.S. that politicians feel comfortable in ignoring whites altogether.

    However, since the Democratic party has become so anti-middle class white . . .

    As long as the Democrats take one position in the public life and the opposite position in their personal life, the Republican Party will be the defacto white party. However, as the white demographic shrinks, there is no way that the Republican or any conservative party will survive. Then the U.S. will have the politics of Mexico (one dominate party ans massive corruption).

    why would most of the private sector employed, middle class whites want to support the Democratic party.

    Look at how little effort the Democratic party in states like South Carolina put into appealing to middle class and blue collar whites.

    The only response that Democrats have is to call blue collar whites racist and tell them to shut up and do what others tell them to do.

    Democrats detest blue collar whites. To the leadership of the Democratic Party, any whites who did not get into a tier one college is worthless.

    Look at how Democrats have used racial gerrymandering to give blacks political power but to take it away from blue collar whites. Look at how blacks are over-represented in civil service and the postal service. Thus, blue collar blacks have job opportunities.

    Look at the bluest cities in the U.S., Detroit, Baltimore Cleveland, NYC, Los Angeles, St Louis. Those cities are almost devoid of blue collar whites. Those cities represent the future for the U.S. and that future has no place for blue collar whites.

    He goes to extraordinary lengths to make sure we know his tribal identity is blue collar, conservative and white white white white whitey whitie whitely-didetly white. White, got it?

    He is mot definitely not black black blackity black black liberal blackery-dackery white collar black. One can’t defend ones tribe without engaging in warfare against an opposing tribe, so he creates one to attack. SD is a case study in anthropology all by himself.

  38. DRS says:

    Superdestroyer: It’s Christmas Day and I’m going to strive to do that love-of-mankind thing to you. Please understand that both here and previously on Daniel Larison’s blog you come across like a raving lunatic. Please seek help before it’s too late. I’m sure your family loves you and would love to see you recover.

  39. Catfish says:

    Where I live, this flag is seen everywhere. It is no big deal. No one seems to pay it any attention.
    The problems are usually caused by northerners.

    “Old times there are not forgotten”

  40. Ben Wolf says:

    @Catfish:

    Where I live, this flag is seen everywhere. It is no big deal. No one seems to pay it any attention. The problems are usually caused by northerners.

    Translation: My tribe is great, the northern tribe causes all the problems.

  41. Stan says:

    @superdestroyer: The minority (Hispanic + African-American) percentage of Ohio’s population is about half that of the US as a whole and the minority percentage in Wisconsin is even smaller, and neither state has many limousine liberals. Yet Kashich’s union busting law was overturned by referendum in Ohio and there’s a fair chance that Scott Walker will be voted out of office later this year in a recall election. How does this fit into your analysis?

  42. Jim Henley says:

    @superdestroyer:

    Democrats detest blue collar whites. To the leadership of the Democratic Party, any whites who did not get into a tier one college is worthless.

    Okay, so we start with facts not in evidence. Great.

    To recap, if a Republican politician spends multiple decades publishing anti-black screeds under his own name we cannot possibly draw any conclusions about his attitude toward African-Americans, but we can be quite sure what’s in the hearts of “the leadership of the Democratic Party” on the basis of mind-reading.

    Look at how Democrats have pushed wages down by pushing for open borders and unlimited immigration.

    Of all the policies that push wages down – from the tax treatment of offshoring to federal reserve responses to “wage inflation” – it’s . . . striking that you pick the one that involves having more brown faces around.

    Look at how Democrats have used racial gerrymandering to give blacks political power but to take it away from blue collar whites.

    Facts not in evidence because they’re wrong. Republicans have pushed gerrymandering to cram blacks and latinos into majority-minority districts to maximize the number of white suburban/exurban districts.

    Look at how blacks are over-represented in civil service and the postal service. Thus, blue collar blacks have job opportunities. Look at how Democrats work hard to reduce the number of whites in jobs like fire fighting but Democrats never care if a workplace is dominated by blacks (like Sanitation or jails).

    Wait, are there whites out there trying to break the Black Lock on the garbage-man profession? If so, awesome! They can team up with all the African-Americans who want to be professional punters.

    But I think we have a classic example here of you falling for the big con because of your racial resentments. With the country’s population growth there should be more than enough fire-fighting (and police and so on) jobs to go around for “red and yellow, black and white.” Even given an entirely appropriate push to increase minority representation in those fields. (Where, de facto, jobs were often handed down within families from one [white] generation to the next.) But under austerity budgeting and policies that strip out urban tax bases, those fields can’t grow enough.

    Look at the bluest cities in the U.S., Detroit, Baltimore Cleveland, NYC, Los Angeles, St Louis. Those cities are almost devoid of blue collar whites. Those cities represent the future for the U.S. and that future has no place for blue collar whites.

    Don’t get out much?

    Past a certain point, it is your fault if you follow the left hand when the right hand is doing the actual trick.

  43. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @superdestroyer: This is as far as I can get into the nonsense that is an SD rant:

    Democrats detest blue collar whites.

    SD, I-am-a-blue-collar-white. I am a union carpenter with 30 years of experience putting sweat and more than a little blood into my job every day. And even a few tears.

    I used to vote GOP from time to time. Not anymore. Why? because I came to the realization that GOPers really don’t give a flying f**k about people like me. Or you. You are just too stupid to realize it.

  44. Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    Steven,
    Your question posed in the subhed – “How many more electoral cycles will we have to endure this ritual?” – deserves an answer:

    We have to endure this ritual until the GOP learns there is zero upside, but great peril, to playing along with the racists and their claptrap. And the GOP will only learn this through crushing electoral defeat.

  45. superdestroyer says:

    @OzarkHillbilly:

    When Jennifer Gratz whose parents were blue collar whites, sued the State of Michigan over being denied admission to the University of Michigan, it was Democrats who stood in front of every court involved in the lawsuit and argued that the government is perfectly legal when it discriminates against whites. Remember when Michigan had to make public its admission criteria for the University of Michigan and it showed that being black was worth more than having a 1600 (math-verbal) on the SAT.

    Remember when the Democrats stood in front of the Supreme Court and argued that being black was more important when hiring firemen than scoring high on tests.

    Blacks make up 20% of the civil service but make up only 10% of the workfoce. http://www.ipa.udel.edu/3tad/papers/workshop2/Kellough.pdf

    You should also look up the percentage of the public schools that are white in DC, Baltimore, NYC, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, St Louis, LA, SF, over any other city or county that is overwhelmingly blacks. I would for you to tell me the neighborhoods in DC, Chicago, Detroit where the blue collar whites live.

    Look at the attitudes displayed here. Blue collars whites are trash are deserve the separate and unequal treatment that the government gives them. No wonder that the Republicans get the majority of white voters and the Democratic Party gets the vast majority of non-white votes.

  46. superdestroyer says:

    @Gold Star for Robot Boy:

    Why does the U.S. need to parties that support affirmative action, quotas, race norming, and race based social engineering.

    You are just supporting my idea that it will end when the U.S. becomes a one party state where politics is about getting government goodies and sticking others with the costs.

  47. Ben Wolf says:

    @superdestroyer: No one but you has put the terms “blue collar” and “trash” together in the same sentence. Now tell us more about blacky-black and whitey-white, because we never get tired of reading the same comment over and over.

  48. DRS says:

    Seriously, he’s nuts and we should just ignore him. He’s drooling on the keyboard.

  49. steve says:

    “When Jennifer Gratz whose parents were blue collar whites, sued the State of Michigan over being denied admission to the University of Michigan”

    The idea that one day minorities had no civil rights when it came to getting jobs, and the next day we were all equal never made any sense. Human capital matters a lot, and it was pretty clear that many places were not going to enforce the law as long as possible. At this point, I would actually prefer that we stop racial preferences and do it on an income basis. As a university president said, I am pretty sure that an SAT of 2100 at an inner city or rural, poor school is probably equivalent to 2400 at a private prep school.

    ” I would for you to tell me the neighborhoods in DC, Chicago, Detroit where the blue collar whites live.”

    I only know Philadelphia very well anymore. Those areas would include South Philly, the Northeast, Upper Darby and Manayunk.

    Steve

  50. Eric Florack says:

    I’m all for keeping the racist crackers who run South Carolina on a tight leash, but I would prefer just to kick the state out of the union altogether.

    You’re barking up the wrong tree, there, Fido. This as nothing to do with race, save in your own trwisted mind.

    Facts not in evidence because they’re wrong.

    Actually they’re spot on.

    In 1982, the Voting Rights Act, with its emphasis on Southern states, was amended to encourage the creation of awkwardly named “majority-minority” districts in order to give black voters the strength of a bloc. I believed that drawing such districts was a progressive political tactic, a benign form of affirmative action that would usher more black members into a Congress that had admitted only a handful.

    The tactic worked. In 1980, there were only 18 blacks in the U.S. House of Representatives. Now, there are 44, many of them elected from districts drawn to meet the mandates of the Voting Rights Act.

    Unfortunately — like so many measures designed to provide redress for historic wrongs — those racially gerrymandered districts also come with a significant downside: They discourage moderation. Politicians seeking office in majority-black or –brown districts found that they could indulge in crude racial gamesmanship and left-wing histrionics.

    While black-packed districts yielded some quite respectable pols — including U.S. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) and U.S. Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), the third-highest ranking Democrat in the House — they also launched the Congressional careers of clownish legislators such as former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, last heard cozying up to the savage dictator Moammar Gadhafi.

  51. Liberty60 says:

    SD’s comments are an actual, living embodiment of that old line about how some people would be content to live under a bridge cooking a sparrow over a trash can fire, if only they were to be convinced that the black guy the next bridge over wouldn’t even get the sparrow.

    Sure, the policies of the GOP push down wages to guys like SD to where the best he can hope for is a minimum wage job picking up trash;
    but the black guy next door has to ride at the back of the bus! Boo yah! In your face, Al Sharpton!

  52. James says:

    @Eric Florack:

    The article you link doesn’t substantiate your point in the slightest bit. All it does is explain how “minority-majority” districts highlight and polarize an already racialized electorate. If you kept reading (or had intellectual honesty) you’d see:

    What do Republicans get out of the deal? With most black voters pushed into one or two districts, they have rid surrounding districts of voters who might shun a politician who claims allegiance to the Rebel flag or who insists that President Barack Obama is a foreigner. In other words, they make neighboring districts safe for ultra-conservative Republicans. (bold mine)

    I asked before and I’ll ask again. What ‘freedom’ are you defending here?

  53. Eric Florack says:

    The article you link doesn’t substantiate your point in the slightest bit.

    Usually 11 refers to gerrymandering, as they are accusing the right of gerrymandering to support their own racism. The article I quoted turns the tables. The author tried to pretty much ignore that point, but even she couldn’t ignore it entirely.

  54. James says:

    @Eric Florack:

    Usually 11 refers to gerrymandering,

    ???

    as they are accusing the right of gerrymandering to support their own racism.

    “they” being?

    The article I quoted turns the tables.

    No it doesn’t. I just makes a (very sensible) point that racialized quotas for congressional districts has very bad unintended consequences, and that conservatives have no qualms extolling on the virtues and cherishing the heritage of a society built on slave labor.

  55. @Eric Florack:

    This as nothing to do with race, save in your own trwisted mind.

    While I am not surprised you make that claim, it is absurd on its face. As I noted above, of the five possible reasons for flying that flag, four are overtly about race and the fifth is only not about race when one is ignoring history.

    SC in particular started flying that flag in the 50s in protests against desegregation, which is rather decidedly about race.

    And yes, I know you are not going to accept these statements, but sometimes I can’t ignore utterly problematic claims, if anything because maybe it will help someone else who reads these things.

  56. @superdestroyer: Just drop the “blue collar” and rant about the plight of the whites, because that is really all you are concerned about–it isn’t about social or economic class.

    You are also doing a great job of countering Eric’s claims that the discussion isn’t about race (because clearly, it is for an unfortunate number of people).

  57. Eric Florack says:

    “they” being?

    Democrats.
    Mostly, BLACK Democrats.
    McQuain addressed this fairly well recently:http://www.qando.net/?p=12207

    While I am not surprised you make that claim, it is absurd on its face. As I noted above, of the five possible reasons for flying that flag, four are overtly about race and the fifth is only not about race when one is ignoring history.

    There’s one more that you refuse to recognize. That one involving the limits of power on the Federal government. Underlying the issue of slavery was the central issue of whether or not the Federal government could legislate such matters … or for that point, any matters, at the state level.

  58. anjin-san says:

    last heard cozying up to the savage dictator Moammar Gadhafi.

    Was she sitting next to Condi Rice at the time? The list of US politicians who played footsie with Ghdhafi was a pretty long one until Obama put a stop to the practice.

  59. @Eric Florack: As you note, though, the specific desire to limit the federal government was the desire to maintain and expand slavery.

    This is not about a principled position regarding federalism, but rather one to hold slaves. That rather makes it about race.

    The same can be said, as I already did, about desegregation.

    Whether we are taking about secession or protesting desegregation, the fundamental goals were a state’s right to a) hold blacks as slaves or to b) separate whites from blacks in schools, at lunch counters, at water fountains, etc. The fundamental issue was race. “State’s rights” or federalism was the excuse, not the key principle. You can argue that it was until the cows come home, but it won’t make it so.

  60. James says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: Well said

  61. anjin-san says:

    Underlying the issue of slavery was the central issue of whether or not the Federal government could legislate such matter

    No, underlying the issue of slavery was the fact that the residents of slave holding states liked having slaves. No amount of slavery apologist revisionism on your part will change that.

  62. @James: Thanks.

  63. superdestroyer says:

    @steve:

    The School district of Philadelphia is 13% white. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_District_of_Philadelphia#Demographics

    Any city that has so few whites in its public schools has few middle class or lower whites.

  64. superdestroyer says:

    @James:

    The evidence is that no one from an CBC district has won state-wide office. Harold Ford Junionr tried and it did not work. Look at when Artur Davis, a majority-minority Congressmen tried to run for governor of Alabama. Mr. Rep. Davis tried to moderate his positions in order to appeal to moderates in Alabama, he alienated the black voters and white progressives. Rep. Davis is a good demonstration that majority black districts create very liberal, black oriented politicians. Look at Luis Gutierrez, Rep-Ill, who is open about his focus on Hispanics. I doubt if Rep. Gutierrez will ever be governor of Illinois or Senator.

  65. superdestroyer says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    There is a difference between blue collar whites and rich, elite progressive whites. Elite whites have the money and connections to avoid the downside of being a minority. The rich whites can afford private schools, private universities, and can afford to live in Manhattan. Why do you think that the black population in NY is going down but the public schools are still 15% white.

    Blue collar whites have neither the wealth nor the ethnic organizations to be able to function in a majority non-white U.S. That is why the birthrate for whites will continue to go down and that most of blue collar whites will eventually adopt black culture (lack of marriage, lack of fathers, poverty, anti-education, support of massive government spending).

  66. Murray says:

    @Ben Wolf: I can support and defend my country. That does not mean that I am against other countries. I support and pull for certain sports teams . That does not mean that I hate you or the teams you like. My goal is to always be a good sport, to engage in meaningful and respectful disagreements and debates. I do not do this to put people down or their ideas, thoughts, or opinions. A person may have differing opinions about a flag. That does not make me think that they are racist or that they are a lesser person.

  67. racehorse says:

    Sixty seven comments about something that has nothing to do with jobs. All of this over something that doesn’t rate 2 seconds of attention.
    (There, this took about 18 seconds to write. Sorry)

  68. @racehorse: I beg to differ: this topic does matter, but one is entitled to one’s opinion, of course.

    I will confess however, I always find it amusing that people go out of their way to comment on a thread for the sole purpose of stating how the subject of that thread isn’t worth commenting upon.

  69. James says:

    @racehorse: Heaven forbid one walk and chew gum at the same time.

  70. Dazedandconfused says:

    I’m not sure I’d call it a personality disorder. A great many believe the rebellion had nothing to do with slavery, and even believe that it was the Norths sudden ending of it that cause the racial tensions that spanned the next 100 years. The apparent contridiction between honoring civil rights and flying the Confederate flag can be accommodated as it was the Yankees fault.

    It’s been further twisted to a view it as a rebellion against all the things that Democrats now advocate. There is no limit on what we can believe, if we really want to.

    @Superdestroyer:

    I would submit the meth epidemic that swept through White Trashville in recent times as evidence that it’s not “black culture”. Might be something else.

  71. Liberty60 says:

    @superdestroyer:
    You make a comment about the economic grievances of working class people; but the target of your anger is not rich people, but rich people who help black people.

    Can I assume that the only anger you feel towards Bank of America is not its predatory policies, but its outreach to ethnic groups?

    In other words, “why does the black guy one bridge over get a sparrow and I don’t?”

  72. steve says:

    “Any city that has so few whites in its public schools has few middle class or lower whites.”

    Or they go to Catholic school and private schools (especially other Christian schools) or homeschool.

    Steve

  73. ponce says:

    but the target of your anger is not rich people, but rich people who help black people.

    I think SD is angry at rich white liberals who won’t allow poor whites to segregate themselves from poor blacks…and their pernicious culture.

  74. MarkedMan says:

    Ponce, poor whites, poor blacks, or rich whites and blacks are free to segregate themselves in any manner they choose. This is a free country. What we have to do in order to keep it a free country is not to let government and public institutions enforce that segregation as law or policy.

  75. steve says:

    I understand that people like Sd are upset because blue collar whites are not doing so well, but I am not sure why he would blame it on blacks.

    Unemployment among blacks is over 16%, the highest since the 80s, about twice as high as for whites. Do you really think you will substantially improve employment for blue collar whites by reducing employment among blacks?

    Household income for blacks is about 1/3 less than for blacks than for whites. Poverty is higher among blacks, educational levels lower and so on. If blacks are big beneficiaries in government policy, it is difficult to find the advantage. Blue collar whites should look elsewhere for the source of their economic stagnation.

    Steve

  76. Ben Wolf says:

    @MarkedMan:

    Ponce, poor whites, poor blacks, or rich whites and blacks are free to segregate themselves in any manner they choose.

    No they aren’t, and that you think they are is disturbingly ignorant..

  77. Ben Wolf says:

    @Murray:

    I can support and defend my country. That does not mean that I am against other countries.

    You can’t defend unless being attacked. It’s kind of a prerequisite.

  78. superdestroyer says:

    @racehorse:

    The same demographic changes that will eventually put an end to any politician caring about blue collar whites are also the same changes that affect jobs in the U.S.

    How does the U.S. compete in a global market with a a few elites living in NYC, DC, SF, and LA, and a large percentage of the population being from third world countries?

  79. superdestroyer says:

    @steve:

    In the words of the progressive nitpciker” please provide a cite for your statement.” The only things that I have read is that the number of students in Catholic schools has been doing down and that the Catholic church has been closing.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_schools_of_the_Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Chicago#Former_high_schools_in_Chicago

    Fewer catholic schools means fewer middle class whites.

  80. superdestroyer says:

    @Liberty60:

    It is not anger. It is frustration that progressive whites who live in a very white world refuse to think about the long term consequences of the changing demographics of the U.S.

    Much like Judge Garrity failed to understand that forced busing in Boston would cause white flight and change the makeup of Boston, judge Garrity’s own children attended white suburban schools.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desegregation_busing_in_the_United_States#Boston.2C_Massachusetts

    You may have noticed, I have never made any proposals due to the changing demographics other than to state that affirmative action cannot continue when more than 50% of the population qualifies for it.

  81. superdestroyer says:

    @Ben Wolf:

    If progressives really cared about segregation, progressives would be calling Democrats like Rahm Emanuel a racist because he is sending his own to a private school that is more than 70% white while he leads a public school system that is about 10% white.

    yet, no one ever calls Rahm Emanuel or Joe Biden or Hillary clinton racist because they segregated their own children from blacks.

    Progressives only call middle class and blue collar whites racist because they want to avoid schools that are majority black or majority Hispanic. Progressives call blue collar whites racist because those middle class whites do not want their children to be prey to others.

  82. superdestroyer says:

    @Stan:

    The effort to eliminate Republicans in Wisconsin and Ohio is lead by the public sector unions whose members are anything but blue collars. In most cities in Wisconsin and Ohio, the best jobs to have are the government jobs since they pay better, have much better security, and have much better benefits, and require less work. That is why so many people get upset with the public sector unions.

    However, in the end, the public sector unions in those states will get what they want and the private sector will continue to shrink. The Democrats in states like Wisconsin and Ohio know the same thing that Democrats in every state know, if you make more people dependent on the government, the power of the Democrats will grow.

    the real question is what happens in the long term in states like Wisconsin where most voters are economically decoupled from the local economy?

  83. Stan says:

    @superdestroyer: Members of public sector unions in Ohio and Wisconsin form only a small fraction of the electorate, clearly not enough to account by themselves for the results of the Ohio referendum that repealed Kasich’s union busting bill or the recall campaign in Wisconsin aimed at ousting Scott Walker. Many private sector employees feel that they too should have unions to stand up for their interests. You’re looking at a complex situation, and you’re seeing what you want to see.

  84. MarkedMan says:

    @Ben Wolf: Ben Wolf: Let’s make sure you are using my entire quote:

    Ponce, poor whites, poor blacks, or rich whites and blacks are free to segregate themselves in any manner they choose. This is a free country. What we have to do in order to keep it a free country is not to let government and public institutions enforce that segregation as law or policy.

    So, you think I am appallingly ignorant to believe that? Before I moved to China, I lived in a New England town that had only a handful of African Americans. My children attended public schools that reflected that ratio pretty accurately. This despite the fact that 15 miles away the city was predominantly black. No one was sending in the police to arrest me. There are no laws against choosing a neighborhood for any reason your heart desires. But – public schools there couldn’t prohibit black students. Public businesses, i.e. those serving the general public such as real estate agencies, cannot refuse to take blacks as customers. But I, if I had chosen, was perfectly free to find an even more white section of the country and move there. Private clubs? Perfectly free to discriminate against blacks, whites, women, homosexuals, whatever. But if they do so they can’t ask for government money.

  85. superdestroyer says:

    @Stan:

    The public sector employs about20% of the employees in Wisconsin. Add in the private sector unions, blacks, Hispanics, academics, attorneys, and other core groups of the Democratic Party and you get to almost 50% of the people in ‘wisconsion.

    What is amazing is that the Republicans managed to win anything in a state with a shrinking private sector and a shrinking population. Since a large number of people in Wisconsin and Ohio have become economically decoupled from the local economy, elections should be easy wins for the Democrats.

    The only thing that has kept the Republican competitive is that Republicans are better at turing out during off year elections.

    However, as the demographics of the U.S. continue to change and as the private sector shrinks, there is no hope for any conservative party in Wisconsin just like there is no hope for any conservative party in the U.S.

    The long term question is who does the voters in Wisconsin expect to maintain Finnish levels of government benefits with a shrinking private sector.

  86. steve says:

    In Philadelphia, while Catholic schools are shrinking, charter schools (not usually counted when public school numbers are discussed) are growing. Homeschooling is growing also. Then, the suburbs immediately adjacent to the city are functionally part of the city, but mostly white and largely blue collar.

    http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=59716

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Darby_Township,_Delaware_County,_Pennsylvania

    Steve

  87. Jim Henley says:

    I love the idea that the US can’t compete in a global market with “a few elites living in NYC, DC, SF, and LA, and a large percentage of the population being from third world countries” when the global market, in large measure, comprises those third-world countries. So I guess Thai dudes and Indian chicks come here and lose their edge or something.

    BTW, I am a progressive and my kids are each in public schools with non-white majorities. Where they are getting great educations. Funny what living in a jurisdiction that believes in government enough to think it should be done well can accomplish.

  88. Stan says:

    @superdestroyer: By your logic Finland shouldn’t be able to afford its generous level of social welfare benefits because its private sector is proportionately smaller than ours. The same is true of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Germany. There are plenty of examples of countries that combine an efficient economy with an advanced welfare state. From what I can see, they work hard at investing in human capital, something we seem to have forgotten if we ever knew it. I suggest you stop reading tomes on the decline of white civilization and start observing the real world. You can see a lot by just looking.

  89. @Jim Henley: Indeed–there are some rather interesting leaps in, um, “logic” going on here. We will forget, also, the rather significant economic output of places like LA, SF, and NYC over the decades (and while being diverse places in terms of hue).

    The “logic” get better when throw in this other assertion:

    It is frustration that progressive whites who live in a very white world refuse to think about the long term consequences of the changing demographics of the U.S.

    So, on the one hand, progressives live in a “very white world” and yet all the major cities are also inundated with third worlders of darker hues.

  90. In other words: where, pray tell, are all these “white progressives” living? Iowa?

  91. Liberty60 says:

    @superdestroyer:

    It is frustration that progressive whites who live in a very white world refuse to think about the long term consequences of the changing demographics of the U.S.

    Actually, this lily white progressive thinks about it quite a lot.
    I live in Orange County CA, in a city that is majority Hispanic; a few blocks away is LIttle Saigon, where the overwhelming majority is Vietnamese.
    My cul de sac has 12 houses; We are the only native born Caucasian family.

    Like you, demographics are very much on my mind; unlike you, I think it is a natural and normal thing. America is constantly changing with each wave of immigration. These people have become my personal friends, and my city is much better off having them here.

  92. superdestroyer says:

    @Jim Henley:

    the public schools in Wisconsin underperform versus the public schools in Texas when performance is corrected of ethnicity. In reality, some of the bluest states such as California, Washington, Oregon, and Wisconsin have schools that underfprom when comparing white students.

  93. Liberty60 says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:
    It is common for ethnic tribes to assign wildly conflicting characteristics to their chosen Enemy:

    They are appallingly stupid; yet they are diabolically clever enough to gain control of our laws;
    They are lazy; yet they are able to undercut our wages by working harder better and cheaper;
    They are immoral; yet they cling to their foreign religions;

    I would make light of it, but ethnic triballism is probably the most powerful and incurable motivating force out there. One look at Bosnia, Rwanda, and even Europe shows that no one is immune to this.
    We can’t attack it often or hard enough.

  94. superdestroyer says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    The white progressives due live in a very white world. The only time that they interact with Hispanics is when a Hispanic buses their table at The Palm. Their neighborhoods, schools, churches, workplaces, and social organizaitons are overwhelmingly white. Just look at Sidwell Friends versus the DC public school. Look at the Trinity School in NYC versus the NYC public schools.

    Blue collar whites in South Carolina go through their lives everyday having to consider how they interact with blacks. The white children at the UC lab school do not have to give it a second thought.

  95. @Liberty60:

    We can’t attack it often or hard enough.

    I agree. It is part of why I write these types of posts in the first place.

  96. steve says:

    “the public schools in Wisconsin underperform versus the public schools in Texas when performance is corrected of ethnicity.”

    HAve the links somewhere if you want them, but when you go back and look what you see is that Texas is very good at not having the wrong kids take those tests. When you correct for the percentages of kids taking those tests Texas does not do so well. Also, there are many more kids who do not graduate in Texas. If you do not text the kids who drop out, you get better numbers. Holding kids back for academic reasons, and football, seems to be fairly common in Texas.

    http://www.clipfile.org/clips/001136.php

    Steve

  97. @superdestroyer:

    The white progressives due live in a very white world. The only time that they interact with Hispanics is when a Hispanic buses their table at The Palm. Their neighborhoods, schools, churches, workplaces, and social organizaitons are overwhelmingly white.

    I will actually concede the churches, which remain one of our most segregated institutions (but, even that is starting to change in my experience–albeit slowly).

    The rest is nonsense. I have lived almost all of my life in either Texas, Southern California, or various part of south/central Alabama–all three of which have diverse population of different types, so my life has hardly been “whites only.” Further, as one who has been in academic circles since I was 18 (i.e., undergrad on up), I have certainly lived in what would broadly be defined as “progressive” circles. One encounters persons of other ethnicities in all walks of life in these places. Further, the places one is most likely to encounter persons of various backgrounds is academia. Perhaps that is why I am not scared of persons of other colors and backgrounds the way you are.

    Blue collar whites in South Carolina go through their lives everyday having to consider how they interact with blacks.

    BTW, which is it: “blue collar whites” or “progressive whites”? Those are rather different groups. Also: you keep switching between elites and non-elites.

    I would suggest that you position is incoherent. (Yes, before someone says it: understatement of the day).

    Back to the whites in South Carolina: I would suggest that any of them who truly live a “whites only” lifestyle do so because they actively choose that route (and are probably on the older side of the spectrum). I would also suggest that that type of lifestyle actually encourages the kind of fear you are peddling as opposed to the more open minded perspective that I would suggest is more healthy.

    There is no reason in the world that race, ethnicity, or country of origin makes a given individual any less capable than the “blue collar whites” you are allegedly championing.

    Human beings are human beings

  98. steve says:

    “Blue collar whites in South Carolina go through their lives everyday having to consider how they interact with blacks.”

    Eight years in the military and I interacted with them just like everybody else. Grew up poor and lived in the “projects” of a small town. Interacted just like everyone else. I am not sure what your point is here. No one is asking you to socialize with minorities. Are you blaming minorities for the economic stagnation of blue collar whites? TBH, a lot of this seems like unfocused anger that I dont quite understand.

    Steve

  99. Jim Henley says:

    In most cities in Wisconsin and Ohio, the best jobs to have are the government jobs since they pay better, have much better security, and have much better benefits, and require less work. That is why so many people get upset with the public sector unions.

    My favorite quote ever comes from the author Samuel R. Delany*, who wrote, “Ignorance is a condition. Stupidity is a strategy.” Which I would gloss as, anyone can lack knowledge, but stupidity is something you have to do.

    Here you are faced with a fact. (A quasi-fact anyway.) You can get upset in two different ways: “These other jobs provide benefits and security mine doesn’t. I’m going to make the system provide that level of comfort for me too!” OR, “These other jobs provide benefits and security mine doesn’t. I’m going to make the system drag those other B@st@rds down to my level.” And you choose the former. That is a stupid choice.

  100. Jim Henley says:

    @Liberty60: In the neighborhood of those, (esp. “lazy”/”work harder”), they all come here and go on welfare AND they drive wages down by taking our jobs.

  101. @Jim Henley:

    In the neighborhood of those, (esp. “lazy”/”work harder”), they all come here and go on welfare AND they drive wages down by taking our jobs.

    It brings a whole new meaning to the “Magical Negro” trope, yes? (and if anyone is unfamiliar with the term, please do click through on the link and also here).

  102. ponce says:

    The rest is nonsense.

    I guess it’s not surprising to find a racist believing ridiculous stereotypes about his “white progressive” enemies, too.

  103. anjin-san says:

    It is common for ethnic tribes to assign wildly conflicting characteristics to their chosen Enemy:

    Right wing attacks on Obama are the ultimate example of this. One day he is an empty suit, an ineffectual weakling in way over his head, playing at being President while our enemies laugh at us. The next he is a demigod who is reshaping America into a unrecognizable socialist hellhole as if the country was simply so much putty in his hands.

  104. superdestroyer says:

    @anjin-san:

    There is a difference between President Obama and his advisors. President Obama is sharp but seems to lack the drive, vision, or charisma to really change the course of the U.S. However, his advisors like David Axelrod know exactly what they are doing and plan on making the government much bigger in order to increase their own power and status.

    That is why the “tax the rich” push is so important to David Axelrod. Putting upper middle class whites into the same role as commuters have in Chicago, taxpayers with no political power, will help every core group in the Democratic Party and will make the U.S. a one party state much faster than demographic alone will do.

  105. superdestroyer says:

    @steve:

    I suggest you look up Simpson’s paradox at wikipedia. Wisconsin does well on exams because it is 90% white. However, when only the white children are compared to the white students of over states, they are not very good. In addition, black students in Wisconsin underperform black students in most states. Not exactly a sign of being a progressive state. http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2011/03/longhorns-17-badgers-1.html

    You should spend some time look at NAEP results. At least New England is getting some value for its high spending on education. But Texas spends much less than Wisconsin and the students in Texas do better than the students in Wisconsin. And it has more to do than when they started Kindergarten.

  106. superdestroyer says:

    @Jim Henley:

    The difference is that private companies have to compete in the marketplace. If they have great pay and great benefits, the companies have to roll the costs into their price. In addition, no private company can run its retirement benefits in the same manner that state and local governments do.

    No only are those government jobs the best paying jobs in most cities and counties in Wisconsin but those governments do not have to fund the full costs. Those governments are just kicking the costs into the future.

    In the long run, governments will grow and taxes will increase until governments fail. The Democrats in Wisconsin seem to not care and just want as many goodies as possible today while pushing the costs into the future. The Democrats take this POV because they use the force of government to generate the income they need while disregarding the economic impacts.

  107. superdestroyer says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    Since you have lived in Texas and Alabama, you know that there are business, churches, schools, and neighborhoods that white avoid. I doubt that you have seeked out a business in the third war of Houston or any most neighborhoods in South San Antonio. Those blue collar whites in South Carolina have to think about the racial make up of neighborhoods, schools, businesses, and churches. They have to be careful not to end up in the “black restaurant” or the black church.

    The progressive whites in NYC never have to worry about the racial make up at the Palm, at Trinity school, or a Yale. There are not enough blacks and Hispanics to dominate any establishment that the progressives whites in NYC frequent.

  108. ponce says:

    Does anyone else picture SD cowering inside his homemade bunker?

  109. steve says:

    @SD- I am well aware of the Iowahawk piece. AS I mentioned, it has several problems. First, testing a small percentage of your students, presumably your better students, against a state where almost all take the test is not much of a comparison. (Note that Iowahawk does not mention percentages of students taking the test.) When you control for participation, Wisconsin does better. Also, since we know that test scores can be manipulated (and there are conflicting studies), the cruder, but more difficult number to fix, is high school graduation. By that metric, Texas is way behind.

    http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?measure=23

    http://studentactivism.net/2011/02/21/teachers-unions-actsat-and-student-performance-is-wisconsin-out-ranking-the-non-union-states/

    http://shankerblog.org/?p=980

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/02/randi-weingarten/randi-weingarten-says-students-strong-union-states/

    Steve

  110. steve says:

    Comment caught in queue, but briefly, tests are influenced by how many students take them. When you factor in total participation, Wisconsin seems to still do quite well. However, given the difficulty with tests, the cruder, but more difficult to manipulate graduation rates are important. By that metric, Texas lags a lot.

    http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?measure=23

    Steve

  111. @superdestroyer: All of your comments indicate that you think that most people do what you apparently do: worry constantly about the color of the people around them.

    I would submit, further, that what people in general tend to do is avoid high crime areas of a given city, which is linked to the socio-economics of that region of said city (although I am sure you have alternative theories on that count).

    I would note that when I lived in Bogota, Colombia, there were parts of the city that I avoided as well. However, it would be rather difficult to blame higher crime on differing racial or ethnic differences between northern Bogota and Southern Bogota.

  112. PD Shaw says:

    I’m not a fan of the rebel flag; I’ll only say that I’m against it; don’t know if means much to me if Gingrich wants to duck the issue as a non-federal one. But of all the sins heaped on Gingrich, he’s generally written worst than gets reported on this site. A big for instance, in his book of historical fiction on the Battle of the Crater, Gingrich portrays a Robert E. Lee of such high moral character he is concerned about the treatment of Union black p.o.w.’s.

    And General…”
    “Sir?”
    “Is it true a colored division was in the assault?”
    “Yes, sir.”
    Lee stepped closer to Mahone and in an uncharacteristic gesture put a fatherly hand on his soldier. “I want the full honor of war observed. Those who surrender are to be treated as proper prisoners, with respect, their wounded tended to, their officers shown the respect due their rank.”

    Utter B.S. We have Lee’s correspondence on the treatment of black P.O.W.s — he did not treat them the same as white soldiers.

  113. @PD Shaw: Good Lord, PD, you aren’t expecting me to read Gingrich’s fiction, are you?

    😉

  114. liberty60 says:

    @ PD Shaw-
    So a man who fought against America to defend the practice of chattel slavery wasn’t an honorable man?

    I’m shocked, I tell you.

  115. anjin-san says:

    @ SD (AKA racist asswipe)

    I have no interest in taking to you. Buzz off.

  116. PD Shaw says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: Of course, I haven’t read it either.

    But I think this bit is scandalous and worth attention because (a) Gingrich is a bestselling author who will expose many people to the history of the battle; (b) by many accounts it is very technically accurate on matters unrelated to race; and (c) that suggests intent, not negligence.

    @liberty60: Lee was merely doing what any honorable man might do to defend the right to have sex with property.

  117. @PD Shaw: All kidding aside, you have a point.

  118. superdestroyer says:

    @steve:

    I love how the progressive activist claim that the Department of Education is incapable of conducting an adequate assessment when the data shows that blue state school success is generally due to be very white schools (the correlation between educational success and proximinity to canada is very high).

    And then you link to an article that claims that strong unions means good schools when the bluest cities in the U.S. NYC, DC, LA, SF, Baltimore all have very strong teachers unions and lousy schools.

    The strongest correlation is the percentage of the student body that is white. Wisconsin is very white and Texas is not. However, when the Department of Education samples white students in both states, the white students in Texas do better. Comparing ACT tests is the statistical mistaken. The NAEP is a better comparison and shows that Wisconsin is average.

  119. superdestroyer says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    I suggest you ask Carter Strange about what happens in South Carolina when you do not take caution when there is a large number of black teenagers standing on the corner. http://www.thestate.com/2011/08/07/1925068/i-still-struggle-with-it.html#storylink=misearch

    What is also humorous is that having a gang of blacks beating a white male and not robbing him is not considered a hate crime in South Carolina. Maybe that is why more than a few whites in South Carolina tend to being Republicans. They know that the Democrats do not really care when middle class whites are beaten by gangs.

  120. superdestroyer says:

    @anjin-san:

    I see that you have retreated to the normal responses of the left: insults, profanity, and the race card. And you wonder why blue collar and middle class whites in South Carolina may see race relations than you do.

  121. sam says:

    @superdestroyer:

    I see that you have retreated to the normal responses of the left: insults, profanity, and the race card.

    The race card? The race card????? THE RACE CARD??????????

    Supe, you’re a sad and deeply deranged individual. I’m cannot for all my efforts imagine what it’s like to live between your ears. The constant fear and trepidation must be excruciating.

  122. Rob in CT says:

    I’m telling you: SD wrote the Ron Paul newsletters.